Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!ora!ambar From: sharring@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: sexism (against women) [Chess] Message-ID: <13745@helios.TAMU.EDU> Date: 28 Mar 91 03:24:41 GMT References: <561@clbull.cl.bull.fr> <13379@helios.TAMU.EDU> <1991Mar21.005845.12514@world.std.com> Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz) Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University Lines: 109 Approved: ambar@ora.com In article <1991Mar21.005845.12514@world.std.com> arw@world.std.COM (Anthony R Wuersch) writes: >sharring@cs.tamu.EDU (Steven L Harrington) writes: >>In article <561@clbull.cl.bull.fr> rao@cl.bull.fr (Srinivasam Rao) writes: >>>Why don't the members of the "weaker" sex prove themselves by competing >>>with men in the World Chess Championship and becoming the world champion. >First they have to win in the Candidate's tournaments. >>Many more men play chess than women. >Perhaps more men than women *enjoy* chess. What's your point? Even if this were true, what point does it make? Further, if I grant you a point you still failed to address the question of why girls don't enjoy chess as much as boys [again I'm going out of my way to accept your unsubstantiated claim that this is so]. Perhaps if girls don't enjoy chess as much as boys there is a reason--perhaps they are culturally programmed to enjoy things more "feminine". >>Why? Well, once again it is >>probably because of societal pressures which "say" that men are more >>fit for math, science, chess, etc. This serves to drive young girls >>away from such interests and pursuits. >Ah, young girls have no will of their own. More likely, they know >that girls don't play chess. That it's a social fact doesn't make >it less true. Many cultures have fixed ideas of gender-"normal". Again, I fail to see what you are trying to say. Girls certainly have "will of their own", but social pressures can drive away all but the most headstrong. It is very difficult to ignore the negative reactions of peers, especially when one is young. I doubt that I would have had the will to pursue a career in ballet in the backward state [to remain unnamed] that I grew up in. The reason for this is not that I as a male am incapable of ballet, but rather that it would have been severely frowned upon by the rest of the surrounding society. By the time one decides that he/she doesn't care what everyone else thinks, it is too late to become a prodigy at chess, ballet, etc.. >>Recent sucesses by the now famous (Hungarian) Polgar sisters have >>provided further evidence of the fallacy of this thinking. >For cultures where girls don't play chess, I perceive no fallacy. >The social fact remains. Habits don't propagate from one culture >to another very easily. How does Hungarian success affect the US, >or France, for instance? Speculation: not much. Let me rehash what was said and my response to it, and then you can try to show me how it doesn't affect US, France, etc. * The original poster, a self-admitted male chauvinist, argued that women were inferior mentally vis a vis they aren't good chess players * I responded by pointing out (no less than) 4 famous strong female players. Since my evidence provides absolute (verifiable) evidence that women can play chess well, how does this not relate to the countries mentioned? Are you claiming that we are to further discriminate between women in the US and France, and women in eastern Europe? If so, I will parry with the comment that there has never been a *male* world champ from France. Nor has there been a world champ from most countries other than the USSR. It couldn't perhaps be because chess is extremely popular among Soviet males, could it.... >The hypothesis of different brain development is not refuted. One can >claim that significant brain development occurs after birth and is thus >influenced by social facts. Language centers left unstimulated don't >develop. Maybe so for other centers too. The chess center. You seem to know something that I don't. What hypothesis are you referring to? Did I miss a post or something? All I recall was someone claiming that the absence of good women chess players (specifically world champs I suppose) was proof of the inferiority of the female brain. When I responded, I did so merely for kicks because I thought the proposition was so obviously ludicrous that no one would buy it. I guess that I was sadly mistaken. >>Judit Polgar, the youngest of the three, is on pace to break Bobby >>Fischer's record for the youngest *person* to receive the Grandmaster >>title. Even in the historical record, there is evidence that women >>had the capacity to be very strong chess players. For more information >>refer to the chess career in the early-mid 20th century of Vera Menchik. >Another Eastern European. The Polgars are interesting in that they >were taught at home. Their parents are psychologists, who obtained >a special waiver from the Hungarian government in order to use their >children as an educational experiment. Sorry, I forgot that women from eastern Europe aren't really women. Thus, if an eastern European woman plays good chess it doesn't count. You got me again.... >Since the Polgar father is a chess master, it could be claimed with >as much "evidence" that women can play chess, that children of chess >masters can play chess. I'm sure their chess centers get developed. Yes, you are correct. If someone were to come on to this (or any other) newsgroup arguing that children of chessmasters are mentally inferior due to their inability to play chess, it could be refuted by pointing to the Polgar sisters. It's nice to know that the Polgar sisters can be used to refute more than just one silly argument. -----------Steve Harrington Dept. of Chess Studies Texas A&M University