What if a girl became World Chess Champion?

Yeah the World Cup is understandable but the other open tournaments haven't been looking much better and those don't require such qualifications.

Sweetheart, a dictionary definition will do you no good.  As a privileged male you have not lived oppressed because of your sex (or gender).  Had you, you would not make repugnant claims like those you have been repeating.

Your chauvinism is based on your misguided notion that sex-based physical differences comport with the notion of intellectual superiority; hence, your belief that males are intellectually superior to females.

A more accurate description of "sexism" (a feminist term, btw) is:

"Discrimination or disparagement based on a person's sex, especially when directed by men or society at large against women. In terms of language, sexism refers to a bias through which patterns and references of male usage are taken to be normative, superordinate, and positive and those of women are taken to be deviant, subordinate, and negative."

I don't like the term sexist in this case either. Stupid and uninformed are far better words.

It seems like poor form to judge the man you don't even know as "privilaged" and then proceed to preech about discrimination. You know nothing about this individual other than his views and to assume otherwise is the exact sort of injustice you seem to be against. 

And to be frank I've seen enough bs from people of all genders and all races to be very sure that the "oppression" you speak of is not limited to women; not by a long shot. To be honest I don't know if this entire thing is proven by science and I really don't care that much. I care a lot more about the individuals I'm with at the time and what they're about.

If you want to stand up for equality and all that then OK. But you don't get to break your own rules when it's convenient. I don't think you meant to be offensive but this is not the way to go about making your point.

My take from this forum talk is that the reason a woman will not become WCC is because a man is chess smarter than a woman....and so, extending this, overall, men are chess smarter than women....is this what's being said without saying it ?....don't take me wrong here, I'm not mad - just a little, well, disappointed if so.

So you keep maintaining that women are inherently less intelligent, skilled at chess, and talented overall than men are (and that it's not sexist). Would you say that there is any difference in terms of talent between people of different races, and say it's not racist? Being sexist is just as bad as being racist or discriminatory towards any group of people. If you don't know that, than I'm sure many users on this forum do.

Wow, this is the last place I expected to see this "privilege" crap.  Redefining words so that they fit your ideology is not how honest discussion works.  Sexism might mean "men are the devil" when used as an academic feminist term of art, but in the real world, as used by pretty much everyone else, it means any kind of discrimination or bigotry based on sex, whether against men or against women.

Regardless, I'd still have to say that The_Con_Artist is a sexist.  He is dead certain that no woman will ever be world champion, despite the fact that a woman has been in the top 10 players in the world (Judit Polgar in 2005) and played (deservedly so) in the equivalent of a candidates' tournament (FIDE's "world championship" in 2005).  Sprinting is not comparable; no women's world record would win a decent high school state championship in the 100, 200, 400, or 800.  (Incidentally, Abby Marshall won the Denker Tournament of State High School Champions a few years ago, which I imagine is already more than The_Con_Artist thinks is possible.)

To be fair it's not so unreasonable to assume that men have less stereotypes going against them than women -- although I don't think anyone is 100% free of them. I would imagine when she gave the definition of sexism it was for a particular context -- because yes, of course sexism can be against men or women.

I am not "redefining" anything. "Sexism" is a term developed by second-wave feminists in the 1960s and 1970s, to correspond with the similar fight against racism.  I agree, however, sexism can cut both ways.

Con_Artist, aka c-h-e-a-t-e-r, is simply a provocateur.  His shtick is just ...

"... a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing."

We have guys on here calling each other wusses because they don't give rematches in a board game... Women deal with injustices for sure but they don't have nearly as many stereotypes attached to their existence.

I'd love to bring this topic to Judge Jeanine Pirro and hear her opening statement. I'm not a big fox fan, but if I'm channel surfing and I see her pretty face, I'm going to land it on her show. Not only is she physically attractive but she's sensible as well!!

I'm being a little careful with this post, I know that people like The Grobe and Theoritical Boy are watching.

???????????

"It's undisputed; not only are women better than men at chess."

You 6-year-olds, stop posting garbage.

They think I'm a sexist. Horrid! Horrid! Horrid!

Oh no, not Fox News!

Honestly I never got what's so horrible about them -- I mean, if you're mostly liberal, well, you're going to disagree with them, that's not a revelation. I don't really commit to a liberal or conservative agenda, but it seems to me they just express their views, views about, well, controversial issues in the first place. They're biased of course, but news with a liberal bias is much more common anyway, at least in the US.

I mean, they might say something like "liberals are crazy," but other networks will just say "conservatives are crazy," so what's the difference lol.

You're starting to sound like a troll yourself, Jamie, though of the accidental sort.  If nothing else, I've rarely seen a person call out a troll and then become such utter troll-bait.  You ought to be a bit embarrassed by that.  Complaining about sexism and then using demeaning ad hominem tactics is wrong headed and, frankly, bizarre.  It shouldn't be necessary.

And your assumptions about the poster (troll or not) are outrageous.  As far as I can tell from this forum, we do not even know for certain that the person is male.  You're simply making an assumption (one with which I tend to agree, by the way).  That is not the way to conduct a discussion.

If your only talking-point is that our troll here is being offensive, I think you're just wasting an opportunity.  The comments about "PC run amok" are not entirely off-base here.  I, too, am tired of people just screaming about how hurt their feelings are and calling that a serious political counter-point.  It's not...it's your emotional reaction.

c-h-e-a-t-e-r is so clearly wrong about what he knows and does not know, and so clearly wrong about what has prevented women from becoming WC so far that we do not need to bother with all the wailing and gnashing of teeth (especially since this is exactly what he wants).  It's easy enough to refute what he is saying by rational argument.

Let me introduce one more issue to consider.  Chess is a game that women seem to be a lot less interested in than men (thus resulting in a female WC being a very unlikely scenario). Is that really a problem?  Why do we care how women choose to waste their time as compared to men?

Good point.

Since chessplayers seem to try so desperately to directly proportion chess prowess w/ intelligence, I'd like to see how Mensa tests quantify women vs. men....you know, how they stack up. I'll betcha it would surprize most....probably leave women snickering and men bewildered........

Anyone brave enough to google that one ?........