Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis probably belongs to the "Debates" forum.
why are there men and ladies tournaments? it cannot be said that gender is in anyway an advantage or disadvantage during a chess game? It seems strange to me that there should be gender based tournaments.
Gender Mainstreaming is just humbug.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe main reason for women's tourneys seems to be that they can play some chess without being gawked at all day long by nerdy guys. 😛
why are there men and ladies tournaments? it cannot be said that gender is in anyway an advantage or disadvantage during a chess game? It seems strange to me that there should be gender based tournaments.
I think the Big Dog has hit the nail on the head. My daughter plays and it can be a very unpleasant experience for her in the 90% male environment. Aside from the fact that boys are just gross between the ages of eight and fourteen (no concept of personal hygiene, toilet humor, chewing on chess pieces, etc.), beyond that they become leches, or at least a few of them feel free to act that way in a predominantly male environment. It's not the nerds, it's the jerks. A local coach here runs all girls tournaments because many of his female students simply don't like going to open tournaments.
ok the reason is to encourage more girls to take up chess or at least have a pleasant experience, I understand this now, i was just wondering because these considerations aside, there should be no reason to have them because gender it appears to me cannot be considered an advantage or disadvantage.
I think it is valid to question for sure. But the way i see it, Women get a pretty good deal out of it. They are free to enter male tournaments, but they also have well funded competitions. I believe it is done so as to encourage female professionals. The top woman players are mostly around 2500. That is a competitive environment to make a living if you compete for prize money with 26-2700 male competitors all the time. Things like the Womens Grand Prix series are great competitions in my view, without them we might not have some of these great players like Hou Yifan or Anna Ushenina (who i really admire, love her style!)
I think I can see where Robbie is coming from.
You sometimes see a girl winning a title (e.g female u-12 champion) because
she came 50th in a tournament but happened to be the highest placed
u-12 female player. In some cases the lass wins the title because she is
the only female player.
I know from experience that men and women can play Chess equally well.
Sex makes no difference at all in the ability to play the game.
Should gender titles, including the Women's World Championship and
Woman's Olympiads be scrapped?
Originally posted by greenpawn34Until there is gender equality in pay, access and resources I think we need the gendered competitions and titles. Really until there is gender equality in society. Even if that extremely difficult to achieve moment arrives, I still think it will be fine to choose to play within a grouping by choice.
I think I can see where Robbie is coming from.
You sometimes see a girl winning a title (e.g female u-12 champion) because
she came 50th in a tournament but happened to be the highest placed
u-12 female player. In some cases the lass wins the title because she is
the only female player.
I know from experience that men and women can play Chess ...[text shortened]... ould gender titles, including the Women's World Championship and
Woman's Olympiads be scrapped?
- Joined
- 03 Jun 03
- Moves
- 11429
It's one thing to claim complete equality as experience or wish, it's another thing to prove all the neurological differences in wiring are all caused by nurture or by nature. And such difference might not even be the cause of any diminished capacity but one of diminished interest or inclination. The question remains if that's something to be "corrected" for or not. And perhaps this interest in high-level chess games would be the odd one out, not any demonstrated lack of interest? In male-dominated reasoning it would of course be seen as "short-coming", this lack of female participation. The question is if they themselves generally would feel that way. Personally I don't think so and I wonder if it should be held over them as some golden standard of things where blame needs to be passed to society for some perceived "imbalance".