@TurtleMat said in #389:
> @szhzs
>
> The article you linked talks about One standard deviation at most.
> --
> Edit : Also, I didn't see the word "chess" anywhere on the article. the research function did not either. Can you point me to the place where this is adressed?
> --
> I only skimmed it, so I would have to check if the methodology includes the fact that people are already impregnated from patriarchat when they decide what interests they have. But even without that, one standard deviation in interest doesn't even begin to explain the gap in participation.
> Don't hesitate to point me to particular parts of the article if I missed something.
>
> My two comments on harassment and job equality are not irrelevant or whataboutism. Stastistically, men harass women more and that was the subject of the original blog post (I know, it's 40 pages ago). I presented it the same way as you, jumping from the statistical to an explaination about interest. Which is not sound. but I wanted to illustrate how your claims were also not sound. That was probably not the best and most efficient way to do so, I'll agree to that.
>
> The one about the pay gap and job inequality was here to illustrate that interest is not such a relevant factor in explaining the innequalities men and women face.
> Clearly, there are a lot of innequalities that women face that are due to external factors instead of internal ones. Like the getting harassed, getting worse jobs for worse pay, etc. It seems reasomable to assume that the effects leading to that can also lead to disparity in representation in chess. After all, it's really similar. So it is reasonable to favor the structural discrimination as an explaination for the disparity in chess representation, that's Ockams razor.
>
> So the biological argument is not needed (the social one has precedence) and is also not sufficient to explain what we see.
>
> Also, this is a subject that is really prone to attribution biases (like "she shouldn't have worn a skinni skirt" puting the blame on the person when the problem is external) so one has to be really pay attention when attributing reasons for different symptoms of gender innequalities.
>
> So in short : Yes men and women -and other sex and genders- are on some level different. But not enough to explain the differences in how society treats us differently, and certainly not enough to explain the participation gap in chess.
>
> Which makes it a problem to be adressed. What is "wrong" is not that more men play chess per se, but rather that society discourages women to play chess, through different mechanism, including the amount of harassment they have to endure.
>
> I hope with more details my point comes better across.
Thank you @TurtleMat for addressing this post so clearly and eloquently. You are perfectly on topic and relevant, and there is no "whataboutery".
@TurtleMat said in #386:
> Also, I'm pretty sure Women are interested in getting good jobs and fair pay, but that doesn't happen either, on average. What explaination do you have for that?
Because of the study methodology. Some studies that show women making far less than men don't account for various factors such as the amount of hours worked, experience, career choice, etc... They literally just compare the median earnings between men and women which is misleading. In the United States women work an average of 36.6 hours per week while men worked an average of 40.5 hours per week (source: https://www.thebalancemoney.com/what-is-the-average-hours-per-week-worked-in-the-us-2060631). So of course women aren't going to be paid the same amount. Men also tend to take jobs that are high paying such as STEM while women tend to take lower paying jobs in comparison such as early childhood education.
Here is an article from an American compensation software and data company:
https://www.payscale.com/research-and-insights/gender-pay-gap/#module-17
The article bases it's data on 758K people in the U.S. that took Payscale’s online salary survey. It shows that the pay gap when adjusted for factors is that women on average make 99 cents for every dollar a man makes. When not adjusted it's 83 cents for every dollar a man makes.
Dedication to the game early on means practice and training.
Practice and training don't show in rating very quickly. It takes some time to do and then put into actual games to gain the experience of when to do what.
You might learn well and fast how to get a good start, but then it don't show because get confused somewhere in middle game.
Perhaps you even much better than your rating in endgames, but again if something goes wrong in the middle, none of it will show in rating gains.
As everything in life, chess is in a way about telling a good story from start to finish, and it takes time.
Whatever engagement and dedication a person comes in with, if it a unpleasant experience to perform, it is going to get stale at some point.
"If you tried to get better, it would show in your rating" - Give it two-three months to show.
"Women don't like chess as much/Chess is not for women" - The love for the game can be the same but if it a more unpleasant experience, it will indeed be less fun to play.
"Don't accept messages and close the chat" - Sure, but might as well play against bots or a app/site where there is no forums or chats to begin with if we shall assume it is on the user to expect negative interactions.
@QueenRosieMary said in #359:
> 5 people in a couple of months for personal harassment, bullying, explicit dms, stalking etc. I have in this time also reported countless others for"routine" chess-related ToS violations like suspected engine use, verbal abuse or public shaming in the chat etc, I'm not counting these in this total.
>
> Also, I'm glad I don't play ultra because (it's not chess and) it sounds like a pretty toxic culture.
Ok so that's not even much. It's odd at how this one issue (sexual harassment) gets so much press coverage (PSA's at work, at the subway, TV, news articles, online videos, blogs, schools, etc). Meanwhile in the US there's 5.4 million injuries and 39,000 deaths from car accidents each year. What do I hear on this huge issue that's impacting the health and safety of millions? Not as much as the issue of sexual harassment.
As long as there's anonymity, online text messages in chess don't put health and safety in jeopardy. If you think otherwise you need to articulate exactly why and how would an online text message put another's health and safety in jeopardy.
@replaced said in #396:
> Ok so that's not even much. It's odd at how this one issue (sexual harassment) gets so much press coverage (PSA's at work, at the subway, TV, news articles, online videos, blogs, schools, etc). Meanwhile in the US there's 5.4 million injuries and 39,000 deaths from car accidents each year. What do I hear on this huge issue that's actually impacting the health and safety of millions? Almost crickets.
Ah yes, "whatabout" car accidents. Perfect.
Why don't you write a blog about it?
>
> As long as there's anonymity, online text messages in chess don't put health and safety in jeopardy. If you think otherwise you need to articulate exactly why and how would an online text message put another's health and safety in jeopardy.
Um, what about mental health? Bullying, harassment, stalking on line can have the same impact as in real life - anonymous or not.
And while we're at it, why should people _have_ to be anonymous? If someone wants to put their name or photo on their profile, they should be able to.
I'm a male so I haven't encountered such behaviours against me ,(some insults here and there but nothing special) but I do get it can be tough for women and I'm sorry for that many of you have to deal with them. However,though extremely unimportant and besides the point I have to say that multiple people annoying you asking you to enter their team very much happens to guys too.
@borninthesixties said in #397:
> Ah yes, "whatabout" car accidents. Perfect.
>
> Why don't you write a blog about it?
Car accidents physically hurt more people than sexual harassment so it should have just as much importance if not more in coverage to help prevent it in the future. Coverage should be based on importance. If importance doesn't matter then should there be PSA's on shark attacks or lightning strike risks? I don't have a blog. If I were to post an article covering important health and safety topics I would lean towards the most important issues.
> Um, what about mental health? Bullying, harassment, stalking on line can have the same impact as in real life - anonymous or not.
>
> And while we're at it, why should people _have_ to be anonymous? If someone wants to put their name or photo on their profile, they should be able to.
Please show me a study backing your assertion that anonymous online sexual harassment has the same impact as real life sexual harassment. Physical health is just as important as mental health. Both should be taken into account. Also are you saying that car accidents don't impact a person's mental health as much? Yes car accidents impact mental health. I know of people who were traumatized and for example refuse to drive on the freeway to avoid high rates of speed.
People don't have to be anonymous. I do notice however the vast majority of people playing online chess do so anonymously. Even if a person is not anonymous most harassment online can be stopped and outside of online harassment it can usually be dealt with by the police and the issue is likely to be resolved. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be coverage on sexual harassment. In my opinion the amount of press coverage on this issue is too much in comparison to many other issues based on importance.
@replaced said in #394:
From your own link :
(Edit : Which by the way is a private company worth in the 3 digit millions, hardly a reliable source to tackle sociological problems)
--
"The pervasiveness of gender bias impacts women’s choices as well as their opportunities, which is illuminated by gender pay gap research.
Interestingly, work designated as “women’s work” is perceived as less valuable only until men enter those occupations. For example, women were the original “computers,” but computing positions earned low wages until men entered the field. Conversely, when women enter fields previously dominated by men, the pay drops, which has happened with parks and recreation and interior design as well as other occupations."
--
There are also links to support these claims, but they are journal articles behind a paywall.
I'm starting to believe that people don't read their own sources...
Even if corrected for different factors the pay gap is of course smaller (the article says 99% and I don't know the source, last time I checked it was 95%)
1- it is still not equal
2- the other number (80 +/- 5 percent depending on sources iirc) is still relevant. and shows other inequalities.
So both the corrected number and the raw number show structural inequalities.
Some people want to explain this with "men and women are different", which is true in itself but not remotely relevant to the discussion. there is a problem of order of magnitude here. When the difference in high salaries positions, representation in chess and other sectors, etc, will be in the order of one standard deviation (the article from the other user was at least a scientific meta analysis) then we will have the discussion about the physiological differences.
Before this happens though, tho only thing this argument can do is hide the real mechanisms at work.
@replaced said in #399:
> Coverage should be based on importance.
That's mostly true.
But you underestimate the harm done by sexism, and the omnipresence of it. The sexual violences are one part of it but there is much more, and they can not be separated because they have the same origin.
Also, if we really want to enforce this, we have to never mention terrorism again, because it kills not much more people than lightening.
@replaced said in #399:
> Please show me a study
you mean a scientific study or one of your blog articles from big companies? the second one can be arranged to back pretty much anything up. Or do you hold people to higher standards than yourself?
It seems that you just don't want people to talk about this issue. But if it helps, I'm also against using cars, we can go talk about that somewhere else.
@Tremarl said in #402:
> They are baiting you.
But that's what makes it so much fun, wouldn't you agree? Besides you can always bait back :^)