Something to think about.
Nigel Short: Women's brains not chess brains
Sort:
Apr 20, 2015
0
#163
fourpawnskewer wrote:
Specifically what irks me is the tireless comments on appearance.
It seems meanless to some and actually perfectly normal to others, but I'm of the opinion that when certain behaviors, certain actions, are silently accepted or condoned in public or even within groups of like-minded individuals, there is a validation of those behaviors. In most cases the validation adds nothing to society and is often a detriment.
batgirl wrote:
fourpawnskewer wrote:
Specifically what irks me is the tireless comments on appearance.
It seems meanless to some and actually perfectly normal to others, but I'm of the opinion that when certain behaviors, certain actions, are silently accepted or condoned in public or even within groups of like-minded individuals, there is a validation of those behaviors. In most cases the validation adds nothing to society and is often a detriment.
Very well said. Big fan of your articles btw!
Apr 20, 2015
0
#166
batgirl wrote:
ProfessorProfesesen wrote:
That means you have more chances of being killed by a Nigel Short than a Polgar... :)
Only if you die laughing.
Well said, batgirl.
Are men actually being blamed/denigrated for noticing beauty in women ? !
Reb wrote:
Are men actually being blamed/denigrated for noticing beauty in women ? !
This makes me so sad. Men (or at least most men) don't "notice" beauty in women. What I'm talking about is that they can't respect women for their intellect or their power, just their beauty. When all of your comments on men's chess are actually chess related and all of your comments on women's chess are about appearance, then there's a fundamental difference, yes. So I am denigrating men for noticing beauty in women, at least in this specific way.
Well men dont often comment on what they think of other men's physical appearance . Men are hardwired to notice women more . To fault men for noticing a womans apperance is the same as to fault cats for killing birds ... its a basic part of their nature .
Women also notice men's appearance and their physical attributes , I have heard plenty of females making comments on how they think certain men look .
Apr 20, 2015
0
#170
Schackoo wrote:
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
Look this is all idealogical nonsense. Girls, on the whole, do not like chess as much as boys. It has precisely nothing to do with upbringing or encouragement. Deal with it.
You're absolutely right. I live in the feminist equivalent to Saudi-Arabia- namely Sweden. Millions of SEK (our currency) have been spent on developing female grandmasters for about 40 years - and we only have one: Pia Cramling.
I've learned all my chess here on Chess.com, and I'm already teaching female clubplayers here in Sweden to understand what a pawn structure is.
- A true man teaches himself, while a halfman (woman) needs a hundred tutors before she understands what she's doing.
Congratulations. But maybe you let them out from your basement.
Apr 20, 2015
0
#171
Reb wrote:
Are men actually being blamed/denigrated for noticing beauty in women ? !
The physical beauty of a female chess player is about as germane to their ability to play chess as the physical beauty of a male chess player is. Which is to say, it's not.
When talking about chess players, the beauty that I care about is the beauty of their ideas. I don't need to see screen shots of a chess player's body. I am far more interested in the chess moves that are made.
So yes, focusing on the physical beauty of a female chess player is a bit denigrating especially when you don't focus on the physical beauty of male chess players. When GMs are playing chess, it's about the quality of their chess. And that's the topic, not physical beauty.
Why can't one do both ? I dont notice beauty in men because I am a man and am not gay so I tend to not pay attention to what men look like . Women also notice what men look like , their attributes as well as their dress, and they can probably do this at the same time as paying attention to their game . Most people can do several things at once and arent limited to just one thing . Some people worry so much about whatever the current PC is that they deny their own nature , or lie about that nature . If women didnt want others to notice their beautiful legs why feature them prominently by wearing dresses or shorts that highlight them ? Women like to be noticed but I am sure they dont like people to leer and/or make crude remarks . Dont go against your nature simply because you are afraid of being called sexist , at the same time one doesnt have to be rude/crude either . Women spend a lot of time and money to be attractive and so do a lot of men , they WANT people to notice or they wouldnt bother to do either of those things .
Apr 20, 2015
0
#173
You're trying to make this about physical appearance. Neither Short not Polgar mentioned it. It's not part of this topic. Bringing up physical appearance just obscures the real issue.
Apr 20, 2015
0
#174
Chess sexism: Meet the girls who 'have the brains' to play the men's game of chess
A British chess grandmaster has caused controversy by suggesting girls and women are 'hard wired differently' and therefore unable to compete at the highest level. Radhika Sanghani speaks to the schoolgirls who are proving otherwise.
There's always a few girls that wear low cut shirts at the big money tournaments. The worse their position gets the lower the cut (less buttons?) seems to become. That's gotta balance out at least about 100 rating points.
I can't believe how sexist or degrading these pictures are!? I take it there aren't any female mods and if there are--they're not speaking up?
When people claim that the disprortionate interest of males in chess has nothing to do the biochemical differences between men and women, I suspect ideological bias. Some thinkers seem to have trouble seeing past the misconception that if we notice innate (inborn) differences between groups of people, then the groups will necesarilly end up with unequal legal rights. While it is obviously true that being labelled "different" has in the past often resulted in unequal rights, this does not have to be the case.
I can understand why many progressives still cling to that misconception -- they mean well and think they are protecting the noble goal of equal justice for all. But there is no need to fear the findings of science. Finding physiological/neuronal/hormonal differences between humans should not threaten equal rights that apply to all humans.
That is the crux of the issue, I think.
“Equality is not the empirical claim that all groups of humans are interchangeable; it is the moral principle that individuals should not be judged or constrained by the average properties of their group.”
― Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature