nuxetcrux
Why are men like this?
No, I'm saying chess has been biased from the start and the games greatest players have been neurodivergent for a long time. Gender injustice is happening here, but it also has complex layers worth investigating, too. Like, how much of Chess' DNA and evolution has been balanced based almost exclusively to satisfy traditionally male interests (domination, competition). How did the pieces and board change to fit the boys' game.
Is it helpful the WNBA ball is smaller? I'd say yes, but not just in the obvious ways, but also in service of the meta game and to put the best product forward. There are extenuating circumstances. I was trying to say: the exclusion is so deeply entrenched in the historical male worldview that it might just need to have these debates and growing pains to become what it should be: fair and fun.
I agree. I just think it's detrimental to just shout that something is wrong as though it's common sense without analysis or reasoning.
Women often ruled capably (Nefertiti, Boudica, Catherine, Elizabeth,, etc) were politically involved throughout history ,and were likely some decision-makers in early societies, as temporary habits were likely determined by foragability.
They are not bad at chess. There are biased circumstances both social and epistemological that have prevented their involvement with the evolution of Chess. I think these chess people are more afraid of someone insulting Chess and in the process insulted a lot of people.
I'm so proud you've had a breakthrough. Your two greatest allies: patience and curiosity. With those you can become whatever you want.
If women were treated equally at the highest level of chess they would only have <1% representation as of 2021.
There is only one woman in the top 100 ELO currently.
If women were held to the same intellectual standards of men in chess, they would only exist as rare, near singular phenomena, and then THAT would, rightfully, be called misogyny.
If you want to compete at the highest level, you must first compete--if you cannot compete, then you are not competing--it's built into the concept a priori. White men who are hateful are all for affirmative action because it keeps the weak weak. You can imagine Don Draper smiling and typing back whiskey while the victims are given handouts--resented by the rest of humanity, wrongfully or rightfully--this is how they make their racist fantasies racist realities.
I don't think it's an intellectual shortcoming either: it may even be that men are just mentally ill when it comes to excellence in competition and not excellence for its own sake, which I think more women are open minded enough to see; and, that men are more likely to take things "too far."
Men also had to swallow that computers--built by people of diverse backgrounds and genders--are far better at calculating chess outcomes, and someone might complain that computer constructors should be allowed to enter AI and have it ELO ranked.
On top of all this, I think chess would be delighted with female stars especially after Queen's Gambit. I can't imagine they would turn down the massive amounts of money that would generate (see formula W drivers/Danica Patrick) even if all they did was ALMOST win.
At some point reality sets and you're left with only hard truths. The hard truth about chess is that it's a war fantasy computation board game probably invented by and for male brain reward structure.
Women are proving much more capable than men in society, which is what matters, but if they want to win at chess or backgammon or go or shogi they're going to have to develop an insane priority structure where you would sooner skin your mother alive than lose.