Well, it was about a year ago that I wrote my last blog post about gender bias in chess so it's about time I wrote another. First, congratulations to the new Women's World Champion! Of course, you all know who I'm talking about....no? Well, I guess that's because no one takes the Women's World Championship seriously. But a big congratulations to Ju Wenjun of China for winning. She takes home a not unreasonable 120,000 Euros and the title for the next....well, we're not exactly sure how long she'll keep the title for, but at least 6 months, probably! Compared to the Open World Championship, however, this is rather pathetic. Carlsen and Caruana will compete for the rock bottom prize fund of 1,000,000 Euros with the winner getting somewhat more than half, and keeping the title for the next 2 years.
So where is the equity? At the present moment, the World of tennis is seeing Wimbledon being played where the men's and women's champions will receive the same prize money, as they have since 2007. Of course, men and women aren't allowed to play against each other in tennis, where in chess women can play in men's events and in their own separate women only events. But why? Either women aren't as good as men naturally, so they shouldn't be allowed to play together, or there is no difference naturally, so there should be just one title, or at least parity in prize money.
Perhaps if we had more women in positions of leadership in the chess world that might have an impact on retention of girls in chess and promotion of the game among girls and women. Alas, women aren't being admitted to these positions for one reason or another. Take the recent case of the English Chess Federation abolishing the position of director of women's chess. After complaints, they reissued the job, rejected 2 reasonable looking female candidates, and gave it to a man. I'm not saying that the man isn't also a reasonable candidate, but this is a perfect opportunity to entitle women to participate in leadership roles over an issue that they will be passionate about, more so probably, than any man! From what I've heard, the best man might have got the job, but the female candidates weren't given a particularly fair chance. Read about it here.
So without going into too much detail about the upcoming FIDE elections, how well will women be represented on the new Presidential team? Yes, it will be a new team as Ilyumzhinov isn't standing (cue a bunch of munchkins coming out of hiding breaking into song about the death of a witch!). All three candidates, Dvorkovich, Makropoulos and Short have female representation in their teams which is a good thing. The more women in leadership positions throughout the chess world, will surely encourage more girls and women into the game and give them a voice in a position of power.
Finally, this is a subject I won't let go. As long as I am writing this blog, and there is sexism, blatant or hidden, in the chess world, then I'll be writing about it. It's something we shouldn't tolerate in life generally speaking, and in our little corner of society as a chess community. Hopefully I'll get through to a few people and if I do it will be worth it.
Showing posts with label gender. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 3, 2018
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
Update on "Women's Chess"
A few months ago I wrote a post about "Women's Chess" and sexual discrimination in the chess World. Since then I have seen articles and heard opinions by women, so a quick update is due.
Earlier this week on the Chessbase website, US FM Alisa Melekhina wrote an interesting piece about "Women's Chess" and the negative connotation that label has on the game. Tellingly, a number of the comments at the end of the article are derogatory and by men. A number of comments are personal and have nothing rational to argue against the piece, and this fits very well into my previous article. If male chess players are threatened by the possibility there could be stronger female chess players, then that is a sad state of affairs.
Melekhina isn't the only player to recently come out and say there are problems with the way women are treated in chess. Canadian WFM Alexandra Botez put the case eloquently on chess.com's ChessCenter. While discussing with presenter IM Danny Rensch, Botez points out that women's titles are set lower than men's which sets lower goals for women. Personally, I feel this is stating the obvious, but it takes women such as Melekhina and Botez to come out and say it, as well as others. (This wrap up video contains the interview near the start of the transmission)
This interview came after a provocative article from Vanessa West on the US Chess Federation's website entitled "Should Women's Titles be Eliminated". As Botez said, the article was well researched and presented and the arguments seemed coherent. Women's titles lower the bar for women's expectations maintaining a lower standard among female players in the game. As such, less female role models exist at the top level and therefore less girls aspire to take up chess seriously. It is a self perpetuating cycle.
Again, there are numerous comments beneath the article, though they tend to be more reasoned arguments. A quick Google search for "should women's chess titles be eliminated" brings up 613,000 results which shows this is a real issue. And if these recent articles are anything to go by, it seems the trend is that opinion is against the women's titles and the division in the game.
I hope that in the near future, something will be done to really promote the place of girls and women in chess by equalising goals and removing discrimination from the world of chess.
ps. I received a notification from New in Chess today regarding a new book about the first women's World Champion, Vera Menchik. I reckon this will be a fascinating read, so I'm going to buy it! I'll review it at some stage in the future.
Earlier this week on the Chessbase website, US FM Alisa Melekhina wrote an interesting piece about "Women's Chess" and the negative connotation that label has on the game. Tellingly, a number of the comments at the end of the article are derogatory and by men. A number of comments are personal and have nothing rational to argue against the piece, and this fits very well into my previous article. If male chess players are threatened by the possibility there could be stronger female chess players, then that is a sad state of affairs.
Melekhina isn't the only player to recently come out and say there are problems with the way women are treated in chess. Canadian WFM Alexandra Botez put the case eloquently on chess.com's ChessCenter. While discussing with presenter IM Danny Rensch, Botez points out that women's titles are set lower than men's which sets lower goals for women. Personally, I feel this is stating the obvious, but it takes women such as Melekhina and Botez to come out and say it, as well as others. (This wrap up video contains the interview near the start of the transmission)
This interview came after a provocative article from Vanessa West on the US Chess Federation's website entitled "Should Women's Titles be Eliminated". As Botez said, the article was well researched and presented and the arguments seemed coherent. Women's titles lower the bar for women's expectations maintaining a lower standard among female players in the game. As such, less female role models exist at the top level and therefore less girls aspire to take up chess seriously. It is a self perpetuating cycle.
Again, there are numerous comments beneath the article, though they tend to be more reasoned arguments. A quick Google search for "should women's chess titles be eliminated" brings up 613,000 results which shows this is a real issue. And if these recent articles are anything to go by, it seems the trend is that opinion is against the women's titles and the division in the game.
I hope that in the near future, something will be done to really promote the place of girls and women in chess by equalising goals and removing discrimination from the world of chess.
ps. I received a notification from New in Chess today regarding a new book about the first women's World Champion, Vera Menchik. I reckon this will be a fascinating read, so I'm going to buy it! I'll review it at some stage in the future.
Friday, April 14, 2017
Women's Chess?
I'd decided it was time to start writing again, it was just getting the inspiration to get on and do it. My own life is in a pretty good place at the moment, and I'm beginning to find good form in my chess. I'll be writing quite a bit about my chess and the things that are happening in my little part of the world over the coming months. But what has driven me to write this post is a subject I've talked about before, the inequality in our game between men and women.
Having worked with a number of young female players, I've seen them come up against both blatant, and non blatant sexism that seems to be ingrained in our psyche. The fact that we call chess played by women "women's chess" as if it is a different game to that played by men is an instant sign. In fact, in an event where there is no physical strength advantage for men over women, why on earth do we need to have a segregated game? Because that is essentially what we have! Federations, coaches, clubs, leagues etc all kow-tow to this gender difference though it shouldn't exist.
Now why, you may ask, am I getting worked up about this? Well I follow an author on Twitter, Joanne Harris, who tweeted about the poor press that women artists have received through history, and it resonated with me as being exactly the same issues as affects chess. Let's have a look at Joanne Harris' points and see how they can be applied to our chess world.
In chess there has been limited opportunities historically for women to compete with the best male players, and top coaches have given more time and effort to their young boys and men than to the girls.
Segregation is overt in the chess world. Officials talk about giving female players extra opportunities by staging events such as the European Women's Championship currently being held in Latvia, but this is just another form of segregation. Chess is an activity that all can compete on an even footing regardless of age, social background, race, gender etc. I can understand age group events, but even then there are boys and girls sections as if we are preparing them for their segregated adult playing life.
How many chess books by women authors do you own? How many can you even think about? There are thousands of chess titles by men, most of which are average or below in quality. How many women coaches can you name? Actually, it is the same in art where I was embarrassed to struggle to name any female artists throughout history. I'm no art buff, but nevertheless, this is a shocking omission in my knowledge, and it is not all my fault as art is presented to me by men of primarily male artists. Chess is the same.
The answer above still applies to this.
Really? Is the eminent British author suggesting that women's brains aren't "hard-wired differently" to men's like the eminent British chess player once suggested? To be fair to Mr. Short, he is not the only one in our realm to believe this, though others are not so forthright in expressing their opinions.
This is an argument I've heard so many times in chess circles. Women can't reach the top because of their domestic role. Housekeeping, child rearing, cleaning up after the main bread winner of the household. Couples order their lives based on the joint abilities of each partner. Caroline was the skilled partner in our household and I deferred her the role of main breadwinner happily. In time, circumstances have changed and we are now more even in our professional and domestic roles. It's the 21st century for heaven's sake! Equality is about opportunity for all regardless of gender or social status (though perhaps not in Trump's new medieval America).
Now how anybody can think this is not discrimination is beyond my understanding. The chess world is unfairly biased against women. The chances of us getting a top female player are minimal because girls have to undergo abuse, discrimination, assumed inferiority, segregation, and are given less opportunity than boys to perform at a high level. I'm an #heforshe advocate and it's time that we developed an equal playing field for girls and boys, treating kids the same, adults the same, giving them the same opportunities and rewarding them for attaining the same levels. Until that happens, I'm sad that my beloved game is discriminatory against girls and women.
Having worked with a number of young female players, I've seen them come up against both blatant, and non blatant sexism that seems to be ingrained in our psyche. The fact that we call chess played by women "women's chess" as if it is a different game to that played by men is an instant sign. In fact, in an event where there is no physical strength advantage for men over women, why on earth do we need to have a segregated game? Because that is essentially what we have! Federations, coaches, clubs, leagues etc all kow-tow to this gender difference though it shouldn't exist.
Now why, you may ask, am I getting worked up about this? Well I follow an author on Twitter, Joanne Harris, who tweeted about the poor press that women artists have received through history, and it resonated with me as being exactly the same issues as affects chess. Let's have a look at Joanne Harris' points and see how they can be applied to our chess world.
1. Make it hard for women to study art by controlling access to education. #TenWaysToSuppressArtByWomen— Joanne Harris (@Joannechocolat) April 14, 2017
In chess there has been limited opportunities historically for women to compete with the best male players, and top coaches have given more time and effort to their young boys and men than to the girls.
2. Segregate men and women, allowing only men to study subjects like anatomy and the history of art. #TenWaysToSuppressArtByWomen— Joanne Harris (@Joannechocolat) April 14, 2017
Segregation is overt in the chess world. Officials talk about giving female players extra opportunities by staging events such as the European Women's Championship currently being held in Latvia, but this is just another form of segregation. Chess is an activity that all can compete on an even footing regardless of age, social background, race, gender etc. I can understand age group events, but even then there are boys and girls sections as if we are preparing them for their segregated adult playing life.
3. Make sure the writing and teaching of art and art history is controlled primarily by men. #TenWaysToSuppressArtByWomen— Joanne Harris (@Joannechocolat) April 14, 2017
How many chess books by women authors do you own? How many can you even think about? There are thousands of chess titles by men, most of which are average or below in quality. How many women coaches can you name? Actually, it is the same in art where I was embarrassed to struggle to name any female artists throughout history. I'm no art buff, but nevertheless, this is a shocking omission in my knowledge, and it is not all my fault as art is presented to me by men of primarily male artists. Chess is the same.
4. Make sure art critics and other influencers are all male. #TenWaysToSuppressArtByWomen— Joanne Harris (@Joannechocolat) April 14, 2017
The answer above still applies to this.
5. By limiting the education of women, create the myth that women are intellectually weaker than men. #TenWaysToSuppressArtByWomen— Joanne Harris (@Joannechocolat) April 14, 2017
Really? Is the eminent British author suggesting that women's brains aren't "hard-wired differently" to men's like the eminent British chess player once suggested? To be fair to Mr. Short, he is not the only one in our realm to believe this, though others are not so forthright in expressing their opinions.
6. By keeping women in the home, create the myth that women's art is "domestic." #TenWaysToSuppressArtByWomen— Joanne Harris (@Joannechocolat) April 14, 2017
This is an argument I've heard so many times in chess circles. Women can't reach the top because of their domestic role. Housekeeping, child rearing, cleaning up after the main bread winner of the household. Couples order their lives based on the joint abilities of each partner. Caroline was the skilled partner in our household and I deferred her the role of main breadwinner happily. In time, circumstances have changed and we are now more even in our professional and domestic roles. It's the 21st century for heaven's sake! Equality is about opportunity for all regardless of gender or social status (though perhaps not in Trump's new medieval America).
If you haven't read anything by Judit Polgar, then I suggest you do, her books are excellent, she is an ambassador for women's rights championing the planet50-50 by 2030 campaign, as well as being the strongest female player in history. In her efforts to become a strong player she encountered overt and covert racism, which she has related in her books and writings. Even so, shemade it into the world's top 10.....7. When a woman does manage to create outstanding art in spite of all obstacles, attribute it to a relative. #TenWaysToSuppressArtByWomen— Joanne Harris (@Joannechocolat) April 14, 2017
....where she was branded a man by default, more male than female, and all the other things which belittled her status as a great player who had just been born a girl!8. If a woman suceeds in spite of this, make sure you tell everyone she was unnatural, unfeminine or unhappy. #TenWaysToSuppressArtByWomen— Joanne Harris (@Joannechocolat) April 14, 2017
Though I'd rather not go there, this is another jibe girls and women have to endure. I cringe to think about some of the things I've heard people say at chess clubs about female players, and I admire those girls and women to rise above it and just keep carrying on. The same things aren't thrown at men, and this is simply an ignorant form of discrimination.9. If all else fails, comment on her appearance, rather than her achievements. #TenWaysToSuppressArtByWomen— Joanne Harris (@Joannechocolat) April 14, 2017
Yes, absolutely. We have "women's chess". It is an inferior form of the game. You don't have to be so good to play it as the 'normal' game'. To be a male Grand Master you have to reach a 2500 rating level, whereas in "women's chess" the Grand Master title is only 2300. The same incremental difference can be seen for International Master's etc. The rationale? It encourages women a bit! WTF??? It encourages them to be worse. It rewards girls for achieving a lower level than boys.10. And most of all, when talking about her art, make sure you call it "women's art", rather than just "art." #TenWaysToSuppressArtByWomen— Joanne Harris (@Joannechocolat) April 14, 2017
Now how anybody can think this is not discrimination is beyond my understanding. The chess world is unfairly biased against women. The chances of us getting a top female player are minimal because girls have to undergo abuse, discrimination, assumed inferiority, segregation, and are given less opportunity than boys to perform at a high level. I'm an #heforshe advocate and it's time that we developed an equal playing field for girls and boys, treating kids the same, adults the same, giving them the same opportunities and rewarding them for attaining the same levels. Until that happens, I'm sad that my beloved game is discriminatory against girls and women.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)