the best economic theorists or at least the most well known?? men
the best or well knows philosophs ?? men
the best prophets?? men
shakespear??? oh he what a suprise he was man???
mozart?? man
beethoven?? man
salvador dali? picasso??? monet?? all where man
what a load of bs.
what of the things i posted is not true?
you just can't be bother to look up the greatest women.
who are they, list them
what a load of bs.
what of the things i posted is not true?
1. It's all subjective, what makes them the best over anyone else? Because they are popular and the only ones you know about?
2. You're talking about a time in history when women were not only not allowed to be educated like their male counterparts but in many cases punished for trying to.
what a load of bs.
what of the things i posted is not true?
1. It's all subjective, what makes them the best over anyone else? Because they are popular and the only ones you know about?
2. You're talking about a time in history when women were not only not allowed to be educated like their male counterparts but in many cases punished for trying to.
ok you are absolutly right. Women are absolutly equal.
Here's an interesting idea...
Most really attractive women tell me it's my confidence that attracts them to me the most. And I believe it. See, for whatever reasons, I'm a confident man. 
Now, suppose one day, she beats me at chess.
What happens to the confidence over the chess board? (Still unshaken, but we're talking most men here).
But if she lets me win?...still confident and more attractive.
Do you see it yet?
Fellas, could it be some of the women (even subsconsciously) let us win because it's better for her that way?
Maybe. Maybe not.
Either way though, you almost have to admit, it's an interesting idea, don't you?
Here's an interesting idea...
Most really attractive women tell me it's my confidence that attracts them to me the most. And I believe it. See, for whatever reasons, I'm a confident man.
Now, suppose one day, she beats me at chess.
What happens to the confidence over the chess board? (Still unshaken, but we're talking most men here).
But if she lets me win?...still confident and more attractive.
Do you see it yet?
Fellas, could it be some of the women (even subsconsciously) let us win because it's better for her that way?
Maybe. Maybe not.
Either way though, you almost have to admit, it's an interesting idea, don't you?
I have in fact seen women purposely let men win, though not because they wanted to protect their confidence, but because they knew they would feel bad for losing "to a girl" and didn't want to embarrass them/felt empathy. :P
Beyonce is not a man, neither is Rihanna and they top their professions.
no they are not, they are not even close to what mikael jackson was
and insane
Once a friend of mine with a FIDE rating of 2010 was beaten (crushed) by a woman in a tournament. That sad day my friend left chess forever...
It is male dominated because the Women don't have the time, you know like um? dishers to do, washing to fold, making a cup of tea for the man of the house who is too busy to help because he is playing chess
Obviously this is a goofy post. But another side thought is to be a really successful man in chess (or about anything) I imagine it's a great help to have a wife supporting them. So the other side of the coin is maybe men on average are less supportive. How many boys answer "what do you want to be when you grow up?" with "I want to support my spouse and help them be the best person they can be."
Maybe, but it's a lot of speculation.
. . .
But what's important to me is to judge a person on their essential characteristic. So if an "essential characteristic" of chess is having a rational brain, I am not going to assess a person on whether they are male or female, but whether that male or female has that essential characteristic.
Sure, it's just a thought (even if it's very old).
I don't know about you, but I don't feel like I'm using much rational thought during a game. Just some calculation and referencing patterns / experience. Rationality may help get more out of deliberate practice though.
I use tons of rational thought. I know what you mean in terms of pattern recognition and calculations, but at the same time it's still often thought and logic that is guiding me to choose certain moves. If I for example consider a knight that is only protected by one pawn, and I'm looking for ways to get that pawn to move or disappear to make the knight unprotected, I think there is a lot deduction going on there. And positional play is, I would have thought, pretty heavily grounded in logic. It's true that patterns guide you to good plans, but you can also usually rationalize the purpose of them.
I would hope chess would be more than just recalling patterns -- then it would be a little depressing to me 
. Well, bullet and blitz are sort of like that, and they are fun, but if long chess didn't exist I would find it hard to just live off of fast chess if you will.
I have in fact seen women purposely let men win, though not because they wanted to protect their confidence, but because they knew they would feel bad for losing "to a girl" and didn't want to embarrass them/felt empathy. :P
Ironically, I would try to avoid letting people win (maybe little kids would be an exception, or maybe not) because of its own sort of disrespect. To me, when you let someone win and say (even if just to yourself) you want to protect their feelings from being hurt, it sort of pre-supposes that you are in a strong/superior enough position to be able to do such a thing to them in the first place, putting yourself above them. And it also sort of makes a mockery of the competition -- that you're not really playing as yourself, as if they are not good enough for that; as if they are not good enough to be able to face reality.
Sometimes I am offended not because of the content of something itself, but because of the belief from the person holding the information (that they are not disclosing) that my ego can't handle it -- because simply the state of believing that carries implications of its own. Other times I just shake off that belief of theirs, just letting them have it, and concentrating on the truth.
For the heck of it, here's a few lists of female pioneers in math and the sciences.
http://www.mphpa.org/classic/HICC/HICC_HF2.htm
http://www.women.cs.cmu.edu/ada/Resources/Women/
http://www.eiu.edu/~wism/about_biographies.php
http://www.agnesscott.edu/lriddle/women/chronol.htm
http://www.ams.org/samplings/math-history/hmath2-green.pdf
http://math-blog.com/2008/09/28/10-remarkable-female-mathematicians/
The term "men" here actually seems to be pretty vague. Some portion of men could be better than some portion of women, and some portion of men could be worse than some portion of women. In fact if you take it literally, I think the statement "Men are better than women at chess" implies that it is a necessity that every man must be better than every woman at chess, because any time a woman is better than a man it would contradict the statement.
Or even if you add "Generally, men play better chess than women" -- its meaning might not be as obvious as it seems. In fact I'm not sure of it myself. Does it suggest that if, say, a male and female were randomly selected to play against each other, that the probability of a male being the winner would be higher?
The term "men" here actually seems to be pretty vague. Some portion of men could be better than some portion of women, and some portion of men could be worse than some portion of women. In fact if you take it literally, I think the statement "Men are better than women at chess" implies that it is a necessity that every man must be better than every woman at chess, because any time a woman is better than a man it would contradict the statement.
I was thinking something similar.
Something strikes me as I read through some of the comments that state either outright or insinuate that "men" are smarter then, more inherently capable than, or better suited than women in particular fields of endeavor.
While I'm perfectly able to accept that in every thing I do, there are individuals, even hordes, who are better than me, I take offense at the implication that I'm somehow genetically limited due to my race, my heritage, my gender, my nationality or any other major group I may be lumped into. If we just look at chess, while it's true that no woman had become world champion and that the overwhelming majority of the very best players are male, it's also true that a good number of women will beat the vast majority of men most of the time. So, what we can say, from the way I interpret things, is that most of the people here claiming that "men" are superior to "women" in chess (or any other specific field) are, in fact, inferior males - i.e. not a member of that elite group of dominant men and inferior not just to them but even to the dominant women. So, my conclusion leans toward the idea that these inferior men embrace the idea of a superior gender in order to validate themselves and their own inadequacies. This isn't meant to be insulting since I see myself as an inferior female in almost every endeavor, but as an observation and an attempt to understand.
you really needed 38 minutes to find that out???
You really needed 1 minute to ignore everything I wrote to say that?