Why do women get different medals? WGM or simply GM?

The real reason women's titles still exist is really quite simple. Norms for any title (WIM, IM, WGM, GM) need to be made having played a field containing a certain number of titled players. Women's titles (and FM, but not - I don't think - CM though) count as titles for this purpose. Therefore they are incredibly useful - WIM, WGM gets conditions for playing, so encourages more women to play, and makes it easier (relatively!) for people to make norms.

This won't change, therefore the title system won't change. The debate about relative intellectual merits is therefore irrelevant, although interesting (and mostly logically wrong).

I'm not sure what you mean -- a female player on average has access to a field of titled players as large as that of the male player. Yes, the field of female titled players is small, but I'm not sure why we care whether a good chess player is male or female, as long as they are a good player. If 95% of the world's elite were female, I don't think that would be a problem either -- it doesn't mean if I love chess and I am a man, that I suddenly don't love chess anymore because I'm in the minority.

It's an imperfect solution in an imperfect world.  I appreciate naturalproduct's comment about we can express our opinions be we don't really understand the mental differences yet.  I see a lot of parroting of social norms and I don't find that very useful or enlightening.

Roughly 250 WGMs, 25 female GMs and 1275 male GMs.

There are women's events in many sports, so why not chess.

>:)

I don't perfectly recall, but that statement seems eerily similar to the kind of statements quoted in lectures about logical fallacies.

I think the Women's medals are pink, and most men don't want a pink medal.

probably didn't express my point well - if you are going for an IM or GM norm, you need to get a certain amount of points against a field of 'x' strength that includes 'y' # of foreign titled players. WIM and WGM holders count for this number (as I think does FM), so it helps everybody to keep the titles going even if they are pretty meaningless. I doubt they would be created now if we didn't have them, but as we do...

Name accomplished and/or well known female writers? Easy as pie.

Ursula K. Le Guin

Maya Angelou

Mary Shelly

Louisa May Alcott

Harper Lee

Madeleine L'Engle

Margaret Atwood

J.K. Rowling

Emily Dickinson

The Bronte sisters

Virginia Woolf

Harriet Beecher Stowe

Sojourner Truth

Lois Lowry

Ayn Rand

Mary Wollstonecraft

Madame de Lafayette

Dorthy Parker

Sappho

Edith Wharton

Agatha Christie

Anne Frank

Heloise

Joyce Carol Oates

etc, etc.

Did you really listed the author of Harry Potter, and Anne Frank?

The legit authors you listed, such as Mary Shelly, are just an handful - compared to the whole rest of the world literature.

Now you won't compare somebody like Patricia Cornwell to the likes of Irving Welsh I hope. And I'm gonna keep it just to modern literature, otherwise women start whining about how men "held them down".

The ridiculous thing is that female titles are all a blatant misnomer. Title of "Woman Grandmaster" is worth less than (the normal) title of IM. Same goes for the other titles.

So why a woman has to be called "WGM" instead of IM? Does that stroke her ego? Are they proud in achieving a title who basically makes fun of them? Maybe FIDE thought it was impossible for a woman to become a real GM, so they have to pretend they still are just like you do with a pampered child.

that's a bit pathetic

The pool of women chess players is smaller than the pool of men chess players, thus you'd expect fewer women than men to be of GM level.

Starting with the assumption that this difference is largely a result of systemic cultural stereotypes that turn women away from math/science/chess leads to the belief that chess is worse off by excluding almost half of the human race due to their gender. Thus, measures that encourage women to play chess and highlight women achievements in chess to push back against existing stereotypes are desirable.

Of course, if you believe women are all stupid children the above does not apply. In that case, of course, having separate women titles still makes sense for the same reason it does in most sports.

So plutonia, other than apparently getting pleasure from stating in multiple ways that you think women are stupid, what's your point?

ughhhhhhh

"Thus, measures that encourage women to play chess and highlight women achievements in chess to push back against existing stereotypes are desirable."

I would add, though, that it would be immensely preferable to achieve this without simultaneously giving women an easier time in professional chess than men. Women's titles/tournaments might achieve the effect you mention above but with the unfortunate after effect of the latter.

Instead of making women's titles/tournaments to encourage more women to play, I think it's better to simply encourage women by, well, speaking to them.

you just walk up to them and tell them to play more chess!!

brilliant!

is that your De Lorean outside ?

It's quite novel, isn't it?

If I understand the system (a big "if"), women titles are confered based on norms (or wins sometimes) in women's tournaments.  So the titles respresent achievement of women or girls relative to other women or girls.  With just a few possible exceptions, none of these norms apply toward regular titles. 

@Elubas, your point sort of ignores how people actually behave.

What would you say would do more to increase the popularity of chess in the US, telling people to play more chess, or Nakamura becoming WC?

When somebody people perceive as similar to them is hailed as successful in a given activity, that tends to spark their interest in that activity and increase the likelihood they'll get involved.

Thus, as I said earlier, the relative lack of already successful women chess players feeds a vicious cycle by decreasing the number of women that get into chess.

Your point about the system giving women an easier time in professional chess, however... do you seriously think many titled men would be higher rated had they been born women? I think it's quite unlikely that whatever advantage women titles/tournaments confer to women outweights the disadvantage of living in a society with the widespread belief that math/science/chess are not for women.

I agree, it's not how people actually behave, but I think it's unfortunate that it isn't. I don't think a woman who is good should feel like she isn't because there is a minority of women playing -- a person should have more will than that. Easier said than done admittedly.

I think the fundamental problem here is the attitude of men -- if a man wants to view a woman as inferior, female titles are not going to make him think differently, you could argue. That general attitude is what we ought to change if anything, and I don't think female titles do that. The men who have sense, of course know that it depends on the individual whether they are good at chess or not -- for the men who don't have such sense, it's their problem and there is probably little convincing them.

Is your view that it is a good idea to put women at an advantage in chess because they perhaps have to deal with stereotypes? I just don't think it's enough personally -- I, and you, could probably list a hundred unfair disadvantages we are under if we really wanted to. I'm not a very tall person, so I have an unfair disadvantage compared to other men. Some people make fun of me and discourage me. My arms are weak. Some of my grandparents are dead. Someone accidentally hit me with a baseball (totally unfair/unlucky) once. Maybe I've had some heartbreaks. Some things I think one has to overcome because we can't get everything we want. I don't think that men who are less strong and more likely to get beat up should suddenly get a higher salary to compensate, even though that is a disadvantage compared to other men.

Sure, some people get better luck than others -- maybe some loser who had nothing going for his life will win the lottery and never need to get a job -- you hope for the best but should be prepared to overcome obstacles. It's not an ideal world obviously, but in general I don't like the idea of making excuses for anything that doesn't go your way.

He wasn't referring to rating - he was referring to rewards. The problem with having separate female titles and tournaments is that women have more opportunities to excel amidst a smaller field of less difficult opposition, while similarly rated men are doomed to obscurity among their peers. Then again, the problem with doing away with these titles and tournaments is that, according to the current performance statistics for registered male and female players, it would nearly eliminate the chances for any woman to win any major tournament or title - and this, if anything, would be discouraging for any potential female chess players. Currently, it's a lose-lose situation.

If, even in the future, women cannot reach the male level of play and it becomes obvious from prolonged observation of statistics, this must be accepted and the separate gender categories must be conserved. If, however, ratings (i.e. performance) equality can eventually be reached through whatever social reform is necessary, then the separate categories can be dismantled. For now, either conclusion (or at least its political acceptance) is in the future; this is why, right now, separate titles and tournaments must be upheld, as it serves both sides of the argument.

I would like to ask you a question: you say that we "live in a society with the widespread belief that math/science/chess are not for women". What do you think the effect of this is on the global pool of female chess players? Does it discourage some women from entering the field at all, thus keeping the proportion of female to male players small? Or does it somehow affect the cerebral capacity of all women, resulting in a decrease in the potential rating of those who do choose to play chess seriously? Pardon me, but the latter sounds ridiculous. Yet, if it's only the number of female players that is reduced, and not their collective rating, then why is it that men are statistically better at chess than women regardless of any sample size effects?