If you truly believe there is some factor that prevents women from being just as good as men in the world of chess, then you better have sources to back it up before saying something so unbelievably stupid.
There are female players out there who could DESTROY the majority of men in competition. The separation of gender in chess has nothing to do with skill and everything to do with saturation. Simply by numbers, there are more men playing than women. Its just a way to have more equal representation.
To give a small example, for every female grand master, there are 44 male grand masters. There can be only one winner, so if it were mixed gender, you'd have a roughly 2% chance of seeing a woman win in every competition. In a way, it would be very discouraging to even try.
Sorry for entering the debate, but women mature faster than men. They also prove to be far more caring and understanding than men. There are many instances in history where men will carry grudges down from their fathers even though there is no reason to, and it is usually women for cross those gaps to get peace again. There is one thing men do better than women and that is killing people without conscience. Also causing arguments based on their prejudices, my example: you.
by the way I am a male and you are completely wrong, and you are what make me lose hope in humanity.
Welcome to the conversation!
Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but can you cite any studies which support your prejudice?
One thing I have noticed about women is that to "refute" a statistical certainty, they will pick the minority case and argue that. You seem to have adopted that tactic. For example, you state: There are many instances in history where men will carry grudges down from their fathers even though there is no reason to, and it is usually women for cross those gaps to get peace again.
If there are "many" such cases, you should have no difficulty at all detailing 10 such examples. Note that your examples should evidence:
Note too that this is a VERY narrow category, which only shows the extreme extents to which you have to go to make a (likely) false statement that supports your prejudice.
I agree that men do a much better job of killing, though again, I invite you to produce evidence that they do so "without conscience". I've already alluded to the fact that women are more likely to deal the first blow in domestic violence situations, but often wind up with far more damage than the men they attacked. Is this because after starting the fight, women decided they weren't interested? Or because men are simply better at physical combat (and pretty much everything else)?
As for my "prejudices", I make a concerted effort to make FACT-based statements. I am well aware that such truths are not fashionable - certainly not among women or their simps. I can probably cite well over 100 world records held by men. How many can you cite held by women? I can cite at least 100 world renown male scientists, inventors, mathematicians, physicists without even have to reference any source. Can you name 5 women who have achieved anything notable?
The original premise was that men are simply better at chess (no woman in the top 100 rankings?), and extended to men are simply better at almost everything. It's only fair that I quantify that: Of course women are better at getting pregnant, giving birth, nursing children... That's what they're BUILT for. But in matters of strength, speed, agility, power, endurance, intelligence, creativity, invention, building (and destroying), and hundreds of other fields, men are just better, recalling once again because you've shown yourself desirous of arguing the edge cases, that by that I mean the best in the world are MEN.