Life In 19x19

Joaz Banbeck wrote:Why aren't there more women at beer-chugging contests? Something must be done about that too! It's just not right!! If 50.6% of the participants are not female, there must have been discrimination somewhere...somehow...

So I'm going to be distributing more beer to women. All in the name of equality.

It appears that a few people missed the point of my previous post, so I'm going to re-write without the sarcasm. And with a bit more detail.

In the last 50 years or so, in the midst of well-intentioned efforts to ensure equality of opportunity for various genders and races and other categories, a belief has arisen: that one can measure equality of opportunity by measuring equality of result. This has been accompanied by the corollary: that if the results are unequal, that there must have been some discrimination.

I'm all for equality of opportunity. But I think that the aforementioned belief and its corollary are fallacious. They presume that all parties want the same things. Whereas, in fact, all do not.
Women and men are different. They do not want exactly the same things. Whether this is due to genetics or environment or influences of the planets, I cannot say for sure. For whatever reason women do not seem to have as strong an interest in playing go as men do. They also do not seem to have as strong an interest in chugging beer.

Ultimately, it is kind of demeaning to women to tell them that they are not making the proper choices - that they are not choosing to play go enough, and that we must do something to correct that. It is paternalism of the most insidious sort. It sounds vaguely noble when we do it with go, so I offered the sarcastic parallel of beer to unmask the paternalism. I was offering the same type of 'positive discrimination' as the OP, only with a somewhat more boorish activity.

I say make the opportunities equal, and let women and men choose as they wish. If the results are unequal, it is because people are different.

So your response to the suggestion that many women are put off even beginning to play the game in the first place, is to say they never wanted to play it in the first place?

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

Joaz Banbeck wrote:Why aren't there more women at beer-chugging contests? Something must be done about that too! It's just not right!! If 50.6% of the participants are not female, there must have been discrimination somewhere...somehow...

So I'm going to be distributing more beer to women. All in the name of equality.

It appears that a few people missed the point of my previous post, so I'm going to re-write without the sarcasm. And with a bit more detail.

In the last 50 years or so, in the midst of well-intentioned efforts to ensure equality of opportunity for various genders and races and other categories, a belief has arisen: that one can measure equality of opportunity by measuring equality of result. This has been accompanied by the corollary: that if the results are unequal, that there must have been some discrimination.

I'm all for equality of opportunity. But I think that the aforementioned belief and its corollary are fallacious. They presume that all parties want the same things. Whereas, in fact, all do not.
Women and men are different. They do not want exactly the same things. Whether this is due to genetics or environment or influences of the planets, I cannot say for sure. For whatever reason women do not seem to have as strong an interest in playing go as men do. They also do not seem to have as strong an interest in chugging beer.

Ultimately, it is kind of demeaning to women to tell them that they are not making the proper choices - that they are not choosing to play go enough, and that we must do something to correct that. It is paternalism of the most insidious sort. It sounds vaguely noble when we do it with go, so I offered the sarcastic parallel of beer to unmask the paternalism. I was offering the same type of 'positive discrimination' as the OP, only with a somewhat more boorish activity.

I say make the opportunities equal, and let women and men choose as they wish. If the results are unequal, it is because people are different.

tchan001 wrote:Ladies night at the go center with drinks provided. lol

tapir wrote:if some people would keep their mouth shut, as exemplified by tchan and Joaz in this thread. Why this sudden urge to blurt out immature, male bonding, alcohol centered posts as soon as the topic of women in Go comes up?

Tapir, where in my post did it specifically mention alcohol? You are making assumptions based on my response to how to encourage women with positive discrimination.
Ladies night can mean creatively pursuing all sorts of ideas to attracting female participants to the go center. Drinks provided can refer to milk, water and soft drinks without necessarily referring to alcohol. As soon as the topic of women in Go comes up, you yourself are making a sexist immature, male bonding, alcohol centered judgement based on your ideas of how to interpret my wordings.

Tapir, may I also remind you of the rules of the forum when you specifically mention tchan and Joaz as people who you would have prefered to keep their mouth shut:
1. Personal Attacks
Remember the Golden Rule: do to others what you would like to be done to you. Trolling, flaming, bashing, or otherwise verbally attacking anyone is not allowed. When writing about a move that a member made, ensure all criticism is directed towards the member's move rather than the member. Also, please consider that not every member in the forums is a native English speaker as you write your post.

Tchan, you're a mod, so you should really be above trolling. I find it very difficult to believe that you are familiar with the phrase "ladies night", and are aware that "ladies night" involves "free drinks", but did not know that actual ladies' nights are almost invariably at bars, lounges, or clubs, and the proffered drinks are alcoholic.

If you can't think positively about "ladies night" why would you think positively about discrimination?

tchan001 wrote:If you can't think positively about "ladies night" why would you think positively about discrimination?

Maybe it just looks that little bit worse next to Joaz's crass post?

Joaz is right that some women may be less inclined to enjoy go, overall. There are exceptions, of course.

But it's also possible that women can be turned off from go not only because of that which is go, but also because of the men that play it.

So I think daniel_the_smith is right on. We should try not to offend women that join, but it's not necessary to make special cases for them.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:I say make the opportunities equal, and let women and men choose as they wish. If the results are unequal, it is because people are different.

I'm reminded of Gandhi, when asked what he thought about Western civilization: "it would be a good idea." *

* Apochryphally. But really, it's too good not to use.

One example of encouraging women to do quite challenging intellectual effort, such as go, is the GWU summer program in math, where they bring in women college juniors and have them listen to exceptional women mathematicians, participate in problem sessions and beginning research, and just get used to the idea of the graduate math department as "their" comfortable place. It gives the women a certain ownership.

Wouldn't this be a really good thing for the AGA to do? I mean, on the 40th anniversary of Title IX, we really should support this! I wonder if some of the brilliant women go players and teachers would participate if their expenses were supported a bit.

Women are quite well-represented in bridge and mahjong (not sure if there is competitive mahjong) right? But less so in chess and go. Are the communities' aesthetics different?

why does the ratio of men to women players matter? I wouldn't care if most of the players were women. I just enjoy the game.

Eizero wrote:why does the ratio of men to women players matter? I wouldn't care if most of the players were women. I just enjoy the game.

I definitely agree with the second part, but the ratio of men to women players matters because it may suggest that there's an issue with getting/retaining a significant portion of the potential players base.

Loons wrote:Women are quite well-represented in bridge and mahjong (not sure if there is competitive mahjong) right? But less so in chess and go. Are the communities' aesthetics different?

I think you are asking the right question here. This is going to open a can of worms, but... women don't seem to be as underrepresented in Europe as they are in the US. This is not just in Go, but also Chess. I think it would be useful to compare the board game culture in countries like Russia and Romania with the US.

In America, board games are much less popular. This seems to be because many Americans have short attention spans and would rather be entertained than do something that actually requires them to think. This means that those that do play are much more likely to be programmers/geeks/intellectuals, and this may contribute to a less inviting atmosphere to some.

In Europe, board games seem to be more of a social event, and are thus more likely to involve both genders. Also, many in Europe, esp. Eastern Europe, do not have the aversion to intellectualism that Americans often do. This likely creates a more inviting, diverse atmosphere.

nagano wrote: This means that those that do play are much more likely to be programmers/geeks/intellectuals, and this may contribute to a less inviting atmosphere to some.

In Europe, board games seem to be more of a social event, and are thus more likely to involve both genders.

I'm a programmer/geek myself, and perhaps a bit socially awkward, but I actually prefer to the social side to the game.

I don't play online -- too cold, not easily social
I don't play in tournaments -- too quiet, serious, and competitive

I enjoy teaching beginners. I like to talk during games, to take back moves (usually my opponent's bad moves ) and explore other options and not just wait until the end and then try to replay the game and review in excruciating detail of each and every possible variation. I'd much rather laugh and talk and explore a few immediate learning opportunities during the game.

As the proverb says, "play go to make friends"

I'll never be a pro player, and I may never even reach dan level. I enjoy my current level, its good enough for now. I enjoy a good game with friends.

Javaness2 wrote:Some, but by no means all, national go organisations. I missed out the word some in my first post

I read it as "some" in the first place. But I am not aware of any, so I want to ask which go organizations banned Women's championships?