Why do women have their own niche carved out in the chess world?

They have their own grandmasters and their own World Championship. Why do we need WGMs? Can they not just become GMs? And why do we need a Women's World Championship? Can they not just go after the real World Championship?

Is the reason, quite frankly, that even the best of them are not strong enough to compete with the best men so they are given their own arena within which they can be competitive? Or is there something else to it that I'm missing?

That's what countless troll topics like to insinuate, or as in your case, explicitly state.

Female titles and tournaments are for the purpose of attracting more female players. Whether or not it's necessary, effective, or worth it is debatable.

I don't really know much of the topic (low-level chess player), but I would assume for a few reasons. This may piss a few people off, but the skill level variation cleverly disguised as a way to get more women involved and grow the game. I could be way off though, but this is the case in most sports.  (not women hating ) However Judit Polgar begs to differ

Participation is key to top end success. Take 100 kids, force them to play for a decade or two, and you'll probably have 100 average players.

Take 100 million kids, force them to play for a decade or two, and you'll very likely get some GMs, some IMs, a lot of masters, etc.

its because men are ugly, smelly, aggressive, egotistical and have the personal hygiene of a mountain goat.  Lady players by contrast are gorgeous, modest in victory and graceful in defeat normally.

I'm curious as to what creates the divide in the first place. I'm wondering, if women just started playing competativly against men their whole life wouldn't they be at the same level as men? I think the division between them makes it harder for women to succeed. I think they have the capacity to do so. I was reading about this one man, who had 3 daughters. And he did an experiment to prove that women could be just as good as men in chess. And one of them actually became like a 2700 player, and beat some of the best male players in the world. But I think this happened because he trained his daughters the same way a man would have been trained in chess. So I think women shouldn't have their own categories because it impedes their progress. 

Normal tournaments are open to everyone. Females can play with males all the time (and they do). There is no gender separation except to disallow males from participating in female events.

 Think about what this means. Using this standard we come up with the silly statement: most men are not at the same level as men heh.

No, playing against good players does not automatically make you a good player.

Finally somebody gets it.

a matter of time and numbers; more and more women playing, which was not true before; it's only a matter of time. the gap is narrowing; female champion of the world sooner or later. 

regarding personal hygiene: I prefer natural women. smart, independent, confident, no makeup or perfume. very sexy

It's to encourage participation, and so that women can compete directly against each other.   Women's ratings run lower overall, because of the wicked participation gap between men and women,  and having a women's section is one way of trying to decrease that gap and increase the opportunities for women who want to pursue high level chess.

Vladimir - you are thinking of the Polgar family,  and specifically Judit Polgar, who is indeed a world class GM.   Her accomplishments prove that women can play high level chess.   The participation gap explains why there are fewer Judit's then there are Magnus's.  How she trained and her father's philosophy is an interesting story,  but not the cause of her greatness.

For those who may not know the details,  men and women participate in chess at roughly a 16 to 1 ratio.   Seat a fifty board tournament filled with random chess players,  and it will be almost entirely men - there will be 2 or 3 women.  For every hundred woman chess players there are approximately 1600 men.

Suppose you were out to catch a world record fish.  Would you be more likely to find a such a fish in a pond with 1600 green fish, or a pond with 100 blue fish?  Combine the ponds - in that 1700 fish pond, are you more likely to catch a green fish or a blue fish?

We're just the same - of course there are more higher rated men than women - there are more men over all.  

@batgirl In open events in some nationd, females have to use the same toilets with the mountain goats 😎

Judit Polgar was a top 10 player, World Cup Quarterfinalist, and had wins against Korchnoi, Short, and even Kasparov! Also, since the times of Chiburdanidze, the Women World Champion tends to be a top 100 player. However, since there are less women, women-only titles and events are used as means to attract more women into chess. WGMs still fight a lot for the GM title, though.

Affirmative action only promotes underskilled people.

Judiths commentary at the recent world championship was sublime, she was clear and concise and focused on the position at hand and her patience in dealing with the Norwegian TV presenter noobs was very admirable.

i've seen my share of idiotic "women in chess" threads where ladies are considered inferior somehow, and, yeah, there are a lotta dumb posts.

that doesn't mean that bashing men is the antidote. 

Interesting. So you're saying it's something of a marketing effort. That is not an angle that I had considered.

Sounds legit.

So women can go after the regular WC title? Has a woman ever come close?

I assume then that theoretically a woman could be both the World Champion and Women's World Champion?

She was OK. I dunno about "sublime." Personally, I would've preferred someone like Chess24's GM Huschenbeth on the mic.