FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
billy, can you do me the favour and read Susan Polgar's article?
Susan polgar's goal WAS CHOSEN by her father when she was young. It wasn't something she chose for herself. I am not saying women CAN'T play, but they have different PRIORITIES. And personally, I think it is for good reason, in things dealing with LIVING a lot of women know about what is important then men. To a certain extent I am glad they don't follow men in every pursuit men take.
Susan has a different opinion on that, Billy. I think she knows better because she knows the story first-hand. So don't come up with stuff that other people have written about her and her sisters.
Of course, I do know lots of women - enough to know that I cannot make general statements like you do.
I think the arguments mainly has been about ability. That women don't play because they can't. But it is also about WANTING to play and the desire and interest to play.
It seems that men have a great need for accomplishments, and are constantly inventing new ways to excell at things. For instance, mountain-climbing, this was dangerous enough, but then for some people it wasn't enough, they decided to try freeclimbing, without any ropes.
Then there was sky diving, jumping out of perfectly safe aeroplanes, was a thing to do. But this wasn't enough, you now have to go to outerspace and then jump.
Men are continously inventing things that they can say,"Can you do this?"
It is a way of individuating themselves. Whether women want to get involved in these games is another question.
What is not clear in your post is if you think this difference in the number of men and wemen practicing challenging activities is due to a biological difference (as many seem to think, despite what logic and observation suggest), or because of social and historical reasons.
Personally, I know many intelligent men and wemen and many many more stupid men and wemen: no relation between the relative quantity of intelligent ones and gender.
it is also about WANTING to play and the desire and interest
If you don't want to do something, everything else is irrelevant.
Susan has a different opinion on that,
I always thought that their father kind of nudged them along to a certain path.
Please do not try to say that I'm saying that there was something malicious in there.
I do believe that their father INTRODUCED them to chess. That is, the sisters didn't at age 5 go out and buy a chess board and demand to be taught and learn chess and declare we want to be GMs.
There was some influence.
Libertarian paternalism is paternalism in the sense that “it tries to influence choices in a way that will make choosers better off, as judged by themselves"
So, what is supposed to be your answer?
Wanting to do it: is it because...?
The Polgars' father changed the perception of society around his daughters, and gave them a world where "normal" was playing Chess, where gratification was obtained through success in that particular activity: have you thought at how these most treasured nutrients of a child's developing personality are usually provided by our society?
We simply teach sons to compete in sports and daughters to compete in cuteness: that's the only difference.
Seriously I don't know what you are saying. I am talking about simple CHOICE. Men try to differentiate themselves from women; it is not only sexually but at a social, psychological, and every other level you can think of.
Men are constantly defining themselves. What does it mean to be a man? What qualities do you have to have to be a man? For some men they have to find these, for others it is given.
The following quote is according to the sociologist Cammile Paglia:
A woman simply is, but a man must become. Masculinity is risky and elusive. It is achieved by a revolt from woman, and is confirmed only by other men.
So women don't have that impetus to BE a woman, a man does. He must become otherwise he is undifferentiated. And tied up with becoming a man is so much of achievement and success.
first you answer without giving an answer,
then you say you don't understand what I'm speaking about but you indirectly give an answer, wich, since you quote a sociologist, I suppose is: "it's because of social reasons".
My point is that those things we call "wanting to do something", or "impetus" as you call it, are just due to how we learn to satisfy a neurochemical need we have, a biological mechanism which is equally present in males and females (long before puberty and sexual differentiations). The Polgar sisters, as well as all those countless women who acieve success in activities which should require the "will" or "impetus" wich are typically teached to (induced into) men for historical and social reasons, are just examples of how there's no material reason why women should be inferior in Chess.
Mind that it's a point related with the thread's topic, while I answered to your message just because it was "not clear in your post..." etc. (self quoting). I'm not attacking your opinion, but I asked for a clarification.
Some other posts, infact, are not worth answering, as they show evident misogyny, hopefully with trolling intentions.
Pedonemedio, thanks for your input.
ok you still don't make any sense, probably because English is not your first language.
So first I don't quote a sociologist for social reasons.. It is because she had something useful to say.
My point is that those things we call "wanting to do something", or "impetus" as you call it, are just due to how we learn to satisfy a neurochemical need we have, a biological mechanism which is equally present in males and females (long before puberty and sexual differentiations).
Ok I understand that part. So you are saying there is a biological need that needs to be satisfied, and this is present in both male and female almost from birth, and that boys and girls both want to satisfy this need.
The Polgar sisters, as well as all those countless women who acieve success in activities which should require the "will" or "impetus" wich are typically teached to (induced into) men for historical and social reasons, are just examples of how there's no material reason why women should be inferior in Chess.
I can't understand this part. 1. Women who achieve success ....
2. women's inferiority in chess....
Sorry I am still not clear about what you are saying, and I will not try to decode that either.
The best thing to do is try to clarify what I was saying that way you can know whether we are arguing about the same things.
Ok so the Question was Why is this Game So male Dominated?
My answer was. Because a lot of males play the game.
I then tried to find a reason why my so many males participate in such pursuits. And to me it seemed that this is the case in many other activities. For instance, chess, video games, wrestling, etc....
The answer I thought of was that it is becaue they try to differentiate themselves from women.
So I am not saying whether men are mentally better than women, that is why there are so many men in chess.
I am saying many men choose to play chess, and not so many women do so.
I do not find an exact cause.
Men are smarter than women. One has to only look at the world and see it. Biologically men are said to have bigger brains than women and the size of the brain equates to intelligence so that may be the most basic and empirical explanation.
That is plain stupid.
By that logic, the great whales are the most intelligent animals because they have the biggest brains. And we all know that isn't true since Douglas Adams informed us that it is actually white mice who take the prize.(somewhere in the Hitchhikers Guide series)
It's not necessarily stupid, just simplistic. In general I think there is correlation, but there are lots of other things that go into it, so you can't settle the matter just on size. Not to mention that intelligence is very broad and hard to define.
it requires brains not beauty