The Status of Female Players in Chess

Ret, you are totally misreading my post. As I stated, women do compete with men. Open tournaments are open to both genders. Women compete for the same ratings and can earn the same titles men earn.

In addition to the mixed gender competition, there are also some competitions that invite only women to compete. Women who compete in these competitions also compete with men in other competitions. In fact, the vast majority of their games are with men.

Please read my posts carefully before bashing me. I feel like you haven't read my posts at all since you managed to miss the point 100%.

RetGuvvie: "Women do not attend 'women only' college classes to become a doctor or brain surgeon or Physicist. "

In the word's of Reb, Hogwash! There are women only colleges that educate some of the brightest women in the world. Women have a choice of going to college with men, or going to college with women only. They are equal to men in that regard, just as they are in chess. 

Females should be good at chess.  They like to match carpets with curtains, and shoes with handbags so I would have thought woman would be the best at matching pieces.  Maybe if they loose a Knight it would be like loosing one side of the curtains, an unthinkable scenario.  Seriously though all is equal between the sexes so I have no idea why woman are so bad at chess.

Ret,  In my life I've known a few very smart young women who went to women's only colleges. Since I knew them, I learned a little about where they went to school (education quality, etc.) and this was enough for me to make the statement I made above. I am by no means an expert on women's colleges. However, in about 2-3 minutes using a search engine like google, anyone can find the answers to the questions you're asking, it doesn't take an expert.  Here are some links you might find interesting:

http://www.womenscolleges.org/ 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_college 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/23/nyregion/23women.html

The Wikipedia link also includes a link to women's colleges in the US specifically. The article makes another interesting point that I think has some analogy to the question of women in chess. Women's colleges were founded in the US because there were no higher education opportunities for women at the time. I think a similar thing has happened in chess. While women have the opportunity to compete in all the chess tournaments, the lack of presence of women participating has led people to look for ways to encourage women to participate. If we give a woman who participates a little extra recognition than a man, or once in a while hold a tournament where just the women get together to participate with each other, maybe it will be encouraging. 

What makes you think women are bad at chess?

Reb, Its men who set the rules in chess for fide titles, plus the rules of what women must do to qualify. Men!!!!!

You are missing my point queenie, which is that there are people in threads like this who say women are equal to men in chess while at the same time supporting womens titles and womens only events. If women are indeed equal why separate them? Do away with womens titles and female only events and let them compete on equal grounds.

The problem, obviously, is that the grounds would not be equal. Having women compete under the auspices of male-dominated, male-controlled institutions in a field where the participation of women has been met with hostility and derision (see many of the comments in this thread for just a small sampling) would be putting women at a disadvantage that is entirely unrelated to skill or ability.

 Against such a background, the creation of institutions controlled by women is one (imperfect) way of attempting to level the playing field by providing safe spaces for participation that will indirectly empower female chess players to participate in the traditional (male) chess institutions, much as has been the case with women's colleges and other similar institutions. 

Of course, another option would be to get rid of all of the existing organisations and found one that equally represents female and male players at all levels.

The problem, obviously, is that the grounds would not be equal. Having women compete under the auspices of male-dominated, male-controlled institutions in a field where the participation of women has been met with hostility and derision (see many of the comments in this thread for just a small sampling) would be putting women at a disadvantage that is entirely unrelated to skill or ability.

 Against such a background, the creation of institutions controlled by women is one (imperfect) way of attempting to level the playing field by providing safe spaces for participation that will indirectly empower female chess players to participate in the traditional (male) chess institutions, much as has been the case with women's colleges and other similar institutions. 

Of course, another option would be to get rid of all of the existing organisations and found one that equally represents female and male players at all levels.

and that would be a pretty good trick for a Quebecienne!

Women may just be more intimidated by the game than males. Or the fact that it is predominantly played by males, may have instilled in them some unwritten rule that it is a male game.

Take football, for example, women can technically try out and compete just like the men can, but football is a predominantly male sport, so by default women are turned off to participating. It's a rough and tough game. Chess may strike them similarly in that it is tough intellectually. This doesn't mean men are more intelligent than women, it just means women by and large aren't attracted to this particular form of intellectual expression through Chess. Many women may just assume to use their intellect in other ways.

I think it's a matter of the gazelle as well. If one jumps they will all jump. If more women played chess, it would be more socially acceptable for the rest of women to play without fear of ridicule, or seen as some kind of anomaly.

The fact also, that chess is highly stereotyped as some kind of "geek" activity also might have a lot to do with women shying away from it. It's all speculation though. Hopefully things will change in time.

I don't percieve the hostility or mean-spiritedness of male players towards female players, but I do know that the uncomfortable feeling of being in a tiny minority in a large group can be disconcerting and put-offish.

I think it was on this thread that someone mentioned the lack of female role models (in chess) as a reason for girls not jumping at the chance to play the game competitively. I'm not so sure that's such a big factor. Back in 1959 Lisa Lane became the US Women's champion and because she was attractive and out-spoken, she got a lot of press, both here and in other countries. She was on the cover of Sports Illustrated and featured in the New Yorker, Look, The New York Times Magazine and Newsweek, but her impact on populating the chess world with female players seemed to have been negligible. Today we have more than a few female celebrities who play chess and many professional women chess players who could serve as role models, but also without much effect.

I don't percieve the hostility or mean-spiritedness of male players towards female players, but I do know that the uncomfortable feeling of being in a tiny minority in a large group can be disconcerting and put-offish.

I think it was on this thread that someone mentioned the lack of female role models (in chess) as a reason for girls not jumping at the chance to play the game competitively. I'm not so sure that's such a big factor. Back in 1959 Lisa Lane became the US Women's champion and because she was attractive and out-spoken, she got a lot of press, both here and in other countries. She was on the cover of Sports Illustrated and featured in the New Yorker, Look, The New York Times Magazine and Newsweek, but her impact on populating the chess world with female players seemed to have been negligible. Today we have more than a few female celebrities who play chess and many professional women chess players who could serve as role models, but also without much effect.

The fact that people have only been able to come up with a few names that keep getting repeated, compared to the innumerable celebrated male players throughout history,illustrates my point. One or two great female players is a novelty. And it's not just about the famous names, either. It's about joining a chess club or some other chess organisation and having a substantial number women present, whether as mentors or as numerical proof that one is not an outsider. These are issues that men in chess don't have to deal with.

"The fact that people have only been able to come up with a few names that keep getting repeated, compared to the innumerable celebrated male players throughout history,illustrates my point."

Not really. First, there haven't been many women players throughout history, so the names that come up in that respect will generally be male names. So, the women's names that come up are simply in proportion.

I don't think 90% of men who play at chess can name over a handful of male chess masters beyond Fischer and Kasparov. 

People don't go out looking for chess club to join unless they are already chess players with an compelling reason to either find opponents or improve in general. So, if there is going to be a reason for any female to seek out a chess club, whether it's filled with all men, all women or a healthy mix, she must have had an earlier favorable exposure to chess - which brings us to the home and/or school environment (for chess exposure) as possibly the most important factor of all.  So, if a role model makes a difference, then it will likely be someone who makes a striking impression affecting how a child perceives chess at an early age.   

"First, there haven't been many women players throughout history, so the names that come up in that respect will generally be male names. So, the women's names that come up are simple in proportion."

 Exactly.