4 ms·

I agree with you. But this article states a few reasons, I think are a valid, why a female league is necessary: http://www.chessblog.com/2009/10/abolish-womens-

I agree with you. But this article states a few reasons, I think are a valid, why a female league is necessary: http://www.chessblog.com/2009/10/abolish-womens-itles-ridiculous.html http://www.chessblog.com/2009/10/abolish-womens-itles-ridicu...

throwaeayBan 11y ago
Please note that I am against extra prizes (because of private bits or skin colour) in open tournaments. Women can have their titles, their own tournaments, their own prizes ( in their tournaments) as long as men can have same. I just request everyone be treated same in tournament where everyone is alowed and fights free for all ( if tournament is split into two separate groups - prizes can be different too)
- madsravn 11y ago
  I see - then we are in agreement.
- drdeca 11y ago
  First off, I'd like to mention that I don't think that sounds very unreasonable, so I'm not responding out of feeling offended. I am taking that as being a fairly reasonable position. I just currently think it is probably at least incomplete. Now on to the actual response: What would be your view of a tournament which only allows people to enter if they have a different <x> than the majority of the winners of the "main" tournament during the last 5 years? (Example: If <x> is gender, then if 3 men had won the "main tournament" in the last 5 years, then only people who are not men could enter the alternate tournament, and if 3 women had won the "main tournament" in the last 5 years, only people who are not women could enter the alternate tournament. (If there was no most common <x> then the alternate tournament would not be run, because there would not be any eligible participants. For example if one year, the two semifinalists refuse to continue.) Would you say that there should also be another alternative tournament in which participants are only eligible if they have the same <x> as the majority of winners of the "main tournament" over the last 5 years? I agree that there is not /inherently/ a problem if one gender (or other quality) is more common in an activity, and that the problems are in the causes or effects of such a situation. But I am not certain that trying to apply pressure to make the ratio closer to equal can't be a good way to address whatever problem might be causing , or caused by, the ratio to be unequal. I'm not certain that doing that when there aren't problems related to the inequality in outcome causes any harm. If someone decides they want to give money to left handed, or to right handed, people, what harm does that cause?
jstanley 11y ago
From that article: > Nobody has ever said that WGM is equivalent to GM, everybody knows it's not the case, WGM is just a step towards IM then GM, to make sure the player does not lose interest as it is so hard to attain the higher titles. That's all well and good, but what prize is there to encourage men who are at the level of WGM? Why is no prize needed for men?
- LargeWu 11y ago
  That prize isn't needed, as evidenced by the overwhelming gender imbalance in chess.
  - jstanley 11y ago
    It isn't needed to make "more men" play chess. But for an individual, it's pretty unfair: "She's no better than me, but she is a WGM and I am nothing".
    - resu_nimda 11y ago
      Lol. Women and all their unfair advantages over men, right? It's tough for a guy out here... Women are consistently and institutionally disadvantaged across the board. Why do so many men fail to understand this? For the record I'm a man, and I see women face issues on a daily basis that I have never had to deal with, so by all means, give them a prize.
      - jstanley 11y ago
        Making unfairness in new places isn't decreasing the amount of unfairness in the world, it's increasing it.
      - Afton 11y ago
        Please rein in your dismissiveness. It is not insane to consider the ways that men and women have advantages. I'm not trying to step into this argument on one side or the other, but this kind of mocking is unhelpful. > Women are consistently and institutionally disadvantaged across the board. Why do so many men fail to understand this? I think because it isn't true? Assuming 'across the board' means 'in every aggregate scenario', then there certainly are places where it's men who are consistently and institutionally disadvantaged (two classic examples are judicial sentencing and when a victim of domestic violence). One can think that women are disadvantaged 'overall', if one wanted to construct a score-card, without believing that women are disadvantaged in every (aggregate) scenario. In this particular scenario I think it makes sense to say "We wanted more female participation, so we introduced an incentive". This addresses a particular point, and people can argue about whether the goal (more women at high levels of chess) is worthwhile, but at least that doesn't turn the whole discussion into an 'us against them' mentality. IOW: Please try to raise the level of debate.

throwaeayBan 11y ago

Please note that I am against extra prizes (because of private bits or skin colour) in open tournaments. Women can have their titles, their own tournaments, their own prizes ( in their tournaments) as long as men can have same. I just request everyone be treated same in tournament where everyone is alowed and fights free for all ( if tournament is split into two separate groups - prizes can be different too)

madsravn 11y ago
I see - then we are in agreement.
drdeca 11y ago
First off, I'd like to mention that I don't think that sounds very unreasonable, so I'm not responding out of feeling offended. I am taking that as being a fairly reasonable position. I just currently think it is probably at least incomplete. Now on to the actual response: What would be your view of a tournament which only allows people to enter if they have a different <x> than the majority of the winners of the "main" tournament during the last 5 years? (Example: If <x> is gender, then if 3 men had won the "main tournament" in the last 5 years, then only people who are not men could enter the alternate tournament, and if 3 women had won the "main tournament" in the last 5 years, only people who are not women could enter the alternate tournament. (If there was no most common <x> then the alternate tournament would not be run, because there would not be any eligible participants. For example if one year, the two semifinalists refuse to continue.) Would you say that there should also be another alternative tournament in which participants are only eligible if they have the same <x> as the majority of winners of the "main tournament" over the last 5 years? I agree that there is not /inherently/ a problem if one gender (or other quality) is more common in an activity, and that the problems are in the causes or effects of such a situation. But I am not certain that trying to apply pressure to make the ratio closer to equal can't be a good way to address whatever problem might be causing , or caused by, the ratio to be unequal. I'm not certain that doing that when there aren't problems related to the inequality in outcome causes any harm. If someone decides they want to give money to left handed, or to right handed, people, what harm does that cause?

jstanley 11y ago

From that article: > Nobody has ever said that WGM is equivalent to GM, everybody knows it's not the case, WGM is just a step towards IM then GM, to make sure the player does not lose interest as it is so hard to attain the higher titles. That's all well and good, but what prize is there to encourage men who are at the level of WGM? Why is no prize needed for men?

LargeWu 11y ago
That prize isn't needed, as evidenced by the overwhelming gender imbalance in chess.
- jstanley 11y ago
  It isn't needed to make "more men" play chess. But for an individual, it's pretty unfair: "She's no better than me, but she is a WGM and I am nothing".
  - resu_nimda 11y ago
    Lol. Women and all their unfair advantages over men, right? It's tough for a guy out here... Women are consistently and institutionally disadvantaged across the board. Why do so many men fail to understand this? For the record I'm a man, and I see women face issues on a daily basis that I have never had to deal with, so by all means, give them a prize.
    - jstanley 11y ago
      Making unfairness in new places isn't decreasing the amount of unfairness in the world, it's increasing it.
    - Afton 11y ago
      Please rein in your dismissiveness. It is not insane to consider the ways that men and women have advantages. I'm not trying to step into this argument on one side or the other, but this kind of mocking is unhelpful. > Women are consistently and institutionally disadvantaged across the board. Why do so many men fail to understand this? I think because it isn't true? Assuming 'across the board' means 'in every aggregate scenario', then there certainly are places where it's men who are consistently and institutionally disadvantaged (two classic examples are judicial sentencing and when a victim of domestic violence). One can think that women are disadvantaged 'overall', if one wanted to construct a score-card, without believing that women are disadvantaged in every (aggregate) scenario. In this particular scenario I think it makes sense to say "We wanted more female participation, so we introduced an incentive". This addresses a particular point, and people can argue about whether the goal (more women at high levels of chess) is worthwhile, but at least that doesn't turn the whole discussion into an 'us against them' mentality. IOW: Please try to raise the level of debate.