Women
A place for discussion, camaraderie, and advice.
For, from, and with women. Hi ๐
RULES:
--Be good to one another.
If you're not sure about what you're about to type, ask yourself: Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
--About, but not only for, women.
We are here to talk about, learn about, and wonder about women and their/our experiences. Men are allowed to post here, but only for the purpose of asking sincere questions about women or for advice related to a women in their lives they are trying to support.
--No bullies. No Creeps. No trolls.
No personal attacks, no misogyny, no misandry, ageism, racism, or otherwise hateful or disrespectful commentary.
--No selling products or services.
You can recommend products/methods that work for you, but soliciting clients or patients is not allowed. No advertising or self-promotions, including using this sub to drive traffic elsewhere.
view the rest of the comments
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S019188691400261X
This study is very interesting, evidently Georgian chess has been historically equal.
Equally interesting study comes to the conclusion: gender differences in chess go back on the overrepresentation of men in chess in general
Article on the research: Why Men Rank Higher than Women at Chess (It's Not Biological)
I don't have access to what seems to be the actual study, but maybe you do: Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains
Yes, I found the participation rate argument very sound.
I wonder what else might be similarly biased?
I think the culinary domain is very interesting for it's seemingly paradoxical take that, at home, women not only belong but are far more capable than men in the kitchen, but as soon as the endeavor becomes competitive and professional, men traditionally (not always, of course) gatekeep the professional kitchen because suddenly talent and taste aren't enough, one must be an officer in Escoffier's army, quick to abuse yourself and others while wearing a silly hat.
Two examples come to mind:
Medical test subjects are predominantly if not exclusively male. So any new medication on the market are tailored for the physis and metabolism of a male body while the same medication might have different effects (including side effects) when it comes to women.
Scientific findings are often based on male bias, e.g. the remains of a high status person were declared being male. Only decades later with new technology was it possible to determine it was in fact a women. (See the Ivory man)
But this conversation would deserve its.owm thread. The OP post is regarding how women (cis and transgendered people) are treated in chess. The absurdity of backwards thinking and unfairness when it comes to treating women and men as assigned at birth. I'm not sure, if you missed the part where transgendered men are stripped of their titles when transitioning to male, while people transitioning to female are allowed to keep theirs.
This goes so much deeper. Like another commenter posted: "institutionalized patriarchy"
This is awesome! Thanks for the info
Is posting the same link 3 times in the same thread enough?
No, here are some more:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01828.x
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00665.x
Facts and scientific studies are critical in our understanding of reality. I suggest you brush up on the scientific method. I think you might benefit by taking a more dispassionate approach to the things about the world you don't like or wish to change.
You sure have assumed a lot from my simple question. I said nothing about the data that you posted, just the fact that you posted the same thing 3 times..
No, it's quite possible that I am wrong about the terminology. I just thought it was odd to see the same link posted multiple times. I am not a woman, so I would have to leave that question to them. I was just here for the interesting headline.