been there, done that.
Why do we have woman categories?
Sort:
Azukikuru wrote:
Elubas wrote:
Azukikuru wrote:
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.
Where did I state that there was a biological inferiority?
If there were, the solution would be obvious: complete segregation into men's and women's categories.
I had hoped to make it clear that the situation is ambiguous, and that that's a good reason for the status quo.
I guess this is a fundamental point where I strongly disagree on. In fact, I think it would need to be proved quite conclusively that women are at an inherent disadvantage, not give them the benefit of the doubt. Most of my posts have reflected why I feel this way.
It doesn't matter whether men are inherently better at chess
I kind of think it does. One example to try to illustrate my point: Let's say the reason was social; that women don't like to play as much or have less incentive. Well then they can just play something else; but you don't give them an easier title because they don't want to work all the way. In other words, if this was the reason AND women were biologically equal in chess, that means they were in possession of totally equal opportunity, but had not used it in a way that makes them grandmasters in chess. Perhaps they did things they considered more productive, like being a doctor or teacher, and you could argue that quite convincingly. But chess wise, they only deserve what they earned.
Now, the reason why them being biologically inferior would change this is that with that in mind, women who would work to the best of their ability could be slightly limited in what they can achieve, so then this idea of separate titles is more valid; women who perform at a 2700 level could for example be thought of as equivalent as a male doing so at 2800 in this example.
But compare the two scenarios: The second one represents a much more passionate woman for chess working within her limits, while the other wants to do something else. Only the second woman would be deserving.
Of course, we don't know who's superior, if anyone. But there is no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt -- that could prove way too disrespectful to the males who do achieve what they do, as I have kept repeating.
In other words, in today's chess world, the gender gap exists, and separate categories are thus wholly justified
As said above, I feel that the reason why it exists is remarkably important.
If, on the other hand, we would do as you suggest and remove all women's titles and tournaments, then the incentive for some women to play would drop
Quite frankly, I don't care. I honestly wouldn't have a lot of respect for women who need unfair advantages, to the detriment and disrespect of others, to be their encouragement.
Don't we all learn in life that we can't just complain when we don't succeed at something?? Come on now! If someone turns down your book, you either quit, or try again; you don't cry over spilled milk and think something will happen out of that! Apparently we forget this principle of life when women are involved? Unbelievable.
To give these titles would be to completely disrespect them men who have overcomed this unfortunate truth! It devalues the importance to deal with this inevitable thing! It's sick.
Would we eventually chase off all women and make chess a purely masculine field once more? Are you prepared to take that chance?
I don't want specifically men; I don't specifically want women; what I want is a community that is willing to fight for what they earn, and not coast based on your sex. And with your sex, yes, comes certain preferences and temptations to not focus on chess. That's a valid choice. But then you shouldn't complain when you don't make it to 2500.
waffllemaster wrote:
Elubas wrote:
It's sad that nobody cares about this injustice. It's (lol most people probably don't even know what I'm referring to) not really any better than the prohibiting of women of certain rights in history -- in both cases one of the sexes can say they get more opportunities than the other --, so I don't get it.
It's usually the young that ask "why" and push for social changes. Don't be deterred by those that have calmed down a bit an adopted a more accepting attitude about the world around them... or they just don't have the energy to deal with it. You're not the only one who thinks that way for sure (even if you were one of the few posters constantly calling it out).
Well, I would hope so, but I'm not so sure -- I have absolutely never seen this issue addressed from the male point of view. In fact, I have seen this whole argument of sexism regarding titles from the female point of view multiple times, and you know what, there is valid reason to argue female sexism here as well.
However, I think the problem is more serious for males, because they are tangibly affected by it -- their opportunity becomes inferior; kind of funny when all we hear is "equal opportunity" that we'd go backwards like this.
Basically, most arguments here are saying: let's pick the option that helps the women the most; we don't give a shit about the man or their work ethic. The problem is, the option that helps the women is the very option that devalues the dignity in achieving something: now women will be recognized for lesser accomplishments, while men might be overlooked even if they achieve something greater (case in point: Anna Zatonskih and her stronger [in chess] husband. What's his name? I don't know. Nobody cares to announce it 
).
May 9, 2011
0
#249
I don't exactly embace the idea of separate titles for women (though I do understand the need for separate tournaments) but I can see their purpose even if I feel women would eventually rise to the challenge without them. On the other hand, I don't see why any man feels the need to object to these separate titles. What the titles do is recognize women relative to other women. Is this threatening to some men? I really don't understand.
Separate tournaments are a different thing. Perhaps oddly, while I can understand why men might object to them (moneys, however smaller than that for overall achievements that would go to overall tournaments otherwise, now is spent on women, a targeted group, who might actualy be weaker players), I feel they serve the important purpose of inticing women to play. If some men are so interested in money that they begrudge this bone being thrown, I'm sorry for them.
From what I've seen lately, women tournaments produce more exciting, no-holds-barred, fighting chess than overall tournaments - even if at a somewhat lower level - that's worth the price in itself.
An interesting related aside is something Prof. George Allen wrote in an 1859 article recounting the history of Chess in Philadelphia: (explaining first how the appearance of the Turk inspired the sudden growth of chess in the city, then how the exploitation of stronger players over weaker players destroyed not olny the impetus, but their own situation)
What it belongs to me to record in this place, is the fact, that this deep Automaton excitement soon embodied itself in tke recognizable form of a Club—the first Chess organization known to have been formed in our city. My informants do, indeed, say, that the club was founded "about the year 1825;" but they also agree, that it owed its origin to the visit of the Automaton. If we suppose, therefore, that the club was organized before the visit of the Automaton to Philadelphia, but as soon as possible after the landing of Maelzel at New York, it could not date earlier than February, 1826. A date quite as late as this appears to me far more probable than that of 1825, for nothing short of the profound excitement called forth by the mysterious Turk could account for so sudden a running together of such large numbers to organize themselves into the unusual form of a Chessclub. More than a hundred members enrolled themselves at the first rush—as if imperial Caïssa herself, in some desperate necessity, had called upon all her subjects, young and old, strong and weak, ban and arrière ban, to come to the rescue. A suitable room was engaged over the building (long since pulled down), in Chestnut street, near Fifth, known as "Sully and Earle's Gallery;" President, Vice-President, Secretary, etc., were elected in full number and in due form; and an abundant supply of tables, with little boards and diminutive men, of the London Club pattern, stood ready to gratify the appetite of the eager members, who waited only for the termination of these provoking formalities in order to fall to. Not an individual of the hundred, I suppose (except always the sprinkling of old stagers), but expected to astonish his new antagonist by his prowess—for, among those who play only at home, the growth of "invincibilities" is exceedingly rapid. But this feverish combativeness—so my informant assures me — was cooled with singular effectiveness by the administrations of the really strong players, who were so liberal of "Fool's Mates," "Scholar's Mates," and other unseemly forms of checkmate, that they soon had the room entirely to themselves. How long this club lasted I have not been able to learn. The affair was probably a very agreeable one, so long as the strong players could enjoy the fine room at the expense of the weaker brethren, whom they had frightened away; but when they alone had to settle with the landlord, they may have thought better of it, and have concluded to do their playing at home, or at the Athenaeum; for that institution was beginning, about this time, or a little later, to cherish one feeble ray of that light of Chess, which has since grown to be an illumination, if not a luminary.
"On the other hand, I don't see why any man feels the need to object to these separate titles."
I'm sorry, but how can you not? It's unfair and sexist: women are getting things that men cannot, purely for their own benefit and to the disrespect of men. I have reflected how this is so in my numerous posts.
A woman deserves a title when she earns it; and she should have to do just as much to earn it as a man does.
This is how life works! You get what you earned! If you don't make it in chess, that means you either have insufficient talent or work ethic. There should be NO compensation for this! Why should it be easier for a girl to succeed? She shouldn't be rewarded for not making it to 2200 (their history of struggling has created these titles, so in effect this is exactly what has happened), she should consequently be denied for any kind of title, just as any man would, because she didn't show enough talent and didn't earn it.
If there, without female titles, are few female players, that's fine in my book: they didn't earn it, they don't get their recognition.
lol, and about encouragement: Absolutely females should be encouraged! But by giving them unfair sexist advantages...
Are you kidding me? For the love of god, just encourage them and leave it at that! It's just amazing that people are so radical and inconsiderate of any perspective other than their own, that they think it's ok to do sexist things that violate fundamental values just to achieve a goal! I don't think the ends always justify the means, no. There are certain things people shouldn't have to go through just because it's supposedly achieving a greater good. But the fact that we don't even know if taking out the titles will affect women makes it even worse.
In fact, what we could get are lazier female players because they're willing just to make it to 2000 and get their title that they can brag against some 2100 male.
If you're encouraging more female players with this method, you're encouraging the shallow ones who are actually tempted by totally sexist, unfair things that only think of themselves and arbitrarily support it, just because it benefits them.
Honestly, we could apply this gender inclusively quite easily: We could just give 1800s like me titles to encourage us that "We're doing a great job" and hopefully give us enough support to get to 2000. Unfortunately, life is crueler than that and if we did that for everything we'd be spoonfed for our whole lives. I, as a mere 1800, don't deserve any special attention whatsoever when it could be given to people so much better. In the same way, 2400 women shouldn't get more attention than 2500 men (but they seem to), because the 2500s have earned and achieved more. Apparently there isn't much respect for earning and achieving stuff, is there?
"Is this threatening to some men? "
No, not threatening; most accurately, disrespectful. You couldn't have been reading my posts with too much depth if you didn't get this out of them; in fact I directly state it numerous times.
May 9, 2011
0
#251
I am having trouble with this:
"This is how life works! You get what you earned! If you don't make it in chess, that means you either have insufficient talent or work ethic. There should be NO compensation for this! Why should it be easier for a girl to succeed? She shouldn't be rewarded for not making it to 2200 (their history of struggling has created these titles, so in effect this is exactly what has happened), she should consequently be denied for any kind of title, just as any man would, because she didn't show enough talent and didn't earn it."
then why do we have different qualtify time (seperatly for men and women)for the athleics in the Olympic ?
Because women have been agreed to be, incontrovertibly, inherently inferior to men on the purely physical level.
But chess is hardly physical.
May 9, 2011
0
#253
kco wrote:
I am having trouble with this:
"This is how life works! You get what you earned! If you don't make it in chess, that means you either have insufficient talent or work ethic. There should be NO compensation for this! Why should it be easier for a girl to succeed? She shouldn't be rewarded for not making it to 2200 (their history of struggling has created these titles, so in effect this is exactly what has happened), she should consequently be denied for any kind of title, just as any man would, because she didn't show enough talent and didn't earn it."
then why do we have different qualtify time (seperatly for men and women)for the athleics in the Olympic ?
There are many problems with the quoted passage, most especially that it is generally much more difficult for women tio succeed in domains considered men's activities. Even in elementary school, when girls participate in significant numbers at chess, there are social pressures to participate is less cerebral activities.
Ziryab wrote:
kco wrote:
I am having trouble with this:
"This is how life works! You get what you earned! If you don't make it in chess, that means you either have insufficient talent or work ethic. There should be NO compensation for this! Why should it be easier for a girl to succeed? She shouldn't be rewarded for not making it to 2200 (their history of struggling has created these titles, so in effect this is exactly what has happened), she should consequently be denied for any kind of title, just as any man would, because she didn't show enough talent and didn't earn it."
then why do we have different qualtify time (seperatly for men and women)for the athleics in the Olympic ?
There are many problems with the quoted passage, most especially that it is generally much more difficult for women tio succeed in domains considered men's activities. Even in elementary school, when girls participate in significant numbers at chess, there are social pressures to participate is less cerebral activities.
Even if this was shown to be indubitably true (which is not clear), so what? We all have to overcome obstacles. I covered this stuff much earlier. What about the men? Do they have room to complain when they don't achieve something? Not really, because they get no compensation for their (quite possibly valid) excuses.
You don't say: "I couldn't make it to 2000 because my mommy yelled at me when I played. Can I get the master title please?" Life is cruel sometimes: it doesn't take excuses, even if they're good ones. You simply can't change that in a fair way.
Fezzik wrote:
All evidence (see WGM Pogonina's post) suggests that women do indeed perform less well at chess than men do on average. So having separate titles does make sense.
But it depends on why they perform less well. If it's cause they don't feel like it, do you really think they should have it easier? My point is we don't know, so we shouldn't do anything until we know more.
May 9, 2011
0
#256
Elubas wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
kco wrote:
I am having trouble with this:
"This is how life works! You get what you earned! If you don't make it in chess, that means you either have insufficient talent or work ethic. There should be NO compensation for this! Why should it be easier for a girl to succeed? She shouldn't be rewarded for not making it to 2200 (their history of struggling has created these titles, so in effect this is exactly what has happened), she should consequently be denied for any kind of title, just as any man would, because she didn't show enough talent and didn't earn it."
then why do we have different qualtify time (seperatly for men and women)for the athleics in the Olympic ?
There are many problems with the quoted passage, most especially that it is generally much more difficult for women tio succeed in domains considered men's activities. Even in elementary school, when girls participate in significant numbers at chess, there are social pressures to participate is less cerebral activities.
Even if this was shown to be indubitably true (which is not clear), so what? We all have to overcome obstacles. I covered this stuff much earlier. What about the men? Do they have room to complain when they don't achieve something? Not really, because they get no compensation for their (quite possibly valid) excuses.
You don't say: "I couldn't make it to 2000 because my mommy yelled at me when I played. Can I get the master title please?" Life is cruel sometimes: it doesn't take excuses, even if they're good ones. You simply can't change that in a fair way.
If nothing else, this thread has rendered explicit the range of male excuses for underperformance in mental arenas.
Ziryab wrote:
Elubas wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
kco wrote:
I am having trouble with this:
"This is how life works! You get what you earned! If you don't make it in chess, that means you either have insufficient talent or work ethic. There should be NO compensation for this! Why should it be easier for a girl to succeed? She shouldn't be rewarded for not making it to 2200 (their history of struggling has created these titles, so in effect this is exactly what has happened), she should consequently be denied for any kind of title, just as any man would, because she didn't show enough talent and didn't earn it."
then why do we have different qualtify time (seperatly for men and women)for the athleics in the Olympic ?
There are many problems with the quoted passage, most especially that it is generally much more difficult for women tio succeed in domains considered men's activities. Even in elementary school, when girls participate in significant numbers at chess, there are social pressures to participate is less cerebral activities.
Even if this was shown to be indubitably true (which is not clear), so what? We all have to overcome obstacles. I covered this stuff much earlier. What about the men? Do they have room to complain when they don't achieve something? Not really, because they get no compensation for their (quite possibly valid) excuses.
You don't say: "I couldn't make it to 2000 because my mommy yelled at me when I played. Can I get the master title please?" Life is cruel sometimes: it doesn't take excuses, even if they're good ones. You simply can't change that in a fair way.
If nothing else, this thread has rendered explicit the range of male excuses for underperformance in mental arenas.
That's precisely my point! The amount of excuses anyone can come up with is endless, but that shouldn't change the reality of life. The one about people discouraging from playing is just another one of those. I understand it (although it could easily be overestimated: how do you know to what degree this happens? You are probably just assuming it's a huge issue), but just like any other excuse (and there are possibly millions, for either sex), you need to overcome it.
May 9, 2011
0
#259
Elubas wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Elubas wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
kco wrote:
I am having trouble with this:
"This is how life works! You get what you earned! If you don't make it in chess, that means you either have insufficient talent or work ethic. There should be NO compensation for this! Why should it be easier for a girl to succeed? She shouldn't be rewarded for not making it to 2200 (their history of struggling has created these titles, so in effect this is exactly what has happened), she should consequently be denied for any kind of title, just as any man would, because she didn't show enough talent and didn't earn it."
then why do we have different qualtify time (seperatly for men and women)for the athleics in the Olympic ?
There are many problems with the quoted passage, most especially that it is generally much more difficult for women tio succeed in domains considered men's activities. Even in elementary school, when girls participate in significant numbers at chess, there are social pressures to participate is less cerebral activities.
Even if this was shown to be indubitably true (which is not clear), so what? We all have to overcome obstacles. I covered this stuff much earlier. What about the men? Do they have room to complain when they don't achieve something? Not really, because they get no compensation for their (quite possibly valid) excuses.
You don't say: "I couldn't make it to 2000 because my mommy yelled at me when I played. Can I get the master title please?" Life is cruel sometimes: it doesn't take excuses, even if they're good ones. You simply can't change that in a fair way.
If nothing else, this thread has rendered explicit the range of male excuses for underperformance in mental arenas.
I understand it
I don't see evidence that you do.
Go Troll yourself in the [expletive deleted] Sea! you [expletive deleted] Mongoose Faced [expletive deleted]!
Me thinks you'll be gone soon.
http://support.chess.com/Tickets/Submit/RenderForm/20
I'll just leave this here lol
*whistles inconspicuously*