It's funny (not really) how in this PO-CO society there are to be found some glaring omissions that paint a strange picture of the ideological caretakers of this world. Here's one that has been bothering me since... I don't even remember anymore:


Separate chess tournaments for males and females.

Can you believe it?
In this day and age – not to mention all the Po-Co crap – there is, for all to see, a highly visible and respectable form of competitive entertainment that unabashedly feeds the impression that females are, well... let's not beat around the bush - stupider than men.

I am sure there are those who wil come up with all sorts of »scientific« explanations for it – such as »different« types of intelligence based on sex/gender (which is also crap, BTW – unless there is something seriously »wrong« with all those countless »exceptions« who do not corroborate the »findings«).

But that is BS, of course, because the fact is tournaments have been divided by sex long before any such tests were a glimmer in some white-coat's eye.

I know a person – a male – who is a very good chess player, and he is also befuddled by it.

Not so most of the others, it seems.

OR, and this, to me, is actually the worst scenario: it's all about inertia, gregarious non-thinking, a collective blind-spot, apparently missed amidst all the hand-waving and coughing around every single smoker...


So... what are your pet "omissions"?



N.B.
I don't seem to be able to find an appropriate forum for this. Based on similar topics I wanted to post it in Education & Media (although a general SOCIETY forum would've been better) - but whatever I do, I end up in the "conspiracy" group instead. So, let me just state quite clearly that I do NOT believe "segregated" chess tournaments to be a conspiracy - unless you count the world-wide domination by sleepy minds a "conspiracy"...










[edit on 7-3-2008 by Vanitas]

First , i am glad that in our shiny world only these two issues should be discontinued ASAP, all the other problems can wait ....
As for football - hey, it is a random game. Referee adds to that.
Also , it can help this forum , as conspiracies can be suspected. Not only the logical one (bets and BIG money),but also all the adrenalin released by viewers as referee makes an error can cause even larger addiction to that particular sport.
Chess issue...hmmmm , if sides involved are content with the situation, i am not going to burn FIDE's offices. I think that even the smallest sign of discontent by beautiful and smarter part of humanity would have resulted in mutual competition.
Now , the real question is :
What is the hidden purpose of this post? That's a conspiracy....

I think that even the smallest sign of discontent by beautiful and smarter part of humanity would have resulted in mutual competition.

And what do you think THIS is?!

Now , the real question is :
What is the hidden purpose of this post? That's a conspiracy....

Well, that's one thing that the smart and the beautiful are good at...
In fact, that's what chess is all about.





[edit on 9-3-2008 by Vanitas]

If the referee decides there hasn't been a penalty, then who decides the replay footage needs looked at in the first place?

Would you be in favor of a system similar to the NFL where managers would have the chance to dispute one, or maybe two, suspect calls (or non-calls) per game?

Vanitas,

Separate chess tournaments for males and females.

Can you believe it?
In this day and age – not to mention all the Po-Co crap – there is, for all to see, a highly visible and respectable form of competitive entertainment that unabashedly feeds the impression that females are, well... let's not beat around the bush - stupider than men.

Please tell me you went to public school and majored in emotional fulfillment?? Perhapsed I should say..DRAMA!!!

This is like an original thought right??

I agree with one of the posters..if this is one of the most important things going on in the world humanity has a real crisis on our hands. I think it was Zeroknowlege who implied this!!???

I am certain humanity is reaching critical mass over these deep concepts and injustices.

YOu most certainly put alot of deep and convoluted thought into the state of the world.

Thanks for enlightening us. We are surely inspired. We will try to do better in about 200 years. Some of us are just so stuck back in the 1700s in a time warp.

THank you for your contribution to important social issues.

Orangetom

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I would say that chess is a game that requires very good spatial skills, among others that give men as a group an advantage over women, who as a group have better verbal skills.

It really didn't take standardized tests for people to know that men and women have different abilities. It is also true that some women have strong spatial skills and some men are more verbal than spatial.

I don't know why chess matches are segregated and until today, I didn't know that they were.

I do know this. Women aren't marching in the streets and burning their bras over the issue, so I would presume that women chess players are okay with the current arrangement.

The fact that you didn't know they were separate leads me to believe that, regardless of your interest in chess (or lack thereof), you simply didn't think there would be a reason for segregating the players by sex... Which is exactly my point.

And you didn't think so - I am assuming - because in reality, in daily life, there are no relevant differences between the sexes that would validate maintaining such an order of things (based on a decision from the olden days).

Chess is, of course, an individual sport. And individuals can vary greatly.

I am familiar, of course, with the studies about supposed differences (which really aren't that great in the first place - and, much more importantly, the degree of which varies greatly from individual to individual).

But I am also "familiar" with the simple fact that I can read maps - for example - better than most men I know.
(And I don't like asking for directions, either. )

But of course it's not about a "scientific" angle, anyway. It's simple inertia: the worst reason of them all, if you ask me.

Which brings ms to female players protesting...

Oh please.
People aren't marching on the streets for things that would deserve far more than just "marching".
(Like poor referee decisions! )

And the reality is that very many professional chess players (female players included) - at least from among those whom I know - are somewhat awkward beings when it comes to social issues. They don't seem to really care about many things outside the chessboard (and that's precisely because so many of tem are so highly individualistic).

It doesn't make this obsolete arrangement any less wrong and unnecessary.




[edit on 13-3-2008 by Vanitas]

If the referee decides there hasn't been a penalty, then who decides the replay footage needs looked at in the first place?

Would you be in favor of a system similar to the NFL where managers would have the chance to dispute one, or maybe two, suspect calls (or non-calls) per game?

In reality (i.e. in the heat of the battlefield), the message that the tape should be reviewed would be intimated - possibly less than subtly - by the crowd...

But in principle - and you bring up a very good point here - I say the majority of the other judges would suffice.

And yes, I think a system such as you describe would be a good idea.
Better than what we have now, anyway.





[edit on 13-3-2008 by Vanitas]

Originally posted by Vanitas
So... what are your pet "omissions"?

There are no female interior linemen or wide receivers.

There are no female NBA centers.

There are no female MLB shortstops or first basemen.

Vanitas,

The fact that you didn't know they were separate leads me to believe that, regardless of your interest in chess (or lack thereof), you simply didn't think there would be a reason for segregating the players by sex... Which is exactly my point.

I dont really care if women are segregated by sex or not. In chess or any other sport. For all that matter I dont have much intrest in sports at all. You will seldom find me watch sports of any kind..unless it is a fishing program as I like to fish and eat fish.

And you didn't think so - I am assuming - because in reality, in daily life, there are no relevant differences between the sexes that would validate maintaining such an order of things (based on a decision from the olden days).

I disagree here greatly. There are in fact very relevant differences between the sexes in motivations and behaviors which cause or dont cause market trends. Buisnesses take advantage of them often when they can identify them. This type of predictable behavior also determines social structure and the behaviors/motivatioins behind the sexes too.
These are the behaviors which surround us daily..not the behaviors of female chess players as a group or individuals.
I dont really care if chess players are segregated or not by sex. I have played very good female chess players as well as not so good. It is the same with men.
The reality in "daily life" between males and females is a very wide gulf and much wider than most will admit. To know and verify this all I have to do is ask some of the females I know to come over and "flashdance" me
through some of the problems I have here and the conversation just breaks right down. This represents a huge gulf in thinking and expectations/beliefs. A huge difference in religion if you like. Yet they would think nothing of calling me over to solve their problems of which they cannot afford or dont want to bear the expense or trouble. They would think this is entirely normal ..until I tell them differently.

This is a type of poker or chess if you like. What motivates people or does not motivate people. The gulf between motivations is quite large and will not be leveled out anytime soon unless all of us are brought to the poverty level in equality. This is for what I look in people when playing chess or poker with them. What they will value and what for they will jump or motivate.

Chess is, of course, an individual sport. And individuals can vary greatly.

I agree here but this does not define the broad statement attempted by you. Individuals do vary. This does not negate the general differences between the sexes as a whole. I know this just by walking into a department store and looking at the presentation of the products. The merchandizers are counting on these differences. I can see this also in any computer advertisement that comes in my e-mail or in the newspapers. They too are counting on the predicatability of these differences to sell us products.

But I am also "familiar" with the simple fact that I can read maps - for example - better than most men I know.
(And I don't like asking for directions, either. )

This is nonsense..total nonsense. It is textbook of the femminist agenda...standard M1A propaganda. There are women who can read maps and men who can read maps. Men who cant...and women who cant and have no intrest in this knowlege of how to do this.
I can read a map too.

However I will admit one thing here. The caliber of men today is very low compared to in years past. We now have on hand a very femminized generation of men who have mostly computer and video game skills. Outside of this arena they are about useless and just as high maintenance as many women. This cannot be accidental but deliberate.

By the way...I think you are correct here ..it is simple inertia. But in a disfunctional way.

And the reality is that very many professional chess players (female players included) - at least from among those whom I know - are somewhat awkward beings when it comes to social issues. They don't seem to really care about many things outside the chessboard (and that's precisely because so many of tem are so highly individualistic).

agree again...this is one of the fingerprints of true individuality...they are not joiners per se...they dont respond well to causes....they are individuals. They are not big on sex differences...or any other differences..they just like to play chess...nothing wrong with this.

It doesn't make this obsolete arrangement any less wrong and unnecessary.

LOL LOL LOL...that is up to the chess players to solve for themselves. Personally I dont care one way or the other.

I just dont buy into the concept that the differences socially apply to the world as a whole or that the lack of difference in chess players is a template for the world. Such a concept does not make good nonsense to me.
In daily life there are huge differences in male/female value systems which determine what motivates us ...daily..moment by moment.

Thanks,
Orangetom




[edit on 14-3-2008 by orangetom1999]

Originally posted by Vanitas

You do know this was meant to be a "lighthearted" thread, don't you...?
Oh, I definitely meant every word I said - but the tone was the one I usually reserve for my parody bits... ;-)

No I didnt know this and never thought so as there were to many long posts with links added to be lighthearted. That is the way I read it. However ..thanks for clueing me in.

['i]And I definitely agree that the "map-reading & not-direction-asking" part is total BS. I only wish somebody would tell that to all the PhDs that keep peddling their ludicrous study "findings" all over NGC and other supposedly reputable "scientific" channels...

You know I hear this kind of drivel by PhD's and think the same thing...BS or also called Bravo Serria....like politicians they are working the system and audience for grant moneys. Stick around there will be another Bravo Serria study released soon for grant moneys and or to get us to jump through the next hoop. They are a type of political parasite....creating problems for profit....sort of like a politician. The obvious solution to cure it is to give money to it.

Thanks,
Orangetom