is this fair

The CM title is awarded to players who achieve an established classical FIDE rating of 2200, although the title is also given to players who perform well at continental or national events. As of 2020 there are roughly 1,700 active candidate masters—a small percentage of the millions of chess players worldwide.

The WCM title is awarded to women players who achieve an established classical FIDE rating of 2000, although the title is also given to players who perform well at continental or national events. As of 2020 there are 762 active WCMs—a small percentage of the millions of chess players worldwide.

What do you mean 'is it fair?

Yes this is fair.

Are you concerned that you don't qualify for a WCM title or that the title exists at all? Is it just Chess that concerns you or are you concerned about women's categories in other events too?

Not at all. A familiar grandmaster once told me that he could make at least a WIM out of me, but why do I need it in my old age? I don't even have ELO at all - I haven't played serious chess since 1989.

It seems to me that the WCM should be considered the more desired title, since almost three times as many people achieve the CM compared to the WCM. 

Typically, if less people can achieve it, then it should be more desirable. While chess players themselves do value the CM over the WCM, I am suggesting that maybe they are wrong, due to the fact that CM seems to be a more achievable goal just based on numbers of people achieving it.

i was about to say in before the flamewar but it appears i am too late

Flamewars and gender politics aside, the reason they do this is not really because women are "burdened by more chores" or whatever, it's simply to entice more stronger female players to keep playing. In the US I believe only 8 percent of USCF rated players are female, so it makes sense to give them an extra bone to go for.

It is not known why so few women achieve the highest ratings in Chess, so let's not advance unsupported hypotheses. The reason is likely to be a combination of many factors. If it's a subject which you're genuinely interested in the there's plenty of Gender Studies reading material. If you're just looking to antagonise then don't.

"A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of coloured ribbon."  Napoleon....

Titles are like gold stars that teachers give to their pupils to motivate. The proliferation of titles is just a way of getting more tournament entries. There was originally something like five grandmaster titles given as honorary awards by the the Tsar of Russia. The inflation of chess titles has outstripped monetary inflation.

The same money-awards equation is seen in coloured belts for martial arts. On one level there is a certain level of scamming about it all.

To lust after "titles" is a sign of immaturity. Accept them when they come of course, but as Fischer said, it's all about enjoying the game.

Thank you for posting. Good luck to all chess players. Enjoy playing chess and cheers.

Ray Duque III, GMBD

It`s not fair, they can just put in the same amount of work if they really want it.

They have those titles to encourage more women to play chess I guess...

He meant is this the fairer sex?

That's not fair. I'm undoubtable. Also more emojis please.

I am not reading all of those paragraphs

I am saying it is unfair because they only need 2000 and all they have to do is woman tournaments

I'm saying its fair. 

Are you shooting for or striving for the WCM?  Do you even play well enough to get a WCM? Does someone else earning a WCM harm you in any way?  

If the answer is no to all these questions, then your complaints are simply sour grapes. 

I am not really doing it for complaining I couldn't think of a title and the just wanted to start a conversation