Invisible Pieces: Women in Chess

@clousems
"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)."
I think I understand what you say, though it's a bit messy, but that's not at all reducing inequalities.

"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."
How is it unfair ? Isn't it the fact that there are inequalities which is unfair ? How does the fact that they have more money and power is fair in any way ?
First, there is a part which is inherited : this isn't fair in any way.
Second, for what is not inherited, it doesn't necessarily comes from "merit". It can also come (and often do) from fraud, total lack of morality, egoism and so on...
Third, even if someone as more merit, does it means he should have more (power, money...) ? Not necessarily. He doesn't need more. And if he maybe deserves more admiration, I don't think he deserves more money, nor power, nor anything of that kind.

You know as a male I've had those unicorn moments too. I joined an acrobatics dance class one time. Had a lot of fun with it. I was the only guy in there, and yeah the girls stared; and laughed cause the class was very focused on flexibility. I was laughably inept at bending in various ways as compared to the girls. I got my own little section of the mat. My own personal instruction. Some time later we are doing moves and lo and behold my strength was a real asset to many of the more flamboyant moves. But I still could not do some cool stuff because of my "deficiencies". So the gist, yes men and women are different. We have different inherent capabilities. Its quite silly to argue otherwise. I can't have a baby. But my wife can. I'm interested in chess. My wife, not so much. Alas. Interest is a defining discriminator between good players and bad players. It takes passion and work to get good at chess, just like anything else. The fact that some dude said women aren't capable and deserve to stay in the kitchen. So what? Every sporting event has stuff like that. Men might be on average better than women at chess. This could be a function of just passion for the game. Experience. Or it could be a structural difference in the brain, which is a physical characteristic, much like women are generally more flexible than men. Does it mean its hopeless for a girl, or that she shouldn't play? No. There are separate leagues in other sports for a reason. Why not for chess? If a lady can't stomach that idea, its a competition, go win at chess, everyone will respect you for it. Which is, I know, a very male perspective, and probably infuriating. But is there another way to show the contrary to observation thus far? Respect is earned; even in female circles. In any case, men are no longer the best players of chess, that goes to a computer, which can curve stomp 100% of human race. I don't feel discouraged that my time in chess is pointless because I could never hope to beat Deep Mind AIs. As for the atmosphere of chess. I think its no different than anything else where men and women interact. If you don't want to deal with the male reproductive drive; play with people who are polite, or other girls. Be discretionary. Or play online chess!

Agreed. It's not about capability, it's about interest. Look at any random sample of college students majoring in mechanical engineering or nuclear physics, or construction. Men make overwhelming majority in those professions not because women are discriminated against or kept away from those specializations (quite the opposite is true, actually), but simply because those professions are somehow less appealing to them. I suppose we have a similar situation with chess. IM Levy Rozman said a couple of months ago that his 150K YouTube audience is 98% male. That says something.

Some of these comments just make me lose faith in humanity. The amount of gaslighting here just inherently proves the writer's point on how toxic the chess community is against women.

Interest in topics is not just a naturally occurring thing. It is also taught.
The same thing is true for ideas what is 'natural' or 'suitable' for a certain group of people and supposedly 'not natural', 'not suitable' for another group of people.

There are thousands of women who could easily destroy on the chess board more than 90% of chess playing men out there. That many women aren't interested in chess should be entirely inconsequential for how those that do play are treated or looked at. What's more, a vast majority of men worldwide is not interested in chess either to the degree that they would care to join a club or an internet server.

A lot of the arguments that women are naturally different when it comes to chess are just rationalizations used to justify looking down on them, in my view.

The misogynist treatment is not a result of arguments, rather the arguments are a result of the misogynist treatment. It's not a behavior that can be shown to be rational, it is an irrational behavior that needs to deny and hide its irrationality.

Treating other people badly just because does feel uncomfortable at times, after all. Treating other people badly because there is a fancy 'scientific' theory behind it is another thing altogether.

in comments so many mans who can play chess but can't read

Great article, thanks for sharing!

Men are better in chess and women are better in the kitchen, for each their strengths and weaknesses LOL

Just to give those rather callous comments some answer, it's not lack interest and passion at all. You need those two to get really good at something, that's right. But how many boy prodiges with real talent (and interest and passion) get sent to do the housework while they train? I fear that happens to girls a lot. But the article brought that, it was just ignored...