|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > February 2005 > Women in Chess
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Aurora 2005-02-14, 5:50 pm |
| I have noticed the comments about women in chess in other topics. This
has always amazed me, why, in a sport where men's naturally superior
physical attributes are not involved, we still have this notion that
women are the inferior sex and that they should have their own titles,
set at far lower levels than the men's equalivent? Is this to give them
their own toys to play with, so that they don't get it in their heads
to think they could play the game on the same level as men?
Aurora
| |
|
| Aurora wrote:
quote:
> I have noticed the comments about women in chess in other topics. This
> has always amazed me, why, in a sport where men's naturally superior
> physical attributes are not involved, we still have this notion that
> women are the inferior sex and that they should have their own titles,
> set at far lower levels than the men's equalivent? Is this to give them
> their own toys to play with, so that they don't get it in their heads
> to think they could play the game on the same level as men?
> Aurora
>
Men's brains are better suited to play chess. It is simple genetics, it
is not a slight against woman, it is a scientific fact.
| |
| ron_suarez_chess@yahoo.com 2005-02-14, 9:48 pm |
|
Bugsy wrote:
quote:
> Aurora wrote:
This[vbcol=seagreen]
superior[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
titles,[vbcol=seagreen]
them[vbcol=seagreen]
heads[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Men's brains are better suited to play chess. It is simple genetics,
it
quote:
> is not a slight against woman, it is a scientific fact.
What? What actual scientific evidence is there to support such a
preposterous statement?
There is NO actual scientific evidence to support such a statement
regarding the brains of men and women. There is also no evidence to
prove that the brain itself really matters unless you think the person
is the brain.
What your statement reveals is that Bugsy's brain itself has severe
limitations in tha analysis of matters of life.
Ron Suarez
Ron Suarez
| |
|
|
ron_suarez_chess@yahoo.com wrote:
quote:
> Bugsy wrote:
> This
> superior
> that
> titles,
give[vbcol=seagreen]
> them
> heads
genetics,[vbcol=seagreen]
> it
>
> What? What actual scientific evidence is there to support such a
> preposterous statement?
>
> There is NO actual scientific evidence to support such a statement
> regarding the brains of men and women. There is also no evidence to
> prove that the brain itself really matters unless you think the
person
quote:
> is the brain.
>
> What your statement reveals is that Bugsy's brain itself has severe
> limitations in tha analysis of matters of life.
>
> Ron Suarez
>
> Ron Suarez
Ron,
I concur. My wife is far more intelligent than I am. SHe has no
interest in chess. If she did I am sure that she would learn to destroy
me at this game as she does with any other project requiring mental
discipline.
Rob
| |
|
| ron_suarez_chess@yahoo.com wrote (to 'Bugsy'):
quote:
> Bugsy wrote:
Let me guess: 'Bugsy' is male.
'Bugsy' prefers to believe his statement that "men's brains
are better suited to play chess" is "a scientific fact",
but he has *not* cited any scientific study to support it.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> What? What actual scientific evidence is there to support
> such a preposterous statement?
Bugsy's conclusion that "men's brains are better suited to
play chess" should be regarded as no more than an unconfirmed
hypothesis at this time. There are other hypotheses that
attempt to explain why far fewer women than men can play
chess at the top level *so far*.
quote:
> There is NO actual scientific evidence to support such a
> statement regarding the brains of men and women. There is
> also no evidence to prove that the brain itself really
> matters unless you think the person is the brain.
'Bugsy' was *not* the first man to advance the 'biological
hypothesis' to explain the inferiority of women at chess.
At the 1972 Chess Olympiad in Skopje, David Levy interviewed
Mikhail Botvinnik.
Levy: Why do you think it is that women, in general, are
much weaker players than men?
Botvinnik: It is a biological phenomenon. The woman is
biologically more complex than a man. She is
made in such a way that she has to procreate
and that is a responsibility but it is also a
burden. If you force a computer to work in one
direction and then you put it in another task,
it will work with more difficulty.
But women think quite differently about this.
--quoted by Raymond Keene and David Levy in
'Chess Olympiad 1972', p. 6.
quote:
> What your statement reveals is that Bugsy's brain itself
> has severe limitations in tha analysis of matters of life.
> Ron Suarez
It seems to me that 'Bugsy' has produced another typical
rec.games.chess.* 'proof by assertion'.
--Nick
|
| |
|
|