I just think, that women are jealous at man success. They blame it on sexism. I agree with
@NikosGeo . It is just another excuse. No wonder, that just Judit Polgar broke 2700elo. She worked hard and succeeded. She didnt care about sexism. Lets take an example:
Hou Yifan-she could be the best female player of all time, but she decided to go to university. If she would focus on chess and worked harder, she would surely achive the highest women elo of all time.
Sexism is no excuse for their lazines! If they would work harder, they could be the best!
No sane person is calling for a radical revolution of social order nor is anyone sane calling for men to be humiliated for having privileges. Leave that to radical feminists. We are recognizing inequality, not the implementation of a matriarchy.
If you're a guy and you feel attacked by this article please grow a fucking pair.
There's a possibility that women are inherently worse at chess. There's also a possibility that I have super powers I haven't discovered yet. There is no evidence for either of those 2 things.
Since there isn't any proof that women are worse at chess due to their biology, why should we give credit to that line of reasoning? There is evidence, however, that there is toxicity and sexism towards women in chess, so that seems more credible as of now.
Yawn. There are biological differences outside of our private parts for men and women. This is the same for literally every other mammal. Historically men were the decision makers and bread winners because mammals are sexually polygamous. In other words men with better genes were more likely to pass them on since a woman can only get pregnant from one guy at a time. On the other hand, since one guy can impregnate 100 women, there was significantly less evolutionary pressure on women. So men evolved at a higher rate. This is simply a fact. Anyways, mammals do better when different genders are assigned different roles - for example, it doesn't make sense for the gender primarily responsible for child-rearing to also be primarily responsible for fighting and hunting (which was how our intelligence was used during the first 199,000 years of our existence) because then children wouldn't have anyone to raise them. So rather than spreading resources thin and making sure everyone could do everything, one gender was responsible for one set of tasks and the other gender was responsible for the other set of tasks. And of course the fighting weeded out the less fit men even more than women already were via sexual (not social) polygamy.
Anyways, you don't have to take this in a bad way. Anyone who is good at something is good at it, and their gender doesn't matter. It's funny how some women complain about sexism in chess when there's a a huge, heaping pile of misandrist chess titles - "Woman" Grandmaster, "Woman" International Master, etc., where just being a woman lets you have all the prestige of chess players that are rated 300-400 points higher than you. Men should be the ones complaining about such a misandrist system.
Edit: literally every other mammal.
Too many claims in the article are laughable and not a fact, but merely author's opinion. Goes as far as labeling asking for a number to stay connected with some person a sexist act, come on.
IMHO nobody is holding women back in chess, as a matter of fact there are special titles that can be awarded only to females, while "male" titles can be achieved by both genders. True equality mandates removing female exclusive tournaments and titles, the way it's now really favors women.
Some women will inevitably experience inconvenience from certain chess players which is simple due to the chess being played primarily by men, and simple statistics proves otherwise is very unlikely.
#150, I clearly mentioned it happens in the Indian context. It is a prevalent problem here.
Just pointing out a specific clause which is relevant for women. How is it irrelevant to the argument?
Parents' concerns are equally important because tournament play in India involves the lives of families here in India, and definitely more dangerous and frivolous decisions need to be made.
"Just look at online games. Rude players are outliers. But the problem is that if you play 10 games per day then you're playing with 100 (or even more for some games) different people so if only one in 200 is a rude player then your chance of getting one a day is ~50% even if rude players are actually rare. Now extrapolate to playing for weeks. Even if only one in *whoknowshowmany* is a rude player over weeks you meet thousands and thousands of online players so the chance of having one encounter with a rude player approaches 100% even though rude players are extraordinarily rare.
Luckily there's a very simply trick to live life: Make your own life better instead of making other people's life worse. "
I don't understand how this would be of practical help. Even though the people being rude (or harassing) may well be outliers in the general community, for the reasons you explained the experience of being harassed is not. What matters in the end is the experience people have, right?
@LuckIsNoSkill I COMPLETELY AGREE! Women should just work harder!!1! Hard work always = good !!! Women need to stop being jealous and work harder like
@LuckIsNoSkill !!! IF YOU WORK HARDER INEQUALITY DISAPPEARS!!!!!
<Comment deleted by user>
nice work lichess honestly we should respect each other and everyone!!!