"Chess Requires Masculine Qualities"

The OP has cleverly disguised the real question he has alluded to...the whole "men are better than women in chess" thing. 

He didn't say that they are better... just different! Separate but equal.

I know men through the centuries have been fond of telling women what they can't do. Some women seem to get masochistic pleasure from it.

The thesis seems rather dubious, first it is stipulated that chess requires certain qualities, then that these qualities are "masculine," all of which without sufficient evidence or even defining the terms.

Why must you assume that? He probably just thought it was interesting coming from a woman. The women who are strong players do have a lot of those "masculine" (probably not the best word, just things you see a lot in male nerds ) qualities, like the dedication to analyze, calculating cold bloodedly, etc.

It always seems that nobody ever wants to have an honest discussion about this subject. There are either the people who desperately want to prove that men are superior to women in not only chess but often in general, or the ones that want to be heroes and support women unconditionally, but a lot of times neither side is being purely objective. Obviously the difference in male and females involved in chess is staggering and seemingly inexplicable, so people should be able to, respectfully, discuss some of these differences.

Now the argument about females not being as encouraged that I hear a lot, I've never seen much support of it (sources), and besides I highly doubt that if a woman was truly into chess that she'd just give it up (sure her [or his!] parents wouldn't initially imagine her living off of chess, but if she's good, any good parent wouldn't just make her quit. Perhaps they'd want her to have other interests, but they shouldn't make her quit). If men into chess don't seem to care that they're in the minority (chess players), then women who happen to be just as into it shouldn't care much more. It just seems like an insufficiently supported excuse to me right now. I'm not saying the other arguments are supported well either (else we wouldn't have this question so much), but they're not based on absolutely nothing.

 Of course Krush is just making her own observations, so you can't take it completely seriously. She's not proposing a theory here, she's proposing an "I think".

Could it be that Krush has had bad results lately and is making up "theories" to rationalize it ?

That seems a little immature for a woman, doesn't it?

OK, I really don't like these discussions but again I just couldn't hold myself. So basically, anyone who calls women dumb, meek and passive has the "objective point of view" and anyone who explains how certain structures in the current patriarchal society prevent women from realizing their potential is "sticking up with women at all costs?"

Some ignorant chess player spills out some ignorant bullshit openly degrading her  sex and that makes her "objective". Wow, you made it look easy! Argh, I really have to stop here.

Geez, philidor, calm down.

'OK, I really don't like these discussions but again I just couldn't hold myself. So basically, anyone who calls women dumb, meek and passive has the "objective point of view" and anyone who explains how certain structures in the current patriarchal society prevent women from realizing their potential is "sticking up with women at all costs?"'

This is what I'm talking about. The slightest thing I say all of a sudden means I'm saying that women are dumb, meek, and passive? Because nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, if I said that 50.2% of men are jerks, would that be saying "men are hideous bastards"?

Maybe I'm a little offended for you quoting things I don't actually say.

Oh, you.

What are some of these masculine traits necessary for chess?

Irina Krush: Competitiveness, analytical thinking, calculation, motivation, drive... a certain kind of like resilience and stoicness, persistence.

I read these as dumb, meek and passive. I mean, even worse, they can't even persist at being dumb, that's how weak these female creatures are!

There are both a ton of men and women who are missing these things a little too much to be really good at chess (it's not that they don't have them, it's that you need them to an absolutely extreme degree, and missing one could be fatal)

The women that do play most likely do have these qualities to an extreme degree, but there's not as much of them, and it's most likely merely because though they have these qualities to a most likely reasonable degree (every educated person should), they don't end up training them as much as they often prefer to do a variety of things, and end up finding something much more fulfilling than chess. How does that say they're weak? That's at least as much of a compliment as an insult

There are few people, man or woman, who have what it takes to play chess, at a very high level. It needs to be trained and worked on, and I think many women figure "what's the point in trying to be good at one thing?", and that is a point I cannot refute. As good as chess is, exploring the millions of other things to do sounds like a good idea

Ok, I admit none of this has any sources, I just heard it and observed it but that's what women I see tend to think. I see very few women that are the opposite to what I described, which is merely saying there doesn't seem to be as many women who would be as obsessive.

Elubas, I apologize if I came off rude. Having said that, if you read that part of Krush's comment, and say "Wow, very interesting, I like this girl . I like how she doesn't have that feminist "stick up for women at all costs" attitude, instead trying to look at things objectively (a great quality for chess too!)."

I mean, again, I can't really find much to say here. She simply puts together a few postive traits and calls them masculine. I mean, why?

Motivation? Masculine trait? Seriously? HOW on earth is that masculin? Women don't want things? OK, so they lack analytical thinking and calculation, they're DUMB, yeah, ok, but are they SO dumb to the degree that they have stopped wanting, striving for things?

Drive? The female sex lacks drive??? OK. Really. I can't go on like this. Resilience, persistence? It's one thing that this girl is ignorant, but I mean, what is objective about this ignorant gibberish? How can you look at women and say "they lack drive, resilience, persistence". HOW is that objective?

I'll show you how ignorant this girl is. She looks at the chess world, and sees that these are the qualities of a good chess player. And then, she sees that currently men are better at chess than female players. And then she makes the brightest of deductions and says, "OH, then these qualities need to be masculine."

I really don't want to go in there, but THAT's how you become a racist. You look at the current state of affairs that have very deep, historical and social roots, but instead of trying to go deep and understand things at the social, economical and historical level, you decide to think they are in the actually present individuals themselves.

Like, a racist looks at the world of 1900s and says: "black people are slaves at the moment." And makes the brightest deductions of all and comes up with the idea that "oh that has to be because they are inferior anyway."

That's how the rich seriously and genuinely believes he is superior than the poor and homeless. That's how the U.S. soldier believes an Iraqi's life is worthless.

I don't find that objective at all.

 I agree. I've noticed that people often refer to other people as "Objective" when what they say merely supports their own bias.

Now, I realize that the specific target age group I am speaking about is unique as it is a developmental stage as well as a demographic and I acknowledge that since it is showing the genders at stages of growth and change. However I find the whole "boss/bitch" double standard to be disheartening at best.

I know plenty of young women who are studying to be lawyers, doctors, programmers and who hope to excel at many "manly" professions just as much as I know enough who want to be stay-at-home mothers or have "feminine" occupations such as being teachers, nurses, and designers. I just don't think you can define half the human race (or even a portion of it) in a few words; that's all.

This isn't really directed at you, Wouter_Remmerswaal.. just a general opinion on the matter.

Oh yes, they are so dumb that they can't even persist at being dumb.

Poor setting, poor Krush. No introduction, no structure, She didn't make much sense to me. Basically the main message is she's just another girl that wanted to play with the boys when she was young. I'm sure she has more worthwhile things to say than "chess improves your analytical skillz"

Why would I be a hypocrite? Maybe I'm just not masculine enough to see how that doesn't make sense.

If you can put your definition of what being masculine and feminine mean, then you can say correctly that "chess requires masculine/feminine qualities" but the truth is that I respect the Ms. Krush (and the gang that agree with her opinions) for being a good chess player - but I think she makes a mistake by labeling men and women to behave a certain way.  These are traits assumed by societies and cultures, and usually imposed on boys and girls from the day they're conceived.

:P true

ingrained  :(

:) yeah!!!