LogFAQs > #931371015

adjl posted...

There was no reason pre-1960 either. There doesn't need to be a reason for something to be a social norm.

The social norm is the reason.

adjl posted...

Note also that we're not necessarily talking about exclusion so much as the absence of inclusive encouragement.

If you need encouragement to do something you've got potential in, you probably were never going to be any good to begin with.

adjl posted...

There's virtually no culture of encouraging girls to play chess, contrary to what exists for boys. This isn't a conscious effort to leave them out, it's just an implicit bias that pervades most of society.

There is not a culture of inducting boys in to Chess lol

If women don't join the culture willingly then there's none to encourage other women, and so women aren't invited as they aren't part of a social circle that engages with Chess.

adjl posted...

Quite simply, if I asked you to imagine a chess player (outside of the biasing context that is this topic), odds are you'd picture a dude.

I picture a board, you bigot! Also men picture men in any situation as that's what they are. The base image of a generic person is a mirror of self as you are your own metric of standard.

adjl posted...

that attitude becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, especially when people like you point at the existing gender divide and declare that that is conclusive proof that girls just suck at chess and always will.

Women won't dominate in basically any field because men occupy all extremes. Women can still play, but they'll never be notably top level competitive.

adjl posted...

So you accept that your initial premise (that is, "Nobody's encouraged to be a professional sportsman") is incorrect. Glad we're on the same page.

Semantics. It's just letting a lost cause not lose hope, there's no expectation of competence.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.