Woman world championships and titles - aren't they an insult ?

Where did I say that WGM and GM titles are equivalent? You're just talking bologna now. I clearly stated that the Woman Grandmaster title is lower than the Grandmaster title.

The problem is that if a woman can really be a GM, she should be a GM. The mere presence of a WGM title implies that women need their own "McGrandmaster" title in order to feel special. Why is a Woman Grandmaster title lower than a Grandmaster title? If a woman is a grandmaster, she should be a grandmaster. If a man is a grandmaster, he will be a grandmaster.

To "remedy the situation" by creating separate titles for men and women doesn't make sense. It only creates a separation, an idea that men and women are different in the chess world and don't belong on the same level. So if you believe women and men can be equally strong chess colleagues, there is no reason to have a separate title for each gender.

"You're arguing what's good for women. And to argue what's good for women, without actually consulting women, without actually exploring the female experience, is practically the definition of patriachy."

I think it's ok to argue what you think is good for women, as long as you respect the opinions of those who disagree. Even if I argue about something about women, I will qualify it by saying "this is only my perspective" -- any man or woman may agree with it or reject it. We feel certain ways about certain things, and we express them -- it's up to the readers to decide whether they empathize with them or not.

By the way, it's good to have checks, both ways -- to have half of people who can vote men, and half women. That way men can't team up and grab all of the power, and women can't do so either. If only women could decide on what they could have, what if they decided to be selfish and demanded greater rights than men because that was "best for them?" Same goes for men. Instead we take the average of all opinions.

"People here are arguing that women should be insulted - but if you ask women, for the most part, we're not. We see it differently. And isn't it presumptuous to claim that you know better than us what's best for us?"

Someone could make the case that you should be insulted, but that's their opinion -- they're not asking you to agree with it -- only to do so if you are convinced of the argument.

Goes for any argument. Arguments try to persuade; it doesn't mean that if a person is not persuaded the arguer will necessarily resent them or be disrespectful of the disagreement.

I won't state which side I am on regarding the OP, but I respect any woman's opinion, whether she thinks it's insulting or not (and thus, whether or not she agrees with me).

Snowyqueen, what is the purpose of a WGM title?

"To remedy the situation" is not a good answer.

How is it a remedy? And for what "situation?"

That is not accurate.  First of all, if rating in small pools were equal, then online rating would or should be the same as FIDE ratings.  We all know that is not true.  And it is true that there is disparity at lower ratings.  1400 in one city is not the same as 1400 in another.  In small areas a small club can have players who all progress together but don't move up in rating so much because they keep playing each other.  There are various scenarios for inflated ratings also in some cases.

It all starts to blend together when you get to the national and international tournaments.  This is why GM norms require GM's from at least 3 countries to qualify.  You can't get norms at a club meet because there is no verification of the strength of the tournament by just looking at ratings.

Women who go to only women only events will have an inflated rating if they always get to play half their games against players who blunder twice as much as men.  There is no guaranty they would have the same result and maintain the same rating in a field open to more tallent.  

We can argue back and forth if this is or is not true.  But the simple test is playing.  If you want a universal title, you should play in events that are universal.  Club play, segregated play, online play, coffee house play, or anything else should not count. Making an argument for a title should not be taken seriously.  Only actual play.

The opening poster actually does have a point. If for example there is the NBA and the WNBA, why then is there not both a male chess league and a female chess league? 

I'll also add that I can think a statement is disrespectful even if the receiver isn't offended by it. For example, if a guy calls another guy "retard," maybe the guy receiving it doesn't take it too seriously and just doesn't care. But I as an observer might still argue, why are you trying to bring to attention his supposedly "low intelligence?" I can still personally think it was in poor class for him to say that, even if the guy receiving it didn't care. I can still think making comments like that is a mean policy, and again this is a hypothetical opinion that people can, freely, accept or reject.

And I bet the guy who received the comment wouldn't hate me for raising that concern, even though he doesn't see it that way -- he would probably figure I was trying to help in a way that I believed in.

I'm pretty certain that it is true, that as a ratio women perform the same as men. But your other argument is compelling. That women's titles and events are a good way to get more women into the royal game. That is a good point and one I did not recognize until you pointed it out.

Regarding role models, I know this is idealistic, but I think of a role model as someone who has characteristics I would want to have. If it turned out such a person was female, even though I'm male, I don't see the problem. There are tons of women I would love to be like, because of their character, what they achieved, etc.

I get though that in reality the psychology is trickier -- if you see a person of your own gender achieving something, it may make it easier to picture yourself doing it, etc -- so the above paragraph is only an ideal :)

That's the worst thing I've read since I was born.

Here's a problem I have. Just because there is someone with an opinion out there, doesn't mean you have to go on the defensive. Most people would not side with that article. The few who would, are not going to control your decisions. Women are obviously allowed to go to college. You also have the right to birth control. You are not nearly as "controlled" as you think you are.

Snowyqueen has just proven herself to be a ranting radical feminist with no basis on reality on that college stuff.

There are more women in college and university in 2013 than men. How are men "actively trying to bar education" from them?

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2013/03/27/college-graduation-gender-salaries/

Not just that, but there are also more women in universities.

Not only do women enter college at higher rates than men, but they're less likely to drop out once they get there. Female grads now account for about 60% of U.S. bachelor's degree holders

Perfornance stats indicate given equal gender numbers there are more men outliers than women, so the equal participation levels gives equal performance argument is something of a red herring. 

Education research has shown that relatively speaking boys outperform girls during exams, whilst its the opposite with coursework. So the structure of a univ' course (balance of coursework projects / examinations) maybe to a certain extent can bias outcome grades by gender. 

Is the chess game the examination after all the preparation coursework, if so it might explain the following results;

CM 2200 WCM 2000
FM 2300 WFM 2100
IM 2400 WIM 2200
GM 2500 WGM 2300

I have noted a few "logical fallacies" as I have been reading the debate on this topic. However, I can't stand the abusive "ad hominem" attack such as Knightberry has made.

"Snowyqueen has just proven herself to be a ranting radical feminist with no basis on reality on that college stuff."

I really feel that stament was uncalled for.

But what degrees are they going for?  What is the ratio in STEM fields as opposed to some fluff field like history or liberal arts?  Besides, college doesn't suddenly make someone smarter or more credible for the most part (especially opinion fields though I trust climate scientists over Glenn Beck and Richard Dawkins over Kurt Cameron so there are exceptions) and mostly represents how much money your parents were willing to spend just for the chance for you to have a relatively well paying job. 

College may have fun frat parties, drunk table tennis, etc., but we mustn’t forget that its main purposes are both capitalistic and utilitarian in nature, and that is accomplished both by gouging customers (i.e., the students' parents) sometimes even banning used books forcing the customer to spend more, and forcing them to take needless fluff having nothing to do with the job, and utilitarian because many employers won't give you a second look unless you have the degree.  It used to be that a degree gave you an advantage in the job market, now it only levels the playing field. 

Men and women have equal technical proficiency, men are just bigger.  For example, if you put a team of 5’2” 105-120 pound people (average female) against a team of people who are 5’8” 160 pounds (average male) who has the advantage?  That’s right, those with more technical proficiency and training, height and size are overrated. 

 We can go further and compile a team of men the size of the average female and a team of women.  Since both teams are 5'2" and in the 105-120 pound range and assuming equal training best out of 7 could go either way, maybe the men win and maybe the women. 

Wow, so a 2100 woman is a chess master, but a 2300 man is a chess master. A 2300 woman is a chess grandmaster, but men have to be 2500 to be a chess grandmaster.

Women titles are clearly sexist. Yet a woman speaking so strongly for equality (equality?) seems to think there's no problem with them (?)

My opinion for what its worth. If Women don't mind, why should it bother guys ? It doesn't bother me in the least (and yes I am a guy). So why not let sleeping gals sleep. Really, if they like their own tournaments/clubs, why the heck would you want to disagree with that. I can't say I blame women for wanting their own achievements. Nor do I blame them for not wanting to join men's chess tournaments, and clubs. While our clubs, and tournaments are open to them, it can make for some awkward situations. Especially for the girls. Guys leering at them, for an example, it would creep me out. No I can't blame women at all. Just my opinion, and 2 cents. I know there are some nice guys out there, but overall Girls do need to be cautious.

lol I never expected this topic to become so popular

Well, it's not always pleasant to keep having male stereotypes being thrown out there, either

Ultimately, yeah, there probably are a fair amount of guys who would act inappropriately around a woman who is playing in a tournament, but I don't think I am one of them. Remember it's not fair to apply stereotypes (of any kind) to an individual, but for the sake of the group, I understand. I guess I'm idealistic in that people should be able to get along regardless of gender, and shouldn't feel separated because of that.

Why not?! Chess clubs don't need separate locker rooms. The age six chess prodigy (male or female) can always have their parents accompany them to the bathroom.

Anyway its healthy for society to have gender equality in all of life's endeavors.