@chummer these titles are double-edged. On one hand I agree promoting women participation is desirable. On the other hand, as I said the very existence of these titles may be seen as an implicit claim that women are weaker at chess (and thus only maintaining the problem).
Statistics have shown that women are less chess-enclined and successful in chess than men. Women and men are not different only in body, but in mind too.
Yet even though women will never outpower men physically (which I don't believe to be a bad trait, just a natural one), science and thinking is a lot more important issue. On an individual level, stats mean nothing. Judit Polgar proved so, as did many after her. These titles do not promote chess in the slightest, rather they discriminate women to the point that they are officially recognized as less potent.
Yet even though women will never outpower men physically (which I don't believe to be a bad trait, just a natural one), science and thinking is a lot more important issue. On an individual level, stats mean nothing. Judit Polgar proved so, as did many after her. These titles do not promote chess in the slightest, rather they discriminate women to the point that they are officially recognized as less potent.
@FC-in-the-UK I would agree if women were earning the same titles as men with lowered requirements, but they're not - clearly they are WGM and not GM. I would also definitely agree if they were giving a ratings boost based on gender, but again - they are clearly not.
If a man is matched against a woman who is rated 2300, I doubt he would care much whether she is a WGM or a FM - he is facing a person who is rated 2300 and should be taken seriously. But if the WGM helps inspire more girls to join the sport and helps convince them to work through whatever harassment or prejudice they may be facing, then that is a good thing.
I don't see any realistic way in which this is a bad thing, or how anyone can be harmed or disadvantaged by these titles.
If a man is matched against a woman who is rated 2300, I doubt he would care much whether she is a WGM or a FM - he is facing a person who is rated 2300 and should be taken seriously. But if the WGM helps inspire more girls to join the sport and helps convince them to work through whatever harassment or prejudice they may be facing, then that is a good thing.
I don't see any realistic way in which this is a bad thing, or how anyone can be harmed or disadvantaged by these titles.
If a WGM gets asked if she is a Grandmaster, can she say yes or must she say she's only a WGM?
-I do not really care about it, I want people to be happy and if it requires women to have shiny titles, so be it.
-I still think the titles should be removed, as they rather decrease the respect towards women instead of increasing it.
-I do believe there are other factors much more relevant to get women into chess like reducing toxiticity and trash talk.
-I believe gender-based brain differences result in different interests, not in a higher or lower capability.
-I believe forcefully guaranteeing equality is very important in fields like politics, but not in chess.
-I still think the titles should be removed, as they rather decrease the respect towards women instead of increasing it.
-I do believe there are other factors much more relevant to get women into chess like reducing toxiticity and trash talk.
-I believe gender-based brain differences result in different interests, not in a higher or lower capability.
-I believe forcefully guaranteeing equality is very important in fields like politics, but not in chess.
If you think other people can tell someone what they can or cannot do, are you okay with people doing that to you? Or are you a hypocrite in that area?
Other people can do whatever they want, including getting a chess title, without your permission.
Other people can do whatever they want, including getting a chess title, without your permission.
You can easily solve this problem in 2 steps.
1. You take an eraser
2. And you erase WFM , WGM ,WCM
1. You take an eraser
2. And you erase WFM , WGM ,WCM
@StingerPuzzles A title is always bound to the validation of the vast majority, without majority it loses its value. Put a crown on your head. It will only make you king if most agree. If you force them to obey you, you might be king, but you'll never truly be one. I think the discussion is fine. I don't know why it triggers you so much.
I never fail to be amazed when young men start with "Why is it that WOMEN .... ?" and then wonder why they don't have a girlfriend.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.