Men VS Women!

For me this is simply explained by the idea that, we all want want we want, and when and how we want it. My wife and I go around about double standards. She insists I have them and I ask what they are, I get no specific response. When I point out hers, she replies," you knew how I was when you married me". I tell her its no excuse and she says she doesn't care...

You sound like a wise zen master

@nameno1had I know exactly what you mean and I'm not even married, and if you said the same thing to her"you knew how I was when you married me" she would probably be resentful of you saying that, but it's ok for her to say. women always want to take control, but as a man we are expected to take control, and if we didn't the woman would not respect us. I hope it doesn't take me as long to get better at chess as it will for me to understand what women want. An old friend of mine said something to me I'll never forget. He said

"you can satisfy a woman...........for about two seconds." still makes me laugh

Don't sweat it, I think you have the hang of it. I told my wife she wants what she wants, but wants someone to help her to not make bad decisions. If I wasn't man enough to tell her no, she wouldn't respect me. She agrees. I told her she's right, I didn't want a door mat either. So that tells me, she even wants someone to fight with. So I just pretend to be. I find if I don't put my whole heart into the fight, it makes her think she wins. In some weird way at some point, they want dominated too though, but when the time is right. Sometimes I think my wife gets mad because I tend to let her be free, instead of really putting my foot down.When they can't predict you and put you in a box, it gets their attention and you are a challenge. They don't want a door mat either.

I like some lyrics from a 38 special song that say a mouthful to me when it comes to dealing with women...

hold on loosely, but dont let go, if you cling tightly, your gonna lose control...your baby needs someone to believe in and a whole lot of space to breath in, so hold on loosely...

Boy, are you guys ever in trouble.

I am a big boy, I can except my spankins when they come...

I know as much about women as this little guy

He's probably got us all beat.

When it's comes to women just cave, let them win, they never forget.

I was going on in this thread earlier about the joy of letting them get the better of me...you might as well...otherwise there is no way for them to get the best of you either....hehehe

Yep they will either win anyways or get used to making the couch your bed.  I nod alot.

ok ok, this must be one of those "knock knock who's there" joke things

alright, I give up, what happened to him after he got beat by a woman?

There are about 7 000 000 000 people on the earth, half of them are women. I dont think any one of us can decide if 3 500 000 000 people are good or bad at chess.

Chess is traditionally a men's sport. Women were not always afforded the opportunity to play the game with an organized community. Personally I think that the seperation of circuits is good for the game. If they were allowed to compete against men they would not be able to achieve the same titles because there is a significantly larger male population. They would have to play more games against more hardened players and some of the WGM may not be able to gain the title otherwise.

The seperation of the circuits was first done to encourage more women to start playing. It was at that time that women were still hesitant to leave the domestic sphere. The Women's circuit was basically an olive branch extended from the male chess community to women letting them know that they wanted them to join the chess community, but slowly. The division was never ended and it remains as the accepted tradition. I am in favor of the seperation, otherwise a lot of young female players would lose interest.

I agree.  It's time to let women know that we know that they can stand on their own two feet.

I understand that you get better by playing strong players. I wouldn't even try to refute it. I merely point out that the seperation of men and women in chess developed out of early social norms. It has since been established as the accepted convention. I honestly do not see the abolition of this system anytime soon and am not interested in fighting for the change.

This is not the biggest issue facing chess players (cheating is the #1 complaint) and will most likely never be considered a priority. Sure, a few people every now any then may get perturbed by it, but it will never be recognized as a legitimate issue. The majority of female players are comfortable with the system at this point.

The seperation is in title only by the way. Women can play men to earn the same titles, but they are designated for women. A GM is just the same as a MGM -Men's Grand Master. It makes no difference what you call it, the titles have the same meaning. This really is a nonissue. If the top female players came out and made a fuss about it, I am sure something would be done. However, they do not make a fuss and as far as I can tell they do not care all that much. If anything, adding the W personalizes it. A lot of people can become GMs, but only a woman can become a WGM. 

It is not about being better or worse than each other -mfw019- it is just a designation. They know that men recognize their ability. This is not some crusade that need be pursued on an online chess forum. If you have a REAL problem with it, take it up with FIDE. They are the ones can actually do something about it.

@patriotscout.  You're the only one who seems to have a problem with it.  If you go back to the very first post it was started by someone whose girlfriend just asked "why?"  Apparently there's a lot of us asking the same question.  You've made your point clear and I never said it was about being better or worse - you did.

I said that it was originally developed becaused of men thinking they were better. I didn't say they are better, just disclosing the history. Obviously they know men think they can "stand on their own two feet" otherwise they wouldn't be playing in tournament with us.

I answered the "why" and went further of my perogative. I believe I have satisfied the original query and not taken a difinitive stance on the "who is better" question. I have no problem with it the system as I stated many times in my previous posts. Please return to them and reread carefully so as to prevent further miscommunications on your part.

It seems that no one is really paying attention. My answer was the original history. I know very well the ranking system is open on both sides. Please go  back and reread my other posts to prevent your continuing ignorance. I am also going to block you since you obviously jump to the first conclusion you reach based on a poor understanding of the information previously supplied to you. As TonyH would say, "You're and idiot."

You are completely right chrisr2212. I should defer to the superiority they clearly exude.