Women generally can't compete against men, especially at the highest levels. There may have been just 1 woman that could.
So if you get rid of woman titles and tournaments, you basically get rid of women.
However, I think it is fair for there to be men only, women only, and mixed tournaments.
Think of most of the real sport Golf, soccer, tennis, Football even bowling they have women's divisions . . . .
In bowling only one woman who competed in the men's ever one tournament. Then she returned to the women's divisions. . . .
Women generally can't compete against men. There may have been just 1 woman that could.
So if you get rid of woman titles and tournaments, you basically get rid of women.
I do not think male and female sports/activities should be mixed.
Still trolling I see. Niemann ran out of juice for you?
Here is smtg that really bothers me. Why is there a title called WGM, like a specific category for women. And not only that, the rating you need to be a WGM is 2300 but for just normal GM its 2500. This kinda annoys me a bit, like they made the WGM rating lower just because they think women cant reach that high and honestly I think this isn't fair. This is just my opinion tho. Thx!
I agree. Instead of creating a seperate title system, lower the current one a bit.
GM = 2500
WGM = 2300
Make it 2400, it's equally a bit easier to reach for both men and women.
People who post these things never seem to want to listen to women themselves:
https://lichess.org/blog/X9i1gRUAAJzOKpd0/invisible-pieces-women-in-chess
https://www.grid.news/story/global/2022/10/01/women-are-playing-chess-more-than-ever-before-but-champ-jennifer-shahade-says-theres-still-room-on-the-board/
https://chessdailynews.com/why-is-there-a-need-for-girls-or-womens-tournaments/
People who post these things never seem to want to listen to women themselves:
https://lichess.org/blog/X9i1gRUAAJzOKpd0/invisible-pieces-women-in-chess
https://chessdailynews.com/why-is-there-a-need-for-girls-or-womens-tournaments/
Superb links, David well done on this. I will send you a trophy and wag my tail at you. Constructive coversation around this issue is at times; hard to find.
I don't understand why chess.com moderators don't close obvious troll topics (like this one). Come on, mods. Do what you need to do.
Well then you would miss posts like the one from David above, written by one of our chess playing sisters.
https://lichess.org/blog/X9i1gRUAAJzOKpd0/invisible-pieces-women-in-chess
You can see the moderators are trying to leave the forum so a proper adult discussion can be had, but it must be very difficult on the matter. It is great to see things on this matter written so well from a womans perspective. My wife is a chess player on here as is my niece, I also have female family memebers who I love dearly. Their issues are my issues.
I dont understand why this caused that much of a stir. Why people expect/request a lock etc.
If women want equal treatment on chess titles that's fine, why would we lock this up and close to discussion?
Thing is; do all (most) women agree on this?
Anyone considering looking after their kids as unpaid work, probably shouldn't have kids.
If you have a majority, start up a petition and apply to FIDE.. Make it happen.
#16…look at the dinosaur on #17…There is the reason.😢
Your parents considered you unpaid work, didn't they?
OK so I admit I haven't read most of this thread but it's obvious to me that women only titles exist for representation. There are less high level chess playing women than men because there are less women playing chess than men.
In my opinion, any chess fan should consider this a travesty because we should want as many people as possible playing chess. I'm sure there are many reasons, but in many cultures men can get irrationally upset when they lose to a woman.
Strange train of thought.
Yet someone went to the trouble to make a graph and everything.
Guys usually like video games more than women. Shocker.
And in other news water is also wet.
I went to that article. This thread isn't going in that direction. Let's see.
"It’s not just lack of encouragement, though. It’s time. It’s priorities. It’s well-established that women do the bulk of the housework, for example. A 2016 analysis carried out by the UK Office for National Statistics finds that women carry out 60% more unpaid work."
If you click the link in that section ,"A 2016 analysis", it further purports additional unpaid responsibilities. Well, if the husband/father stayed home, wouldn't the same be said of the husband/father?
And what proportion of husbands/fathers are staying home and doing so? Statistics and surveys indicate that it's still largely women doing more of the household chores: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/us/the-household-work-men-and-women-do-and-why.html
The gender pay gap is still a real thing, partly because women are generally taking longer career breaks to look after their children than their fathers - it's a structural disadvantage that Western societies are still figuring out how to address, and it's for similar structural inequities that women's titles exist - to encourage participation of women in chess.
You can argue that it potentially discourages women from trying harder - Judit Polgar says something along these lines recently in https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/nov/29/womens-chess-sexism-misogyny ... but she's also spoken about the challenges women face when it comes to chess in https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/nov/29/womens-chess-sexism-misogyny - basically if you take away women's titles and tournaments, you reduce the incentives for women to participate in chess and all that would happen - all other things being equal - is that that'd you'd have less women playing chess.
I went to that article. This thread isn't going in that direction. Let's see.
"It’s not just lack of encouragement, though. It’s time. It’s priorities. It’s well-established that women do the bulk of the housework, for example. A 2016 analysis carried out by the UK Office for National Statistics finds that women carry out 60% more unpaid work."
If you click the link in that section ,"A 2016 analysis", it further purports additional unpaid responsibilities. Well, if the husband/father stayed home, wouldn't the same be said of the husband/father?
And what proportion of husbands/fathers are staying home and doing so? Statistics and surveys indicate that it's still largely women doing more of the household chores: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/us/the-household-work-men-and-women-do-and-why.html
The gender pay gap is still a real thing, partly because women are generally taking longer career breaks to look after their children than their fathers - it's a structural disadvantage that Western societies are still figuring out how to address, and it's for similar structural inequities that women's titles exist - to encourage participation of women in chess.
You can argue that it potentially discourages women from trying harder - Judit Polgar says something along these lines recently in https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/nov/29/womens-chess-sexism-misogyny ... but she's also spoken about the challenges women face when it comes to chess in https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/nov/29/womens-chess-sexism-misogyny - basically if you take away women's titles and tournaments, you reduce the incentives for women to participate in chess and all that would happen - all other things being equal - is that that'd you'd have less women playing chess.
How many women even want their men to be house husbands?
The ones I know look down on it.
Here is smtg that really bothers me. Why is there a title called WGM, like a specific category for women. And not only that, the rating you need to be a WGM is 2300 but for just normal GM its 2500. This kinda annoys me a bit, like they made the WGM rating lower just because they think women cant reach that high and honestly I think this isn't fair. This is just my opinion tho. Thx!