Battle of sexes

Reb wrote: Some people are so blinded by current/accepted PC that all they can do when confronted with uncomfortable facts is to smear others by calling them racist or sexist, etc simply for even daring to point out such facts. I think such people are far more blinded and dangerous than even real racists and sexists, nevermind those whom they wrongly accuse.

---

 1) what means PC here (Personal Computer?)

2) its is not just naming facts (less black GM's and less women GM's...), but jumping to the conclusion that these numbers imply less talent, less intellectual abilities. In particual, YOU did this also.

3) I call such conclusion racist/sexist, and  it is so by definition.

If you don't see yourself as a person who has racist or sexist opinion, it is urgent time that you start to think about contradictions in your arguments and ideological equipments. 

 

mandelshtam wrote: Reb wrote: Some people are so blinded by current/accepted PC that all they can do when confronted with uncomfortable facts is to smear others by calling them racist or sexist, etc simply for even daring to point out such facts. I think such people are far more blinded and dangerous than even real racists and sexists, nevermind those whom they wrongly accuse.

---

 1) what means PC here (Personal Computer?)

2) its is not just naming facts (less black GM's and less women GM's...), but jumping to the conclusion that these numbers imply less talent, less intellectual abilities. In particual, YOU did this also.

3) I call such conclusion racist/sexist, and  it is so by definition.

If you don't see yourself as a person who has racist or sexist opinion, it is urgent time that you start to think about contradictions in your arguments and ideological equipments. 

 

---

 PC is short for Politically Correct and it is tool used to frighten people so they don't speak their minds out of fear of either being turned in to the government by their neighbors or being made the subject of scorn or ridicule by their peers. I value my freedom speech and will not give it up lightly. Facts are facts and if you don't like the way FIDE compiles their lists of the best players every month, then do something about it but don't go accusing people of things that you have no idea about. You do not know me or anything about me. All I did was present a list of names and point out that most of them are white Europeans and you are taking that and painting a false picture of me. Tell me something, if I sit down at the chess board in a tournament and I am paired off against a man dressed all in black with forelocks and a beard down to his bellybutton who introduces himself as Ira Greenblatt, is it anti-semitic of me to think that maybe, just maybe, Mr. Greenblatt might be Jewish? I have nothing against Jewish people, either, but according to you, just by acknowledging that he might be makes me a raving anti-semite worse than Bobby Fischer. 

Ok, I appreciate that you allow me to call things as I believe they are, and not follow the northern amreican "rules of political correctness". (I am European.) 

I continue to think  that you and Reb have made contradicting statements.

OK, I see that you are not a racist (or not want to be called as such).

Then just face the fact that you also cannot claim  that "may be, black people and women have a different brain which does not allow them to become a strong player".

EVEN NOT THE MAY BE IS ALLOWED. 

And to be 100 percent clear: I NEVER denied statistics.

Repeatedly I am accused to deny these (undeniable) facts.  

But the statistics (in this case less black and women GM,s, etc....) does not say anything about brain structure, or intellectual potentials. 

I urge those people who accuse me of things I never did, not to deflect from the contradictions in their statements. 

I will be the first to admit I may be completely wrong. Maybe there are other factors that are limiting some groups chess ability. Maybe some people in some countries don't have as many opportunities to play in professionally organized tournaments because they don't have many chess promoters there which is why they have fewer GM's and don't appear in the top 100. Maybe in some countries there just isn't a high level of interest in developing chess skills because they have too many more important things to do like just surviving. Maybe a repressive government wants to keep the people from developing their minds so they are easier to control and complex games like chess are not allowed. There are a lot of reasons that might explain it but all I was doing was pointing out the lack of representation by some of the world's peoples in chess circles while others are clearly over represented.

Marshal_Dillon wrote: I will be the first to admit I may be completely wrong. Maybe there are other factors that are limiting some groups chess ability. Maybe some people in some countries don't have as many opportunities to play in professionally organized tournaments because they don't have many chess promoters there which is why they have fewer GM's and don't appear in the top 100. Maybe in some countries there just isn't a high level of interest in developing chess skills because they have too many more important things to do like just surviving. Maybe a repressive government wants to keep the people from developing their minds so they are easier to control and complex games like chess are not allowed. There are a lot of reasons that might explain it but all I was doing was pointing out the lack of representation by some of the world's peoples in chess circles while others are clearly over represented.

---

This topic has been discussed thoroughly in the preceding several hundred posts. There is probably not much new ground to cover, so I won't try to repeat all that has come before.

You seem to be placing far too much significance on chess as a stand-in for "intelligence." Why don't you consider mastery of the game Go (Weiqi) to be the test of intelligence? Many would consider it to be even more mentally demanding than chess. If mastery of Go is the measure of intelligence, the Japanese, Koreans, Taiwanese, and Chinese are much more intelligent than Americans (or Europeans). In fact, there has only been 1 American who ever reached the highest professional level (9-Dan) in Go.

Eveyone should be able to understand that you cannot use an absence of top-level American Go players as evidence of Amercans generally being less intelligent than people in Go-playing countries. Almost no Americans play Go.

Indeed, if I wanted to make being able to survive in the Khalahari desert the "real" measure of intelligence -- certainly it's something closer to a "real" measure of intelligence than chess mastery -- I'd have to conclude that the San Bushmen are geniuses and the rest of us are dopes.

 

I agree totally with duffer. All arguments have been spoken out.

Unfortunately, some people still believe that an example  - or many examples - prove a theory. How can one lead a serious discussion with people who deny logic?

 (The "theory" i mean is the one about differences in intellectual abilities of races, and between women and men. I have to insist that racism and sexism appeared many times on this forum, and i have explicite proofs of it.)

HAHAHAHAHA.... I started this thread!!

 

Does any one even remember why??

Don't mind answering... I'll tell you why... Because of an interview with a GM, who said women wore less capable of playing.

I actualy think this is stupid, but the real quaestion is, what do you think of the fact that a GM is saying things like that...

 

and some on answered me very britly: "sometimes, incredible players can be such assholes"

Nobody really knows why women don't preform as well as men at the upper level of chess.  Is it that mens genetics, or society that gives men the edge?

• If somebody says women are not as good at chess for purely genetic reasons, they are saying that based on very little evidence, and thus are twits.
• If somebody says women are not at good at chess for purely societal reasons, they are saying that based on very little evidence, and thus are twits.

As a male, I hope some proof comes about how men are better at chess due to genetics so we can feel superior.  I'm tired about reports about how girls live longer, or have a higher pain tolerance, or that their faster development leads to better grades, MALES RULE!  WE CAN THROW BALLS FURTHER AND STUFF!

fernandobtn, karpov even once said women would have less strong nerve system, and therefore don't perform as well...

We all know that there are dozens of prejudices against women, difficult to beat them all at the same time. Karpov, on the other hand, is a gentlemen....

Sexism is still so strong that it is even often in the unconscience of men who in serious discussions like more the company of women than of men (because they are more fair, less emotional when it comes to a heat-up...).

It will disappear if we have equality by laws, in rights, in jobmarket.

But slowly only. So let's finish this discussion. 

"less emotional"

Women are lots of things.  They are not cold and calculating (generally), they are warm and loving mothers.

I said IN A DISCUSSION women are less emotional WHEN IT COMES TO A HEAT_UP, that is, when it is to decide between two 'truthes'.

I think i am generally right in this judgement.

Being less emotional in such a situation is another plus for women, (which is often overlooked).

---

 lolollololoLOLOLOlolololol

We all should! feels nice to hang loose (well... sorry, girls, but 'hanging loose' is something you will never understand).

yes but the reason for male dominance as said in the interview is men play MORE then women

I think its a matter of female interest as well: woman just don't like it that much, I mean, just 10% of players are woman, them all can come and play, they just don't. As a result, there arent many great female players, Judit Polgar, who else got that far ? If there were more female player I'm sure we'd have already seen a female World Champion.

Whaaaaat!!!

#11
Thanks this is more readable to curse him

A woman has to cook for man.
Until there’s no change in that, there can’t be any progress

Why we have Beth