I don’t really see the point of such post: I cited a single sentence from one of her books, and whether she’s been debunked elsewhere or even extensively doesn’t delegitimize that singular quote or my larger point. Your post is just an ad hominem.
Women in chess?
Sort:
I agree with StazzMatzz on this one.
It’s a board game, just play and have fun! We dont need to start gender wars
It’s a board game, just play and have fun! We dont need to start gender wars
Feb 13, 2021
0
#45
I think that chess is a male dominated game because girls are interested in other things, due to their environment.
I'm actually trying my best to inspire more girls and women to play chess, so I wrote two chess books on Amazon.com. More info here: www.ChessByLauren.com.
The reason why I didn't quit chess is because I just loved winning.
BlindThief wrote:
I don’t really see the point of such post: I cited a single sentence from one of her books, and whether she’s been debunked elsewhere or even extensively doesn’t delegitimize that singular quote or my larger point. Your post is just an ad hominem.
I didn't make ad-hominum. ur post however has no evidence or any sort of basis for ur argument. "women are too smart to waste their time" what a load of nonsense.
U can't provide evidence for ur claims then turn around and say im using ad-hominum. lol
GoldaA1 wrote:
I agree with StazzMatzz on this one.
It’s a board game, just play and have fun! We dont need to start gender wars
It’s a board game, just play and have fun! We dont need to start gender wars
i mean its people like u that are always crying that women are smarter or just as good, not others.
BlindThief wrote:
Because, generally speaking, women are too smart to waste their time on a silly board game.
Because watching reality TV shows and daytime talkshows is such a better hobby to have.
Or posing for 800 Facebook selfies, or window shopping for shoes on the internet.
etc etc etc
BlindThief wrote:
Because, generally speaking, women are too smart to waste their time on a silly board game.
To provide a more nuanced answer, Simone De Beauvoir wrote that a woman is not born but created. Virginia Woolf wrote that to be an essayist, a woman needs money and a room of her own. Taken in conjunction, I wonder if social pressures placed on women but not men (higher likelihood of being victimized by domestic violence, motherhood, childcare, household expectations and cleaning, less income, etc.) don’t tax women in such a way that prevents them from reaching the upper echelon.
And to put a point on Woolf’s essay, chess requires a lot of study and mental exercise to be a master, let alone a grandmaster; if a woman has to work a forty hour job, clean the house, make dinner, put the kids to bed, do laundry, and maybe even deal with an abusive partner, she really doesn’t have the time or mental bandwidth to study the game. Meanwhile, grandmasters like Tal and Fischer could focus exclusively on chess while being too inept to open a bank account.
And Camille Paglia wrote that if civilization had been left in female hands, we'd still be living in mud huts.
laurengoodkindchess wrote:
I think that chess is a male dominated game because girls are interested in other things, due to their environment.
I'm actually trying my best to inspire more girls and women to play chess, so I wrote two chess books on Amazon.com. More info here: www.ChessByLauren.com.
The reason why I didn't quit chess is because I just loved winning.
Then shouldn't you have quit? 
Was just a joke 
brianchesscake wrote:
Lets face it- to be good at chess you need to be intelligent enough to understand the strategic complexity of the game, and males naturally gravitate to that as a result of superior neurology as well as higher competitive drive which comes from testosterone
Wow - give that man ( I presume from his misplaced belief in his "superior neurology" he is male although I offer my apologies if I have inappropriately made that presumption) a gold cup in misogyny. I feel sorry for him - he has major deficiencies in his understanding of the English Language let alone anything related to cogitation. Could I clarify - neurology is a branch of medicine dealing with the anatomy, functions and organic disorders of nerves and the nervous system. Not sure how a "superior neurology" would equip one for chess. You could be an exceptional neurologist and a poor chess player and vice versa.
Sorry for being pedantic, but using incorrect language in an attempt to impress your reader with a "superior" intellect only embarrasses you for your foolishness
For people who say that girls and boys have the same starting line in chess, I don’t believe that.
I taught my nine year old cousin (girl) how to play. When I asked her why she’s the only person in her family who doesn’t know how to play, she said ‘because I’m a girl’ (she has a few younger brothers) she is only nine years old yet was already taught that chess is a game for boys! She’s an incredible player and has come so far after just 4 hours of lessons.
I’m not saying this is proof that sexism exists in the chess world, but if you need proof, listen the Polgar sisters about sexism in chess.
I taught my nine year old cousin (girl) how to play. When I asked her why she’s the only person in her family who doesn’t know how to play, she said ‘because I’m a girl’ (she has a few younger brothers) she is only nine years old yet was already taught that chess is a game for boys! She’s an incredible player and has come so far after just 4 hours of lessons.
I’m not saying this is proof that sexism exists in the chess world, but if you need proof, listen the Polgar sisters about sexism in chess.
GoldaA1 wrote:
For people who say that girls and boys have the same starting line in chess, I don’t believe that.
I taught my nine year old cousin (girl) how to play. When I asked her why she’s the only person in her family who doesn’t know how to play, she said ‘because I’m a girl’ (she has a few younger brothers) she is only nine years old yet was already taught that chess is a game for boys! She’s an incredible player and has come so far after just 4 hours of lessons.
I’m not saying this is proof that sexism exists in the chess world, but if you need proof, listen the Polgar sisters about sexism in chess.
I taught my nine year old cousin (girl) how to play. When I asked her why she’s the only person in her family who doesn’t know how to play, she said ‘because I’m a girl’ (she has a few younger brothers) she is only nine years old yet was already taught that chess is a game for boys! She’s an incredible player and has come so far after just 4 hours of lessons.
I’m not saying this is proof that sexism exists in the chess world, but if you need proof, listen the Polgar sisters about sexism in chess.
That is very sad sexism shouldn't exist at all.
Also, when people refer to their opponent in a game, they usually say ‘he’, instead of ‘they’ or ‘she/he’.
The same happens in most chess courses. It’s like these coaches forget the women exist. Most people don’t use basic inclusive language while talking about chess. It’s sad.
A lot of subtle hints along the way to women saying ‘you’re not welcome here’.
The same happens in most chess courses. It’s like these coaches forget the women exist. Most people don’t use basic inclusive language while talking about chess. It’s sad.
A lot of subtle hints along the way to women saying ‘you’re not welcome here’.
Feb 14, 2021
0
#55
The linguistic structure of English, which has no neutral singular pronoun for people ('It" being considered demeaning), while is does have the plural "they", uses "he" as the default neutral pronoun -- based upon context. Are you asserting that this structure is intentionally sexist?
BTW, "they", in common usage, is becoming the default for a singular pronoun.
Yes I am saying it’s sexist. Saying ‘they’ is so easy. Just imagine if it was the other way around- men would feel excluded, as they should.
And yes I agree ‘they’ is being used more and more, instead of the default male pronouns.
And yes I agree ‘they’ is being used more and more, instead of the default male pronouns.
Feb 15, 2021
0
#57
If your assertion, which you have confirmed, is that the English language is intentionally sexist, please tell how and when the intentional sexism was introduced. In proto-English? Old English? Middle English? Modern English?
If third person personal pronouns use the masculine singular as the default when the antecedent is any noun denoting a social category under which both sexes fall, and you conclude that this construction is intentionally sexist, then how do you address the same mechanism for the neuter singular ("it" in Modern English) in Old and Middle English? Are you asserting that something like a rock experienced intentional sexism in those linguistic periods?
It appears that you are confounding the linguistic structure and history of English with contemporary social issues and that your solution to the problem, if there is one, is English grammatical change by fiat. That is not the way language works.
Feb 15, 2021
0
#58
SagebrushSea wrote:
If your assertion, which you have confirmed, is that the English language is intentionally sexist, please tell how and when the intentional sexism was introduced. In proto-English? Old English? Middle English? Modern English?
If third person personal pronouns use the masculine singular as the default when the antecedent is any noun denoting a social category under which both sexes fall, and you conclude that this construction is intentionally sexist, then how do you address the same mechanism for the neuter singular ("it" in Modern English) in Old and Middle English? Are you asserting that something like a rock experienced intentional sexism in those linguistic periods?
It appears that you are confounding the linguistic structure and history of English with contemporary social issues and that your solution to the problem, if there is one, is English grammatical change by fiat. That is not the way language works.
Bruh your use of fancy words is not making your argument any stronger - there is well documented and robust argumentation already existing within feminist/queer theory literature regarding the origins of sexist colloquialisms and trends within English, which can most simply be put down to the historical power imbalance in literature, in which until recently men were the dominant authors of most reading material, and thus were able to introduce (maliciously or otherwise, don't strawman me on this point as I am not asserting either as completely true) "he" pronouns as the de facto gender neutral English pronoun - which we are now able to look into and analyze.
Furthermore, I don't think it does this discourse any justice to focus the conversation on the topic of grammatical trends - I think this is distracting from the more relevant topic which is what do we do now.
Feb 15, 2021
0
#59
I think women are capable of being as good at chess as men. But I think it doesn't interest them as much
Feb 15, 2021
0
#60
The proper English gender-neutral third person singular pronoun is "one". As in "should one wish, one can do whatever". This was used more in writing than speech and seems to the modern American ear to be hopelessly Oxford-Cambridge insufferably "proper" usage. The fallback pronoun for a couple of centuries has been he, his, him--to conform to the use of "man" to mean an unspecified human being. More recently "they" or "he/she" have come into regular usage, although he/she seems awkward and is rare in everyday speech, so "he" continues to be widely employed. Just because someone uses "he" in a casual chess.com post it doesn't mean they are sexist, just that they learned English that way. Castigating them in public for this failing is as boorish as their using "he" deliberately to insult someone. Use a gender-neural yourself, and as more people do so that will eventually become the norm.
Simone De Beauvoir wrote a lot of ridiculous books, her theories on gender and sex have been debunked so many times