Tweet
The CFC governors are voting on whether to create master and candidates titles for women that are slightly easier to achieve than normal candidates and masters titles.
After reading the various arguments back and forth on the issue I came to Iulia Lacau-Rodean's post (which I've re-posted below in italics) which I found made the most compelling arguments.
The basic idea is that if the number of women is very low (the number estimated is 3%) then what you would be doing is just creating a couple of rewards for a low number of existing players.
I agreed with the argument made in the governor's forum that these titles will not attract new players to the CFC. So the benefit of adding these incentives would be to reward a small subset of existing members.
Then Mr. Dutton's argument is compelling: Marketing to your existing customers is a more logical use of your efforts than to some imaginary group that might join in the future.
Again, because the numbers (of females) are so low its not as if its going to harm the rest of chess. (You aren't going to harm the existing NM title if were talking a handful of 3% of the chess population that would even qualify for the title.)
At some future point I believe this motion (if passed) will have to be reassessed. If the number of female chess players has greatly increased I could see a sunset clause being added (that is, a five or ten year end date) or some other method of phasing out this ruling. On the other hand if things never change the rule would in theory last forever.
So it is my hope that the rule one day dies..
**********************************
From: Iulia Lacau-Rodean This sender is in your contact list.
Sent: April-04-13 7:26:06 PM
To: Vladimir Drkulec
Thank you for defending the motion on my behalf as well. I wasn't sure what the protocol was, whether as initiator you do get to participate in the debate or not. I did see you have couple of posts. Maybe I should comment something. I am quite outraged by some of the posts. This is why I haven't really posted anything on chess forums and stopped reading them for a while. Maybe I am not tough enough to deal with some of the harsh criticisms, esp having to refute people's views of how this motion would devalue the master's title, how it adds to the glass ceiling etc. What do they know about the chess glass ceiling anyways? None of the other governors have been stuck underneath it. Most of the girls I've spoken to all over the world have no problem competing in women's only events and obtaining titles for them. Lots of other sports are segregated by gender. As you said, if some women would be offended by the title, do not accept it.
I do urge that this motion be approved, it will be a great motivator for women in chess. How many active women are currently over 2100 CFC and less than 2200 CFC? Perhaps 3. 3 out of 100 women on the active list. That is 3%. What is so wrong with having another handful of women striving to achieve that goal (of the ones over 2000 CFC) and another perhaps 10 that are currently over 1900? How can anyone think it's detrimental to women's Canadian chess?
I am stumped.
Again, thanks for your time and effort put into this motion. Feel free to quote part or all of this on the forum.
Best wishes,
Iulia Lacau-Rodean
Women's Coordinator
Canadian Chess Federation
Sent from my iPhone
After reading the various arguments back and forth on the issue I came to Iulia Lacau-Rodean's post (which I've re-posted below in italics) which I found made the most compelling arguments.
The basic idea is that if the number of women is very low (the number estimated is 3%) then what you would be doing is just creating a couple of rewards for a low number of existing players.
I agreed with the argument made in the governor's forum that these titles will not attract new players to the CFC. So the benefit of adding these incentives would be to reward a small subset of existing members.
Then Mr. Dutton's argument is compelling: Marketing to your existing customers is a more logical use of your efforts than to some imaginary group that might join in the future.
Again, because the numbers (of females) are so low its not as if its going to harm the rest of chess. (You aren't going to harm the existing NM title if were talking a handful of 3% of the chess population that would even qualify for the title.)
At some future point I believe this motion (if passed) will have to be reassessed. If the number of female chess players has greatly increased I could see a sunset clause being added (that is, a five or ten year end date) or some other method of phasing out this ruling. On the other hand if things never change the rule would in theory last forever.
So it is my hope that the rule one day dies..
**********************************
From: Iulia Lacau-Rodean This sender is in your contact list.
Sent: April-04-13 7:26:06 PM
To: Vladimir Drkulec
Thank you for defending the motion on my behalf as well. I wasn't sure what the protocol was, whether as initiator you do get to participate in the debate or not. I did see you have couple of posts. Maybe I should comment something. I am quite outraged by some of the posts. This is why I haven't really posted anything on chess forums and stopped reading them for a while. Maybe I am not tough enough to deal with some of the harsh criticisms, esp having to refute people's views of how this motion would devalue the master's title, how it adds to the glass ceiling etc. What do they know about the chess glass ceiling anyways? None of the other governors have been stuck underneath it. Most of the girls I've spoken to all over the world have no problem competing in women's only events and obtaining titles for them. Lots of other sports are segregated by gender. As you said, if some women would be offended by the title, do not accept it.
I do urge that this motion be approved, it will be a great motivator for women in chess. How many active women are currently over 2100 CFC and less than 2200 CFC? Perhaps 3. 3 out of 100 women on the active list. That is 3%. What is so wrong with having another handful of women striving to achieve that goal (of the ones over 2000 CFC) and another perhaps 10 that are currently over 1900? How can anyone think it's detrimental to women's Canadian chess?
I am stumped.
Again, thanks for your time and effort put into this motion. Feel free to quote part or all of this on the forum.
Best wishes,
Iulia Lacau-Rodean
Women's Coordinator
Canadian Chess Federation
Sent from my iPhone
Comment