WGM vs. GM - social inequality?

Men are superior plain and simple

They are. The first to succeed were Polgars, in 1991.

Gaprindashvili and Chiburdanidze had got GM title, but as special grant, not on merits.

But Gaprindashvili did not, in the end, make "grandmaster norms".

So, over her years as Champion, 1962-1977, was she playing at grandmaster strength, and the recognition was belated, or was she playing at a level slightly below grandmaster strength, and the grandmaster title was unearned?

Things are not always that simple. Take for example Furman's case, as described in Wikipedia: The site www.chessmetrics.com, the chess site which endeavors to provide historical ratings for players while correcting for different methods of calculation, puts Furman's peak rating at 2708 in April, 1948, #11 in the world at that time. That is certain Grandmaster level, but, because of lack of international opportunities, Furman did not formally receive the title until eighteen years later. 

There is... and it's called... the GM title lol

So the better question is, why is there a WGM title... which has generated long topics in chess.com forums in the past for sure.

Inertia.

Yes one title is better

Yeah but Elubas will write a book in response to this word, and then it begins >: )

He must be Stephen King in disguise.

 we should have a rule that says if your Not strong enough to BEAT a WGM you can't endlessly talk about it.

I mean she is much, much stronger than you - so isn't silence (at least) about her title necessary RESPECT for an impressive accomplishment?

Ah, now here's a chance to get it started.

So thegreat_patzer you're saying, for example, Nigel Short's opinion on women is better than ours because he plays chess better?

No.

The low expectations sexism cuts both ways in this case. Women / girls have titles, prize money, tournaments, and fame (magazine covers, book authors, coaching jobs) that male players don't have access to.

Well, a few things.

1) Tournament chess and titles aren't segregated, males and females compete all the time. It's just that in addition to this there are female-only titles and tournaments.

2) I wasn't making an argument or even a value judgement about the facts, just stating some facts. Personally I don't like female exclusive titles, and to me the idea of easier titles for a group of people is insulting.

The proposition that a woman cannot be as strong a player as a man has been dead since Judit Polgar.

As her career illustrates it can be more difficult for a woman because of interuption caused by having children.

I am not sure about maintaining a separate title for women and separate events.  It is common across many sports and if a girl or woman said to me that she liked competing in women's events because manners are better and testosterone less evident then I would have some sympathy.  But segregation is usually damaging rather than helpful so I think I would be glad to see the WGM title disappear.

I guess it's not really fair to compare when it's much more unfair against women. In one of these topics someone mentioned a few points that could be counted against men though and I thought that was interesting so I repeated them here.