In the 30's, women were actresses, or secretaries, the 40's they were in the factories making airplanes. The 50's was June Cleaver, the 60's; well we lost a lot of people to drugs, male and female. The 70's gave them college, and the 80's + 90's gave us a lot of good doctors, lawyers, scientist, even Astronauts. I think the gender population changed in the last 50 yrs. There may have been more men on the planet in the 40's.
Women's Lib? or The Times They Are a-Changin'
Sort:
You mean she's got balls; Yeah! give me my proclivities back.
please_let_me_win wrote:
Having events specifically for women ensures that females can hope to have some sort of chess career and have some income from playing chess.
I hope to have a chess career that is started by another lover of pools and speedos. That way, I'm ensured of making a living.
trysts wrote:
The times are changing! That article just shows how as recently as 42 years ago, women themselves in the U.S. had such a different opinion on women in general. I don't know if men are even capable of understanding being born into a world so predominately controlled by one gender which is not their own? Having a history of a world where their own gender makes rare appearances? Where they are "the second sex"?
Not really, no. But given current trends, its entirely possible the next 10,000 years the shoe will be on the other foot.
please_let_me_win wrote:
It's fine that women have their own separate events in many sports. In physical sports such as tennis and soccer this makes sense. But for a mental game like chess it does not make much sense. However I can understand why women would still want to have "women only" tournaments and championships. If the top female chess players competed against the best men, chances are they would not be winning much or making much money. Having events specifically for women ensures that females can hope to have some sort of chess career and have some income from playing chess.
That's why I admire Judit Polgar. She realized that women's only events in a mental game like chess were inappropriate, and she had the courage to play the best men. No other woman can claim to have sat across from the board from Kasparov, Anand, Kramnik, Karpov, Ivanchuk, and Topalov.
Actually, new research says that competing against guys is (one of?) the main reasons that puts girls off from playing chess.
http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/17/1/79
I have analyzed the gender distribution of Fide players as a function of age. When I presented my finding that some 30 - 40 years ago a fundamental change begun and women participation rose from 5 % to 25 % during this period, a poster with an attractive looking young woman avatar told me that I was an idiot ( which is by the way true, however the trend in the graph is real ).
I think looking at two, seemingly unrelated stories across the centuries may be illustrative. First, there is the classic story of the "Vera Menchik club". In the 1929 Carlsbad chess tournament, Albert Becker made fun of Vera entering what was a strong male tournament, and joked that anyone who was defeated by this woman would automatically be joined to the Vera Menchik club. Eventually, this club included many of the world's strongest players, including Euwe, Colle, Reshevsky, and Samisch. The first member was ironically Becker himself.
In the 2012 and 2013 NFL Dolphins, Richie Incognito and, to a lesser extent several other players, repeatedly denigrated Jonathan Martin (and one other player, along with a junior trainer). These aggressive verbal taunts grew in severity over these two seasons, attacking anything from his love of reading books to his race and sexuality. He was progressively undermined to the point where Martin had to leave the NFL and his claims and the subsequent investigation exposed a culture of bullying endemic to the locker rooms of the NFL.
What do these stories have to do with the topic?
Men often resort to denigration and belittlement in competitive situations. This is a problem of the alpha drive and subsequent territory struggle which is much more a male issue than a female one. And this touches on a sensitive topic: sexual dimorphism is very real.
However, many guys like to pat themselves on the back and say, hey, sexual dimorphism is real and guys really are smarter than women and women really do make better sammiches and hey, could you also rub my feet, they're a little sore. Researchers are finding that this isn't quite true. Instead, modern research is showing that really the dimorphism in nature is:
- Guys tend to have a greater ratio of neocortex to lymbic system. Girls tend to have a greater ratio of lymbic system to neocortex.
- For girls, this means that sensory input has less inhibition before entering the emotional response systems. As girls learn, they tend to associate emotional states to their knowledge.
- For guys, this means that sensory input is highly inhibited by existing rules and models before entering the emotional response. Guys on average are able to lie to themselves more easily about what is going on when it doesn't match their worldview.
- When guys denigrate girls, it typically affects them. It is clear to them that someone thinks poorly of them and this is not something that is easily ignored.
- When guys denigrate guys, typically guys can fall back upon their worldview. If they have built up a messianic worldview (as is unfortunately quite typical - I know I have a messiah complex, as do many of my friends), then these insults roll off their back like water on a duck. Only people who already have existential struggles with self worth (like Martin) become affected.
- In highly intellectual pursuits, the competitiveness of men tends to select out women through this effectively bullying behavior. Jokes are made that hit women hard. Comments are made that make them question their path. In the end, fewer women make it through this alpha selection process.
- And the kicker: on tests of these skills through the years, women show equal ability to men on the averages. The only reasons that we typically find men as the recognised "top" of the fields appears to be due the quantity difference. More population = more outliers.
- This last point is shown in analyses of the fields which have undergone demographic changes. Transitions are showing the underlying statistical nature of merit in the sexes.
Thats interesting stuff, but is it backed by any real data? Do chessplayers typically denigrate each other? I havent ever experienced this.
Ubik42 wrote:
Thats interesting stuff, but is it backed by any real data? Do chessplayers typically denigrate each other? I havent ever experienced this.
This is based on the Fide players list.
I have a thread on the gender analysis of the Fide players list with the explanation of the source and methods here:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/conservative-vs-progressive-chess-societies.
As to the comments:
ex0du5, it would help if you had links to your sources.
Who else read the article in the original post and were reminded how far we (both male and female) have gone from the "50ish era" attitude towards women and their role in society? As far as chess is concerned I think that there is a much more progressive attitude regarding women than there was when that article was written, as there should be.
[COMMENT DELETED]
watcha wrote:
This is based on the Fide players list.
I have a thread on the gender analysis of the Fide players list with the explanation of the source and methods here:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/conservative-vs-progressive-chess-societies.
As to the comments:
As someone from Europe, living in Asia, I can imagine other explanations to that data than "conservative" vs "progressive".
For instance, "how free children are to do what they want on their free time" vs "how children are pushed (even beaten) to do what parents want".
einstein99 wrote:
Aftet my 54 years upon this planet, I believe I can saywith a high degree of certainty that as things change on the surface, racially, ethnically, socially, sexually, some of the deeper underpinnings of mans and womens existance upon this planet remain the same ie.,the search for purpose and meaning in our lives, the desire to love and be loved, the pursuit of happiness, joy, peace, etc. Ill probably catch flak for what Im about to say,but I really dont care any more and dont say cr*p like, oh you're so narrow minded, you're so judgmental, you're stupid and ignorant to believe that stuff, etc.ad iinfinitum. Truth be known we were created to be in a close and loving relationship with our creator and outside of that relationship we die in every sense of the word for Jesus is life and in him only is there salvation. Now, I realize we live in a pluralistic, relativistic, secular society, where to speak such truths and absolutes is considered rude, insensitive, even hate speech, so get to hating me, I really dont care, because Ill be with my maker soon.
The "search" for a purpose in life is futile, unless one is a go-getter that focuses on helping the poor, elderly, and weak, just like Jesus would.
The highlighted text is opinion.
[COMMENT DELETED]
If so, you may be a deity yourself.
Jesus v. Cthulhu No holds barred street fight
eye gouging, halo and tentacle pulling
who wins?
[COMMENT DELETED]
Batgirl, thank you for sharing that article.
Trysts, in the 1960s and 1970s, there was very little "women's" history. But since the mid 1980s, the field has exploded. There are tons of great historians who are rushing in to fill in the voids. Some of those great historians include Christine Stansell, Lynn Hunt, Patty Limerick, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, Elaine Pagels, and many, many more.
Today's high school history books have integrated "women's history" into national histories. If women today have little appreciation for the culture that produced Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Freidan, Germane Greer and slightly later, Judith Butler (one of my favorites), it is in large measure because those authors and other women succeeded in changing the culture!
Having said that, Batgirl's article could almost have been written this week. Well, except that top female players such as Judit Polgar and Hou Yifan would disagree with Marilyn Braun's assertion that "women just don't want to spend that much time" on the game compared to men. There are quite a few women who play chess online as much as the men.
It's always nice, to me, to see men who are so admiring of strong women, SmyslovFan:)