Why do women get different medals? WGM or simply GM?

If the shoe fits 

Okay, I posted one joke about gay bar wet t-shirt contest, and then I get sucked into funnel of great stupidity because I had comment tracking on. Hope not too many people are stupid as I am to read this thread. ADIEU.

To wafflemaster: I would argue that what you want to consider should light up like a christmas tree. When you evaluate the kind of person you are, you think about all the job ideas that reflect that -- maybe a logical person thus thinks about chess. He may not consider being a professional swimmer, but it doesn't concern him because he only cares to consider the things that he thinks are likely to be something he wants to do.

So my point as a response is that we (smartly) can use our self-knowledge to narrow down a huge amount of things to consider/try, making the amount not so huge eventually.

A girl who likes problem solving might think about playing a game like chess, and, after the experience playing a bit, weigh her options. I don't think this is so unrealistic. No guarantee of course that chess will pop into her head -- maybe it'll be science or something instead -- and the same for a man who likes logic and is thinking about hobbies and professions. Sure, if both men and women had to take chess as a class, we would probably create (slightly) more chess players -- I'm not sure why we need to add the gender segregation simultaneously. The girl's decision to try or not (and her assessment of whether she is "cut out for it" or not!) should be based on her own nature, something she herself knows best. 

In the above example, the girl considers herself logical; she considers chess, at least possibly, logical; she goes on to consider chess. Sure, the thought could escape her -- we're not perfect human beings -- but it's not so unrealistic, to me, to think that a woman is able to judge if and how to pursue chess, independent of others. If you know you like the kind of stuff chess entails, I find it hard to imagine that other girls around you, that are not into those things, telling you that you shouldn't be, would convince you at all, as if those girls know more about you than you do.

Should we all have to take a secretary class too to test if we have the talent? I can see the benefits you are mentioning, but I'm not sure why we need to therefore conclude that it is necessary.

The topic of women (and our relatively poor showing) in chess is very controversial.  I've always felt, and still do, that it comes down to pool size (which is the goal, right or wrong, behind things such as separate titles and tournaments).  I recently read this balanced article on women and math, which really doesn't get into reasoning, but more into trends that indicate past results aren't necessarily true indicators.  At any rate, it's an interesting read for anyone who claims to be unbiased.

There are certain things a large amount of people wouldn't be able to convince to me: if I were a foreign exchange student, and a "foreign" person claimed to me that I don't read books two hours a week or more, even though I do, because "Americans don't read books" or something like that, and the entire class agrees that I don't read for that long, it will not affect my opinion of whether or not I read books two hours a week because I know the answer.

Ok, cherry picked example, right? Well, basically, I think an understanding of your nature, your likes, dislikes, is just as strong as being aware of some kind of hard fact like how long you read -- it's that obvious, so clear that no one could convince you otherwise -- it's like telling me chocolate is not my favorite flavor of ice cream. Go ahead, gather a mob to tell me that; you won't convert me

fdar: As you admitted, it is very hard to tell if it's really true that boys are taught chess more than girls. For one thing, I would imagine chess is so widely known that even at a young age most people at least know what it is or have distinctly heard of it, and that it's a "brainy" game, even if they never actually tried it. It's not really that hard for a girl who feels this may be interesting to ask her parents herself to be taught. I will assume that the parents will not refuse to teach her! Who knows, maybe we're still in the dark ages

So even if it were true that the parents don't teach girls as often, it seems very easy for a girl, just based on an understanding of her own nature, to ask to be taught herself, or even teach herself for that matter -- look it up on google or something lol.

Ugh, I've been debating against a devil's advocate this whole time! lol

Well, if kindergartners with a rating under 2700 started making more money than the top 10 in the world from their tournament winnings, I would be a tad annoyed. I mean, I understand they are at a disadvantage, but I don't want them making as much as Carlsen

grow your own dope, plant a man.

I think women in general are too smart to get involved in large numbers in the time-wasting activity of chess.  ;-)

Some who get very interested can play well.

By giving them their own titles and tourneys, we are trying to encourage more interest in chess by women.  I do not know if it works, but it gives those who play a better chance to be champion, sort of like women's soccer or basketball.

how difficult could it have been to get chesskids operational ?

i don't believe you could study such a subject and still write like a little kid.

I don't think you're giving credit to how insidious this type of persuasion is.  You're thinking of cases where a person is told directly "you're no good."  These must be by far the easiest to oppose.  In fact it's my automatic reaction to disbelieve someone telling me directly I can't!  And in American culture anyway, the 1 against 100 sticking up for himself is romanticized as a hero.

It's infinitely most subtle.  Not only is it never (or rarely) said directly... if the girl's parents believe it's a man's game, she may never even learn the rules to begin with.  On TV, and in verbal anecdotes and passing comments and jokes (serious or not) if girls always play the role of irrational emotional being what kind of affect do you think that creates?  Similarly chess plays the role of logic and intelligence.  As we get into chess we realize rational thought is involved, but it's not the embodiment of intelligence society makes it out to be.  However without similar explorations a girl or her parents may not realize how similarly untrue the atmosphere surrounding girls dissociation with chess-like activities are.  And of course once they do that's only the first step.  Something as specific and unspoken as "you can't be a professional chess player" would come decades later after introspection and such.

They only earn what investors are willing to put in.  If investors are more interested in 2000 rated 8 year olds then that's just too bad for adults.  Female titles and tournaments themselves aren't responsible for the difference in earnings.

We still disagree on the extent social norms affect would be female chess players.

To get more to the point, maybe I could ask what's your explination for the ratio of male to female players before the implimentation of things like female titles and tournaments?

In response to post 238, to be honest I feel like my posts 225, and especially 228 regarding the parent thing, address it pretty well already.

"We still disagree on the extent social norms affect would be female chess players."

Yes, it seems that way.

"To get more to the point, maybe I could ask what's your explination for the ratio of male to female players before the implimentation of things like female titles and tournaments?"

Simply put, I don't know -- I'm not a genius. Just because I can't come up with a perfect explanation doesn't mean that your explanation must therefore be the correct one. Personally I do think that women just have less tendency to obsess over something like a board game -- they seem to be a bit more worldly. This could be a combination of biology and environment. Do either of us really have enough information to do anything other than make the guess that appears most intuitive to us?

I mean, there are always gender roles to some extent. It's certainly no coincidence that most women pay a lot of attention to their hair, nails, makeup, etc -- they are generally raised that way, and yet it seems like most women play along with that.

So, sure, some women don't play chess because they focus on things like fashion as the gender roles go, but it's not like they mind it. Do we mind it that we didn't get a chance to make up our faces like dolls? Probably not because we weren't raised that way. And yet we don't care that we were raised that way. I feel like (again, I can only go by intuition here) the women who don't play chess are happy with doing other things; even if this is because of gender role upbringing, couldn't it be argued that the point is moot? They are happy with how they live their life, just as I don't care that I never got a chance to be in a dress.

And the women that want to neglect their gender role, do, hopefully -- obviously they are way in the minority, but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with them. I would argue those women who do happen to obsess are essentially the same as the men who do, and thus shouldn't be treated differently. But again, just my silly guess.

As you can see, there are about a trillion explanations we can come up with, and we'll spew out whatever sounds intuitive (and it seems what is intuitive to me is not intuitive to you and vice versa). I will say I am still totally baffled at how the ratio is so unbelievably lopsided -- even with gender roles and everything, it still is so shocking how there could possibly be such a huge difference based on gender. I think it pretty much has to be a combination of lots of things, to somehow stack up this insane ratio. And yes wafflemaster, I think stereotypes are a part of it too.

I'm not saying you have to explain it to be correct. It's just gender roles seem to be a pretty easy go-to.  I was wondering if you had something else in mind.

men are stronger in reasoning and logic.this is what i saw in a documentary which discussed the deffrences between men and women and historical and genetical roots for that.also this has been proven to me based on my personal exprience.i m an electrical student and found few girls to understand lessons clearly.such logical mathematical serious activities dont suit them.this is true as unpleasant as it might be.

i used to compete in weekly competitions a few years ago.in kids category maybe there was a ratio 60% boys to 40% girls.so girls were attracted and taught but many of them simply stop playing soon since when they grow up they are attracted to other things suited to their nature.most of them are simply not attracted to a serious logical calculation type game.this returns to girls choice and ofcourse when they make such a choice the environment will be in favor of men soon.and dont forget this board game when it gets serious in professional level can be battle of nerves and you need to have a strong fighting character and dont panic in difficult positions and again i think men control these tense situations better.nowadays even in a country like iran there is no such things as chess is boys game or girls game and there are weekly races at schools(in special anniversaries),chess classes, parks and chess federation centers.and boys and girls compete against eachother not in separate categories.

now we dont even have one woman grandmaster with a 2700+ rating.we have just two of them with a 2600+ not mentioning chess history that indicates absolute domination of men.so let s look for reasons that can explain such overwhelming superiority better.not a single woman has won a super tournament in chess history.now we have many female professional chessplayers but they have never been able to compete men in top level.

only and only Polgar has managed to gain some respectful results in men tournaments.

Talking of gender roles, I guess the huge preponderance of male chefs has to do with the way girls are systematically excluded from the kitchen from babyhood on, and only boys learn that it's cool to cook.

I guess you're right.  Jeez, women don't seem to be fit for any kind of profession at all.  I guess it's best if they stay home and take care of the family because clearly they aren't fit for serious work of any kind.

Hmm, that sounds familiar, I wonder if anyone's ever come up with that before.

Yeah, you're reaching a little - I didn't say they weren't fit for any professions, I just said that perhaps blaming gender roles is a little inadequate. But hey, if you would rather argue with something I didn't say, I'll just assume you don't have much of an argument against what I did.