The very idea of segregation is sexist.
Sexism is not stricto sensu gender hate (although they may often be related). Sexism is about deriving moral rules from essentialist considerations.
Nigel Short: Women's brains not chess brains
Sort:
Colin20G wrote:
The very idea of segregation is sexist.
Sexism is not stricto sensu gender hate (although they may often be related). Sexism is about deriving moral rules from essentialist considerations.
Is this the part where I ask if segregation in physical sports is sexist, and you say it's not the same thing, and we get into a debate about whether there is a difference between male and female brains, and we repeat everything that's been said in the last 82 pages?
Azukikuru wrote:
Is this the part where I ask if segregation in physical sports is sexist, and you say it's not the same thing
I wasn't here when this was said.
The show continues mainly because the arguments that were presented were not convincing.
Physical differences between men and women are plain obvious (although we must say again something like "on average", since i'd bet my meal that someone like Becca Swanson lifts lot heavier than you'll ever do).
On the other hand , cognitive differences are not.
we had something like "maybe...maybe...maybe... ... THEN women are not fit to play high level chess" (implying that Judit polgar is not a woman, and "fit" would have a scientific meaning, which is not the case)
The burden of proof used in science means that the one who makes the claim cannot afford "maybes" although his contradictors can.
Colin20G wrote:
The very idea of segregation is sexist.
Sexism is not stricto sensu gender hate (although they may often be related). Sexism is about deriving moral rules from essentialist considerations.
Please explain the essentialist considerations related to gender.
I mean that the simple fact that an individual is a man or a woman is enough to set specific rules for him/her, or decide that he is more or less likely to develop some skills (regardless of actual achievements).
"The feminist side of the argument claims that this segregation is sexist and should be abolished."
Actually I think it's feminists that are more likely to say it's justified, making it some sort of affirmative action. Depends on the person though I guess.
May 7, 2015
0
#1168
If chess is not physical in any way, then why is it known that WC players actually lose weight during a game ? Water weight you say ? Well, they have all the water they can drink available to them - and they do.
Ask yourself....why does the USA/Territories/Other countries have EEOC programs ? To help integrate the minority - you know, help them bring themselves up against a glass ceiling. You know, create some heros.
FIDE/USCF/Org's needs to keep doing the same thing. Invitational tournaments are their golden opportunity. Everyone knows that all someone needs is some salt and pepper (seasoning). You know, a shot of confidence to say, "Hey, these players aren't that great after all....I can play up with them." Young female players need others females to look up to. You know, a sort of hero. And the organizations are the ones in control here.
You say politics ?....well, we're surrounded by it. So why try to eliminate politics in chess ? That would be too pure.
Think balance now. Tournaments will probably be better w/ it. Who wants a henhouse or a lockerroom thing going on anywayz.
And girls ?....pleez stop the overpowering parfum bath and overtly revealing wear. It's not becoming and it's pressuring the TD from complaints.
May 7, 2015
0
#1169
....and I know of an honest girl who needs his eyes checked for short-sightedness ! And he's only here 'cuz someone carried him a'O for 9 months and then fed him and changed his poopy diapers when he couldn't do it for himself.
So, are there people out there with any chess world clout trying to abolish separate tournaments for women?
Is that what this is about, according to the Short people? Otherwise it still seems like a case of "There's no such thing as bad publicity."
And, if the world was logical, men would ride side-saddle. :)
May 7, 2015
0
#1171
The next step in all of this is to start measuring skulls. Sooner or later someone gets down to that, in order to verify with "science" what they want their own prejudice to believe.
Women DO have smaller skulls than men, in general. Guess that means less brain matter, which means fewer chess variations can be memorized. Etc.
What's drives the entire pro-Nigel, pro "brains are wired by gender" crowd is a desire to lump billions of people into one category. The end result is obvious and depressing:
You are a woman. If you play chess as well as Nigel Short, you are a true exception to your gender. Congratulations on overcoming that genetic hurdle - or thank the DNA dice roll that made your brain more mannish.
Dionysus01 wrote:
If you applied that "logic" - segregation is necessary because the female brain is different from the male brain, why not carry it over to say the educational classroom from k-12 thru PhD as well?
what makes chess so special?
All the rationalizations for it - the attempt to appear "logical and sensible" about it all (82 pages) LOL
If females segregated themselves voluntarily there is no need to rationalize it "for them" by saying they do it because "they don't have chess brains"
It's not sexism. Just a bunch of insecure chest thumping nerd wimps, if you ask me.
I'm totally cracking up here.
If the women want the segregation, then there's no real problem, is there, as long as men's tourneys are still open to women.
I f the only ones wanting segregation are the men, and the men consistently win the upper level tourneys for whatever reason, then there would only be two rationals for this: 1) There is some kind of slight to their ego with even having to bother playing women, or 2) they are afraid at some point their ego will take a hit by losing to women. Thus, back to my initial question, are there serious threat to women's tourneys by the women themselves? If so, Short's comments may be warranted, otherwise, it is grandstanding. Is there a real threat here?
Dionysus01 wrote:
So, are there people out there with any chess world clout trying to abolish separate tournaments for women?
Don't know anything about that. I'm just arguing the argument for entertainment. There is a never ending supply of it wherever you go in the chess world.
Plus Nigel Short and those like him do not represent the rest of the male population who probably doesn't even know how chess pieces move. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and the Koch brothers and others could care less about how the female brain ticks as compared to theirs.
Fair enough answer, I am not against debate for the sake of debate (I love debate as a matter of personal inclination) However, we need to call a spade a spade in that case.
power_2_the_people wrote:
i agree with dionysus . what makes chess so special exactly ? . life is anyway already a struggle lasker says. are men better at life than women? chess, for one thing, is it more like military thinking or could it be like economic thinking as well? nobody plays ''war of chess''. what makes chess so special exactly ?
Personally, I think waging war is much more akin to Poker than Chess. Secrecy, deception and intel are vital. There is no "playing the board". In fact, it is vital to "cheat".
Dionysus01 wrote:
Chess and war - read here:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2004/mar/04/2
No real disagreement. I am constantly using The Art of War as a reference for chess. However, as they said, there are unusual circumstances that need to be taken into consideration. Recon and code breaking enemy communications have proven vital to past wars. I have no real arguments when you consider they did make allowances for these variations.
Dionysus01 wrote:
"Recon and code breaking enemy communications " - that's just anticipating opponent's moves - see many moves ahead - what chess players do.
I'm not the best chess player. I get a disconnect between the abstract and the concrete. I can see this in the intellectual abstract but not the final product. I have a hunch that generals may be good at chess, but I wonder if professional chess players would make good generals?
@Masamune314, I think you have a lot in common with Joshua Waitzkin.
Dionysus01 wrote:
In any case, best desist in such claims lest the female species get turned into a competitive one obsessed about "winning".
If you've already had a taste of it - battling a female/s who insist on "winning", you might think that that would be one scary world - as I do.
I find that most women compete against each other quite fiercely, the same as for men. Perhaps the men and women competing gets in the way of "relations" but then again, I've never lost to a guy on purpose. In fact I play to win in all games, and yet strangely, never had a problem getting a date, as opposed to conventional gender "wisdom". LOL
SheridanJupp wrote:
@Masamune314, I think you have a lot in common with Joshua
I won't deny it takes thinking a few moves ahead to be good at BJJ. I do find it impressive to have the amount of relaxation to be able to do this under extreme physical duress. It's a challenge. MUSHIN! Gah, that's hard. It really is.
I never knew where any of this was going or why. The thing I would like to ask people like Nigel Short is, if you feel this way about women and chess then what's the practical implication? Why are you saying it? Do you just not want to hear the women's line of argument anymore? Do you want to ban women from playing men in chess? Are you afraid of new rules that you feel would be unfair to men? Otherwise, why say it, unless you just want to be a provocature? IDK.
Like The_Ghostess_Lola pointed out, it's mostly about the justification for separate titles and tournaments for women. The feminist side of the argument claims that this segregation is sexist and should be abolished. This is a difficult issue because currently, women at the very top perform at an average level of about 300 rating points below men, 200 points of which is due to much lower participation.
People like Nigel Short perceive this remaining 100 points to be a biological issue and use it to defend the segregation. The middle ground would probably be to point out that 300 points is a huge gap that warrants separate categories for women for now, so that they have an equivalent chance of gaining titles and winning tournaments, getting more visibility for female chess players and consequently more interest in young girls to start playing. Because the gap may eventually lessen as more women enter the field and be completely removed if the 100-point remainder turns out to be a cultural issue, Nigel Short is jumping the gun, but his intentions can be interpreted as completely honorable and - if one were to read what he actually said - in no way sexist.
+1