electricpawn wrote:
AnthonyCG wrote:
[GENERIC LOW-BROW COMMENT TO MAKE PEOPLE AGREE WITH ME]
Frenetic show cow who went to break feeble trees for free.
Slide over. I'll drive.
Why do we have woman categories?
Sort:
Deranged wrote:
Here's one for you:
Who would win: a male with an elo rating of 1800 or a female with an elo rating of 2000?
I think it would be pretty close...
Why would it be pretty close? Somebody rated 2000 ought to be able to beat somebody rated 1800, no matter what the gender.
Apr 29, 2011
0
#44
Lucidish_Lux wrote:
Perhaps these differences are intrinsic, and perhaps they're generated from societal conditions; it really doesn't matter, though it would be interesting to find out.
Good, thoughtful post. I would have liked to say much of what you did, except that my first impulse is to promote, embrace, and encourage women's titles.
I've clipped your post down to a few words to emphasize them: both intrinsic and socialized differences exist. I often think of distance running.
When I was young, there were articles in places like Sports Illustrated arguing that because women had better innate endurance, they might compete with men in longer distances. My high school had 22 boys under five-minutes in the mile, but few or no girls despite having a strong girls team. When they lack such speed, no amount of endurance is gonna help them run 26 miles at 5:10 per mile.
Things are a bit different in tennis, of course.
With the right social conditioning, women can whip men in math and engineering. In time, after a fundamental global social revolution, they might be better at chess, too. Lacking such revolutionary changes in social conditioning, women's titles encourage a handful of women to enrich the ranks of professional players.
woodshover wrote:
Deranged wrote:
Here's one for you:
Who would win: a male with an elo rating of 1800 or a female with an elo rating of 2000?
I think it would be pretty close...
Why would it be pretty close? Somebody rated 2000 ought to be able to beat somebody rated 1800, no matter what the gender.
I could see the premise if the rating pools were very different, e.g. the 2000 rating was derived from a women only pool.
I understand the titles were introduced from an organizational standpoint to help increase participation among an underrepresented group (females). That said, there's no way around the fact that having women's only titles implies women aren't as capable of chess players due to their gender.
There were already incentives in terms of titles for women to play, i.e. all the regular titles were available to all women from the beginning. Why isn't a regular FM, IM, or GM title incentive enough for women? They only answer would be because it's too hard for them to get a regular title. This is why female only titles are insulting.
And yes, I think females who play in women's only tournaments and who take and display their female only titles are insulting other women. As for Pogonina and others like her, I still respect their professional level chess ability, but as I said IMO there's no way around the fact that it's insulting to women.
Apr 29, 2011
0
#47
waffllemaster wrote:
I understand the titles were introduced from an organizational standpoint to help increase participation among an underrepresented group (females). That said, there's no way around the fact that having women's only titles implies women aren't as capable of chess players due to their gender.
There were already incentives in terms of titles for women to play, i.e. all the regular titles were available to all women from the beginning. Why isn't a regular FM, IM, or GM title incentive enough for women? They only answer would be because it's too hard for them to get a regular title. This is why female only titles are insulting.
And yes, I think females who play in women's only tournaments and who take and display their female only titles are insulting other women. As for Pogonina and others like her, I still respect their professional level chess ability, but as I said IMO there's no way around the fact that it's insulting to women.
There is one way around your fact: it's not a fact. It's an opinion. Moreover, it is an opinion grounded in shallow thinking, vacuous stereotypes, and faulty psychology.
Considering it's size, the United States produces very very few native professional level players. Even less than women do in terms of a group. But of course US only titles and tournaments would be insulting.
Not that I don't understand the difference. Women are an underrepresented group, and in the states talented young players often give up chess for different careers that are both more socially acceptable and lucrative. The point is that the organizational reasons (promoting chess to women who are underrepresented) does not negate the fact that it's insulting to the group as a whole.
Ziryab wrote:
waffllemaster wrote:
I understand the titles were introduced from an organizational standpoint to help increase participation among an underrepresented group (females). That said, there's no way around the fact that having women's only titles implies women aren't as capable of chess players due to their gender.
There were already incentives in terms of titles for women to play, i.e. all the regular titles were available to all women from the beginning. Why isn't a regular FM, IM, or GM title incentive enough for women? They only answer would be because it's too hard for them to get a regular title. This is why female only titles are insulting.
And yes, I think females who play in women's only tournaments and who take and display their female only titles are insulting other women. As for Pogonina and others like her, I still respect their professional level chess ability, but as I said IMO there's no way around the fact that it's insulting to women.
There is one way around your fact: it's not a fact. It's an opinion. Moreover, it is an opinion grounded in shallow thinking, vacuous stereotypes, and faulty psychology.
I honestly don't mind being wrong. Tell me specifically how I'm wrong. I've highlighted the portion that I was (trying to) use as the reasoning behind my statement.
Don't know if it's been mentioned, but one of the biggest points (for me) is the huge rating difference. If the titles were 100-200 points apart, then that's not as bad. But having a player rated just under 2000 be a FM is just stupid. I knew a female 1900 player who was a WFM... to me that seemed like a slap in the face. A rating under 2000 is an amateur player period. I don't care what kind of genitals you have.
I looked it up and I see now that the difference between WGM and GM is 200 points (in terms of performance rating for norms), so I understand my above post isn't entirely accurate.
waffllemaster wrote:
I understand the titles were introduced from an organizational standpoint to help increase participation among an underrepresented group (females). That said, there's no way around the fact that having women's only titles implies women aren't as capable of chess players due to their gender.
There were already incentives in terms of titles for women to play, i.e. all the regular titles were available to all women from the beginning. Why isn't a regular FM, IM, or GM title incentive enough for women? They only answer would be because it's too hard for them to get a regular title. This is why female only titles are insulting.
And yes, I think females who play in women's only tournaments and who take and display their female only titles are insulting other women. As for Pogonina and others like her, I still respect their professional level chess ability, but as I said IMO there's no way around the fact that it's insulting to women.
Sir, I agree.
goldendog wrote:
electricpawn wrote:
AnthonyCG wrote:
[GENERIC LOW-BROW COMMENT TO MAKE PEOPLE AGREE WITH ME]
Frenetic show cow who went to break feeble trees for free.
Slide over. I'll drive.
You have paws, but, um, OK.
chessguitar wrote:
If chess is a battle of the mind--why have separate titles for woman? I understand why we have men's basketball and woman's basketball because they simply can't compete with each other on a physical level. In chess, all those physical differences wouldn't seem to matter.
I appologize in advance if this has been posted before.
Ziryab wrote:
Some day some one will start a thread on this topic and I will be able to read it without finding that half or more of the posts are expressions of juvenile misogyny.
This topic is hardly knew and could be discussed by folks that read, as well as by those that pontificate their locker room psychology. Start with a 2009 Wall Street Journal article calling for abolishing women's titles, then read responses to the article by Alexandra Kosteniuk and Natalia Pogonina. WSJ offers some of the pop psychology found here, but it is presented with less misogyny. Even so, Kosteniuk and Pogonina lay bear the fallacious stereotypes perpetrated by the American newspaper.
Just because I read it doesn't mean I will agree with it. From Alexandra Kosteniuk under the "Women's Titles" heading:
"Women know very well that a WGM is less valuable than a GM, and so what? It's still a nice recognition for success achieved so far. If no WIM nor WGM titles existed at all, there would be many countries without any titled women players at all, I bet those countries would even not consider sending teams to the Olympiads, or sending their best representative to an international tournament, sponsors would be harder to come by, they would have many fewer opportunities for simuls, thank you dear Wall Street Journal reporter, you certainly want to help women's chess!
The WSJ reporter writes that FIDE "persists in the anachronistic and demeaning practice of awarding separate titles for women at lower levels of accomplishment." Nobody has ever said that WGM is the same as GM, everybody knows it's a different title and obviously it has different requirements.
On the contrary, all the encouragement is needed to:
1) Convince girls as well as boys that chess is a fun game worth trying
2) Encourage girls along the way with girls-only tournaments, prizes, trophies
3) Of course allow girls to play also in boys tournaments, which leads to faster progress since at the top levels boys may be rated higher and have more experience
4) Give titles to girls and allow them to play in any tournament they please so they can fight for any titles they can get
My goal, as the current women's world chess champion, and as a chess educator, is to get every girl on the planet interested in chess. And for that I need the same thing every educator has at his fingers - the power to encourage, the power to congratulate, and the power to offer all opportunities that chess has to offer, including titles, however small they are."
I honestly couldn't care less about what types of promotional duties Kosteniuk takes upon herself. What the hell is "women's chess" anyway. If it's really a different form of chess then don't let women into men's tournaments. Calling it "women's chess" is ludicrous. Her argument about the physical nature of chess belies her true intentions, which is women's titles as a means of promotion. Until you can demonstrate that women aren't as capable in terms of 200-300 rating points, then women's titles are an insult, I don't care how effective they are as promotional titles. And believe me when they instituted these tiles some 60 years ago the physical demands of chess was not a primary consideration.
Apr 29, 2011
0
#59
waffllemaster wrote:But of course US only titles and tournaments would be insulting.
National Master, and a whole plethora of USCF titles. If you play chess in Amerika, prepare to be insulted.
[GENERIC LOW-BROW COMMENT TO MAKE PEOPLE AGREE WITH ME]
Frenetic show cow who went to break feeble trees for free.