01
Will
A WonderBra Improve Your Rating?
02
Warpaint
03
Crying
Wolf
04
In
The Bag
05 The
Pillowfight: Packing
Bricks
06 The
Girl's Club
ChessChick's
Links:
Women Players
On The Web
ChessChick Interview
at The Campbell Report
|
ChessChick's Guide To Girl Stuff
The Girl's Club
Some months ago I began an
informal survey of what my readers thought of women's tournaments and
titles. I am not claiming that this survey is scientific or
balanced. It's just an opinion poll of my readers---and only those readers
who've chosen to participate. One of the interesting things I noted is that the
totals for each question varies, indicating that some people only participated partially
in the survey--answering only the questions they wanted to. This, too,
affects the results.
Before I tell you what I
think, take a look at the results for yourself.
1 |
Gender?
(Guy or Girl)
RESPONSE |
VOTES |
PERCENT |
A
guy (male) |
61 |
84.72
% |
A
chess chick (female) |
11 |
15.28
% |
TOTAL |
72 |
100.00 % |
|
2 |
Have
you ever played in a women-only tournament?
RESPONSE |
VOTES |
PERCENT |
Yes |
6 |
9.68
% |
No |
6 |
9.68
% |
No.
I'm a guy. |
50 |
80.65
% |
TOTAL |
62 |
100.00 % |
|
3 |
Do
you think women should have separate titles (such as WIM, WGM) or do you
think women's titles should be abolished?
RESPONSE |
VOTES |
PERCENT |
I
think it's OK for women to have separate titles. |
23 |
34.33
% |
I
think it's a good idea for women to have separate titles. |
6 |
8.96
% |
I
think women's titles (WIM, WGM, etc) should be abolished. |
36 |
53.73
% |
No
opinion. |
2 |
2.99
% |
TOTAL |
67 |
100.00 % |
|
4 |
Do
you think there should be a separate World Championship for women?
RESPONSE |
VOTES |
PERCENT |
Yes |
41 |
63.08
% |
No |
24 |
36.92
% |
No
opinion. |
0 |
0
% |
TOTAL |
65 |
100.00 % |
|
5 |
Do
you think a woman will win an overall World Chess Championship (which
includes both male and female players) within the next 20 years?
RESPONSE |
VOTES |
PERCENT |
Yes. |
16 |
23.53
% |
No. |
48 |
70.59
% |
No
Opinion. |
4 |
5.88
% |
TOTAL |
68 |
100.00 % |
|
6 |
Do
you think women-only tournaments have a positive effect, negative effect,
or no effect on women playing chess?
RESPONSE |
VOTES |
PERCENT |
Positive
effect |
31 |
46.27
% |
Negative
effect |
21 |
31.34
% |
No
effect |
15 |
22.39
% |
TOTAL |
67 |
100.00 % |
|
7 |
Which
most closely reflects your opinion on women-only tournaments?
RESPONSE |
VOTES |
PERCENT |
I
think they are good for getting more females involved in playing
chess. |
30 |
46.88
% |
I
think women-only tournaments have the effect of holding women back. |
12 |
18.75
% |
I
think women's tournaments are neither helpful nor harmful to women
players. |
12 |
18.75
% |
I
think women-only tournaments are archaic; they belong in the
previous century. |
8 |
12.50
% |
I
think women's tournaments are fun. |
2 |
3.12
% |
TOTAL |
64 |
100.00 % |
|
One of the things I
found interesting was the way the numbers changed over time. In the
initial flurry of votes the first couple of months the anti-women's tournament,
anti-women's titles numbers were significantly better than the final
result. The
numbers supporting women's titles and tournament steadily crept up in the final
months.
I was not surprised to
learn that most of my readers are male; most chess players are male. I was
hoping, however, that I'd have a few more female participants than I did because
the topics this survey deals with are women's issues. On one hand,
it seems to me more relevant what women think of women's titles and tourneys
than what men think. On the other hand, most of the positions of power in
chess organizations are held by men, and the people in those positions are the
ones who determine whether we have women's titles and tournaments.
So. The opinions of male chess players are not totally irrelevant.
Six of the eleven women
participating have played in women's events. This reflects the ambivalence
I have heard from women about women's tournaments. Some love 'em, some
refuse to play in them, some give it little thought. The fact that nearly
50% of the women haven't played an all-women's event gives me
pause. If chesschicks were enthusiastic about all-girl events, wouldn't the
numbers be a bit better? Women are not of one mind on this matter. I
have heard that one of the top female juniors in my state does not participate
in the regional all-women championship precisely because it is an all-women
event. Apparently, she doesn't want to settle for a "girls
title". I also know a woman who speaks with such rapture and
enthusiasm about women's tourneys that they sound like giant sisterhood
love-ins, rather than brutal competitions. (Curiosity got the better of me
and I played in one; there was little evidence of benevolent sisterhood.)
Women's tournaments are
a divisive issue among women, but the issue of women's
titles and championships is far stickier. Why? Because there are
women right now who hold those titles. They worked very hard for them,
many of them gaining their titles during less-enlightened times, fighting
against not only their opponents, but against the fear and hostility of males
while they learned their craft, and the disapprobation of society at large. Some of these women are very much opposed
to eliminating the WIM and WGM titles. They perhaps see it as a slap in
the face. How can we eliminate women's titles without seeming to say, "What you did
was worthless. Your title, which you are so proud of, is
worthless." Pretty cold-blooded.
I see no way to duck these implications. We can make pretty speeches
about the value of their achievements, but because the ratings
of women holding these titles tend to be considerably lower than
people holding "male" titles of IM and GM, a lot of
male players do consider women's titles to be worthless.
Men who are USCF Experts or Masters could be WIMs if they were
women. If you don't think this fosters resentment and derision,
think again. Frankly, I think it would do male-female relations
a bit of good to abolish the titles and let men and women of equal
rating stand on equal footing. I don't think women's titles are necessary. They might have been at one
time, but chess is probably the most egalitarian sport on the
planet. There is no reason for women to have a separate
tournament and title system---unless you think women's intelligence
is inherently less than men. I've recently been told that
the new (June 2000) Texas Women's Champion, Angela Alston, was
ten years ago Tony Alston. None of the women participating
in the tournament objected to her competing. How could they
object? "Excuse me, but as someone who was born
female I have a genetic inferiority to her so she shouldn't be
allowed to compete against me; it would be unfair."
Yeah, right. You might find a couple of misogynist males
who'll buy that, but certainly no woman will. It would seem
that even women competing for a women's title in a women's tournament
think gender is a non-issue!
The women's title system, which initially
helped
women break into the chess scene, now is more like a slum (complete with
inadequate funding and slumlords---see "Pillowfight".) If you believe that women
players have the intellectual potential to
be as good as men, then then why support a system that
encourages them to enter the women's chess ghetto and stay there?
A clear majority of
survey participants think women's titles should be abolished. In a strange
twist, however, an even greater majority (63.08%) think that there should be a
separate Championship held for women! What is going on here? Why
vote against the smaller titles of WIM and WGM only to overwhelmingly support
the biggest title of all: Women's World Champion?
The answer, I
think, can be found in the response to the next question. Do
you think a woman will win an overall World Chess Championship (which includes
both male and female players) within the next 20 years? 70.59%
of the voters said NO! This seems to me to be saying that since we
do not think a woman can win the World Championship in the foreseeable future,
we should have a separate Championship for women, so at least they will get something.
Coming from men, it's condescension, coming from women, it's self-defeat. This is Loser's Logic at it's best: I can't win playing in your
tournament, so I'll just go and get some other people who can't win and we'll
make up our own tournament so one of us can win. Isn't this the most demoralizing thing you've ever
heard?! There is something insidiously self-defeating about the whole women's
chess system.
Obviously, not all women are affected by this type of
thinking (probably not those at the top), but one can't help but think
that girls much further down the ladder are. That nagging doubt whether you're
good enough to be an IM or GM..."Well, if I wipe out in this tournament,
maybe I'll just chunk it and go for a WIM instead." One of my fears
about women's titles is that they can become a consolation prize. Instead
of redoubling one's efforts, one can always cop out and join the Girl's Club.
There are USCF Experts (2000-2200) who are WIMs. Are girls being
encouraged to "reach for the stars" by this or are they being
encouraged to "settle"?
An aside: Those
of you who read "Pillowfight" probably
wonder how I can reconcile a defense of Xie Jun, Susan Polgar, and Alisa
Gallimova with my position on women's tournaments and titles. Why indeed
should I care about the Women's World Championship fiasco? These women
have chosen to compete in women's tournaments and to compete for the title of
Women's World Champion. They have their own reasons why they are part of
the women's title system. Though I personally am not very keen on women's
tournaments and titles, I believe that those women who choose to remain within
that system should be treated with respect.
Take a good look at the numbers for
the last two questions:
Do you think
women-only tournaments have a positive effect, negative effect, or no effect on
women playing chess? Though
46.27% said "positive effect", nearly one-third (31.34%) of
participants said "negative effect" and a significant percentage,
22.39%, said "no effect". Clearly opinion is closely divided (especially given the small size of my sample).
I, personally, don't think all women's tourneys
should be abolished. I think the idea of separate tournaments and
championships is quaint and a bit archaic; it has a 19th century ring to
it. Women's tournaments should be relegated to the status of novelty
events,
rather like thematics.
Which most
closely reflects your opinion on women-only tournaments?
This question inadvertently provided a laugh for
me early on as I tracked the results. At one point I noticed
that although the number of women who voted had not changed, "I
think women's tournaments are fun." had received
a vote! I had included that response with the idea that
women who had played in women's tournaments might think they were
fun. I'm still trying to figure out in what way a women's tournament
might be "fun" for a guy. Maybe it's better not
to think about it. ;-)
The numbers for this question don't track exactly with the previous
question, but that's part of the reason I included it. I thought that a greater
variety of possible answers might shed some light on the thinking behind
the previous responses.
RESPONSE |
VOTES |
PERCENT |
I
think they are good for getting more females involved in playing chess. |
30 |
46.88
% |
I
think women-only tournaments have the effect of holding women back. |
12 |
18.75
% |
I
think women's tournaments are neither helpful nor harmful to women
players. |
12 |
18.75
% |
I
think women-only tournaments are archaic; they belong in the previous
century. |
8 |
12.50
% |
I
think women's tournaments are fun. |
2 |
3.12
% |
TOTAL |
64 |
100.00 % |
The first statement that
they are good for getting more women involved in chess has always caused me to
raise my eyebrow. There is an idea out there that girls don't like to play
boys and that more girls (and therefore more women) would play chess if they
didn't have to compete against those nasty boys. Typically, I hear this
speculation from men, not women. What do they know about the motivation of
a typical female?? I've not met a girl yet who shied away from shellacking
a male opponent.
What are all-girl
competitions teaching our young players? All-girl tournaments certainly
don't teach girls that they are as good as boys. The best they can do is
teach them that they are as good as the girl who sits next to them in history
class. It may even plant a seed which grows into a doubt about one's potential
as a player. "I take home a trophy in the girl's tournament, but
not in the big tourneys when I play boys, too." (Nevermind that
the field is bigger, so it's mathematically tougher to place.) "Maybe
I'm not as good as the guys..." That's one more for the Girl's
Club. Tell me again how this is good for women??
What have you won if
you've won a regional women's championship? Why did you enter? Is it
a consolation prize? Do you play in women's tournaments because,
"It's easier to beat girls"? Do you know how sexist that type of
thinking is? How harmful it is to you, because you're woman,
too?
On a whole I think a
system which encourages and rewards women for playing against each other works
against improving women as chess players. People lament that women's
ratings lag so far behind men's. Well, they certainly aren't going to
rocket up if the women consistently play each other! To become a stronger
player and to get more points you have to play stronger opponents. At this
point in time, that means playing men, taking their points and earning their
titles. |