![]() StartingPoints Paths Referenced by
|
Women - Discussion
Keywords: Culture & History
(Sebastian:) This page was intended as a discussion page for anything that might be interesting in the context of women and Go. but it turned into a heated discussion of the question:
Why do so few women play go for recreation?(Sebastian:) Why do so few women play go? It appears to me that one of the reasons is that Go is too hard-hearted. It punishes small errors mercilessly. See e.g. Illegal Move. Velobici: Better question: Why do so few women play go for recreation? The ratio of men to women professionals seems to be much higher than the ratio of men to women recreational players. Perhaps for the same reason that so few women bike as opposed to run. <engage generalization mode> Women are most interested in speech as a method of creating inter-personal relationships and therefore seek out activities that promote conversation as a method of strengthening inter-personal relationships. Talking while running works. Talking while biking doesn't; its too slow with a heart rate thats too low. (Fhayashi: Huh? Heart rate is as high in serious cycling as serious running, and you can talk on a bike too...) Men tend to use activities (sports, for example) to strengthen their relationships. Hence the old saw: "Do you love me?" "Of course I do, honey. I told you so just last week!" Women can be very merciless. Just look into the behaviors of high school girls with their cliques and ostracism of certain other students. Men are rarely so cruel and so personal in their cruelty. SnotNose: Sebastian's hypothesis would suggest that women would approach the game, learn about it, discover it is "too hard-hearted" and then stop playing. Does this correspond to the evidence? I don't know for sure, but that won't stop me from guessing. <Enter speculation mode>. My suspicion is that women are less apt to even approach the game. That is, they are less likely to learn about it at all or to know someone who plays. If true, this is likely due to the types of people who dominate the game at the amateur level (mathematicians, computer scientiests/engineers, etc.). These are more likely male occupations (though changing). If the game is spread through word of mouth in those communities, fewer women will know of it than men just due the M/F ratio in those communities. If there is some aspect of the game that is less attractive to women, it is likely to be something more basic than its alleged "hard-heartedness", as Velobici suggests. I think one doesn't learn about its "hard-heartedness" until much later. By the way, I could also argue that it is not "hard-hearted" at all. Afterall, there are so many opportunities to recover from previous misplays. In that sense, the game is quite forgiving :) Perhaps more philosophically; what has drawn you to the game of go? I am married, this has certainly convinced me that I am in no way qualified to make any statements whatsoever as to the tendancies of my wife (let alone the tendancies of the female portion of our race). I can, however, attempt to analyze my obsession with this game, possibly discovering traits of people who would also enjoy go. I enjoy games in general - especially go. To me a game is a controlled social interaction with the potential to build mutual respect and admiration with other participants in the game. A game is an opportunity to refresh my brain, as I become absorbed in the game other thoughts drift from the forefront and this focus leaves me feeling renewed. A game is a chance to escape larger life/work issues and focus on problems of a smaller scale, which end in a reasonable period of time. My wife knows all the rules to go - has played at the club, but she isn't *drawn* to it. This is of course a mystery to me. Perhaps she, as an individual, is more social and doesn't need an environment with rules & a distinct pecking order to interact comfortably. Perhaps her other hobbies/activities refresh her mind, perhaps she doesn't seek an escape. Maybe she just doesn't find it interesting. (Sebastian:) What a nice contribution! Part of it should also go on WhatIsGoAbout. Or maybe a page Why do you play go?. My answer to that question is very similar to yours. I would add that I also enjoy the learning aspect of it, and I feel I can learn for life. (Currently, I'm playing mostly timed games to learn how to make quick decisions.) Your contribution has opened my eyes for an important distinction: Some here seem to assume I am critizicing women. Of course, if I love something, I wish my friends would love it, too. But as you point out, it would be disrespectful to try to change your partner's or friends' preference. This is not my intention. I am hoping to find a way to make this game more fun for my female friends, and to learn a lot about female psychology on the way.
BTW, (Discussion moved from MessagesToPeopleCurrentlyPresentInTheLibrary:) JohnAspinall Does anyone else think that Sebastian's comment in IllegalMove about women players is inappropriate? I think that the topic of women in Go is a legitimate topic (although the page will probably attract some inappropriate content). But taking an example of a game between two male players, as a place to inject some (highly generalizing, of necessity) comments about all female players, speaks of someone pushing an agenda awfully hard. SnotNose: I don't see a problem with Sebastian's comment or his hypothesis. I don't happen to agree with it, however. I don't think that a link from the illegal move to the women in Go page makes a lot of sense. That is, I'd have linked from somewhere else, made my comment about "hard-heartedness" and then refered to the game as an example of it (if that is what I believed, which I don't). So, no problem with the appropriateness, just a minor one with the link logic. (Sebastian:) Good idea, I'll fix that. John: I think you misunderstand me. I didn't construct any conclusions from the the male players of that game to female players - and certainly not to "all"! (Sebastian: moving the discussion to WomenDiscussion) Sngrfxz: You revealed your own bias about women: Women don't like "hard-hearted" games. The inference is that women are "soft-hearted". Do you have some scientific basis for this statement? It should define "hard-hearted", and show that the difference in the level of "hard-heartedness" between men and women is significant and greater than the variation of the level of "hard-heartedness" within the groups of men and women. Without such evidence, your statement is an opinion which does nothing to advance the discussion on IllegalMove, or explain the reasons why women play go. (Sebastian:) I appreciate that you are fighting for equality. This is a very important value, which I share. You're also correct that my statement "does nothing to advance the discussion on IllegalMove". While you were writing this, I moved it therefore to hard-heartedness, as SnotNose proposed. Sngrfxz: Ok. How about removing the reference to women not playing go from hard-heartedness also? Keeping it on the page invites continuing the discussion there. (Sebastian:) What's wrong about that? Sngrfxz: There are now two concepts open for discussion on the hard-heartedness page: The nature of hard-heartedness and how it applies to Go and Women don't play go because of hard-heartedness issues. It seems to me that the second concept and the discussion of it belongs on this page. If it stays on hard-heartedness it risks overwhelming any discussion on the first concept. I propose removing your statement, and moving the last part of my entry, as well as your follow up to this page. The discussion about making generalizations can then continue here. Alex Weldon: I can think of four reasons that don't have anything to do with the game itself...
But there still seem to be proportionally more females playing a game like chess than males, so there must be other factors; the next two I can think of have to do with the oriental origin of the game:
...and lastly...
Kendrah Forgive me for feeling offended by this topic. I don't tend to like being called inferior because I'm a woman. But that's probably my 'soft-heartedness'. I believe that less women play Go is probably for the same reasons as women don't really play chess: because we aren't really introduced/ prodded to the game. We're expected to play with dolls and whatnot. It's a fact that boys get more attention in areas of math and science then girls do, and this most likely applies to strategy games and anything like this. A lot of the women players that I know aren't afraid of kicking butt or hurting the other people. In fact, I hear more of the "I feel bad for this play" from the men then the women. (Sebastian:) Cheer up! Nobody here calls you inferior. As a matter of fact, nobody here calls even women in general inferior. I am (or was?) puzzled because I know many intelligent women who don't like Go. I'm actually very satisfied with Alex's points because they help me understand what has been puzzling me. Alex is right about Japan, where girls are usually not allowed to play in boy's teams. (moved from hard-heartedness:) Sngrfxz: ... Please don't make the mistake of taking your experience with women and generalizing it to all women. Generalizing about a set of people comprising more than half of the earth's population seems pretty meaningless. (Sebastian:) I said it before, and I'm saying it again: I never said "all". Please don't make the mistake of putting words into other people's mouth. It is offensive. Sngrfxz: Can you clarify what you mean by "Why so few women play go" ? I interpret it as "For the most part, women share a particular trait, which makes them less likely to play Go". That statement could give offense. Are you really saying, "Some subset of those women who don't play Go share a particular trait that causes them to not play Go"? I don't want to offend you, I'm probably just not understanding what you're trying to say. Can you clarify? (Sebastian:) I think it's a fact that few women play go. And I would like to know the reasons. I had one hypothesis, and I was curious to see what other people thought of it. But I'm also curious about other attempts to explain this fact. Sngrfxz: Do you still feel that your original hypothesis has merit? If so, can you clairfy what it is? The way it is currently stated ("Few women play Go because Go is hard-hearted") is easily interpreted as being offensive. It sounds like you are now leaning more towards the points made by Alex. In that case, perhaps removing the original statement would be best so as to avoid future misunderstanding. In any case, perhaps removing the statement about women from the top of hard-heartedness is advisable, to avoid inviting discussion on that topic on that page. (Sebastian:) Alex' points are very strong factors. But that doesn't rule out hard-heartedness as a factor. I know several women who don't like most games, including Go, because, as they say, they are too competitive. (Now stay on your chair. I'm not saying that women can not be competitive.) Most women I know would rather play with me than against me. Maybe "hard-heartedness" was not the best choice of words. But it is an actually existing problem, so I don't think we should remove the statement. We should keep this factor in our mind, which may help us make this beautiful game more appealing for the beautiful half of humankind.[123] Sngrfxz: It doesn't seem like our discussion is going anywhere. A Wiki is probably not the right forum for this type of discussion (at least for me). Since nothing really came out of it, I will delete our back and forth, unless there is some objection.
[123] Sebastian's words, emphasis added. (JohnAspinall) TJ: My wife doesn't play because it's too competitive. She plays other games, loves games...but ones like chess/go...games in which you're directly opposing the will of your opponent with no intermediary...these she doesn't enjoy. Personally, I believe this is because women are MORE competitive than men! We can play a game (men) and enjoy it. A woman is perhaps more likely to get so into such a game that they get angry/emotional about it when things go wrong...in short, not that they are more emotional or any of that '50's clap-trap, but that they are more likely to take any and all direct competition more seriously than a male. Why play a game that is so competitive, pitting yourself against another human being, when there is absolutely nothing at stake, and nothing is to be proved nothing but that you're better at that particular esoteric game? Well, if you're an average male, that is almost the definition of fun. To a larger percentage of women than men, I suspect that it seems sadistic and/or masochistic. Women who enjoy go, don't take any offense...like men who enjoy activities dominated by women, you're developing a positive part of yourself that is traditionally encouraged to develop moreso in the opposite sex. (Sebastian:) Interesting observation. I am thinking of my mother. When we played chinese checkers, she would always move her tokens deliberately such that I could jump over them, which annoyed me, because I wanted a competitive game. It took me a long time to acknowledge that she wanted a pastime and a way to show me that she cared for me. She saw our interaction on the board as part of the big picture of our relationship as persons. After what you said, maybe she took the board more to heart than I did? TJ: I think that's in line with my opinion. If she seriously played against you, it would have felt like a direct attack against you...the competion would be serious for her, and she'd expect you to take it just as personally as she would. By avoiding the conflict of giving you a competitive game, it's ensuring no hard feelings arise. HelcioAlexandre: My wife also says that she doesn't like Go, chess and other games because of the competition. (Moved from EditingDiscussionsDiscussion:) Sngrfxz: In the case {in EditingDiscussionsDiscussion}, a consensus is reached. The incorrect statement can be removed, and the consensus opinion summarized. The discussion between Sebastian and myself that generated this page is a case where the two participants are simply talking past each other. I was suggesting removing the discussion as a whole, not just my own contributions, since the discussion had apparently not led to any increased understanding for anyone. (Sebastian:) not anyone? - Please speak for yourself, I'm getting tired of your generalizations. I found much of the discussion interesting, in particular since there were many good and interesting contributions from other people. Moreover, I was not just speaking of the discussion you were involved with. (Which is why I wrote "I had the same wish on other pages" - I'm really getting annoyed when you repeatedly don't read what I write and then complain about "talking past each other".) EditingDiscussionsDiscussion is a general discussion, it is independent of who does the editing, and I would like to reach an understanding independent of any particular discussion. Sngrfxz, let's try to solve this in a constructive way. Do you feel it is inappropriate to discuss this issue at all, or do you just think it should be discussed differently? If the latter, how would you do it? Sngrfxz: Sebastian, I was referring only to the conversation(s) that you and I have been involved with. There are no other participants in that back and forth. I am only suggesting that my statements and your responses to them be removed. If you feel you learned something from the discussion, please replace the discussion with a summary of the thing you learned. Stefan: Please leave discussions unedited for a good time. Weeks, or even months. There's more people on SL than the talkers, there are readers too. If you feel a discussion is or will be just between you and one other person, consider another channel than SL (e.g. email[10310]). But once it's up here, I think it's a part of Wiki Etiquette to leave it up long enough so everybody has a chance to read. mdh To make another concrete example. My wife, whom I believe is probably more intellgent then me, likes games. But she doesn't like strategy games like Chess, Checkers, Go, etc. She prefers Card games and board games that use Dice. Basicly she looks for that added element of chance to be thrown in. The completely skill based strategy games requires too much mental work for a relaxing, enjoyable recreational activity. Scrabble is about as close as she gets and even that has a large element of Chance thrown in based on what you draw from the letter bag. The types of games she likes allows her to interact with the other players more. repp The women I've played become more interested in go only if it occurs within a larger social context. Rengo (four person go) is a fun way to play, as is bringing a group of people together as a club to play go. Also, when playing my partner, she will be more eager to play again if the previous loss was by a little, and not a lot. Creating the small loss is important. When playing with my partner, I've found that sitting directly next to her creates a more pleasant atmosphere to play in. Tamsin: Well, even remembering that it is fools who rush in where angels fear to tread, I decide to enter this discussion: Q: What about the supposed structural differences between male and female brains? For example, I believe that testosterone stimulates the part of the brain concerned with spatial reasoning, which is of course vital to the ancestrally male-dominated activity of hunting. Females, in contrast, often show better-developed verbal and emotional skills. These are, of course, tendencies and not rules: there are lots of articulate men, and lots of women with superb visualisation abilities. TJ: A: It's a myth. If the part of a female's brain that deals with spatial reasoning is under-developed, it's more likely to be so from less use than a male. As more women enter more male-dominated "spatial reasoning" type activities, the gap narrows. I could be wrong or out of date about this research by a decade or so, though. School was a long time ago. Tamsin: I'm not certain that it's a myth, but I think you're certainly right not to take generalisations about brain structure difference as gospel. That said, I am currently very interested in the relationship between hormones and brain development (and, for now, let's just say that I have a very good reason indeed for this interest). I reckon folk are on shaky ground when they try to discuss women and go from a social point of view (what's to discuss? That go is or is not popular with women in some cultures?), but I do think there could be value in questions related to physical differences in the brain, such as the one I posed below. Q: How might these differences be manifested in playing style, strengths and weaknesses? [1] I'm not too convinced of that. The attendance at the local anime club is largely female, and apparently was mostly female at the convention last May - and there was a lot of mention of yaoi there, enough to make me a bit uncomfortable at times. ^^; Alex is definitely right about the feedback effect, though. -- KarlKnechtel This is a copy of the living page "Women - Discussion" at Sensei's Library. ![]() |