I like both. I get the sentiment, but it is really sad that men and women’s strengths and/or weaknesses are being used to wage a stupid war that serves no one.
In my home we compliment each other super well. My weaknesses are evened out by his strengths and my strengths even out his weaknesses. It’s great. Almost like that’s the whole point of having a functioning society.
Somehow i don’t see the meme as sexist until i read the comments
What kind of smart am I if I’m not particularly good at academia, or math puzzles, but, like, I really wish I was smart while still holding the exact same beliefs.
Spatially smart
Works hard kind of smart
vs
lazy, doesn’t try for more than 5 minutes, gets repeatedly told “you have so much potential if you would apply yourself” kind of smart
hardworking = easily exploitable
How is your life going for you so far?
Aren’t you supposed to sort it to the middle tower?
Looks to me like it’s saying there two types of chess enthusiast and I’m not sure it’s saying one is better. If you’re trying to make the woman look dumb, would you include 110/100 grades…?
There are a few comments here that are sexist as shit, misandry and misogyny both. It boggles me that intelligent people who know that sweeping generalizations are bad when it comes to race and nation lose their fucking mind when it comes to biological sex.
Wait until you learn about “generations”.
Was on-meta in my high school to have >4.0 GPA. Assumed colleges wouldn’t take less. If you didn’t have at least one honors class the teachers kind of assumed you were never gonna drop out of Stanford.
‘Biological sex’ as opposed to the kind enabled by Hitachi?
Woman certainly have a different brain organization (emotionalº) due their biological rol, but this has nothing to do with the intellectual capabiliities. All the mentioned prejudices that are confirmed are caused by traditional education where girls are always put in their shema with toys that reinforce this expected role of them, the same with boys (dolls vs toy cars).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0o7nJknQkOU
º “Women which gain weight live healthier than the man who mencioned it”
Emotional. As opposed to men who are perfectly rational at all times and totally don’t sit far beyond women in statistics of violent crimes.
I don’t mind acknowledging that men and women are different, but the “women are emotional and men are rational” narrative is driving me up a wall.
Both have emotions, but not the same, simply because testosteron isn’t the same as estrogen in it’s effects. Women are biological and hormonal different from men, but as said, nothing to do with scientific, analytic, mathematic, physical and tecnical or intelectual capabilities. The only limitations are traditional rols and educations in the society (movie about Lisa Meitner instead one of Oppenheimer?)
I’m aware. I just disagree with using the word “emotional” to describe how women are different from men, because that is not accurate.
The reason chess is a segregated sport is because the male players couldn’t cope emotionally with co-ed.
Not only was their the sex-pest harassment stuff, but men who lost to women would become hysterical, hostile, and aggressive.
Women just needed clam, rational, and stoic people to play with, so they had to exclude men.
I especially like playing chess with clam people.
I like to play chess with people which are way better than I am in it
I like to play chess and stare at boobs
When my sister was on the chess team in highschool she would always wear a low-cut top with ample cleavage to the tournaments. She said it was very effective when her opponents spent more time staring at her chest than the board!
May be a gross oversimplification, simply because, ignoring everything else around professional chess, the world championship is technically open for all genders…
But considering how FIDE makes women gain ELO by taking it from other women in mixed tournaments, its 2023 ruling on transgender players, and how former World Champion Garry Kasparov reacted to losing to a women, it might as well be the truth.
In Kasparov’s eventual defense, he did say this after losing to Polgar:
“I was wrong about women playing chess. I gave an opinion a long time ago that I no longer believe.”
and later in his book wrote:
‘I won’t hide from the fact that I did make regrettably sexist remarks about women in chess around this time. In that 1989 Playboy interview I said men were better at chess because “women are weaker fighters” and that “probably the answer is in the genes”. The possibility of gender brain differences aside, I find it almost hard to believe I said this considering that my mother is the toughest fighter I know.’
Thank goodness online adaptations allow people to play without having to consider the identity of their opponent (because I don’t mind who I play against).
The selection is already biased. High ELO ranked chessplayers are not all that stable to begin with.
Yes, almost every sport where men are actually at an advantage allows women to compete in the “men’s” leagues as well. Only when they actually start winning against the men do the rules start excluding them
What are the examples for the second sentence? Climbing?
Pretty much every shooting sport (excluding poundage-categorized archery because of draw weights), at very least.
Habing chess separated for gender is a huge red flag… i feel like both women and men are ok with it for some reason cause otherwise i dont know how this is still a thing in 2026I stand corrected
Chess is not segregated by gender. There are women’s tournaments and there are open tournaments. There are no men’s tournaments. Men are way overrepresented at all the open tournaments, but women do compete in all of them.
Women’s representation is increasing at the top levels but it’s a gradual process. Judit Polgar and Hou Yifan (侯逸凡) are so far the only women to reach the top 100 players in the world and regularly compete with success at the top open tournaments.
The main world championship and title of GM is open to everyone, so it’s not truly split.
There are FIDE women only tournaments but that’s due to there being less participation of women. When you have something like this where the skill distribution is gaussian, if you have like 50 women compete and 1000 men, you will notice that it’s extremely unlikely for a woman to ever reach 1st place just due to statistics. Replace women and men with brown hair and blond hair and you’d see the same phenomenon.
The tail of the statistics where you see extreme deviations of improved skill would be dominated by the population with much larger participation.
To counter this, they have women only tournaments so that you always have a woman in 1st place in some tournament, basically to improve participation and convince more girls to play when they’re young.
There are of course probably other factors but these things improve participation and are meant to help get more women in chess, not separate them out.
the school system grades you on conformity, not wisdom and neither of these people are correct and most ivy league grads are literally just there because theyre epstein-class legacy members
theyre just two people with different interests and goals, thats it
Spoken like someone who was bad at school and bad at toys
Yeah making this into a man vs woman thing is stupid, I took the original post just as a person saying “people can have different kinds of intelligence, everything should be respected”
Oh, so we should respect cops? Boot licker.
respect and love EVERYBODY but defend yourself with wisdom
Also, a lot of “stupid” behavior people do is a direct result of them being stressed, scared, tired, hungry etc. The more stuff you have on your mind to begin with because the world sucks the harder it is to pay attention to what you’re doing.
and children have these emotions amplified 10x and dont know how to control it and the school system thinks that they forget stuff and dont get good grades because theyre EVIL
They are also evil. Have you met a child?
theyre more whimsical, curious and unafraid of being “embarrased” so they seem like they “lack a filter” or are “evil”
They are also those things, in addition to evil. Yes.
how are they evil?
Both sides are just people with interests, i never understood the smart/dumb distinctions, there’s just interests, dedication and morals
Lots of upvotes, but that’s simply not true. It is true that people can be gifted in one area and not in others, but those people can excel in those areas more than someone even more passionately interested could ever hope to.
I knew a guy named Joe Rohde. You can look him up, he ended up being a head of imagineering at Disney. When I knew him, he was a high school art teacher, and then just starting at Disney. His aptitude for art was off the charts, and his mom said that was true when he was four and able to draw 3D renderings when his peers couldn’t do stick figures. Sure, he practiced and developed skills, but his ability to hold a 3D image in his mind, tweak and rotate it, and then put it on paper, is something innate. He was absolute crap at math.
I spent 40 years at a company that mostly made rocket engines for NASA and the DoD, working with literal rocket scientists. I met all sorts of very smart people. Some were the stereotypical scientist that were geniuses in a particular area but had no skills outside of it, but others were just simply brilliant at anything they turned their mind to. Many of them defied the stereotype and also has great social skills.
It might be nice to think that anyone can be truly great at anything they put their mind to, but I’ve seen too many people who are truly great at things to believe it. Some people are just wired differently.
Edit: and none of the above mentions gender because gender doesn’t factor into it.
True, and it actually makes up the majority of the skill as well, i just don’t like to look at people as gifted or lucky because it’s unfair, it’s kind of sad hahaha
I get easily conquered by defeatism if it’s done through pure logic and there’s no doubt about luck being a huge factor in skill! And in life in general, So i just kind of look away and continue grinding what i enjoy, because it’s the only thing you can do to enjoy competitive activities
Even more so, luck is a big component of success. You can have both skill and hard work and not be successful at something. Likewise, some of the people who are successful aren’t the most skilled, talented, or hardest working. There are correlations between success and those things, but luck is certainly a factor.
Right but only one side is compensating.
Clearly you have never met stupid people. Lucky you.
I think you’re lucky if you’ve never had an interest you weren’t smart enough to enjoy properly.
I was once interested in time travel. My dedication was boundless and my morals were questionable. I only got smart enough to know I’m too dumb to make it work.
Good news, I figured out the secret to time travel. I’m now travelling forward in time by a second, every second! Pay $999 to learn My secret!
Pff amateur, I can even travel forward in time by slightly less than a second every second!
pff that’s nothing, the faster I go times stays the same for me, but goes faster for everyone else!
PFFFFFT to you!
I travel forward in time 1000 mileseconds every second!!!
Plus its only 995€ for my secret!
A second? That’s rookie numbers. I travel a week and it usually only takes seven days to do so
You’ve never met someone who’s just plain dumb? I have bad news.
Nah, that would be great news. Being dumber than anyone you’ve ever met makes you less responsible for things like climate change and political violence than the people around you (morally, at least; you’re probably literally more of a cause, because you’re more likely to be right wing, but if you’ve already jumped that hurdle, maybe you aren’t). Plus, if your own life is a wreck, it feels better to blame an inherent limitation than something you could change, if only you had the discipline. If your own life is great, you’ve overcome a serious obstacle and should be proud of yourself.
finally someone gets it
It’s someone who sucked at school clinging to their sense of intellectual superiority in spite of that.
Not really, i’ve know many people like this who were bottom of their class and had edge over me in chess, fun games like it or random specific trivia, they don’t do it to feel intellectually superior they do it because it’s more enjoyable to them than studying
They’re not dumb they’re just not trying altogether, and when i talk with them about the topics they enjoy they actually show great understanding on them, it’s all just people with interests
If they were trying, say in a debate and they’re deliberately refusing to follow simple proofs they themselves use, yeah then they’re dumb, but i’ve never come across someone like that that still managed to be good at something, it’s a core part of learning as a process
Sure there are people with useful interests and ones with useless ones, but i refuse to call the useful ones smart and useless ones dumb, it’s demeaning to those people’s capabilities, i don’t hold anyone to this way of thinking it’s just mine
Yeah but some are able to get better at them than others. Talent does play a role and it’s best if interests align.
It says “chess enthusiast” on the left, but shows a chessboard on the right. Sounds like these two have more in common than they see.
It also says chess enthusiast on the anime boy. Might just be a watermark.
I ship it
Well you see, KNOWING ABOUT chess is superior to PLAYING chess, as chess is just a silly little toy.
It’s different because… Umm…
the creator of this meme is pointlessly trying to divide people into anything but a class warwait uhhhhis rage baitreasons.
Not the towers of hanoi!
you won’t believe this but I bet the guy on the right could write a Python script to solve it in 4-6 business weeks
Why is there chess enthusiast on both sides, and chess on the right side
I feel like thats a watermark from either the original creator or some repost down the line
I figured it’s a watermark but it’s very confusing because it looks like part of the content and is incoherent if interpreted that way
