Invisible Pieces: Women in Chess

@nojoke

Firstly there are proven differences between the two sexes. Biologically as well as psychologically and mentally. This is an indisputable fact. Please don't ignore the obvious

Secondly I'm from Denmark and I refuse to believe there is discrimination going on in our chess clubs. Not even a little discrimination

Thirdly is there discrimination against woman players in chess clubs in other countries? Yes in some countries women are not even allowed to play in the first place. In these same countries women are discriminated against in multitudes of areas of society, it's the culture and tradition, in written as well as - and often especially - unwritten laws and social rules which constitutes the nation as a whole

Fourthly is the discrimination worse in chess than the overall discrimination of this given nation where discrimination actually occurs in the chess clubs or is it a symptom of this very nation? It is a symptom of this nation and not of chess culture in general, say in Sweden or Denmark, or any other place including the nations were it occurs. Please make a distinction between general discrimination against women which is real and discrimination against women in chess which is also real, but are not occurring in every country on Earth.

"Women don’t play chess, and when they do, they play badly."
So sexist! Why put THAT there?

@DrNykterSteinway
Ignoring the ad hominems,

a) I never said that capitalism DOES reduce inequality; I said that capitalism has a mechanism that can theoretically discourage the persistence (free competition---> lower prices (or else the seller loses potential business) ---> smaller portion of money being spent on goods and services). Capitalism also has mechanisms which promote inequality, which is why I said "I won't pretend that capitalism is nearly as effective at reducing inequality in the short run as a perfectly run socialist society..."

b) You seem to have missed the point behind my equality comparison. It doesn't matter if the policy is enacted via popular vote or by a small central planning committee. The bigger issue is that anything designed to support one group in comparison to others favors one group over others. As for democracy and capitalism, I'd recommend reading "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman before judging.
c)
>>Well, in a way, the capitalism, or at least the neo-liberal capitalism, is socialism for the rich, and free market for the poor.
>>You know, all the helps given for no counterpart to companies and banks during economical crises and so on...
>>No need to say more about it. What you said is just or total ignorance, or simply a lie.

True neoliberal capitalism, such as that advocated by Hayek and Buchannan, doesn't advocate for government helping businesses. In fact, it advocates for government NOT helping businesses. What YOU said is just total ignorance or simply a lie.

EDIT: I always find it interesting that people who hate capitalism typically fail to look at it from any other perspective than equality. Productivity and efficiency are just as important (if not more so) in determining the effectiveness of an economic system.

@clousems
"True neoliberal capitalism, such as that advocated by Hayek and Buchannan, doesn't advocate for government helping businesses. In fact, it advocates for government NOT helping businesses. What YOU said is just total ignorance or simply a lie."
Though what I said is what happen in facts.

"capitalism has a mechanism that can theoretically discourage the persistence [inequality] (free competition---> lower prices (or else the seller loses potential business) ---> smaller portion of money being spent on goods and services)"
This doesn't reduce inequalities in any way.

"You seem to have missed the point behind my equality comparison. It doesn't matter if the policy is enacted via popular vote or by a small central planning committee. The bigger issue is that anything designed to support one group in comparison to others favors one group over others."
Communism or getting out of the capitalism in general is not about "supporting one group in comparison to others".
You seem to not understand the concept of equality : it's for EVERYONE.

" Productivity and efficiency are just as important (if not more so) in determining the effectiveness of an economic system."
Why ? Productivity is a good thing ? Especially for environment ? Read back what I said about it.

@DrNykterSteinway
Re: mechanism
That's my bad. I forgot to finish the line of thinking. More disposable income--> greater ability to invest
Re: Neoliberalism
Neoliberal economics is a theory. It isn't the operating principle behind any nation's policy (probably because it marginalizes the government). Describing the US (I'm assuming you are referring to the US) as following a true neoliberal framework in economic policy at any point in time is about as accurate as calling Germany a pure communist state.
Re: Equality
If you don't implement policies to help some groups more than others, then how are you reducing inequality? You're just maintaining the current equality equilibrium.

#500:
Well, productivity is the thing that keeps us all from dying from starvation, so I think its a good thing.
Is it impossible for businesses to produce goods and services without damaging the environment? Can't businesses theoretically help the environment?

@clousems
"Re: mechanism
That's my bad. I forgot to finish the line of thinking. More disposable income--> greater ability to invest"
Of course I understood you were meaning this. But that's pure illusion. Because lower prices also implies lower incomes. So it doesn't solve anything.

"Re: Neoliberalism
Neoliberal economics is a theory. It isn't the operating principle behind any nation's policy (probably because it marginalizes the government). Describing the US (I'm assuming you are referring to the US) as following a true neoliberal framework in economic policy at any point in time is about as accurate as calling Germany a pure communist state."
Ok, call it whatever you want, I'm talking about the system which is in place in USA, France and many other countries. And it marginalizes the government by subjugating it through processes of economic blackmail.

"Re: Equality
If you don't implement policies to help some groups more than others, then how are you reducing inequality? You're just maintaining the current equality equilibrium."
It's not about implementing policies to help some groups more than others (this is what might be called "social-democracy" (which is inside the capitalism)), it's just about putting everyone back to the same level (in term of power, money...).

"Well, productivity is the thing that keeps us all from dying from starvation, so I think its a good thing.
Is it impossible for businesses to produce goods and services without damaging the environment? Can't businesses theoretically help the environment?"
Not all what products capitalism is needed to not die of starvation. Not even to be happy. It's possible to stay in life, and even enjoy a good life, without infinite growth.

"Is it impossible for businesses to produce goods and services without damaging the environment? Can't businesses theoretically help the environment?"
No, it's not possible, for the reason I mentioned earlier : energy doesn't come out of nowhere. So 100% "clean" energy doesn't exist.
And no need to ask scientists to find a solution about it. Maxwell, one of the greatest physician ever, tried to invent a "machine" producing energy out of nothing, going against one of the most fundamental law of thermodynamic. Actually, it's possible to make this concept of machine works, but to works it needs... energy (actually information, but that's the same). So we get back to the fact that energy can't be created from nothing.

Re: Re: Mechanism: Not necessarily; the "lower prices" are derived in this case from an inability to engage in rent seeking by charging prices above market equilibrium, profits will be lower, but they will still exist (or be zero, depending on your definition of profits and the market structure).
Re: Re: Neoliberalism:
Yeah, that's more Keynesianism (US) or Market Socialism (France, etc.). Neoliberalism is the one that believes government should only be involved in the economy in very rare cases.
(I'm going to try to stop addressing these two issues, as they aren't particularly relevant to the topic at hand)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Equality:
Putting everyone back at the same level, by definition, benefits some while hurting others. These "others" are thus not being treated equally or fairly.