Positive Discrimination in Go

[tchan001]

I do not, however, see why we should go out of our way to encourage women more than anyone else.

Personally I dislike the idea of any kind of positive discrimination.

Curiously, the female members of L19 who have spoken about positive discrimination are not in favor of it.

[Javaness2]

The issue of compensating for past injustices certainly sounds noble, and I am sure that it is well intentioned. But it eventually suffers from the same logical failing. How do you know when you have done enough?

Umm, the governing body just takes a look and says, heh, I think we've done enough here now. Then they stop. That's happened before, and it will happen again. I will give an example, in a hidden link, just in case anyone feels tempted to comment on it.

PSNI 50:50

I had forgotten the example of 'Westerners' ... what a mental block there! The World Amateur Go Championship is of course the primary example of positive discrimination in Go.

There used to be a World Women's Amateur Go Championship too, but that died away, I don't know offhand if it was junked in favour of the Pair Go. Can anyone say?

[tapir]

True, but we're hardly talking about the very top here. Not one woman has cracked the top 50! Not even close.

I read that Rui Naiwei was ranked 18th in Korea in 2006. (Hei Jiajia likely is among the top20 in Taiwan now, which is of course not CJK and a smaller population.)

There is little doubt that you get a strength difference on average if you have qualifications of different difficulty. But this doesn't explain anything about the ability of women to play Go and it doesn't say anything either about the effect of female only competitions. Say if you take the top 10% of Swiss go players and the top 1% of German go players you get a similar number of players but of course the German players are stronger because they are sampled from a larger population, but this doesn't say anything about the average strength (which according to the European Go Database is actually stronger in Switzerland). So if you qualify the top 0,01% of female players as professionals but only the top 0,001% among males, you have to expect that female professionals do on average worse than males. But to come and say this is because they play female only tournaments after being selected as professionals is a travesty, it is statistics not fancy made-up reasons.

Well, it's not a direct 1:1 comparison, because Western players are not already competing in professional tournaments on a regular basis.

If there were no positive discrimination in the form of reserved qualification spots many female players wouldn't compete in professional tournaments as well. Some would, and these are the top female players that do comparably well against their male colleagues. The others likely get more competition by being professional than being amateur players, no?

The AGA professional scheme is another case of positive discrimination, it is meant to expose young american players to more competition not to less. I think it is hard to miss that fact, but I saw nobody complaining with similarly fancy reasoning that this scheme will hurt the development of Go in the U.S. - maybe it won't be a success but I remember nobody making the claim it hurts. But when it concerns women, suddenly many males bother to explain that positive discrimination actually will somehow in a long-winded way hurt the progress of women in Go. And as long as they find some women to agree with them, they are very comfortable.

[nagano]

Well, it's not a direct 1:1 comparison, because Western players are not already competing in professional tournaments on a regular basis. That said, there is no need for reserved spots. If they want to encourage Western Go, having people represent their countries in international tournaments is a fairer way of doing so.

Represent their countries how? In special amateur tournaments? Won't that just make them worse because they won't have real competition?

Look, if we take the "only the strongest approach", then there would be vastly fewer pro visits to the West, no Iwamoto Kaoru, no WAGC, vastly fewer Western players participating as insei (many were too old and/or weak by Japanese and Korean standards), no US pro association.

That's not what I mean at all. Countries would simply have a qualifier to chose their representatives, then send them to the international tournament, regardless of rank or professional status.

What are you talking about? Joaz's post? He said nothing of the sort. At any rate, I see no profit in continuing this any further.

That would be Gorim's post, and he did say this.

I see it. But Tapir added the sarcastic comparison to make his point seem ridiculous. As I'm sure you're aware, I'm inclined to agree.

True, but we're hardly talking about the very top here. Not one woman has cracked the top 50! Not even close.

I read that Rui Naiwei was ranked 18th in Korea in 2006. (Hei Jiajia likely is among the top20 in Taiwan now, which is of course not CJK and a smaller population.)

There is little doubt that you get a strength difference on average if you have qualifications of different difficulty. But this doesn't explain anything about the ability of women to play Go

I never said anything like that. Why do you continue to make this about sex? Again, this discussion is about the benefits, or lack thereof, of separating one group of people from another.

and it doesn't say anything either about the effect of female only competitions. Say if you take the top 10% of Swiss go players and the top 1% of German go players you get a similar number of players but of course the German players are stronger because they are sampled from a larger population, but this doesn't say anything about the average strength (which according to the European Go Database is actually stronger in Switzerland). So if you qualify the top 0,01% of female players as professionals but only the top 0,001% among males, you have to expect that female professionals do on average worse than males.

Yes, this is true.

But to come and say this is because they play female only tournaments after being selected as professionals is a travesty, it is statistics not fancy made-up reasons.

What makes it a travesty? Does it not stand to reason that any group of weaker players isolated from a larger, stronger group would not improve at the same rate, and to the same extent, as the larger group?

Well, it's not a direct 1:1 comparison, because Western players are not already competing in professional tournaments on a regular basis.

If there were no positive discrimination in the form of reserved qualification spots many female players wouldn't compete in professional tournaments as well. Some would, and these are the top female players that do comparably well against their male colleagues. The others likely get more competition by being professional than being amateur players, no?

Again, you are assuming that nothing else would change as a consequence of the subsequent redirecting of funds and resources. Yes, there would likely be fewer female players at first, but in the long run it would not necessarily hurt their numbers, and those that remained would likely be stronger. But yes, this would be too disruptive to do immediately, which is why I said that there is no reason to abolish the women's league at present. If amateurs are not getting enough practice, then the KBA could consider increasing the number of tournaments that admit amateurs in the early stages.

The AGA professional scheme is another case of positive discrimination, it is meant to expose young american players to more competition not to less. I think it is hard to miss that fact, but I saw nobody complaining with similarly fancy reasoning that this scheme will hurt the development of Go in the U.S. - maybe it won't be a success but I remember nobody making the claim it hurts. But when it concerns women, suddenly many males bother to explain that positive discrimination actually will somehow in a long-winded way hurt the progress of women in Go. And as long as they find some women to agree with them, they are very comfortable.

I mentioned a fairer way of involving Western players in my response to hyperpape, above. This system would not hurt go in the US, but that is because most Americans do not already have opportunities to play very strong players on a regular basis, while Koreans, even amateurs, do. It does however potentially deny opportunities to some Korean players. Yes, there some of the posts here have been in poor taste, but that does not mean that anyone who is male and disagrees with you is automatically a sexist. In fact several of us have tried to emphasize that we disapprove of positive discrimination in general, but you kept trying to make it a gender issue. My position would still hold if it were "the old white guys league". I also personally do not believe in positive rights, because they imply that some individuals are entitled to the possessions of others.

[tchan001]

Why do you keep using statistics based on population size?

Hong Kong is a very small place with a population of around 7 million people yet we were able to produce a female windsurfing Olympic medal champion.

So statistically, it's unlikely for Hong Kong to be able to have such an achievement but given the talent of the individual, it happened.

Why do you keep arguing for focused positive discrimination based on gender rather than nurturing based on talent?

I view the US pro system as a way of nurturing talent rather than positive discrimination. Just as Japan once nurtured Korean and Chinese go, so Korea is nurturing American go.

Go is an intellectual pursuit. If you recognize people as being equally intelligent regardless of gender, then there shouldn't be preferential treatment for either gender in go based on their gender. Obviously the female members of L19 who have spoken up recognize this point and therefore are not in favor of positive discrimination based on gender.

If you are asking for positive discrimination in amateur go so that you can have more female companions when you go to your nearest go club, that's for a different purpose than strengthening Western go in general.

It's interesting how Javaness2 presents the case.

the governing body just takes a look and says, heh, I think we've done enough here now. Then they stop.

There used to be a World Women's Amateur Go Championship too, but that died away

What does this tell you about how the governing body views the situation?

[Javaness2]

It would be nice if people actually returned to my original question.

It's interesting how Javaness2 presents the case.

the governing body just takes a look and says, heh, I think we've done enough here now. Then they stop.

There used to be a World Women's Amateur Go Championship too, but that died away

What does this tell you about how the governing body views the situation?

What indeed? The women's event (The Sotetsu Cup I think it was called?) ran from 1989 to 1998
Pair Go has been running since 1991. Both are, of course, examples of positive discrimination.
Why did the Women's amateur event stop running, maybe because the sponsor withdrew? I don't know, and it was a question I asked earlier.

[tapir]

What is the best way to positively discriminate?

I believe you can have extra events only where you already have enough female players to make special tournaments viable and competitive. Say on European level or in countries with enough players, e.g. won't work too well in Switzerland, might be a great idea in the Netherlands. Also, I doubt they are very efficient in increasing female participation in general, what matters there is general culture, atmosphere in the local club etc. and this is highly localized with some clubs having many female players, others none at all. This is almost impossible to address administratively and attempts to do so look pretty awkward, e.g. the Berlin Go Association once started a certification process for go meetings, which amongst other things addressed racism and drugs (which are both not wanted), all to let parents feel they can send their children there without qualms and which has the queer effect that you wonder what people think about "non-certified" meetings now.

It isn't encouraging whatsoever to award an extra prize to your female dan participant in a tournament when she doesn't even have to play other females on her level for that price. (This happened in Switzerland once with a youth prize, where the winner did horrible in the tournament but won the prize because of his initial MMS advantage to the next youth player, this was an extreme case but you got the idea.) I doubt that gifts camouflaged as prizes ever are a good idea, if you like to give gifts give them directly.

Positive discrimination does best where it exposes some female players to high level competition and training opportunities. E.g. I would find it a good idea to reserve one of eight spots in the final round of the german championship to the female player who does best in the preliminary, but of course as only half a dozen or so is eligible (they are 3-4 dan, while 4 dans are quite rare in the final) this should only be introduced if they actually like the idea. And of course the German Bundesliga gives plenty of serious games without any positive discrimination at all. (In fact there is one female only team.)

[emeraldemon]

I do computer science. In 2010 about 18% of CS degrees in the united states went to women. I've heard arguments put forth that this discrepancy may be due to inherent differences in preference between men and women: women prefer the squishier sciences like biology (where >50% of degrees go to women now), they're turned away by the abstractness of computers science.

But if you look at the data, that doesn't seem possible at all. From 1970-1984, female degrees in CS skyrocketed from 14% up to 37% . But in the 80s that growth slowed, and finally started to reverse, falling almost 20% to where it is today over the last 25 years.

I don't think it's possible for something fundamental about women to have changed 25 years ago. It seems much more likely to me that the change was cultural. I won't speculate too much about what it was since I'm already off topic, but I think attitudes and messages can definitely encourage women to get into an area. Or discourage them, unfortunately.

Source: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/ ... 11_318.asp

[jts]

But if you look at the data, that doesn't seem possible at all. From 1970-1984, female degrees in CS skyrocketed from 14% up to 37% . But in the 80s that growth slowed, and finally started to reverse, falling almost 20% to where it is today over the last 25 years.

But we're under so much selection pressure, emeraldemon. You can't expect sexual dimorphism to stick around for more than a half a generation at a time.

[lemmata]

I am not going to participate in the actual discussion, but I have broken down Javaness' original post and attempted to guess the discussion he wanted to have and added some clarifying questions. Consider this a meta-discussion post.

A long time ago now, I believe I asked how to increase the number of women playing Go.

Javaness wants to know how to increase the number of women playing igo.

...snip...Women, most of us would agree, can be put off by walking into a club/tournament to see that there are 0 other women there. Since women are not a minority in the population, this is not obviously a natural state of affairs.

Javaness' implicit assumption: It is unnatural for non-minorities in the general population to be minorities in the population of those who engage in (perhaps non-physical) particular recreational activities such as playing igo.

...snip...What is the best way to positively discriminate?

Question: What is your definition of positive discrimination? Perhaps not explicitly and precisely defining what you mean by positive discrimination has led to a number of replies that you believe to be irrelevant to your original question.

Question: Would you be okay with the follow definition of "positive discrimination for women in igo"?

Potential Definition (Positive discrimination for women in igo): Any program or policy granting benefits exclusively to women players with the goal of increasing their number?

Some may still come back with a straight "No. Positive discrimination is never right."

Question: Does the morality and effectiveness of "positive discrimination" as you mean it belong in this thread or in a new one?

Question: Can the main question being asked by Javaness be restated as follows? "Ignoring personal value judgments about the right and wrong of positive discrimination, which of the many methods of positive discrimination would do the best job of increasing the number of women players when evaluated on the dimensions of quantity (how many women?), speed (how quickly?), and monetary costs (how much $$$s?)?"

To retain youth players, who are often classed as the future, we generally pamper with them with attention. Youth Championships. Youth prizes within tournaments. Teaching for kids. etc

Veterans are given special championship tournaments too sometimes. I have never seen a section prize for Veterans though. Weaker players, arbitrarily divided into some boundary by kyu or dan level, are given such prizes.

Veterans tend to spend more money on the game than others. This tends to have a trickle-down benefit for all players. Young players are future consumers in the "igo economy". In the absence of young players, the "igo economy" may decide to produce less books, lectures, and other igo content by forecasting future profits. If the igo-playing population is projected to grow, all players reap the benefits in the form of increased content availability and lower prices.

Question: Would you like to argue that a similar halo effect will ensue if more women start playing igo? Or is that discussion deserving of a separate thread?

These 3 categories are never considered to be positive discrimination, at least I have not seen an example of anyone publicly classing them as such.

Perhaps "discrimination" is not the word you want to use? You may have invited unwanted controversy by using that term. After all, no one said that the money for these programs had to come from public funds or the coffers of the AGA/BGA/EGF. Private sponsors could be found.

Question: What about using the term "incentive programs" instead?

...snip...[paraphrased: 1) women-only tournaments, 2) pair go, 3) women-only training sessions]...snip...Which of these 3 paths do you see as the best approach to try? Do you see it being genuinely tried as well? (For instance, is Pair Go in your country simply a charade to allow participation in a luxurious international event, or is it actually actively used for promotion.)

Javaness has given three examples of "positive discrimination" programs and asked which of the three would be most effective in increasing the number of women who play igo.

[Kaya.gs]

I think that the idea of making tournaments for women is probably ineffective.

Women don't have the same type of competitiveness men do. Men are more attracted to prove theirs kills than women.
Thats why pair-go does get women to play it, as opposed to regular only-women tournaments. Its not about go itself, but about bonding with someone else (your team-mate).

I think attracting women is a very healthy goal, because in the end it also attracts men. The first question to make here is what women like about go, or could like about go, that is not competitive.

Also, bear in mind that is not the same to attract someone that already knows go, to someone that doesnt. So pair go championship could attract an already beginner-past-beginner player, but not total newbies.
In general, all women i talked about go with, were interested in knowing at least what it is, specially because i would teach that to them, and i think they were looking for that, as opposed to "oh i want to be a great go player".

[Uberdude]

Once I met a woman. A few years later I met another. Turns out they were exactly the same, fancy that!

[tchan001]

Once I met a woman. A few years later I met another. Turns out they were exactly the same, fancy that!

Uberdude must be a hermit or a monk to meet only two women over a course of several years.

[hyperpape]

I think attracting women is a very healthy goal, because in the end it also attracts men.

I think this may not be your best moment in phrasing things. But it is true that making Go not just an activity for men will raise its profile. In East Asia, go is not just for the sorts of nerds we associate it with here in the US, and it undoubtedly helps sustain it. Similarly, if go is perceived as not just for hyper-competitive nerdy male introverts, it will help it grow here.

[TMark]

Once I met a woman. A few years later I met another. Turns out they were exactly the same, fancy that!

Uberdude must be a hermit or a monk to meet only two women over a course of several years.

Well, he did live in Cambridge.

Best wishes.