Why do women have their own niche carved out in the chess world?
Sort:
Dec 6, 2016
0
#83
tiredofjapan wrote:
Not sure if this has been brought up yet, but is there a possibility that because some countries demand strict separation of the sexes that if the two were combined at top international levels, there would be potential issues with men and women playing together without meeting modesty requirements? Not that it's right, but it could potentially be an issue of cultural clash.
With regard to women's titles being set lower, I think that's a natural result of segregation, not necessarily an indication of weakness. Men's chess ratings have been around longer, and had more time to inflate over time. Partly due to increasing strength, partly due simply to the fact that when the highest player gets beaten, the next guy will likely gain a higher rating than the previously best. On the other hand, with women sectioned off into their own championship tournament, the highest rated woman won't have an opportunity to gain that rating, and therefore with less time and fewer players, the ratings would naturally be lower than if the same woman players were playing more frequently against men.
This is the answer.
batgirl hat geschrieben:Good post, some comments
I'm talking about how women got from there to here. When comparing groups, as this thread want to do, the most important and most ignored ingredient is participation rate. Participation rate is interesting, no doubt. It can justify doing something to attract more women to the game, but it totally fails to explain why chess would need an all.female division.
After all, women are not the only demographic who is underrepresented. Chess has a low participation rate for Native American players too for some reason, yet noone would suggest yet another split division of chess just for Native Americans.
Or left-handed players.
Or players in a wheelchair. Because that does not make any sense to seperate them instead of including them. And the very same goes for women - seperating them instead of including just.makes.no.sense. Compare Soviet chess to any-other-nation chess in the 1950s. Women are still so woefully underrepresented that comparisons between genders in chess usually die coming out of the starting gate (except for the good ol' boys slapping each others' backs). If today, with a historic number of women playing competitively, comparisons are still impossibly skewed, imagine how much more so it had been and how hollow chess has been due to this absence of female players. Rewards for women champions, at least in the US, were tokens - a book, some perfume, a "beauty kit" and a trophy. At least one US Women's Championship tournament was scrapped/postponed because funds couldn't/wouldn't be made available. Women were actively encouraged to form their own clubs, either overtly excluded or less overtly discouraged from participating in those clubs inhabited with men. Ladies' Night was a common thing. Clubs are one of the most significant breeding grounds for successful tournament players and women were pretty much denied that avenue except in a token fashion. In spite of all that, a few ladies made it into the higher level, though, of course, not the highest. Things began to change in the 1970s (perhaps, ironically, in part because of Fischermania) and women have indeed excelled beyond what participation rates would indicate. Yes, past times disadvantaged women unfairly, and unjustly so. I'm all for gender equality, just not for something that smells of overcompensation or preferential treatment.
People here want to argue that women demean themselves or limit themselves by having their own titles and separate contests, but it was actually men who framed that construct. But, then again, women's tournaments, outside of possibly funneling some cash away from open contests, doesn't affect men in the least. Women titles do not affect men in the least. Yet it's men who make a big deal out of it all. Why is that?
Even a 1300 player can reach 1600-1700 with effort and hard training if he wants to. Which is what I would guess is about what's needed for a WCM title. It's ridiculous rewarding mediocrity with a title. And I'm saying that as a patzer myself who will never hold any title, not even one for mediocrity.
And the fact that such weak titles are being offered as a "motivation" for members of one gender but not members of the other gender is unequal, which in my eyes makes it sexist. Because the only determining factor whether a person of that playing strength can have a title or not is gender, not chess playing ability. It's like the definition of sexist.
If it was the other way around, we'd have hordes of equal rights activists protesting and yelling about it, but because men are getting the worse deal here we're supposed to ignore it and pretend nothing is amiss.
Well, I'm not doing that and never will.
Gender equality goes both ways, and anyone who wants to help women achieve equality but ignore it when men don't have equality isn't really fighting for equality but instead just for an agenda.
batgirl wrote:
I'm talking about how women got from there to here. When comparing groups, as this thread want to do, the most important and most ignored ingredient is participation rate. Compare Soviet chess to any-other-nation chess in the 1950s. Women are still so woefully underrepresented that comparisons between genders in chess usually die coming out of the starting gate (except for the good ol' boys slapping each others' backs). If today, with a historic number of women playing competitively, comparisons are still impossibly skewed, imagine how much more so it had been and how hollow chess has been due to this absence of female players. Rewards for women champions, at least in the US, were tokens - a book, some perfume, a "beauty kit" and a trophy. At least one US Women's Championship tournament was scrapped/postponed because funds couldn't/wouldn't be made available. Women were actively encouraged to form their own clubs, either overtly excluded or less overtly discouraged from participating in those clubs inhabited with men. Ladies' Night was a common thing. Clubs are one of the most significant breeding grounds for successful tournament players and women were pretty much denied that avenue except in a token fashion. In spite of all that, a few ladies made it into the higher level, though, of course, not the highest. Things began to change in the 1970s (perhaps, ironically, in part because of Fischermania) and women have indeed excelled beyond what participation rates would indicate.
People here want to argue that women demean themselves or limit themselves by having their own titles and separate contests, but it was actually men who framed that construct. But, then again, women's tournaments, outside of possibly funneling some cash away from open contests, doesn't affect men in the least. Women titles do not affect men in the least. Yet it's men who make a big deal out of it all. Why is that?
Thanks spanx, I think batgirl's is another winning argument. Women have their own niche because history. And this particular history was written primarily by men. Therefore, I would propose that the question of the post title would best be answered: "women have their own niche in chess because men created it for them rather than seek an inclusive answer to the question of what role women should have in the chess world."
Lets science explain this.
For example, women may have better verbal memory and social cognition, whereas men may have better motor and spatial skills, on average. Brain imaging studies have shown that women have a higher percentage of gray matter, the computational tissue of the brain, while men have a higher percentage of white matter, the connective cables of the brain. But few studies have shown that men's and women's brains areconnected differently.
Brain Basics
Prior to the early 1990s, all brains were presumed to be the same. However, using MRI technology that was introduced in the late 1980s, neurobiologists were able to demonstrate and track more than 100 biological differences between the male and female brain.
What has this advanced brain research taught us about how the human brain functions, and ultimately about how men and women make decisions and solve problems? One key point we’ve learned is that while the brain is divided into left and right hemispheres, most of us are dominant on one side or the other. Some of us are primarily left-brain thinkers, which makes us more analytical, sequential, logical, and detailed. Others show dominance of their right brain, which is described as more creative, nonlinear, intuitive, and holistic.
Can you guess which gender has been shown to have a left-brain orientation versus right? Researchers at Yale determined back in the nineties that men’s tendency is to primarily use the left side of their brain, while women generally shift back and forth, drawing on both the left and right sides. In practice, this means that men are more likely to have a fact- and logic-based leadership style, while women are more likely to see the big-picture, have stronger emotions, and rely on their intuition for decision-making.
Let’s take a closer look at how men’s and women’s different brain structures result in different leadership behaviors:
Communication. Each day, women speak up to 8,000 words and use as many as 10,000 gestures. Men use fewer daily words (up to 4,000) and gestures (up to 3,000).
Emotions. Women’s brains favor more emotional activity in the mid-brain region, while men show more rational activity in the top of the brain.
Task orientation. Men generally focus on one task and compartmentalize more brain activity, while women gravitate toward multitasking.
Attention to details. Women tend to absorb more information through their senses and store more of it in the brain for other uses than men do. Therefore, women generally have more interest in details and pay more attention to them than men do.
Stress. Men tend to deal with stress much more easily than women, as it’s harder for women to shut down their autostress response.
Logic vs. language. Men tend to have better logic skills than women, while women exhibit generally better language skills than men.
What’s important to note here is that both women and men have important skill areas in which they naturally excel. Relying primarily on the strength of just one gender as leaders can result in an imbalance of perspectives and ideas. On the other hand, when women and men work side by side on the leadership team and in the boardroom, this diversity of perspectives can lead to more innovative thinking. This better balance, in turn, can result in greater productivity, improved engagement, higher profits, and a sustainable competitive advantage.
In my next post, we’ll talk more specifically about how these gender-based brain differences play out in the leadership arena.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-shambaugh/different-brains-differen_b_9480952.html
Dec 6, 2016
0
#88
Its ironic, you have feminist's saying that woman should be equal to men, yet, they complain when something like playing together and forming one league in whatever sport saying it wouldn't be fair.
tiredofjapan hat geschrieben:
Thanks spanx, I think batgirl's is another winning argument. Women have their own niche because history. And this particular history was written primarily by men. Therefore, I would propose that the question of the post title would best be answered: "women have their own niche in chess because men created it for them rather than seek an inclusive answer to the question of what role women should have in the chess world."
So because things were done wrong in the past (like the patriarchy supressing womens rights) we need to have things unequal now ?
How do two wrongs make a right ?
Or is it because the individuals who seperated the womens division in chess way back were men that we can't change it anymore ? Does that even make sense ?
Unequal divisions do not make gender equality, they hinder it. Titles just for one gender do not help gender equality, they create an imbalance.
What is so hard to understand about that ?
Dec 6, 2016
0
#90
My remark to the topic, "It's only due to the fact that they brought you into it" .
Dec 6, 2016
0
#91
After all, women are not the only demographic who is underrepresented
But women are not a minority. We are a majority. Under-representation by a majority isn't a minor issue and might, in fact, be indicative of a problem. Do you want an WIM title?
There's no preferential treatment involved. Women don't gain something that men don't get or take anything away for men with women's titles or women's tournaments. Women's titles only really compare women to other women... how is that preferential? A women winning, or even participating in, a women's tournament doesn't affect any man. So I don't understand that reasoning. One might argue that such things hold women back, but not that they're a form of affirmative action or that they're discriminatory in nature. 500 years of exclusion probably can't be remedied in 30.
Oh yes, I can very well argue that, you may disagree but you most certainly don't get to tell me I can't do it.
And yes, prize money set aside being available for one gender only IS preferential. Chess is unlike other sports in that regard which have split divisions so there is a seperate pool for each gender (often disadvantaging women with the amount of prize money - I'm against that unequality too btw).
Chess instead usually has two seperate prize pools, one of which is available to both genders, and the other one only to women. Unequal.
The topic will be adressed sooner or later by FIDE, perhaps after some strong male players from poorer countries find a loophole in transgender laws and declare themselves female to take said prize pool without having to fear very strong competition like they would face in the open (mixed) division.
Oh what an outcry that would suddenly create!
But FIDE would not have anyone to blame but themselves...by having created an unequal system, they were setting themselves up for someone to exploit it sooner or later.
Graf- I wasn't arguing that segregation is right, only stating that the fact of the matter is that the structure as it currently stands is a historical accident, and not one created by women. I would take issue with one statement you make, that chess is unique in having split divisions by gender. Isn't it actually commonplace? Nearly every Olympic sport has a men's and women's competition in fact. I'm neutral to leaning towards chess taking steps to be gender integrated, my purpose in joining the thread was only to point out 1) that segregation in chess is not a situation that women created, but rather which grew up due to patriarchal structures (implication being that statements that women are inferior at chess and that they are the cause of the situation seem misguided) and, 2) that women's separate rating system which grants titles at lower ratings shouldn't necessarily be seen as due to a natural weakness, but rather as a result of the structure in which few women are playing chess and the best women are not playing the best men (the implication being that men's scores are being inflated at a faster rate than that of women).
Dec 6, 2016
0
#94
I, first the first time in 60 years, checked out my armpits.
i can assure you they are as fresh a a daisy, even if the hairs are a bit hard to prise apart.
DavidJSmith2 wrote:
batgirl wrote:
What piques my curiosity is why men are so interested in women's titles when those titles affect them not in the least.
There is at least an argument against women's tournaments since they *possibly* funnel money away from open tournaments.
When one studies the development, realizes the difficulties and appreciates the advancement of women in chess in general and in organized chess as well as the struggle in gaining participation and in reaping rewards, this entire thread takes on a mean-spirited aspect.
+10 batgirl.
As I;m sure you know, threads like this are either sincere and misguided (to be generous), or misogynist (to be less generous), or just insincere troll-bait. As others posted, the tournaments exist to encourage participation by an under-represented group, for the good of the game - about 50% of the population is a small percentage of the players. They also hold tournaments for kids, inner-city folks, only those under some rating, etc. for similar reasons.
LOL we got a white knight in here! (No pun intended.)
Don't you have a gender studies class you're late for?
batgirl wrote:
What piques my curiosity is why men are so interested in women's titles when those titles affect them not in the least.
The interest comes from how it looks. By FIDE granting grandmaster titles to women when they hit 2300 it looks like they are essentially saying:
"Look ladies, we don't have a ton of confidence in your ability to become actual grandmasters, so we're going to make it easier for you to get a GM title in the hope that you'll stick around and keep playing chess."
The implication here is that women, by and large, need to be coddled and patronized because they are weaker than their male counterparts.
Here's the thing: a WGM title is really an FM title. Why not award them an FM title, instead of a WGM title, which is a title with an asterisk next to it? An FM is still a very strong player and to reach that level is a huge accomplishment.
In any case, a WGM title--since it is essentially an FM title--is something any female player should be very proud of. And for those women who go on to get an actual GM title, all respect to them.
richie_and_oprah wrote:
ModestAndPolite wrote:
AnnaEA wrote:
Not exactly, Modest - it's a statistical average of the top players, not a one to one comparison. These are basically a form of population studies, looking at groups rather than individuals. The paper is really interesting read - check it out.
So is it saying that if equal numbers of men and women played, and neither group was favoured in any way, that the very strongest players would be women?
It is very convenient for such a conclusion that it is untestable.
You don't science very much, do ya?
And you don't write coherent English. Since when has "science" been a verb?
tiredofjapan hat geschrieben:
Graf- I wasn't arguing that segregation is right, only stating that the fact of the matter is that the structure as it currently stands is a historical accident, and not one created by women. I would take issue with one statement you make, that chess is unique in having split divisions by gender. Isn't it actually commonplace? Nearly every Olympic sport has a men's and women's competition in fact.
Yes, olympic sports do have a men's and women's division.
Chess, however, does not.
Chess has a division open to both genders and a division open to women only. There is no men-only division in chess.
It's something that often is being missed in public perception, because many reports often incorrectly talk about men's chess or men's division. However, while there are s tournaments where only men compete in the open division, this has to do with participation rates, not with women being disallowed there.
Judit Polgar was 13 years old when she decided to not participate in women-only events anymore and to my knowledge never played in the womens section again after that.
She peaked at #8 rank in the world and conclusively proved women can compete with men at the top level in chess and has a big collection of impressive wins against top male players and world champions.
She gained a huge fanbase not only for being the strongest female player, but also for her impressive playstyle and memorable games just like famous male players.
That could have been the start of true gender equality in chess, but somehow it wasn't. Instead, FIDE continued the unnecessary seperation of divisions despite their main division being open to both genders for decades now.
I always felt that was patronizing to women, as if they needed their own special needs section.
I am happy to see Hou Yifan has started playing in more open division tournaments and giving less priority to the women's world championship circus. Her chess has improved further from playing against more serious competition, so it's really win/win for her.
As a result, any female "World Champion" will have trouble being taken seriously as long as she does not beat Hou Yifan and the sham of the female-only division is even more obvious.
Men and women can be equally good at chess, but there are more men playing it. Feminists would see this as oppression and sexism, but in reality men are simply more likely to like chess. It is more attractive to a male mind, as men are, in general, more left-brained and logical. Deny this all you want, but it is true.
The creation of men's chess and women's chess is an attempt for feminists to say "look, we can play chess too! It's not just a men's game!" But all it does is pointlessly segregate men and women. So in other words, to avoid perceived sexism against women you have to split men and women up, i.e. be sexist. Oh, the irony.
Just let men and women play each other and everything will be fine. As long as it is entertaining chess I don't care what gender the players are.
alexm2310 wrote:
Does everyone need to be reminded that generalising about feminists is kinda dumb? No offence intended to anyone, but maybe pick your words more carefully
No offence taken, but I don't think that generalizing is dumb. In my experience, generalizing and prejudice just works most of the time, and I tried to pick my words carefully.
The only places equality (not feminism) is needed is in countries where women are treated as property (e.g. Arab countries), not in countries like the modern day UK where men and women have equal rights according to UK law. If a women wants to play chess and become a GM in England or the USA she can. There is no need to split men and women up in chess at all.
Not sure if this has been brought up yet, but is there a possibility that because some countries demand strict separation of the sexes that if the two were combined at top international levels, there would be potential issues with men and women playing together without meeting modesty requirements? Not that it's right, but it could potentially be an issue of cultural clash.
With regard to women's titles being set lower, I think that's a natural result of segregation, not necessarily an indication of weakness. Men's chess ratings have been around longer, and had more time to inflate over time. Partly due to increasing strength, partly due simply to the fact that when the highest player gets beaten, the next guy will likely gain a higher rating than the previously best. On the other hand, with women sectioned off into their own championship tournament, the highest rated woman won't have an opportunity to gain that rating, and therefore with less time and fewer players, the ratings would naturally be lower than if the same woman players were playing more frequently against men.