Yeah, just realized you both probably meant modern wars from the beginning. I don't know enough to comment on that... except to say I'm sure it doesn't boil down to gender tendencies lol.
So you'd say more to the point is some kind of willing ignorance / anti-intellectualism?
I always have wondered why Americans derogatorily referred to Germans as "Huns" during WWI but changed to "Krauts" during WWII.
Yes, there's that us vs nameless faceless them thing. They're the bad guys, they're sub-human. They embody everything we hate and despise all the values we hold dear blah blah blah. Yeah that stuff's pretty annoying.
I'm more curious to learn what the "Huns" and the "Krauts" called Americans and the British.
maybe the man can hear himself think
>:)
he'll totally agree with himself.
On the one hand, yes; on the other hand no.
I believe pre WW2 the USA prepared some war game scenarios and concluded that a Pacific battle v the Japs would be a better option to the Atlantic v the Brits. Anyway their hand was forced rather with Pearl harbour. I suspect whichever side the USA picked would have turned out winners. Maybe the USA could have taken on both.
And wgm titles who knows.
>:)
wars were too often only won by losers.
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.
Best post in the whole thread.
great one-upmanship
It has been rumored that toddlers (1 yr. old to 3 yrs. old) since they are weaker than both Men and Women, will have the title TGM (Toddler Grand Master) once they reach a certain rating. Many IMs,GMs, and IGMs are threatening to boycott participation in events if this comes to pass.
AM = alien master. We can't discriminate against Klingons who play chess. Kirsan ought to support this title with his intergalactic experience.
The notion that a woman has less intellectual or logical capacity than a male in completely ridiculous. The idea that a woman needs to be a WGM as opposed to a GM (or any other differentiation based on sex) is ludicrous.
I am not certain on why the distinction exists, but I get the impression that a woman is not elligible for the title of GM. There is no reason to do this. If no women are able to win the title (and I am certain there a numerous women capable of it) then they simply would not win it.
I get the impression that a woman is not elligible for the title of GM.
Incorrect. GM is achievable by both sexes e.g. GM Judit Polgar.
I get the impression that a woman is not elligible for the title of GM.
Incorrect. GM is achievable by both sexes e.g. GM Judit Polgar.
Don't forget Susan Polgar, Pia Cramling, Nona Gaprindashvili, Maia Chiburdanidze, Antoaneta Stefanova, Alexandra Kosteniuk, Humpy Koneru, Zhaoqin Peng, Xie Jun and Zhu Chen.
Mighty short list.
p.s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_chess_players
28 female GM's in total.
Not such a short list.
The notion that a woman has less intellectual or logical capacity than a male in completely ridiculous. The idea that a woman needs to be a WGM as opposed to a GM (or any other differentiation based on sex) is ludicrous.
1) True up to a point, but there is suggestive evidence that at the very top end of human achievement in fields such as chess, mathematics, science and so on, men do predominate. (Notwithstanding any number of women who could kick my @ss in any of those fields.)
2) As with tennis, for instance, there is a women-only field without which tolerably few women would ever win a penny in prize money. It's not a question of excluding women from men's events - quite the reverse.
For both of your examples you're talking about a relatively short history of crossover (at least on a large scale). Women were not welcome to pursue mathematics, science, and other similar fields for the majority of human history (with a few exceptions of course) so it stands to reason that most of the examples we see are going to be men. Similarly, there are a larger number of women playing tennis, and so it again stands to reason that the level of competition would lead to more skilled female palyers than male.
I am glad to hear that it is not a case of GM and GM-ette. That was just my understanding of the divison. Seems to me there should just be the one title at this point.
Thanks for the info.
The nature of political correctness is to allow bigotry and seperation whenever the beneficiary is a "minority" or female. The only time walls are broken down, historically, are when the beneficiary is of the straight/white/male etc groups. For example, try to form up a SWM society of engineers on any college campus and see what happens?! But the society of black engineers is tolerated. I do not have a horse in that race, its just one example of such things.
Same for chess (so long as women benefit from it, the gender gap will be tolerated by the PC police) .... until more women play, we will not find (and I think they exist) the few talented women who can hit 2750+ ratings and take the title of world's best. The woman who could do that never developed interest in the game, they went off to play tennis instead or something. Because so few even play the game, without women's titles, there would be few who earned any sort of reward. Its just a numbers game... if 95% of the players are male, the odds of finding the exceptionally talented player is in favor of a male.....
All that to say... we need to introduce more women to the game, and until we can do that, the women's titles need to stay. Philosophically, I would do away with them, as I feel the best women and best men could be equal players and should compete for the same titles. But realistically, without more women players, we are not going to find enough exceptional ones to go there. I think GM Polgar has done a lot to gain some attention to strong female players, but thinking about the subject, she is the only female GM I can name off the top of my head, vs nearly 20 men...
Oh, money? I guess that's like resources, but I guess I meant for the society and you mean for 1 or a few individuals. I'm thinking more primitive society (but maybe then too?)
Maybe only a few individuals actually get their hands on the money, but all of society is responsible for buying into the big con.
Sure, wars between primitive folk were about consumables and land.