@WuraolaA said in #39:
> Feeling out of place in a male-dominated space isn’t just “personal perception”—it’s shaped by a culture where women are treated as exceptions. And let’s not pretend misconduct cases don’t matter. When women face harassment from titled players, it affects the environment. A fair game doesn’t always mean a fair experience.
>
> Also, where did I call the entire community sexist??????
> Acknowledging challenges isn’t dismissing the game.
>
> And if my experience was so insignificant, why are we even debating it?
> The fact that being the only woman in a tournament is still noteworthy proves my point.
We are only discussing this because you are trying to spin a narrative around it, portraying the chess environment as unwelcoming to women when, in reality, it is women who—on average—simply have other interests. And I understand them, too. I haven’t played an OTB tournament in 15 years because I have other hobbies.
Feeling out of place is indeed personal perception—one shaped more by self-awareness than by some grand cultural conspiracy. If women were truly treated as “exceptions,” we wouldn’t see entire federations, sponsorships, and initiatives dedicated to encouraging female participation. The space is open; whether or not one feels comfortable stepping into it is a different matter entirely.
As for misconduct cases, no one is denying that they matter. What doesn’t follow is using one case (which was handled with severe consequences) as proof that the entire environment is inherently unfair. This kind of argument is as dishonest as calling all workplaces unsafe because of a single bad actor.
You ask, “Where did I call the entire community sexist?”—well, what exactly are you implying when you suggest that women are treated as outsiders, that misconduct somehow defines the experience, and that chess isn’t a “fair experience” for women? If that’s not an accusation of systemic bias, what is it?
And finally, let’s not pretend that “the fact that being the only woman in a tournament is still noteworthy” proves anything. Women being the minority in chess isn’t due to exclusion but preference. If a niche activity naturally attracts more men than women, that’s not a problem to solve; it’s simply reality.
And this brings me to a fundamental point:
The restrictions women faced in tournaments in the past are not an unchanging reality but rather a closed chapter of history. Using long-past events, which happened before we were even born, to fuel a narrative of perpetual victimhood is intellectually dishonest. The reality is simple: either a problem exists in the present, or it does not. Vaguely stating that “there is still much to do” without identifying concrete barriers is merely a way to artificially sustain a sense of struggle, even when the struggle no longer has a reason to exist. Progress is not measured by continuously emphasizing past injustices but by recognizing when equality has been achieved.
@bacteriabacitracin said in #40:
> bruh the whole reason why fide has woman titles is to encourage woman to play chess
Exactly my point.
If chess were truly a level playing field with no historical or societal barriers, why would women need encouragement to play?
The very existence of separate titles proves that participation isn’t just about "choice"—it’s about addressing long-standing disparities.
If meritocracy alone were enough, we wouldn’t need initiatives to bring more women into the game.
@OldTimes said in #41:
> We are only discussing this because you are trying to spin a narrative around it, portraying the chess environment as unwelcoming to women when, in reality, it is women who—on average—simply have other interests. And I understand them, too. I haven’t played an OTB tournament in 15 years because I have other hobbies.
>
> Feeling out of place is indeed personal perception—one shaped more by self-awareness than by some grand cultural conspiracy. If women were truly treated as “exceptions,” we wouldn’t see entire federations, sponsorships, and initiatives dedicated to encouraging female participation. The space is open; whether or not one feels comfortable stepping into it is a different matter entirely.
>
> As for misconduct cases, no one is denying that they matter. What doesn’t follow is using one case (which was handled with severe consequences) as proof that the entire environment is inherently unfair. This kind of argument is as dishonest as calling all workplaces unsafe because of a single bad actor.
>
> You ask, “Where did I call the entire community sexist?”—well, what exactly are you implying when you suggest that women are treated as outsiders, that misconduct somehow defines the experience, and that chess isn’t a “fair experience” for women? If that’s not an accusation of systemic bias, what is it?
>
> And finally, let’s not pretend that “the fact that being the only woman in a tournament is still noteworthy” proves anything. Women being the minority in chess isn’t due to exclusion but preference. If a niche activity naturally attracts more men than women, that’s not a problem to solve; it’s simply reality.
>
> And this brings me to a fundamental point:
>
> The restrictions women faced in tournaments in the past are not an unchanging reality but rather a closed chapter of history. Using long-past events, which happened before we were even born, to fuel a narrative of perpetual victimhood is intellectually dishonest. The reality is simple: either a problem exists in the present, or it does not. Vaguely stating that “there is still much to do” without identifying concrete barriers is merely a way to artificially sustain a sense of struggle, even when the struggle no longer has a reason to exist. Progress is not measured by continuously emphasizing past injustices but by recognizing when equality has been achieved.
If it were just about preference, we wouldn’t see federations, sponsors, and initiatives actively working to increase female participation. The idea that women simply ‘aren’t interested’ ignores the historical and cultural factors that have shaped chess participation for decades.
Feeling like an outsider isn’t just personal perception—it’s a response to real experiences. When you walk into a room and are the only one of your kind, that’s not a conspiracy; it’s a reflection of a larger pattern. The fact that my presence was even noteworthy proves this isn’t just a ‘closed chapter of history.’
As for misconduct, it’s not about blaming an entire community but acknowledging that issues like these impact the environment. If women repeatedly face these challenges, it’s dismissive to call them isolated incidents and pretend they have no effect on participation.
Recognizing barriers doesn’t mean playing the victim—it means understanding that progress isn’t just about removing official restrictions but also about changing the culture that kept them in place for so long. Chess is open, yes, but being welcome and being included aren’t always the same thing.
@WuraolaA said in #43:
> If it were just about preference, we wouldn’t see federations, sponsors, and initiatives actively working to increase female participation. The idea that women simply ‘aren’t interested’ ignores the historical and cultural factors that have shaped chess participation for decades.
>
> Feeling like an outsider isn’t just personal perception—it’s a response to real experiences. When you walk into a room and are the only one of your kind, that’s not a conspiracy; it’s a reflection of a larger pattern. The fact that my presence was even noteworthy proves this isn’t just a ‘closed chapter of history.’
>
> As for misconduct, it’s not about blaming an entire community but acknowledging that issues like these impact the environment. If women repeatedly face these challenges, it’s dismissive to call them isolated incidents and pretend they have no effect on participation.
>
> Recognizing barriers doesn’t mean playing the victim—it means understanding that progress isn’t just about removing official restrictions but also about changing the culture that kept them in place for so long. Chess is open, yes, but being welcome and being included aren’t always the same thing.
You really don't see it, do you?
If it were just about overcoming barriers, we wouldn’t see federations, sponsors, and initiatives actively trying to manufacture female participation. The reason these efforts exist isn’t because women are being “excluded,” but because there’s a financial incentive to tap into 50% of the population. More players mean more business—plain and simple. If chess were truly an oppressive environment for women, companies wouldn’t be investing money to encourage their participation.
You claim that feeling like an outsider is not personal perception, yet you immediately follow that by saying it’s “a response to real experiences.” But whose experiences? Yours? A select few? Personal anecdotes don’t dictate systemic reality. Walking into a room and being the only woman isn’t evidence of exclusion—it’s just a numerical fact. If fewer women choose to play chess competitively, that’s not a conspiracy, nor a reflection of some oppressive structure. It’s simply a pattern of interest, just like we see in countless other fields.
And again, the fact that your presence was “noteworthy” isn’t proof of a deeper issue—it’s proof that you’re trying to make it one. You want this to be about barriers because that narrative gives your personal experience more weight. But participation is not the same as preference. Just because chess is open to all doesn’t mean everyone will gravitate toward it in equal numbers.
If we are to consider spaces where one gender predominates, let’s take the example of classical ballet. The majority of professional dancers are women, not due to any restrictions or lack of opportunity for men, but simply because of historical and cultural factors that have shaped the field. Yet, I don’t hear anyone complaining about being excluded from ballet, nor would I feel excluded if I decided to dance. It's simply not an area I’m particularly interested in. The same can be said for chess—just because women aren’t as involved in the same numbers as men doesn’t mean there’s a culture of exclusion. Interests, passions, and participation are shaped by a variety of factors beyond simple accessibility, and it's not about being made to feel like an outsider. It’s about individual choice and interest.
Regarding misconduct: nobody is dismissing serious cases. What is being dismissed is the idea that one individual’s actions define an entire competitive environment. If misconduct were as rampant as you imply, there would be far more cases than just the single example everyone keeps recycling. Chess has thousands of high-level players, yet the same name is mentioned every time—if that’s your strongest evidence of a widespread problem, it’s a weak case.
And finally, your closing statement is self-defeating. You admit that chess is open but insist that “being welcome and being included aren’t always the same thing.” But here’s the reality: inclusion isn’t something that has to be given—it’s something you claim by showing up and playing. Chess doesn’t need to change its nature to make you feel more comfortable. If you want to be part of it, sit at the board and play. That’s it.
@OldTimes said in #20:
> The links you provide are nothing more than anecdotal accounts, not actual evidence.
> These accounts do not constitute objective proof that an entire group of individuals is guilty of sexism.
No one ever said that "all" men are sexist, the majority are fine.
> At most, they illustrate isolated incidents that cannot be extrapolated to condemn an entire community.
>
> You then proceed to cite two privately written articles on Lichess—one of which was heavily criticized at the time in the blog section,
I would say it was heavily trolled rather than criticised by rational people.
> while the other, quite remarkably, was authored by you. In it, you lament being attacked online simply for being a woman.
>
> I am sorry, but I must call you a liar.
>
You can call me a liar if it makes you feel better, but you would not be correct
> I personally know dozens of female chess players, and not one of them has ever reported encountering sexist remarks. Many of them even had profile pictures on Chess.com—one would assume that, for a malevolent sexist villain, hell-bent on upholding the patriarchy, such images would be an irresistible invitation to harass a poor, defenseless damsel. And yet—nothing. No harassment, no vitriol.
This is pure fantasy. I don't even know dozens of female chess players...
> And yet you, a mere floating username in the vast ocean of the internet, claim to be a victim.
>
You do realise that every "mere floating username on the internet" belongs to an actual human, right?
> This is not the struggle of a true sufferer—it is victimhood as an aesthetic choice, not a necessity.
Nope
>The reality is simple: on the internet, all it takes to silence any unwelcome voice is a block button and a report to the moderators.
Oh if only it was this simple... Thank goodness no one just makes a dozen new accounts and just carries on with the harassment
> What I see before me is not oppression but a username accompanied by a rating that betrays a rather meager level of play.
Personal ad hominem attacks about my chess ability don't help to support your point that women are never harassed in chess communities, rather the opposite I feel
>Perhaps your time would be better spent studying chess. [...]
Wow
> [...] instead of fabricating accusations against an entire community just to cast yourself as the protagonist of some imagined injustice.
Alrighty, if that's what you want to believe. You can't argue with [some people].
@OldTimes said in #44:
> You really don't see it, do you?
>
> If it were just about overcoming barriers, we wouldn’t see federations, sponsors, and initiatives actively trying to manufacture female participation. The reason these efforts exist isn’t because women are being “excluded,” but because there’s a financial incentive to tap into 50% of the population. More players mean more business—plain and simple. If chess were truly an oppressive environment for women, companies wouldn’t be investing money to encourage their participation.
>
> You claim that feeling like an outsider is not personal perception, yet you immediately follow that by saying it’s “a response to real experiences.” But whose experiences? Yours? A select few? Personal anecdotes don’t dictate systemic reality. Walking into a room and being the only woman isn’t evidence of exclusion—it’s just a numerical fact. If fewer women choose to play chess competitively, that’s not a conspiracy, nor a reflection of some oppressive structure. It’s simply a pattern of interest, just like we see in countless other fields.
>
> And again, the fact that your presence was “noteworthy” isn’t proof of a deeper issue—it’s proof that you’re trying to make it one. You want this to be about barriers because that narrative gives your personal experience more weight. But participation is not the same as preference. Just because chess is open to all doesn’t mean everyone will gravitate toward it in equal numbers.
> If we are to consider spaces where one gender predominates, let’s take the example of classical ballet. The majority of professional dancers are women, not due to any restrictions or lack of opportunity for men, but simply because of historical and cultural factors that have shaped the field. Yet, I don’t hear anyone complaining about being excluded from ballet, nor would I feel excluded if I decided to dance. It's simply not an area I’m particularly interested in. The same can be said for chess—just because women aren’t as involved in the same numbers as men doesn’t mean there’s a culture of exclusion. Interests, passions, and participation are shaped by a variety of factors beyond simple accessibility, and it's not about being made to feel like an outsider. It’s about individual choice and interest.
>
> Regarding misconduct: nobody is dismissing serious cases. What is being dismissed is the idea that one individual’s actions define an entire competitive environment. If misconduct were as rampant as you imply, there would be far more cases than just the single example everyone keeps recycling. Chess has thousands of high-level players, yet the same name is mentioned every time—if that’s your strongest evidence of a widespread problem, it’s a weak case.
>
> And finally, your closing statement is self-defeating. You admit that chess is open but insist that “being welcome and being included aren’t always the same thing.” But here’s the reality: inclusion isn’t something that has to be given—it’s something you claim by showing up and playing. Chess doesn’t need to change its nature to make you feel more comfortable. If you want to be part of it, sit at the board and play. That’s it.
Low female participation isn’t just about ‘preference.’ Interests are shaped by what people see, experience, and how they’re encouraged. If more women had historically played chess, we wouldn’t need special programs to boost participation today.
Being the only woman in a tournament isn’t just a statistic—it reflects a pattern. If girls grow up rarely seeing female players, facing subtle discouragement, or dealing with extra challenges, it naturally affects how many pursue chess seriously. It’s not about blaming chess but recognizing that participation gaps don’t just happen randomly.
Your ballet example actually proves this. More women are in ballet, but if boys constantly hear that it’s ‘not for guys’ and rarely see male dancers, they’re less likely to pursue it. The same applies to women in chess. The goal isn’t to force equal numbers, but to acknowledge that environment matters.
As for misconduct, it’s not about one case defining chess as a whole. But when things like that happen, they can discourage women from staying in the game. A truly welcoming space isn’t just open—it also makes people feel like they belong.
@WuraolaA said in #46:
> Low female participation isn’t just about ‘preference.’ Interests are shaped by what people see, experience, and how they’re encouraged. If more women had historically played chess, we wouldn’t need special programs to boost participation today.
>
> Being the only woman in a tournament isn’t just a statistic—it reflects a pattern. If girls grow up rarely seeing female players, facing subtle discouragement, or dealing with extra challenges, it naturally affects how many pursue chess seriously. It’s not about blaming chess but recognizing that participation gaps don’t just happen randomly.
>
> Your ballet example actually proves this. More women are in ballet, but if boys constantly hear that it’s ‘not for guys’ and rarely see male dancers, they’re less likely to pursue it. The same applies to women in chess. The goal isn’t to force equal numbers, but to acknowledge that environment matters.
>
> As for misconduct, it’s not about one case defining chess as a whole. But when things like that happen, they can discourage women from staying in the game. A truly welcoming space isn’t just open—it also makes people feel like they belong.
Oh, okay, now you're deleting my messages because I don't agree with you? Congratulations, very empowering.
I would say you've perfectly exemplified the mindset I criticize in people who behave like you.
Bye.
beacuse they dont want to?
@OldTimes said in #47:
> Oh, okay, now you're deleting my messages because I don't agree with you? Congratulations, very empowering.
> I would say you've perfectly exemplified the mindset I criticize in people who behave like you.
>
> Bye.
I deleted one of your messages because it violated forum etiquette, not because you disagreed with me. The other was a sincere mistake. Please don’t misrepresent what happened. If I wanted to delete your replies just because you don’t agree with me, I wouldn’t have spent all this time trying to explain my perspective, I would have just deleted everything from the start.
The only reason I’m "repeating myself" like you said is because I want you to understand.
You might not see the issue because you’re not experiencing it first hand , but if someone close to you experienced it, you’d likely understand better.
I wish you the best too
Bye
@martelkelder said in #27:
> Did you win a women prize? There may be barriers for women in chess, but there are also plenty of advantages. Clearly organizers and players are putting a lot of effort and money in welcoming women. I am not sure if @QueenRosieMary is trolling. Perhaps she just forgets the special prizes, titles and tournaments. But most men welcome women in chess.
No, not trolling.
> The barrier is not that big as some people make it out to be.
and you know this how, exactly? Are you a woman?