You learned nothing from the previous discussion. Just posting words over words over words to make a “debate”. But no improvement on your handling on the issue.
Yes, you tire me.
Yeah… No. Putting the weight on us again, to prove that we want to be there, so then we can get to discuss sexism.
This is not the same question though.
@JethOrensin raises the question of whether the key reason for the lack of women in Go is that they are statistically less interested in Go to begin with, or that they would be interested in it but are turned off by a toxic environment. He uses example of sport (interested but turned off by toxic environment) and nightlife (not interested).
I don’t think you can simply say “we want to be here” as if it was trivial and not worthy of being discussed.
However we don’t need to answer this question to discuss sexism in Go. Whether or not there is a statistic difference in women’s interest in Go, the fact is that at least some women are interested in it, and we can already acknowledge these women may face a sexist environment (as illustrated by @claire_yang) and that this should be discussed and prevented.
4 Likes
That’s what I’m saying it shouldn’t be asked each and every time.
My point exactly is that we always have to prove that statically less interested is b*****. Why.
The question itself is part of the problem.
2 Likes
And of course, exactly what I said.
Huge detour, again making it start from step 1, because men need to be convinced.
AGAIN having to go through the basics to AGAIN explain that yes there’s a problem and yes we’d rather not be a problem and AGAIN have to prove that indeed there’s a problem.
Well done, lads. Not moving an inch. Good for you, great contributions.
1 Like
I’m not trying to be controversial here, I simply struggle to follow you.
My whole point was precisely that you don’t need to go through “step 1”, because it’s not actually “steps”. And you don’t need to prove there’s a problem with sexism in Go. You can directly move on to discussing the problem.
1 Like
Fewer women than men are interested in competitive 1v1 games.
You can’t make people like something they simply don’t.
- Numbers from the German chess association (out of ~90k members): 7.5% women in total, 5.1% adult women.
- Doesn’t seem to be Germany-specific, according to some article 8.5% of international chess players are women.
Challenge: Find a competitive 1v1 game with a female quota of >20%.
2 Likes
Well, while I didn’t agree with Gia saying “we want to be here” as if it was obvious, I don’t think we can do the opposite either. Women being less interested in 1v1 games indepently of the environment of such games is not obvious to me.
Again though, this is a “step 1” discussion that is independent from acknowledging that sexism does exist in Go.
1 Like
Sexism is a problem, and it’s possible that other factors also play a role.
2 Likes
My summary of the situation (in offline life, not in the OGS forums where just few of us come and post):
Do women want to become outcasts in society, belittled, physically attacked and accused by their peers for refusing to feed the kids and iron the shirts while The Man “spends time studying scrabble” or other strategic nerdy things? Hardly. Therefore, it’s a fact that women prefer less competitive, less nerdy things and they don’t participate in Go games and this is due to their hormones and their brain structure, which makes them fit for ironing shirts and feeding the kids.
This is what I “read” in real life. Did I read something different in this forum thread? No. I am trying really hard to take some of these posts lightly, but I’m struggling. I am not always replying, but I am very very offended.
I keep reading this thread in case someone posts a reason I didn’t think about, which would give me food for thought.
3 Likes
We agree here.
My disagreement is here. It’s a known tactic, each time a similar issue is raised, to first ask “hm, but is there an issue? 
”. It’s used to wear down efforts to discuss the issue.
Maybe it’s worthy of discussion (which I personally think is not) but in this context it’s a strawman. And after the 1000th time I have to face it, it’s exasperating.
2 Likes
it’s a strawman
It’s not really a strawman, nor is it a tactic (to what end?), it’s a different discussion.
To be clear : I believe sexism in Go exists, as it unfortunately often does in male-dominated fields. This sexism, how it manifests, how to prevent it, all this can be immediately discussed.
The question of whether this sexism in the Go environment is the main factor for the lack of women in Go is an entirely different discussion. A discussion I find interesting, and perhaps you do not, but in any case we do not need to solve this before discussing sexism.
I understand that maybe it’s obvious to me because I’ve faced it far too many times. I would appreciate it if you would consider the merit of my assumption at some point, but this isn’t part of this discussion, I’m just mentioning it because I believe you could see my view of it.
Yes.
My first and foremost suggestion is “men, check your peers”. It’s a very simple thing to do, one can do it individually and it makes so much difference you wouldn’t believe.
For example, you’re in a go club, and someone says “women are not analytical thinkers enough for Go”. You can say “this is false, there’s no valid scientific proof for it”. A girl who hears it might get some more courage to keep playing.
*if the other person continues, you can disengage, some people just 
.
Or, you see someone making a woman uncomfortable by peering down her clothes while playing. Check him.
Or, be careful to not utter “well, girls don’t really play Go, wow you’re an exception”, when you see a new player.
It’s the little things.
And then we can move on to greater things.
10 Likes
Because it is not. Saying that it is “b*****” does not make it so. That is why an EXTRA perspective on other similar things is added, to provide context to the fact that this is happening to a huge variety of activities.
Here you go, to my best of knowledge, in a 50km radius (excluding me, ok?)
People my age that still play sports: Two
People my age that play board games: Zero
People my age that read English fantasy books: Zero
People of ANY age that read English fantasy books: One
People my age that like programming: Zero
People of ANY age that like programming: One
People my age that like byzantine music: Zero
People my age that like astronomy: Zero
People of ANY age that like astronomy: Zero
etc etc
Do notice that I did not mention gender at all …
Why? Because “statically less interested” is THE important thing in such activities in this place.
THERE ARE NOT enough people for those activities here.
To make an inclusivity campaign, FIRST you need to have people that want to be included.
That was my point.
Sexism cannot be the “number one issue” if there are NOT even people there to be sexist to you. 
Most of us just want a person to play a real Go game and, usually, there are none.
Zero
Why? Because people here in the West are “statically less interested” in Go.
I’ll say it again. Try to organise the “Greek Go Association” … go ahead, try it.
Tell me which problem will rank FIRST if not the “lack of members”
ANY MEMBERS.
I’ve been in the talks for that twice. We didn’t have members. ANY members.
There are reasons for that. There the argument of society’s conditioning is valid.
If there are sport related activities that require a certain physical prowess where you might attribute things in nature (e.g. the lack of dunks in WNBA) , but in mental activities like Chess and Go there is no “that’s nature/fact”. That is malleable and depends on the society.
Oh, I am always very keen to crack heads to my misbehaving peers in the court … oh wait. There is noone else there with me. hmmm. Well …
of which we have ZERO in Greece 
Like actually having people to play with?
2 Likes
If you think it depends on the society, find a competitive 1v1 game in any society with a 50/50 split.
1 Like
This is like saying in 1900 that “if voting rights depend on the society, find me a country where women vote”.
Come on man, that’s preposterous. Exactly because it is a social issue, it takes time to be fixed and, even when fixed it will never hit 50/50. People have preferences, especially when they have more choices.
2 Likes
It is precisely because people have preferences, and both women and men make good use of them, that we have before us the fact that more men than women like to play competitive 1v1 games like Go and Chess.
It is also evident that you think this was somehow indicative of some grand suppression of women, but that’s just because of your false assumption that men and women should like competitive 1v1 games equally. I find that patently absurd because you’re effectively arguing that preferences don’t exist.
1 Like
Thanks, that’s good suggestions (although I rarely go to Go clubs to apply them 
)
2 Likes
Ah, you are moving the goalpost there
This is a fact indeed. You can count it and measure it.
What you said earlier however, is not:
Noone knows that. Interest cannot be quantified. I am VERY interested in ping-pong, but you will not find me enrolled in any association (yes, you guessed it, there is none here hahaha).
Don’t move the goalposts with me please.
Fat nerds were traditionally goalkeepers in Greece
I literally said nothing of the like, but yeah … “evident”.
I also didn’t say that.
I did say that “even when fixed it will never hit 50/50” so I am not sure what posts you are reading.
In the post you are replying I write: “People have preferences, especially when they have more choices.”
Dude, come on
1 Like
Maybe we could start by avoiding gender specific words on the forum (unless there is a good reason for it).
… Dude / Dudette ?
1 Like