Submitted 3 weeks ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/3512aa37-7b4c-4f53-a04c-3ffca685e3aa.jpeg
The reason chess is a segregated sport is because the male players couldn’t cope emotionally with co-ed.
Not only was their the sex-pest harassment stuff, but men who lost to women would become hysterical, hostile, and aggressive.
Women just needed clam, rational, and stoic people to play with, so they had to exclude men.
May be a gross oversimplification, simply because, ignoring everything else around professional chess, the world championship is technically open for all genders…
But considering how FIDE makes women gain ELO by taking it from other women in mixed tournaments, its 2023 ruling on transgender players, and how former World Champion Garry Kasparov reacted to losing to a women, it might as well be the truth.
In Kasparov’s eventual defense, he did say this after losing to Polgar:
“I was wrong about women playing chess. I gave an opinion a long time ago that I no longer believe.”
and later in his book wrote:
‘I won’t hide from the fact that I did make regrettably sexist remarks about women in chess around this time. In that 1989 Playboy interview I said men were better at chess because “women are weaker fighters” and that “probably the answer is in the genes”. The possibility of gender brain differences aside, I find it almost hard to believe I said this considering that my mother is the toughest fighter I know.’
I especially like playing chess with clam people.
I like to play chess with people which are way better than I am in it
Yes, almost every sport where men are actually at an advantage allows women to compete in the “men’s” leagues as well. Only when they actually start winning against the men do the rules start excluding them
What are the examples for the second sentence? Climbing?
Thank goodness online adaptations allow people to play without having to consider the identity of their opponent (because I don’t mind who I play against).
The selection is already biased. High ELO ranked chessplayers are not all that stable to begin with.
Having chess separated for gender is a huge red flag… i feel like both women and men are ok with it for some reason cause otherwise i dont know how this is still a thing in 2026
Chess is not segregated by gender. There are women’s tournaments and there are open tournaments. There are no men’s tournaments. Men are way overrepresented at all the open tournaments, but women do compete in all of them.
Women’s representation is increasing at the top levels but it’s a gradual process. Judit Polgar and Hou Yifan (侯逸凡) are so far the only women to reach the top 100 players in the world and regularly compete with success at the top open tournaments.
The main world championship and title of GM is open to everyone, so it’s not truly split.
There are FIDE women only tournaments but that’s due to there being less participation of women. When you have something like this wbere the skill distribution is gaussian, if you have like 50 women compete and 1000 men, you will notice that it’s extremely unlikely for a woman to ever reach 1st place just due to statistics. Replace women and men with brown hair and blond hair and you’d see the same phenomenon.
The tail of the statistics where you see extreme deviations of improved skill would be dominated by the population with much larger participation.
To counter this, they have women only tournaments so that you always have a woman in 1st place in some tournament, basically to improve participation and convince more girls to play when they’re young.
There are of course probably other factors but these things improve participation and are meant to help get more women in chess, not separate them out.
There are a few comments here that are sexist as shit, misandry and misogyny both. It boggles me that intelligent people who know that sweeping generalizations are bad when it comes to race and nation lose their fucking mind when it comes to biological sex.
Wait until you learn about “generations”.
Emotional. As opposed to men who are perfectly rational at all times and totally don’t sit far beyond women in statistics of violent crimes.
I don’t mind acknowledging that men and women are different, but the “women are emotional and men are rational” narrative is driving me up a wall.
There is no emotional difference between the sexes.
except that men in many cultures only express anger and violence because they are told that being sad or talking to someone about feeling overwhelmed means they are weak.
There is a ton of experimental research on emotional reactions from men and women.
Here is what we know.
Men suppress facial expression. But experience the same heightened emotions from viewing unpleasant images or videos.
People who suppress facial expression the most have larger body reactions.
For example. A few ways emotion is measured is increased heat rate. Pupil dilation. Sweating.
Men are more likely to supress facial changes but show increased body stress. Faster heart rate. More sweating. Pupil dilation.
And those changes last longer even after the stimulus is removed (unpleasant video).
Women who suppress show similar patterns.
What we know is this.
Men and women both respond emotionally equally. But men’s intentional suppression of face expressions actually makes them more reactive. And this reactiveness lasts longer.
This is not a biological difference but a social one.
Also fyi Every human cognitive decision is governed by "emotion’. Emotion is now we know to approach or avoid something. Including thoughts.
It feels right. Good. Pleasant. Or wrong. Incorrect. Bad.
No one is exempt from emotions as these are the root cause of motivated behaviors.
When you eat a sandwich. Emotion drove you to it. It felt good and reliving to eat when you were hungry.
It feels good to take a piss.
So it’s absolutely silly when someone says someone else is more emotional.
Nope. What you mean is women express empathy more.
Does it mean men are less empathetic? No. Women just express it more.
Men are told empathy is a sign of weakness. This is toxic masculinity. And it’s bad for men and women.
Also. Those body effects I mentioned. Those are stress responses.
Having longer and more extreme stress responses leads to cardiovascular damage.
Hm. Is that why men die earlier than women from heart disease?
There is evidence that’s a factor. Scientific research evidence.
Was on-meta in my high school to have >4.0 GPA. Assumed colleges wouldn’t take less. If you didn’t have at least one honors class the teachers kind of assumed you were never gonna drop out of Stanford.
Biological sex as opposed to the sex I have with your mom.
the school system grades you on conformity, not wisdom and neither of these people are correct and most ivy league grads are literally just there because theyre epstein-class legacy members
Yeah making this into a man vs woman thing is stupid, I took the original post just as a person just saying “people can have different kinds of intelligence, everything should be respected”
Oh, so we should respect cops? Boot licker.
Also, a lot of “stupid” behavior people do is a direct result of them being stressed, scared, tired, hungry etc. The more stuff you have on your mind to begin with because the world sucks the harder it is to pay attention to what you’re doing.
and children have these emotions amplified 10x and dont know how to control it and the school system thinks that they forget stuff and dont get good grades because theyre EVIL
Not the towers of hanoi!
you won’t believe this but I bet the guy on the right could write a Python script to solve it in 4-6 business weeks
It says “chess enthusiast” on the left, but shows a chessboard on the right. Sounds like these two have more in common than they see.
It also says chess enthusiast on the anime boy. Might just be a watermark.
I ship it
Well you see, KNOWING ABOUT chess is superior to PLAYING chess, as chess is just a silly little toy.
It’s different because… Umm… the creator of this meme is pointlessly trying to divide people into anything but a class war wait uhhhh is rage bait reasons.
Works hard smart vs lazy, doesn’t try for more than 5 minutes “smart”
hardworking = easily exploitable
How is your life going for you so far?
Honestly, yes.
The culture always tell you to work harder and demand less. This is simply to make it easier to exploit you. Just work harder, and everything will be amazing and we won’t just tighten it even more, we promise
Well, depends on what you put effort into and how you’re born and all ig. In some cases people need to let themselves be exploited to survive in the first place. There’s also the luck factor and you can also work hard and be independent but… I give up these are too many factors to consider I am not doing this.
I like both. I get the sentiment, but it is really sad that men and women’s strengths and/or weaknesses are being used to wage a stupid war that serves no one.
In my home we compliment each other super well. My weaknesses are evened out by his strengths and my strengths even out his weaknesses. It’s great. Almost like that’s the whole point of having a functioning society.
stupid war that serves no one.
It’s standard divide and conquer, definitely serves the people in power.
True. Social media - Lemmy included - has really proven how effectively people can be socially engineered into hating “the other” to the point where you can kid yourself into believing you’re being tolerant by doing it to the group that is okay to hate.
It makes me feel sick everytime I see it and all the forms it takes.
I guess, but nothing about this really pertains to gendered strength or weaknesses. At least not in reality.
It just shows different ways of being smart and pit them against one another instead of celebrating them.
Me, offscreen to the right: internet argument smart
Me, offscreen to the left: imaginarily smart.
The duality of lemming.
How it feels to be interested in a subject you suck at.
Looks to me like it’s saying there two types of chess enthusiast and I’m not sure it’s saying one is better. If you’re trying to make the woman look dumb, would you include 110/100 grades…?
Somehow i don’t see the “meme” as sexist until i read the comments
I think the original post/image kinda was, but the response/retweet doesn’t seem like it
I don’t know if it is. The tweet message seems to be the only sexist part of this equation and yet people are overanalyzing the shit out of that picture.
What kind of smart am I if I’m not particularly good at academia, or math puzzles, but, like, I really wish I was smart while still holding the exact same beliefs.
Why is there chess enthusiast on both sides, and chess on the right side
Oh, oh honey, no. Academia requires years of dedication, hard work, and money. Lots and lots of money.
Society needs both.
Somewhere in the multiverse, there’s a version of this meme that’s exactly reversed, captioned with a tweet that says “stupid woman thinks she’s smart because she’s a chess grandmaster, but little does she know I graduated middle school”
“Stupid bitch thinks he’s smart because of his college degree but doesn’t know dick about machining.” Is a less sexist and more accurate interpretation, your degree doesn’t mean you’re better or smarter than anyone else just because they chose another path. This has fuck all to do with sex, race, whatever.
First why is this gendered. Also, not a good way of portraying “logic smart”, This is basically knowledge vs iq and maybe include some stuff with experience but if you have one what is “intelligence” you’ll also get knowledge easier and getting to a point where you get a lot of that proves at least some “intelligence” (quoted cuz there ofc more to what intelligence is i am just being unspecific/lazy) or a lot of effort which is also admirable… I’m not saying if you’re like “smart” you don’t need to put in any effort but I would say there’s an inverse correlation or whatevs idk. Anyways, this of course does not consider capitalism, neurodivergense and other stuff but is probably generally correct? idk, idk why i am even commenting anymore tbh.
Games are mostly just applied maths with pretty colors.
Aren’t you supposed to sort it to the middle tower?
Woman book smart. Man street smart. Me street smart because me man. Book? You think me woman?
both can be good at both of those things, its not exclusive to one gender. plus there are factors like, significant help in the form programs , scholarships, preferences for volunteer and lab work or general support system is greater than for men. pretty sure men dominate in those fields and women dominate in others over men.
PotatoPie@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Both sides are just people with interests, i never understood the smart/dumb distinctions, there’s just interests, dedication and morals
lath@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
I was once interested in time travel. My dedication was boundless and my morals were questionable. I only got smart enough to know I’m too dumb to make it work.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 3 weeks ago
Good news, I figured out the secret to time travel. I’m now travelling forward in time by a second, every second! Pay $999 to learn My secret!
DrBob@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Clearly you have never met stupid people. Lucky you.
AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Lots of upvotes, but that’s simply not true. It is true that people can be gifted in one area and not in others, but those people can excel in those areas more than someone even more passionately interested could ever hope to.
I knew a guy named Joe Rohde. You can look him up, he ended up being a head of imagineering at Disney. When I knew him, he was a high school art teacher, and then just starting at Disney. His aptitude for art was off the charts, and his mom said that was true when he was four and able to draw 3D renderings when his peers couldn’t do stick figures. Sure, he practiced and developed skills, but his ability to hold a 3D image in his mind, tweak and rotate it, and then put it on paper, is something innate. He was absolute crap at math.
I spent 40 years at a company that mostly made rocket engines for NASA and the DoD, working with literal rocket scientists. I met all sorts of very smart people. Some were the stereotypical scientist that were geniuses in a particular area but had no skills outside of it, but others were just simply brilliant at anything they turned their mind to. Many of them defied the stereotype and also has great social skills.
It might be nice to think that anyone can be truly great at anything they put their mind to, but I’ve seen too many people who are truly great at things to believe it. Some people are just wired differently.
Uebercomplicated@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
This is coincidentally a symptom of dyslexia, so you are right to think of it as something innate, unfortunately. It’s also why so many architects are dyslexic.
PotatoPie@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
True, and it actually makes up the majority of the skill as well, i just don’t like to look at people as gifted or lucky because it’s unfair, it’s kind of sad hahaha
I get easily conquered by defeatism if it’s done through pure logic and there’s no doubt about luck being a huge factor in skill! And in life in general, So i just kind of look away and continue grinding what i enjoy, because it’s the only thing you can do to enjoy competitive activities
usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
You’ve never met someone who’s just plain dumb? I have bad news.
idiomaddict@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Nah, that would be great news. Being dumber than anyone you’ve ever met makes you less responsible for things like climate change and political violence than the people around you (morally, at least; you’re probably literally more of a cause, because you’re more likely to be right wing, but if you’ve already jumped that hurdle, maybe you aren’t). Plus, if your own life is a wreck, it feels better to blame an inherent limitation than something you could change, if only you had the discipline. If your own life is great, you’ve overcome a serious obstacle and should be proud of yourself.
IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 3 weeks ago
finally someone gets it
its_kim_love@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
Right but only one side is compensating.
stephen01king@piefed.zip 3 weeks ago
I think you’re lucky if you’ve never had an interest you weren’t smart enough to enjoy properly.
ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
Yeah but some are able to get better at them than others. Talent does play a role and it’s best if interests align.
fartographer@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Don’t forget opportunity
Riffraffintheroom@hexbear.net 3 weeks ago
It’s someone who sucked at school clinging to their sense of intellectual superiority in spite of that.
PotatoPie@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Not really, i’ve know many people like this who were bottom of their class and had edge over me in chess, fun games like it or random specific trivia, they don’t do it to feel intellectually superior they do it because it’s more enjoyable to them than studying
They’re not dumb they’re just not trying altogether, and when i talk with them about the topics they enjoy they actually show great understanding on them, it’s all just people with interests
If they were trying, say in a debate and they’re deliberately refusing to follow simple proofs they themselves use, yeah then they’re dumb, but i’ve never come across someone like that that still managed to be good at something, it’s a core part of learning as a process
Sure there are people with useful interests and ones with useless ones, but i refuse to call the useful ones smart and useless ones dumb, it’s demeaning to those people’s capabilities, i don’t hold anyone to this way of thinking it’s just mine