Why do we have woman categories?

Sort:
Conflagration_Planet
Mijin wrote:

Well for a long time it was only men that could go to university, and many other opportunities were closed to women too, so the invention thing is not that surprising.

But in any case, it's generally people who've achieved nothing in their own lives who try to make a big thing of which gender / nationality / race etc is "better" (the answer is always their's)


 I've noticed that as well.

Maddie53

Don`t loose precious time trying to analysing the human race. You will find A. H. in all nationalities, races, religions, languages or genders.

Best try to analyse yourself and figure out why you are threatened by women? Are you a looser? Can you play chess? What`s your real problem?

MrMan2244

Firstly, the term "multi-tasking" has been used incorrectly. I don't want to get into the semantics-just let it suffice that multi-tasking has almost literally 0 helpfulness in Chess. One person(female) who posted about it almost nailed it.

Ni-Testosterone doesn't help with chess to any significant value when compared to dozens of other factors, though technically it does indirectly positively correlate to chess ability for part of the relation.

Twa: zrylam, I know what you mean. I gets really obnoxious...while I do wish such nonsense banned I hope that AnthonyRBrown might learn some maturity from his experience in the conversations here, and most likely around the web.

raul72
Fezzik wrote:
AnthonyRBrown wrote:

Man Made!...

Buildings!...Cars!...Computers!...Aeroplane's!...Boats!...Helicopters!...

Trains!...Buses!...Motorcycles!...Bycycles!...Washing Machines!...Sewing Machines!...Beds!...

...Microwaves!...Cookers...Food Mixers!...Cement Mixers!...Ladders!...Drills!...Tools!...Typewriters!...Irons!...

Etc. Etc.

Woman Made ?


.... the men who made the toys.


 

 


 

Woman Made ?


.... the men who made the toys.


But who planted the seed to make the men? Yeah, you guessed it---Men, men, men, men, men, manly men, men men...

fyy0r

Welcome back raul72, I was getting lonely without you.

raul72

I believe men and women are positively and absolutely equal. Well...maybe man is slightly more equal than woman. Perhaps the length of a hand or some such measurement. But do not be aggreived ladies---thats the way God intended it so learn to live with it and you too will find happiness!

Bring me my slippers woman and my pipe!---and make me a sandwich!

raul72

I was reading about this woman who had a sex change and became a man. I was wondering if this made her/him a stronger chess player. I'm thinking it did. Women who become men are on a rigid schedule. They have operations, Testosterine injections, hormone shots etc., etc. The become more muscular, harder, hairier and develope that Kasparov stare. By God---thats got to make them a stronger player.

Ladies, just how badly do you want to become a stronger player??

Think about it ladies---some smart alec wouldnt be able to spot you a knight anymore!!!

person-142343534

It is kind of pointless to give seperate titles to women, but the titles don't mean more than,"I have a rating lower than that needed to reach the real title"

I think they should have youth titles, because surely being younger puts one at more of a disadvantage than being female.

raul72
AnthonyRBrown wrote:

I Don't think a Sex change can make a Woman a part of the Genius Gender!?


But will it make her a stronger chess player? She is now full of testosterone and phospherous. Remember what Botvinnik said---No sex on the night before the game. You will deplete your phospherous and testosterone levels. You must remember women will try to deprive you of your precious bodily fluids!! Beware!

danested

We're built differently, both mentally and physically. Its just the way nature intends. Men and Women Do think differently, and the way our brains percieve things is different and so is the way our brains are built. It's just the way it is. 

There are (obviously) women who play a whole lot better than I ever can.  But I think competition should be between similar people, that's why physical events such as running also have seperate men and women categories. 

It'd doesn't mean we do it better, or you do it better. It's just that the competition is more fair and close.  

Ziryab
AnthonyRBrown wrote:

Men have Two Brains! Upper! & Lower!


Alas the smaller dominates the greater.

Ziryab
AnthonyRBrown wrote:

Woman Made ?


Men.

batgirl
AnthonyRBrown wrote:

I Don't think a Sex change can make a Woman a part of the Genius Gender!?


That's probably true for women; possibly less true for men.

waffllemaster
batgirl wrote:
AnthonyRBrown wrote:

I Don't think a Sex change can make a Woman a part of the Genius Gender!?


That's probably true for women; possibly less true for men.


Zing.

Maddie53

no comment genius!

Elubas
fabelhaft wrote:
Elubas wrote:
I feel it's more important to emphasize and respect the value of accomplishment rather than giving in to those who achieve less and basically just complain about their disadvantages all the time

But the world just isn't equal. In Norway the strongest woman has a rating of 2200 and the strongest man is 2800. A Norwegian man reaching 2700 will be seen as a great player but nothing unbelievable since he will be 100 points behind Carlsen, while a woman that reaches 2700 will be 500 points ahead of #2 in Norway (and be the highest rated woman in the world), and her achievement will be seen as greater.


That's just too bad. I certainly wouldn't. To me she would just be another person who made it to the top and would thus deserve praise, but no exclusive esteem just because she's a woman.  It would be an unusual case for sure, but in my view not an extra special one, no.

It's like when a tomboy joins a group of boys. Sure the boys are at first like "oh cool, there's a girl who actually likes to play football." But they're not like "omg that's the awesomest thing ever!"; they just kind of shake it off when they realize she's just another human who shares their interests, and probably end up treating her the same.

Unfortunately, for some weird reason it's not like this in chess.

Elubas
Azukikuru wrote:
Elubas wrote:
Second, I feel it's more important to emphasize and respect the value of accomplishment rather than giving in to those who achieve less and basically just complain about their disadvantages all the time (but of course, life always obstacles in it; there are literally thousands of things one could complain about; they're inevitable). I want a world where many women play and where we equally reward everybody -- for what they achieve, and nothing more. However, if I had to pick one, I would irrevocably choose the latter, no question at all, because otherwise it's disrespectful to those that actually do make it to the top.

I understand, and I respect this premise, but it relies on the assumption that gender has no effect on chess potential. People on both sides of the argument say that their stance is "obvious" - men and women "obviously" have the same potential, or men are "obviously" better at chess than women. To me, the only thing that's obvious is that this describes a contradiction.


Well, you're kind of just assuming there has to be a biological inferiority, which to me is much stronger than just me saying "this statement and its degree no less is not clear enough." It's not like you have proven this; you have merely presumed this.

What you are doing is giving women the benefit of the doubt, because we don't know which mind is superior. But that, quite superfluosly (is it really the end of the world if there are less female players? I'd rather have less unfair female recognition than have sexism!), risks total disrespect to the men that try their hardest but do get to the top.

And say men are shown to usually have the more "left sided" brain perhaps. Well, what about the women who don't? They may well "think like a man" (and who knows, this could be the description of many of the strong female players) but get treated better than one; in other words, they would get all the advantages of easier titles but none of the usual biological disadvantages because their brain is "exceptional" and does like problem solving and stuff.

Maddie53

Well when was it that a man ever joined a group of whatever and they other men got excited? they they ever say': omg that`s the awesoment thing ever!..lol ..I don`t think so. He becomes a rival because every one wants to be number one.

The best at something. Well the only way to acheive anything is by practicing. See I just started playing chess, I know I`m not that good, YET..but I`m getting better all the time. So in 5 years if I`m still playing hey who knows I might get to be the best. And I think it`s the same for anything anyone wants to do. Be it men or women.

And whoever said that men and women were or should be equal are dreamers or trouble makers. I don`t know, but I actually appreciate the difference between men and women. What would this world be like if we just had one gender? Boring!

I appreciate that men can do things better than me. They have muscles, they are strong. Well some are anyway, others are wimps..we won`t go there. But in any case, they can be appreciate it, and if women want to walk in there shoes it`s that she admires what they do and wishes to be able to do the same.

Ah come on men, what would you have done without your mom??

Be nice and be patient with this weaker person.Innocent

Kkidplayer
AnthonyRBrown wrote:

"W titles will become surpassed and disappear"

NEVER!! Woman will always Play Below the level of the Bets Men!

One to One in a Serious Match Men have an Animal instinct for Survival! Way above Calculation & Knowledge!


And a woman wouldn't have messed up spelling "Best"... and you probably want to learn how to play before bashing lots of women players higher than you.

Kkidplayer
BorogoveLM wrote:

It is kind of pointless to give seperate titles to women, but the titles don't mean more than,"I have a rating lower than that needed to reach the real title"

I think they should have youth titles, because surely being younger puts one at more of a disadvantage than being female.


If you would actually research before posting things like this, you would know that most GMs start playing seriously around age 11 on average because at younger ages ones mind is still developing, and therefore the Seniors should technically have the lower rating for GM status by your theory.