kartikeya_tiwari hat geschrieben:
where is the proof?
People who asking for proof = lol !
Judit Polgar proved it already, she was Top10 of the world, a thing 99.999% of ALL chess-players are not able to ... doesn't matter if women or men !
Your argument about the top players, does not work, because you need to consider that only a few % of the chess players are women, most % are men !
Which is "btw." exactly the TOPIC !
No offence but judit polgar is the most overhyped chess player in history. She didn't prove anything, she didn't achieve anything. How many players do you know who were somewhere in the 30s in their rankings with a career best ranking of 8? even if u know those players do you consider them a legend? Hell, look at karjakin. The guy almost took the world title, has a much higher rating, much better and consistent world ranking and yet he is not considered to be a legend of the game... why this double standard?
If you truly, honestly believe that women are just as good as men then measure them on the same exact yardstick. For example vallejo pons had a top rank of 10th, he was the top 10 player at one point in his life. Do you consider him to be a massive legend like you consider judit? use the same yardstick and only then will this talk of "men and women are the same" would be valid
Well... yes it's true she didn't prove anything. One person can't prove anything. I agree.
But you can't ignore the social and psychological impact of a female player being in the top 10. For a lot of people, in their minds, she really did prove something, and that matters. You could make an argument that she's had more impact than Karjakin.
All i am saying is, you cannot have two different standards for two different people but then claim they are exactly as good as each other. For example, say i have a 20 year old son and a 8 year old son. They are doing some physical training. I would encourage the 8 year old son more even if objectively he would perform worse because i "know" that he is inherently weaker so i would lower my standards. However it would be wrong for me to do it if both my sons are 20 year olds. If I lower the standards for one of my sons but then claim that both are equally as good then it would be a massive disrespect to my other son.
Same happens in chess. We have different standards for women but then turn around and tell men that women and men are just as good. It's massively disrespectful to both parties. Wrong for women because u are essentially hard capping their potential. If you hail judit as a complete legend then that sets a benchmark for women, "oh i can be just as good as her!" however that lowers the standards on a whole. It's disrespectful for men ofcourse because men are "PUNISHED" for being men. We don't hail mamedyarov as a legend but do so for judit even though memedyarov is many light years ahead. It hurts both parties.
In short, if people really want to see a female world champion then have the same standards for both the sexes. Abolishing female titles and female prizes is a step in that direction
. 
1. The gender pay gap has been extensively broken down by now. If you do a multi-varied analysis you'll see the pay gap is actually almost identical. Actually women now are payed more between 20-30 years in the US and the UK now. Women get payed less especially later in life because they have kids, they choose occupations that pay less, they don't join stem fields, they don't ask for raises, not as competitive.
2. Women get paid less than their counterparts because they don't perform as well. This is shown brilliantly in sports. It's why the NBA is making millions a year but the WNBA is leaking over 10 million dollars a year. If u underperform compared to ur counterpart, u will be paid less.
3. they are underrepresented in government because politics just isn't a womans thing. It goes back to differences. Men are more prone to worry about the economy, the stability of society, and generating ideas to fix problems. Women are more nurturing, emotional, chaotic. Politics therefore isn't the main idea women will go for, even today when it is completely open for them to do so.
4. Same with the news media.
5. This one goes back to number 1 and 2.
6. Same with this as well. Sorry to say it but if u underperform u won't receive funding, or investments from corporations because the profit will be minimal compared to someone else in ur field.
7. Im not even sure what this one is about. Idk anything about hollywood, but I know actresses are paid very finely for their work, despite it not being essential or useful.
8. Women shouldn't be in the military, plain and simple. Not only is it dangerous, but it is an extremely physical occupation, that requires absolute dedication, focus and commitment. Women are no where near the physical capability of men. the difference between men and womens physical capabilities are so huge that women almost become blind to it and think we are actually competent physically.
I respect your opinion, but do you have any proof for this?
1. Again, there is no proof for this.
2. Do you think that women naturally do less of a good job than men? Does that mean they are less smart? No, but still a lot of women are paid less compared to their men counterparts.
3. I would accept your explanation except for the fact that I believe that there is no proof of that.
4. Again, I would be glad to know what proof you have for this
5. Same argument for 1 and 2
6. Same as argument 2. (Do women naturally underperform?)
7. There is no proof for this.
8. Women shouldn't be in the military? What if a woman wants to be in the military? Will she not get the job, even if it is something that she badly wants to do? Isn't that gender discrimination.
Thanks, and again, I respect your opinion very much and do not mean to offend you
I don't have to prove my points, u first have to prove urs. U haven't. u just provided some links to articles.
Ur double standard for evidence is hilarious. If you look at anyones analysis of the pay gap, like Jordan B Petersons, Ben Shapiro, u will understand how the pay gap is just a myth, it's not reality.
So go and actually for once in ur life, properly research the points u are talking about, come back, post ur peer-reviewed studies and statistics in here, then I can start providing evidence against it.
"What if a woman WANTS to be in the military?" What if I WANT, to shoot someone in the face? that question makes no sense. Having women in the military isn't about "Discrimination". Your ignorance on this topic is genuinely disgusting. I've had grandparents that have served in the military. When you're in a warzone, you need to get things done, you need to be able to carry out ur orders, you need to help your crewmates so that u can survive. when you have someone who is physically inferior and can't keep up, that puts your entire squad in danger, because that person isn't carrying out their orders to the same level as others, and is putting the entire squad in gender of losing their LIVES.
But no let's think about womens rights instead of the damn lives of people fighting for their country.