Female Chess Players and Their Discomfort With Male Chess Players

[Peter McKillop]

I've linked to an interesting article below. For years I've been saying that women/girls-only sections are justified because, unfortunately, there are a lot of scumbag men/boys who make life at chess tournaments uncomfortable and even unsafe for women/girls.

https://en.chessbase.com/post/why-ch...omen-and-girls

[Neil Frarey]

Article written by just another woke democrat, no doubt.

Nothing to do with how the tournament is run or the people allowed to run it, nothing to do with how people treat one-another, nothing to do with strengthening society by maintaining a civil safe and welcoming environment.

Just more shit about justifying segregation ... instead of developing peaceful unification.

How f'n typical is that?

Huh?

How will you put an end to the 'uncomfortable' 'unsafe' chess environments?

Separate the women?

This shit has to end, Peter.

[Brad Thomson]

The article uses chess as an example, but is about human nature more generally speaking.

[Bob Armstrong]

The male attitude to women is still emerging from the dark ages, across society. What is it that we don't get??

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Pargat Perrer]

Article written by just another woke democrat, no doubt.

Nothing to do with how the tournament is run or the people allowed to run it, nothing to do with how people treat one-another, nothing to do with strengthening society by maintaining a civil safe and welcoming environment.

Just more shit about justifying segregation ... instead of developing peaceful unification.

How f'n typical is that?

Huh?

How will you put an end to the 'uncomfortable' 'unsafe' chess environments?

Separate the women?

This shit has to end, Peter.

Neil, since it is obvious that Peter is in favor of women / girl-only sections, what would YOU do to put an end to 'uncomfortable', 'unsafe' chess environments (composed of both male and female players)?

Something occurred to me reading that article.... chess is maybe unique among sports in which males and females intermingle. It's because when you have a male against a female, they are sitting at a table across from each other for one to several hours. So the male is subjected to seeing a female sitting directly across from him, and perhaps the female is (whether intentionally or not) dressed in a way that could be considered.... hmmmm.... provocative?

The reason I thought of this is because of these passages from the article:

"The first reality the chess world has to face is that men – for the most part – are preoccupied with sex, particularly at chess tournaments.

This is not conjecture or opinion – what I'm saying is actually documented in "Chess Bitch: Women in the Ultimate Intellectual Sport," by Jennifer Shahade, a world-renowned chess player, educator and author.

...

Even grandmasters wrestle with thoughts of sex during chess tournaments. For instance, Shahade wrote that, according U.S. Chess Hall of Famer Alexander Shabalov, most men are thinking about sex for most of the game.

"With characteristic candor, the Latvian -born grandmaster tells me, 'In most games, I am thinking about girls for about fifty to seventy-five percent of the time,'" Shahade wrote."

This is amazing stuff.... really speaking to something not spoken of nearly enough in chess. I think it is safe to say that most of the time, the women / girls are NOT thinking of sex as the men are during games.

So if the female is halfway decent looking, and / or is wearing something that could be considered provocative, the male could end up feeling he is, by being seated across from her for some lengthy period of time, either taken advantage of OR just being a victim his own hormones.

I guess what I'm suggesting is this: because chess has this unique characteristic of male and female sitting across from each other for some lengthy period of time, AND because males seem to think of sex much, much more than females, THEN it seems Peter and others are correct to push for women-only chess. But in Peter's case, perhaps he should back away from characterizing the males as "scumbags", because.... as Melania Trump would say... boys will be boys???

Sorry, Peter, I know how you love everything Trump LOL.

[Peter McKillop]

Article written by just another woke democrat, no doubt. ....

Another piece of cogent analysis by Neil Frarey.

.... Nothing to do with how the tournament is run or the people allowed to run it, nothing to do with how people treat one-another, nothing to do with strengthening society by maintaining a civil safe and welcoming environment. ....

I think the writer was drawing attention to an ongoing problem in chess. In a short article, he wasn't attempting a heavy-duty, academic study of the issues. But then you knew that, right Neil? You just wanted an opportunity to sound off on one of your favourite issues. Here's an article which is also NOT a study but it does set out some of the day-to-day fears women have as they try to survive in a misogynistic world:

https://www-buzzfeed-com.cdn.ampproj...to-worry-about

Do you have any women in your life, Neil? Wife, daughters, sisters? Ever talk to them about the precautions they take every day just to feel safe from men? This is a gigantic problem.

....How will you put an end to the 'uncomfortable' 'unsafe' chess environments?

Separate the women? ......

I'm not in favour of segregating girls and women. I am in favour of having the option of separate sections available for girls and women who are uncomfortable with the disrespectful (or worse) BS of some boys and men.

[Bob Armstrong]

Statement:s

1. Women themselves, only, should decide when a separate, parallel, women-only, title system is no longer wanted by them!

2. It is not the right of FIDE alone to decide whether to abolish the separate, parallel, women-only, title system.

Agree or disagree? Give reasons!

~ Bob A(T-S/P)

[Peter McKillop]

Neil, since it is obvious that Peter is in favor of women / girl-only sections, what would YOU do to put an end to 'uncomfortable', 'unsafe' chess environments (composed of both male and female players)?

Something occurred to me reading that article.... chess is maybe unique among sports in which males and females intermingle. It's because when you have a male against a female, they are sitting at a table across from each other for one to several hours. So the male is subjected to seeing a female sitting directly across from him, and perhaps the female is (whether intentionally or not) dressed in a way that could be considered.... hmmmm.... provocative?

The reason I thought of this is because of these passages from the article:

"The first reality the chess world has to face is that men – for the most part – are preoccupied with sex, particularly at chess tournaments.

This is not conjecture or opinion – what I'm saying is actually documented in "Chess Bitch: Women in the Ultimate Intellectual Sport," by Jennifer Shahade, a world-renowned chess player, educator and author.

...

Even grandmasters wrestle with thoughts of sex during chess tournaments. For instance, Shahade wrote that, according U.S. Chess Hall of Famer Alexander Shabalov, most men are thinking about sex for most of the game.

"With characteristic candor, the Latvian -born grandmaster tells me, 'In most games, I am thinking about girls for about fifty to seventy-five percent of the time,'" Shahade wrote."

This is amazing stuff.... really speaking to something not spoken of nearly enough in chess. I think it is safe to say that most of the time, the women / girls are NOT thinking of sex as the men are during games.

So if the female is halfway decent looking, and / or is wearing something that could be considered provocative, the male could end up feeling he is, by being seated across from her for some lengthy period of time, either taken advantage of OR just being a victim his own hormones.

I guess what I'm suggesting is this: because chess has this unique characteristic of male and female sitting across from each other for some lengthy period of time, AND because males seem to think of sex much, much more than females, THEN it seems Peter and others are correct to push for women-only chess. But in Peter's case, perhaps he should back away from characterizing the males as "scumbags", because.... as Melania Trump would say... boys will be boys???

Sorry, Peter, I know how you love everything Trump LOL.

Uhhhh.......no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I am not suggesting women-only sections because some libidinous jackass gets a woody on when his opponent is a woman. Please see my reply to Neil Frarey for particulars.

Re "scumbags," Pargat, have you ever noticed that there are some words/terms which, technically, can be applied to any human being but which, in reality, when they are used, are almost exclusively applied to men? "Scumbags" is one of those words/terms and I do not back away from using it when appropriate.

[Brad Thomson]

Schopenhauer explained things in an interesting manner. A man, he said, can reproduce hundreds of times a year, a woman can do so once. This biological fact helps to explain how much each of us thinks about sex and why men tend to do so more than women. There are scumbags and there are hose-bags in all walks of life. Is it fair to single out chess as being particularly offensive or guilty? Well, does the fact the women have their own system of titles, awards and tournaments with lower standards than men indicate that we are a bunch of scumbags and hose-bags, or does it indicate that men are actually better chess players than women simply and only because they are men?

[Brad Thomson]

1. Women themselves, only, should decide when a separate, parallel, women-only, title system is no longer wanted by them! 2. It is not the right of FIDE alone to decide whether to abolish the separate, parallel, women-only, title system.

The systems are not parallel, woman have a lower bar, lesser standards. If the systems were parallel they would dissolve into one. Chess is sexist so long as it maintains a sexist system, unless we are prepared to argue that women are inferior to men at chess.

[Pargat Perrer]

Uhhhh.......no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I am not suggesting women-only sections because some libidinous jackass gets a woody on when his opponent is a woman. Please see my reply to Neil Frarey for particulars.

Ok, so I got the reason wrong, the reason you want female-only sections is because some males make the females feel uncomfortable and maybe even unsafe. But ask yourself why the males might be doing that, and why it doesn't seem to be the case for other sports where males and females intermingle. What i'm suggesting is that maybe the very nature of chess -- sitting across from an opponent for possibly several hours -- encourages the males to act this way (if not at the board, then away from the board).

Whether that "justifies" the males acting that way is another topic altogether. If a female walks into a bar all alone, she knows what to expect and should consider it part of the nature of being female and going into a bar alone. So could we say that maybe she should expect nearly the same if she plays chess against males, as part of the nature of being a female and playing chess against males?

I too am in favor of the option for separate female-only sections, and in another recent thread here on that topic, I suggested that females should encourage other females to play in such sections because if the numbers of females in chess became the same as the numbers of males, and the females where playing only amongst themselves, their ELO ratings would eventually be spread over the same range as the males, proving that females are not inferior to males at chess.

Re "scumbags," Pargat, have you ever noticed that there are some words/terms which, technically, can be applied to any human being but which, in reality, when they are used, are almost exclusively applied to men? "Scumbags" is one of those words/terms and I do not back away from using it when appropriate.

But Melania Trump says boys will be boys, and this excuses (in her mind) Donald Trump's numerous sexual assaults against women over the years. She's his WIFE and that's what she thinks!

Not only that, but huge numbers of American women are Donald Trump supporters DESPITE his proven sexual assaults. What I take from that is that maybe there are plenty of women -- either a majority or a very sizeable minority -- who actually APPROVE of boys being boys. In fact, they very likely ADMIRE men who are deferential and even dominant towards women.

So are such men actually scumbags, or are they just being "natural" men? Ok, sexual assault is assault and should always be considered such and prosecutable. But what about just being a typical male making crude sexual remarks or gestures towards women? I guess I am asking, if we exclude actual assaults and say that is always a crime, what behavior of males towards females that is NOT assault justifies calling such males scumbags? Are male construction workers scumbags for whistling at a pretty woman who walks by the construction site?

And... women themselves are not always sugar and spice and everything nice. What about females who play males at chess and deliberately dress provocatively and try to distract the male from the board, hoping to entice a blunder and win the game? Are they scumbags?

[Peter McKillop]

Ok, so I got the reason wrong, the reason you want female-only sections is because some males make the females feel uncomfortable and maybe even unsafe. ....

You came so close to getting it right, Pargat. What I want is for women to have the option of a women-only section "because some males make the females feel uncomfortable and maybe even unsafe." If a woman wishes to play in a section where males and females are both welcome, wonderful.

.... But ask yourself why the males might be doing that, and why it doesn't seem to be the case for other sports where males and females intermingle. ....

How do you know this about other sports, Pargat? Do you have access to research that you can cite or is the above just presumption on your part?

[Erik Malmsten]

It's not just about sexual harassment but an upending of power relations. Some male's sense of masculine self is threatened when they lose to a female. It's not just being impotent. Haven't you heard the insult "You throw like a girl?" All throughout school you don't want to be considered weak like a girl, or the bullies will pick on you. These players take pride in their thinking, that men are more rational - then take an angry fit when they lose. The bullies better not find out. They will be ejected from the men's club.

[Peter McKillop]

It's not just about sexual harassment but an upending of power relations. Some male's sense of masculine self is threatened when they lose to a female. It's not just being impotent. Haven't you heard the insult "You throw like a girl?" All throughout school you don't want to be considered weak like a girl, or the bullies will pick on you. These players take pride in their thinking, that men are more rational - then take an angry fit when they lose. The bullies better not find out. They will be ejected from the men's club.

Thanks, Erik. All good points!

[Bob Armstrong]

I hope that the male chess culture, with some discussion, and feedback from women/girl chess players, will evolve faster than seems to be happening in society generally.

Am I being too optimistic, that being a modest sized group in society, and somewhat cohesive, we have more potential to change more easily, than society at large?

Bob