[Afton]

Please rein in your dismissiveness. It is not insane to consider the ways that men and women have advantages. I'm not trying to step into this argument on one side or the other, but this kind of mocking is unhelpful.

> Women are consistently and institutionally disadvantaged across the board. Why do so many men fail to understand this?

I think because it isn't true? Assuming 'across the board' means 'in every aggregate scenario', then there certainly are places where it's men who are consistently and institutionally disadvantaged (two classic examples are judicial sentencing and when a victim of domestic violence).

One can think that women are disadvantaged 'overall', if one wanted to construct a score-card, without believing that women are disadvantaged in every (aggregate) scenario.

In this particular scenario I think it makes sense to say "We wanted more female participation, so we introduced an incentive". This addresses a particular point, and people can argue about whether the goal (more women at high levels of chess) is worthwhile, but at least that doesn't turn the whole discussion into an 'us against them' mentality.

IOW: Please try to raise the level of debate.

[resu_nimda]

You're right, the mockery was unnecessary. It's just, agh, so frustrating to me, for men to call out gender-related "unfairness," based on just how far the scales are tipped to one side (imo).

"Across the board" and "overall" seem synonymous to me, I did not mean to imply that men have the advantage in literally every conceivable scenario/dimension.

In this situation I would just tend to err on the side of graciousness and over-correction...men have been calling the shots and having their way with nothing to stop them for so long, for most of us it is impossible to empathize with the challenges faced by the other half. Due to this long legacy there is a tangled web of deep-seated factors contributing to why women might not be competitive with men in chess, and why we might look into ways we can attempt to balance for that. I strongly believe that "just toss them in the ring, no special considerations, because lassiez-faire competition is the best and most fair" totally ignores the larger picture of these issues.

So yes, it is not insane to consider both sides, but in this particular instance - of someone claiming "unfairness" to men because women have their own bracket where it may be "easier" to get a cool title (and you see this argument all over sports) - I find it pretty gauche. It's just the same general issue where people of privilege see no problems because they aren't affected by them, and then label attempts to correct them as "unfair", I guess because of the explicit and intentional nature of the initiative? (Contrasted to the "naturally occurring" or "subconscious" unfairness all over, which I guess is acceptable?)

How does it hurt men, hurt competition, for women to have their own prize? For whatever reasons, women aren't competitive with men (in chess, at this point in time), men are the best, everyone knows that as a given, do we really need to rub it in by forcing them to be ranked alongside men? Is that really preserving some concept of integrity of the sport? Is that helping women get better? Or does it just further discourage them? Obviously some people are fine if women are muscled out of playing chess, if they can't hang that's their problem, right? There I go with the mocking, but agh! Have some compassion, understanding, graciousness...

[Afton]

I want to start out by pointing that I'm generally in agreement with your points.

I urge you to consider that aggregate statistics are not individual experiences. It is a totally normal, expected outcome that there are individual men who have had deeply unfair experiences based on their gender. The fact that 'overall' men have better experiences will be cold comfort to such people. While in aggregate we tend to encourage men/boys to play chess, and as such there are a lot of competitive men, an individual man/boy may have a very different experience. Telling that one man/boy that overall men have it better in this scenario (and others) just won't be compelling. That's why I tend to argue that we should consider these incentives. It's a group-modification action, not an individual-modification. But understanding this may help you to have compassion for people who, for whatever reason, are blind to the 'tipping of the scales' that you mention.

Good luck.

[minority-one]

> How does it hurt men, hurt competition, for women to have their own prize?

This has already been answered and I'd like to hear your rebuttal.

It hurts men and competition by devaluing the prizes. To quote jstanley again:

"She's no better than me, but she is a WGM and I am nothing".

Do you see how this hurts competition directly? Like it or not people compete for the recognition which is embodied by the prize. If the prize can now be given out without full attainment of the skill being tested for, then it loses its meaning and its signaling value.

> For whatever reasons, women aren't competitive with men (in chess, at this point in time)

I'd also be curious to hear from you why you think the reasons for this are "whatever reasons" - I'm presuming by that you mean, that the reasons are inconsequential or they don't matter or they are not important. Why do you believe that to be the case, without first knowing what the reasons actually are?

EDIT: all players have their own ELO score but they are still competing for the prize, which is the embodiment of the attainment of certain skills. If women can win this prize without attaining the same skills then this is devaluing the prize. Please address this directly, if you will. Again, to make this clear, players compete for the prize, not for the ELO score. If players did not compete for the prize, there would not be a prize.

[Afton]

> > It hurts men and competition by devaluing the prizes.

> To quote jstanley again: "She's no better than me, but she is a WGM and I am nothing"

Well, don't they still have their score? I mean, I'm not into competitive chess, but everyone has their own ELO, no?

> > For whatever reasons, women aren't competitive with men (in chess, at this point in time)

> I'd also be curious to hear from you why you think the reasons for this are "whatever reasons" - I'm presuming by that you mean, that the reasons are inconsequential or they don't matter or they are not important. Why do you believe that to be the case, without first knowing what the reasons actually are?

I'm not the author, but what I would have meant by that phrase is "regardless of what the reasons are". I would have used it because the reasons are essentially unknowable, probably have many different overlapping reasons, and any discussion of those reasons is extremely likely to get bogged down in useless arguments given our collective scientific understanding of this issue at this time.