in this modern era where your pronouns can be any combination of random letters then women being equal to men in chess should be a no brianer
Is chess anti feminist?
Sort:
Bobery1 wrote:
in this modern era where your pronouns can be any combination of random letters then women being equal to men in chess should be a no brianer
We are all human. So, let us do human things, like being equal to one another. No-brainer indeed.
Feb 20, 2023
0
#104
This thread, unsurprisingly, has become a sexist and transphobic Boys Club where people share blatantly false opinions about what women supposedly can and can't do. Excuse me, I'll go puke.
Feb 20, 2023
0
#105
David wrote:
As I said earlier, the gender pay gap is not that a woman is paid less than a man purely because of her gender but that women overall are paid less than men because of the disadvantages they face - such as the ones you list out below. Some people seem to think that women deserve to be paid less because they’re choosing to raise children instead; that’s basically the same attitude that says people are poor because they don’t work hard enough, and why should their taxes go towards supporting lazy people. It’s victim blaming and reinforces those disadvantages as well as demonstrates a lack of empathy.
The gender pay gap is 3 different things :
- Because of societal structures, women work more part time so work less paid job overall (raising children is unpaid work)
- For the same amount of hours worked, women get paid less because they still face discriminations when it comes to going up the ladder
- For the same hours worked, same job, women still get paid less. This one is the "pure" gender discrimination and yes it's illegal, that obviously does not make it non existent. Making something illegal doesn't change things if you don't actually enforce it.
Outmachin wrote:
David wrote:
As I said earlier, the gender pay gap is not that a woman is paid less than a man purely because of her gender but that women overall are paid less than men because of the disadvantages they face - such as the ones you list out below. Some people seem to think that women deserve to be paid less because they’re choosing to raise children instead; that’s basically the same attitude that says people are poor because they don’t work hard enough, and why should their taxes go towards supporting lazy people. It’s victim blaming and reinforces those disadvantages as well as demonstrates a lack of empathy.
The gender pay gap is 3 different things :
- Because of societal structures, women work more part time so work less paid job overall (raising children is unpaid work)
- For the same amount of hours worked, women get paid less because they still face discriminations when it comes to going up the ladder
- For the same hours worked, same job, women still get paid less. This one is the "pure" gender discrimination and yes it's illegal, that obviously does not make it non existent. Making something illegal doesn't change things if you don't actually enforce it.
Repeating nonsense doesn't make it any more right the 10th, 11th, 12th time you do it.
Faraday_mate wrote:
Bobery1 wrote:
in this modern era where your pronouns can be any combination of random letters then women being equal to men in chess should be a no brianer
We are all human. So, let us do human things, like being equal to one another. No-brainer indeed.
What does that mean? "Equal to each other".
And don't give some cringey David Brent style answer like the Tickler. Such as "don't you know?".
Keep silent thou fog horn, that cross-dresser above thee hath moe brain than thou.
Faraday_mate wrote:
Keep silent thou fog horn, that cross-dresser above thee hath moe brain than thou.
You can't even do it.
CaracticusPotts wrote:
Lock!
+1 to that
Melvin, the obvious solution for you is to not have sex distinction in any contest.
All women's only events need to be banned. Takes care of all the issues you raise.
Why have distinctions if one group does not have a superiority?
Face it, men and women are different and the top talent of each group may not be able to compete with each other without one group dominating. Women's leagues are there so women can win too.
Feb 20, 2023
0
#113
The thing I find fascinating about discussions on discrimination is that there are an abundance of people prepared to cling to demonstrably false beliefs in order to feel a little bit better about themselves even if those beliefs cause great detriment to others. The solution to this problem has been known for thousands of years, yet still it's something that fully grown adults don't always grasp.
The problem I see is too many people with a false belief system that makes them say the emperor is wearing no clothes. It is the same thing that forces people to say that sex is a matter of opinion and adult men should be allowed to shower with young women in public.
Craig what is this solution?
Deadmanparty escribió:
Why have distinctions if one group does not have a superiority?
Face it, men and women are different and the top talent of each group may not be able to compete with each other without one group dominating. Women's leagues are there so women can win too.
To me there can be a historical reason. Sometimes those can be as powerful as "necessary" or structural ones. For example, chess begins to be organised as a competitive activity during the second half of XIX century. During this time it would be unthinkable that men and women belong to the same clubs. Also, if it is kind of an intellectual activity, women HAVE to be worse at it. Add to this the fact that their pool is much smaller, and you have all the chances for a self fulfilled prophecy.
Then, during the XX century FIDE takes control and addresses this gap by creating separate titles and tournaments. And nowadays, the reasons for keep them are mostly financial. Organisers and female players have a material interest on it. I think the gap will be closed some day, and future generations would have it sooner if we'd get rid of separate tournaments and titles now. But meanwhile, the players of this time need to keep putting food on the table, so it's unlikely.
Pulpofeira wrote:
Deadmanparty escribió:
Why have distinctions if one group does not have a superiority?
Face it, men and women are different and the top talent of each group may not be able to compete with each other without one group dominating. Women's leagues are there so women can win too.
To me there can be a historical reason. Sometimes those can be as powerful as "necessary" or structural ones. For example, chess begins to be organised as a competitive activity during the second half of XIX century. During this time it would be unthinkable that men and women belong to the same clubs. Also, if it is kind of an intellectual activity, women HAVE to be worse at it. Add to this the fact that their pool is much smaller, and you have all the chances for a self fulfilled prophecy.
Then, during the XX century FIDE takes control and addresses this gap by creating separate titles and tournaments. And nowadays, the reasons for keep them are mostly financial. Organisers and female players have a material interest on it. I think the gap will be closed some day, and future generations would have it sooner if we'd get rid of separate tournaments and titles now. But meanwhile, the players of this time need to keep putting food on the table, so it's unlikely.
How long must things be as they are now to prove your historical point of view incorrect? Or are your beliefs unfalsifiable?
But yes, money drives our institutions. If there is money to be made and you can do it, then by all means generate money.
"There caaan be". Not sure about my beliefs (I would call that an opinion, though), but I suppose my English needs an improvement. Chill out, dude.
If you cannot falsify a belief, then it is more like a religious belief. Not really one that others should be expected to agree with.
it is not working
You should join https://www.chess.com/club/cheating-forum and learn what cheating really looks like.