13 Oct '09 23:25>
Just read this article, from the American newspaper the Wall Street Journal, that favors abolishing different titles for women, like the Woman Grandmaster (WGM) title. The argument given is that such titles are inherently sexist, and that women now have greater access to chess and training resources, so the division between men and women players is expected to narrow, making the different titles obsolete.
I wonder though, given the nature of chess as an international competition, whether the WGM and IGM type titles are really antiquated. There are countries with intolerant attitudes towards women in general, probably in chess too. In the first world the title might be sexist and antiquated, but perhaps it has some value (ex., providing validation for women to play too) in areas where civil rights are less expansive. Perhaps there are nations with male competitors who wouldn't want women involved in chess at all, and such titles and separate tournaments are a way to soften their disapproval. Fischer and Kasparov certainly had their say on the subject.
I'm not a tournament player, so I thought I'd ask for others' insight on this. Thoughts?
Article link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574457393421190888.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel
I wonder though, given the nature of chess as an international competition, whether the WGM and IGM type titles are really antiquated. There are countries with intolerant attitudes towards women in general, probably in chess too. In the first world the title might be sexist and antiquated, but perhaps it has some value (ex., providing validation for women to play too) in areas where civil rights are less expansive. Perhaps there are nations with male competitors who wouldn't want women involved in chess at all, and such titles and separate tournaments are a way to soften their disapproval. Fischer and Kasparov certainly had their say on the subject.
I'm not a tournament player, so I thought I'd ask for others' insight on this. Thoughts?
Article link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574457393421190888.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel