0
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jan 0001
0 points (NaN% liked)
0 readers
0 users here now
founded a long while ago
Traditionally chess has been a men's game, and female adoption is limited. The creation of an exclusive women's division is to generate a pathway to success for women, even if it's known to have a lower ceiling compared to men. Basically, it is to foster the game in females.
There is literally no disadvantage to being female in chess.
Making a female only division is a form of soft sexism through low expectations.
Next thing you will be patting them on the head and condescendingly praising them for doing so well.
We are not discussing the physical advantages. We are discussing about career advantages.
In some countries it is actually advantageous to be female when attempting to get into STEM at college , there is additional talent identification and tuition at high schools with the girls in STEM programs that makes sure that girls who have an aptitude for STEM are identified and offered additional tuition, coaching and mentoring above and beyond what boys would receive (who's STEM grades have on average fallen over the last 20 years. Since school budgets have not grown but additional programs that favor girls have been mandated the funds to run those programs have come at the expense of the general programs that have been cut back and underfunded resulting in a two tier education system with girls occupying the upper tier while feminist misandrists doggedly deny that a gender gap even exists)
So yes , there are advantages , but now how you think . And egalitarians have been looking on with increasingly despair as a new gender gap is emerging that mirrors the old gender gap almost exactly.
So there should be no barrier to entry for females in chess.
(This post is explicitly anti-sexist , for those that need it spelled out to them. What I am suggesting is that education budgets need to be beefed up so that nobody's education is suffering)
You know what, I also hate these women's only scholarships and accelerated education programs too, but I was just speaking the way of the world, not my opinions.
Based on my position in STEM education as a lecturer I am not allowed to have opinions. (Not until I receive full prof.)
Why does men being around affect their liking of chess? Why does anyone care if they like chess or not? It's a board game you sit at a table playing. If they want to play board games with other people, it really shouldn't matter who those other people are.
That isn't the problem. The problem is how it has been naturally male-dominant makes it naturally unfriendly to other groups in the first place.
Not everyone is comfortable with this. By a large margin. The dedication of an event for women only creates that comfort zone.
This situation, and I humbly state I mean no fallacy, is strikingly similar to STEM education. Nobody is preventing them from joining, nobody cares if anyone likes it or not, but the fact that it is dominated by a specific group in the "open" field makes it less appealing to the other groups.
Alright, so woman want to have a woman's only chess club to dominate their club with a gender because they feel the regular club is dominated by another gender. Id assume though, woman could play in the normal club dominated by men if they choose to? All seems silly. Part of the appeal of board games or videos games is that it's a battle of the minds. A 10 year old kid can win against 300 lb MMA fighter. We can't really help that naturally less men want to learn to bake, while less woman want to learn to hunt, can we? It should be open though to whoever. I think excluding a transgender woman on this is wrong, she has no advantage. It seems plain hurtful, and id think the woman who say they feel excluded from the main league should be able to empathize. I can understand physical competition, but that's just my opinion.
Come to think about it, maybe it's probably similar to how weight classes work in martial arts, except that the point of this is to guarantee that women can progress somewhat within their careers.
Of course I do not agree that we need to elevate or celebrate them to the level of grandmasters.
In a specific case of transgenders, I understand that transgender women are excluded until an official statement of medical or psychological evaluation has been made, to prevent cases where men illicitly transition just to play in these, and pardon my sexism, weaker leagues.
How can it be like weight classes? What are you measuring? In a tournament people play, the winners move forward. Doesn't matter what's in the pants. If ya lose, you're welcome to keep playing with whoever else you want. Is the woman's chess league saying men have an advantage in chess? Chess is about memorizing a bunch of different outcomes. I dunno, don't have much interest in it myself, but if I was a woman and wanted to be the best in the world, I'd want to play against the best. There's plenty of dudes that get their ass kicked in the men's league. Should they make a separate league so they can win it? Are men just better at everything? Even board games? Or do men just care more? I've seen the graph that says men are more likely to have geniuses, but also more likely to be retards. Is that where it comes from? Does everyone have to be good enough to be a grandmaster to play? Cause I'd have to guess there's a handful of superstars and the rest just play. But I don't follow it.
Again, you are missing the point. It's that the point of a protected space for women is to promote women's participation in chess, not to overly tout their position over others.
And no, this does not have to do with the intelligence curve. It's entirely about careers and participation.
Ah exclusion guised as "protected spaces"
And that is your opinion.
Uhm no. Exclusion is clearly defined.