WGM vs. GM - social inequality?

I tend to agree with that... to a point. Since there is no real segregation (women and men do compete), the women's titles, which don't fool anyone (except on chess.com, it seems) as to their meaning, don't really hold anyone back and may even give added incentive to play. 

The real issue about women in competitive chess is involvement, not acheivement. With greater involvement, great acheivement will follow. 

So, while the titles carry a stigma, I'm not sure they hurt and may even help.   The same with women's tournaments, though I can see a better argument against them since they possibly divert limited funding from better players to weaker players and they do segregate players. 

Still, if getting women to play, to participate, is the primary or basic goal, then it seems to me a bit of segregation and funding diversion may be worth it.  On the topic of funding diversion, it may also be argued that sponsors seem to like women's chess and it's possible -stats would be interesting- that women's chess might even make more funding available, not less (but that's just a thought, not a fact by any means).

If playing white, it is more difficult for women to see the first, second and oftentimes third rank, because God made them different than he made men.  Rude comments will be explored.

What do you think about changing the title so that it's not based on rating, but achieving a certain percentage (relative only to other female players)? That way I think there would be no stigma (it's not a lesser version of the universal title) and at the same time it's something someone could be proud of.

I don't know the numbers, just as a crude example, WFM at top 1%, WIM at top 0.5% WGM top 0.1% (1 out of 100, 1 out of 200, 1 out of 1000.)

I have a question. Just an honest question related to this thread. What title is generally used to refer to WGMs or WIMs? Those, or their FM or CM titles? Which do they prefer to be called by? I know which I would prefer.

From what I've seen they prefer the title the was harder to get. Not all WGMs are FMs or IMs, and some are GMs... but not FIDE GMs (like the national GM title of Russia).

But if someone had both WGM and FM? AFAIK they'd be awarded them at the same time (same rating), so I don't know.

There is no seperation. All womans can have  IM or GM just like a normal IM or GM. If they can't earn them, there is bonus -  WIM WGM with lower criteria.

Yes, that's my question. Which "equal" title do most of them prefer to go by?

Well, while I don't see FIDE changing their criteria, I really don't think that's a bad idea.  In fact I would rather see women's titles relative to other women.

I think you mean WFM and WCM. WIM and WGM don't have lower requirements than the standard titles, at that rating they would have titles anyway.

The requirements for women's titles are lower than those for regular titles (not men's titles) and has nothing to do with the events in which they participate, at least according to FIDE.
https://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=174&view=article

edit...

Losing to players rated higher than you doesn't cheapen titles you've earned... I mean, unless you think the requirements for universal and women titles are the same as you say in the first sentence, but the requirements aren't he same.

woah I hope this was sarcasm

Her top rating was nr. 8. She has won games against every world champion - but not matches. She has not been both-gender World Champion, nor a challenger for that.

Sure...

Usual tournaments also include prize money, men also write chess books, and regarding fame: please...

Not even mentionning what a great achievement it is to get titles on the cheap (don't argue on that: WGM elo requirement does not even match IM elo minimum, it's FM level) and closed tournaments with dubious names such as "Tournament of Queens and Princesses" (I swear, I saw it) and sometimes "gendered" prizes such as make-up and flowers (I witnessed it too) when you will never see, I wonder why, aftershave among prizes... No, there is definitely no sexist conception behind it.

It is supposed to make chess more attractive for women? I started playing chess without promise of becoming one day something more than a patzer. And in any activity, if I was "rewarded" with cheap titles, restricted groups regarding what stands between my legs, and GI joe prizes "because I'm a man" despite this having no connection with the practice of the given activity, I would probably prefer having nothing to do with it.

Ignore this dweeb, it's just the troll Yuri Adamov, back again.  He'll be banned soon enough, I'm sure.

Of course usual tournaments include prize money... the point is women can compete for that too, it's money for anyone who plays well.

Yes men write chess books, but if you're just some 2300 male you're nobody, no one wants to buy your crap when world champions and famous coaches have also written books. No one wants to see your trash games in a magazine, or face on the cover... but if you're 2300 and female...

From my point of view it's more of an injustice to females, but it works both ways, that's all I'm saying.

You realize that's the same than saying "Okay, there is clearly something wrong here but hey, it works both way: those girls have free candies". ;)

I find that sort of idea very childish. One person's hardships don't make another's illegitimate or inconsequential. I made my previous posts with this in mind.

Even if I needed recognition so bad, I would feel a bit awkward to jealous women who get their face in chess magazines mostly because they are the best... women, while most men are on these pages simply because they are the best.

Do you really think you can mention it as inequality? This presence in magazines is not an achievement you could be proud of, its an endorsement of this dumb system.