Gender and Chess - The Ever-Changing, Never-Ending Question...

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.
  s

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.
 

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.

This is a controversial issue; if you'd like to discuss it with other people who come to this site, post your thoughts on the 1001 Knights Webboard.  Thanks!