Women Issues in Backgammon
play_backgammon
while women enjoy a free entry? Fair and justified? Degrading to
women?
http://play65.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/women-issues-in-backgammon/
Patti Beadles
play_backgammon <ron...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What do you think about a tournament where men have to pay entry fees
>while women enjoy a free entry? Fair and justified? Degrading to
>women?
I think it's degrading to women, and I think that any man would be
insane to enter souch a tournament.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA |
pattib~pattib.org | All religions are equally
http://www.pattib.org/ | ludicrous, and should be ridiculed
http://stopshootingauto.com | as often as possible. C. Bond
Neil Kazaross
I would think such a tourney would be both degrading to women and
unfair equity to men. I'd never dream of playing in such an event and
very strongly feel that the sexes should be treated equally in BG.
play_backgammon
Then what would you say about a tournament where the elite of women
players play against men who are well past their prime?
http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/snowdrops-women-beat-old-hands-elder-men-in-a-chess-match/
Is it possible that chess is more sexist then bg?
Walt
Meh.
It's six Euros to enter. I have a hard time getting outraged over six
bucks. The real investment in playing this tournament is the time not
the money.
//Walt
Grunty
Due to social conventions, it's impossible to be really fair to women
at bg tourneys. Strictly technically speaking -- they'd be awarded
some kind of initial advantage, cheaper fees or 1 score point or 31
upfront or free drinks or something.
On average, women are way less suited to bg than men, so being at big
disadvantage. Just take a look at tournament grids, statistics etc.
No degrading thing, just sex nature. Women superiority over men lies
on other features, much more profoundly rooted than a simple game.
Nonetheless I agree to charge women same fees as men -- aha wanna play
this men's game babe? just to see how far you go.
Patti Beadles
Grunty <grunti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Due to social conventions, it's impossible to be really fair to women
>at bg tourneys.
Show your work, please.
See also, Lee Genud.
Grunty
> In article <812050f5-5a48-4d5b-9a47-96d851e7b...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Grunty <gruntingdw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Due to social conventions, it's impossible to be really fair to women
> >at bg tourneys.
>
> Show your work, please.
>
advantages to compensate for their relatively inferior traits for the
game.
>
> See also, Lee Genud.
>
Mentioning the only really deserved female world champion in history,
you make my case.
It's all at plain sight. Look at champions runners-up and semis in any
big tourney recorded up to date. Then calculate what percentage of
them are female.
More recently, Katie Scalamandre's championship rather confirms the
very nature of bg -- a just decent player on a good streak can beat
superior (male) competition.
N Merrigan
who assertained that women had the ability to think for themselves. Not
strong enough for you, then, perhaps we should all sit a round and discuss
the issue of women in BG.
The only women issues I am aware of are those on the magazine stand next to
Cosmo Man and Blitz.
N.Merrigan
"play_backgammon" <ron...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:15883e5a-832e-4fbc...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Patti Beadles
Grunty <grunti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It's all at plain sight. Look at champions runners-up and semis in any
>big tourney recorded up to date. Then calculate what percentage of
>them are female.
Start with the percentage of females who play the game seriously
and work from there. I think you're drawing bogus conclusions.
Grunty
> In article <83c6d2cf-69a4-4bfd-8a0d-206be5a72...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Grunty <gruntingdw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >It's all at plain sight. Look at champions
> >runners-up and semis in any big tourney
> >recorded up to date. Then calculate what
> >percentage of them are female.
>
> Start with the percentage of females who play
> the game seriously and work from there.
Oookay, come to starting-points,
How about you starting with the *cause* why the percentage of females
who play the game seriously is so low, and working from there?
> I think you're drawing bogus conclusions.
Now I see the woman there -- you begin to sound like my partner ;-)
Patti Beadles
Grunty <grunti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>How about you starting with the *cause* why the percentage of females
>who play the game seriously is so low, and working from there?
I think that women are often encouraged by western culture to
avoid disciplines that involve science, mathematics, logic, and
steered toward softer disciplines. Little boys are told that
they're supposed to grow up to be doctors and scientists and
engineers, and little girls are told that they're supposed to
grow up to become teachers and secretaries and nurses.
Also, being intensely competitive is thought of as unfeminine,
so girls are taught to play house while boys play competitive
games and sports.
Grunty
> In article <3c45ad3b-18e4-46a6-ac07-ca81ce31c...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Grunty <gruntingdw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >How about you starting with the *cause* why the percentage of females
> >who play the game seriously is so low, and working from there?
>
> I think that women are often encouraged by western culture to
> avoid disciplines that involve science, mathematics, logic, and
> steered toward softer disciplines. Little boys are told that
> they're supposed to grow up to be doctors and scientists and
> engineers, and little girls are told that they're supposed to
> grow up to become teachers and secretaries and nurses.
All that is true, but neither do I think difference in intelligence is
what makes women less suited to bg than men.
> Also, being intensely competitive is thought of as unfeminine,
> so girls are taught to play house while boys play competitive
> games and sports.
Here we get closer to the point.
I do think that, in matters that don't involve self and progeny's
survival and growth, women lack the killer instincts required to
excel.
Women will prefer constructive, cooperative games. As well as women
will tend to use more constructive, cooperative, persuasive attitudes
at work and at real life in general.
It's ingrained in genetics -- ultimately women are responsible for the
continuation of the species. That makes them more responsible and
conservative at facing big decisions; so to speak, they take life more
seriously than men. On the other hand, they take warlike games, such
as bg, much less seriously than men.
Michael Petch
On 13/12/09 12:26 PM, in article
dfda7195-0914-4a34...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, "Grunty"
<grunti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I do think that, in matters that don't involve self and progeny's
> survival and growth, women lack the killer instincts required to
> excel.
Woah! What century is this?
Peter Schneider
"Michael Petch" wrote
The century in which the nature/nurture debate will continue. (Which is
good because we don't know enough.)
Best,
Peter aka the juggler
Michael Petch
On 13/12/09 11:27 PM, in article 7om48sF...@mid.individual.net, "Peter
Schneider" <schneiderp...@gmx.net> wrote:
What century is this?
>
> The century in which the nature/nurture debate will continue. (Which is
> good because we don't know enough.)
>
CTO's that probably have more drive and ego than a lot of men I know.
Problem is to them backgammon is probably not worth the effort. They can do
all that and go home and be Mommy at the end of the day.
Maybe for some women they realize that gambling and games of chance are just
a waste of time and resources and that there are better things to do with
their time?
Grunty
> On 13/12/09 11:27 PM, in article 7om48sF3q9c9...@mid.individual.net, "PeterSchneider" <schneiderp_REMOVET...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> What century is this?
>
> > The century in which the nature/nurture debate will continue. (Which is
> > good because we don't know enough.)
>
Well I know some too, so what.
Even then, as an interesting experiment you may want to calculate the
percentages within the boundaries of your personal bubble and find out
how they match social-scale figures.
> They can do all that and go home and be Mommy
> at the end of the day.
And that's the best that kind of woman can achieve in playing their
natural role -- be an "end of the day Mom". Not a Top Quality Mom I
say.
THIS I call degrading a woman, rather than handicap their entrance in
a tournament.
> Maybe for some women they realize that gambling
> and games of chance are just a waste of time and
> resources and that there are better things to do
> with their time?
Maybe for *most* women? They realize that because they lack the excess
of testosterone that often clouds men's judgement and behavior --
killer instincts. Women tend to play more cooperatively than men.
They've got a mission in life, they've got to protect and grow up
progeny.
If you live in an environment where most women act like men, then I'm
sorry for you.
Michael Petch
On 14/12/09 5:08 AM, in article
3a166a26-ac4c-4c30...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, "Grunty"
<grunti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Maybe for *most* women? They realize that because they lack the excess
> of testosterone that often clouds men's judgement and behavior --
> killer instincts. Women tend to play more cooperatively than men.
> They've got a mission in life, they've got to protect and grow up
> progeny.
I'd be curious Grunting. Between you and Mary Hickey - who do you think Is
the stronger player. What Error rate do you think you are, and what do you
think Mary plays at? I would contend there is a good chance that Mary
outplays the majority of men when she plays over the board.
Peter Schneider
we are entering deep waters here but
"Michael Petch" <mpe...@capp-sysware.com> wrote
> Maybe for some women they realize that gambling and games of chance are
> just
> a waste of time and resources and that there are better things to do with
> their time?
Life is a waste of time. Some people say the male mindset is a mild form of
autism, and sometimes I can hardly object:
http://www.autismresearchcenter.com/books/title.asp?isbn=0141011017.
Peter Schneider
"Michael Petch" <mpe...@capp-sysware.com> wrote
> I'd be curious Grunting. Between you and Mary Hickey - who do you think
> Is
> the stronger player. What Error rate do you think you are, and what do
> you
> think Mary plays at? I would contend there is a good chance that Mary
> outplays the majority of men when she plays over the board.
Michael, as a backgammon player you should know better than to use single
data points as arguments. Since the dawn of reason we have demanded that
allegations be backed by valid datasets. Can you produce any?
Michael Petch
On 14/12/09 11:11 AM, in article 7ondf1F...@mid.individual.net, "Peter
Schneider" <schneiderp...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Michael, as a backgammon player you should know better than to use single
> data points as arguments. Since the dawn of reason we have demanded that
> allegations be backed by valid datasets. Can you produce any?
>
If one woman can be better than most then there are likely others. And that
goes back to why women do not play backgammon. I believe that women (and I
have just anecdotal evidence) don't play backgammon for many reasons (which
may or may not include aptitude and selfrighteous ego).
Do I personally believe that there are women on this planet with the
aptitude to play BG at the highest levels (and possibly exceed the best male
player) - Yes. Problem is you have to introduce them (and keep them
interested) in the game of Backgammon first - and I think that is where the
problem lies.
Now if you can find enough women to start playing backgammon maybe we can
start to do a long term study (as it relates to BG) and possibly answer
these questions.
Grunty
>
> <gruntingdw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Maybe for *most* women? They realize that because they
> > lack the excess of testosterone that often clouds men's
> > judgement and behavior -- killer instincts. Women tend
> > to play more cooperatively than men.
> > They've got a mission in life, they've got to protect
> > and grow up progeny.
>
> I'd be curious Grunting.
Mike,
We both are old fellow rgb'ers and never engaged in bad manners rather
the opposite, so no need to be that formal. You can call me just
Grunty, let the Mr Grunting Dwarf to the Raccoons, Riches and their
ilk :-)
> Between you and Mary Hickey - who do you think Is
> the stronger player.
No doubt Mary is the stronger player. From the couple of articles of
hers I ever read, I do know she's studied the game with a dedication
and to a depth I never have or will have.
> What Error rate do you think you are,
> and what do you think Mary plays at?
Actually I don't know exactly what error rate I myself play at! let
alone Mary's. I just can assure hers is lower than mine.
> I would contend there is a good chance that
> Mary outplays the majority of men when she plays
> over the board.
I guess you meant you would _not_ contend... Neither would I.
----
You seem to keep highlighting individuals, like Patty did with Lee
Genud. Whereas this discussion scopes over general, average, features.
I think Mary or Lee aren't typical individuals representative of the
female players crowd. Probably the intensity of their personal efforts
in mastering a game with this features, and playing it accordingly,
was fueled by their relative testosterone levels in blood (chuckling)
or whatever drives competivity at its highest, call it 'killer
instincts'. So they managed to raise themselves well over the 'normal'
level of success expected from a female player.
What reality says is, for every outstanding female player there are
lots of male players of similar strength. Would this ratio get to 1:1
over time? I don't think so, at least as long as you and I have a dick
and they have otherwise.
I just read you elsewhere:
"Problem is you have to introduce women (and keep them
interested) in the game of Backgammon first - and I think that is
where the problem lies."
Finally Mike! I also think "that is where the problem lies" -- keep
them interested! But you stop there. I say for them to be genuinely
interested in bg or football or boxing or other battle games (even
videogames!), they should have to be genetically or hormonally
manipulated to reinforce certain male traits!
play_backgammon
> interested) in the game of Backgammon first - and I think that is
> where the problem lies."
>
> Finally Mike!
So giving women precedence in the form of free entrance could be
start...?
Grunty
> On 14 dic, 17:41, Michael Petch <mpe...@capp-sysware.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Problem is you have to introduce women (and keep them
Wow... Michael uncovered a possible correlation between women's
attitude towards backgammon and towards sex.
But that's for another thread.