Forum for Gender Discrimination in Go
On merging ''Gender Discrimination In Go '' with "Discrimination In Go" [#2375]
tapir has suggested that this page Gender Discrimination In Go be merged with Discrimination In Go.
The two pages are different page types. Gender Discrimination In Go is a standard SL page. Discrimination In Go is a forum, or talk page, just as this a talk page.
Is the suggestion that we not have a standard SL page addressing the subject of Gender (Sex) Discrimination In Go?
If so, what makes this subject of the Gender (Sex) Discrimination In Go page different? (other than the subject of the page)
What other SL pages, if any, should be converted/merged from standard SL pages into talk pages?
I thought it is a good idea to reduce the page to a forum as long as the page contains nothing but discussion and opinions. If you think this is a bad idea, you can change this on Discrimination in Go (please notice the objections to your summary then) instead of making a duplicate of the page which was about to be renamed.
The Discrimination in Go page is now a forum. Might as well leave it that way. We have an opportunity to create a better page here. This page, Gender Discrimination in Go, does not contain the amount of discussion or number of opinions that make up Discrimination in Go. For that reason, if no other, this page, Gender Discrimination in Go is not a duplicate of Discrimination in Go.
The summary has been mentioned in a number of posts on different talk pages. Let's look at the summary, in detail, line by line. Perhaps we can figure out what may be causing the problem.
- Women are free to enter all professional tournaments under the same qualifying conditions as men. Do you agree ? Please provide a counter example. (for instance, not allowed to enter the xxxx tournament.)
- There are tournaments reserved for women only. Do you agree ? Please provide a counter example.
- Men are excluded from these tournaments. Do you agree ? Please provide a counter example.
- These tournaments constitute discrimination in favor of women by guaranteeing the set of women professional players a minimum number of title and the monetary rewards associated with those title. Do you agree ? Please consider the reverse in answering, if these tournaments excluded women would they constitute discrimination in favor of men ?
- We have not been able to reach a consensus conclusion why the percentage of go professionals or open title holders that are women is significantly less than the percentage of women in the general population. Do you agree ?
- There are indications that certain national professional go organizations may exclude certain individuals from joining the organization. Do you agree ?
- This may be based upon nationality or age of the individual. Do you agree ?
I am very well able to follow your argument, I did never dispute well known facts. (So you do not have to ask me rhetorically about them. Although there are not hundreds of 9 dans.) The point is not whether the propositions are correct or not, but that they are presented as a "summary" on the issue of gender and go.
You are again starting to do what you did on the other page. "Proving" that there is no open discrimination against women in professional go - which inevitably suggests to the reader that lacking discrimination they must be just weaker and the lack of an Y-chromosome may be a factor here. (You made this a question of belief earlier: Do you believe that genetic endowment plays no role in of go playing skill? I actually do not care about what may be left in the end to be explained by genetics, but I won't let you deny all other factors just because you are obsessed with genetics. And it is a rather easy task to give you hundreds of papers on issues you forgot to consider. Here one on leisure constraints by gender: ![[ext]](images/extlink.gif)
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a913134703)
What you are failing to acknowledge from the very beginning is the overall effect of a male dominated society. This begins with the sex ratio of the overall population which is not 1:1, but increasingly unfavourable to females due to sex-selective abortions in several countries (among them notable Go playing countries). (Discrimination, sexism, gender roles, thousands of differences by gender etc. etc.)
Good to hear that we agree about well known facts There are 108 9 dan players in the Nihon Ki-in.
tapir: You are again starting to do what you did on the other page. "Proving" ... You made this ... I won't let you ... you are obsessed ... you are failing to acknowledge ...
Velobici: I don't consider this to be proving anything. May we step away from the personal comments and discuss the subject at hand, please.
tapir: there is no open discrimination against women in professional go
Velobici: Agreed. Rather the reverse is true. There is open discrimination against men and in favor of women in professional go.
tapir: What you are failing to acknowledge from the very beginning is the overall effect of a male dominated society. This begins with the sex ratio of the overall population which is not 1:1, but increasingly unfavourable to females due to sex-selective abortions in several countries (among them notable Go playing countries). (Discrimination, sexism, gender roles, thousands of differences by gender etc. etc.)
Velobici: Hereby publicly acknowledge from this point forward we live in a male dominated society. See
The effect of having women only tournaments on male professionals is negligible. It can be argued that these tournaments in themselves develop or persist a culture of inferiority amongst female players. So one can argue that women are discriminated against openly in the professional arena on an institutional basis.
I'm not sure it's a very important topic though. It is interesting to debate in our 'western' sphere - which is the better affirmative action vehicle: Pair Go or Female Only tournaments?
It was so predictable that you would react to the words "male dominated".
( http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/16/content_349051.htm)
PS I count 75 9 dan professionals at the Nihon Ki-in page.
tapir: It was so predictable that you would react to the words "male dominated".
Velobici: May we step away from the personal comments and discuss the subject at hand, please.
tapir: I count 75 9 dan professionals at the Nihon Ki-in page.
Velobici: Please verify the following 108 players:
ki000001.htm ki000021.htm ki000039.htm ki000059.htm ki000097.htm ki000185.htm ki000002.htm ki000022.htm ki000040.htm ki000060.htm ki000098.htm ki000186.htm ki000003.htm ki000023.htm ki000041.htm ki000062.htm ki000100.htm ki000187.htm ki000004.htm ki000024.htm ki000042.htm ki000063.htm ki000101.htm ki000216.htm ki000005.htm ki000025.htm ki000043.htm ki000064.htm ki000107.htm ki000217.htm ki000006.htm ki000026.htm ki000044.htm ki000065.htm ki000134.htm ki000218.htm ki000007.htm ki000027.htm ki000045.htm ki000066.htm ki000139.htm ki000221.htm ki000008.htm ki000028.htm ki000047.htm ki000072.htm ki000141.htm ki000222.htm ki000009.htm ki000029.htm ki000049.htm ki000079.htm ki000142.htm ki000223.htm ki000011.htm ki000030.htm ki000050.htm ki000080.htm ki000145.htm ki000242.htm ki000012.htm ki000031.htm ki000051.htm ki000081.htm ki000146.htm ki000277.htm ki000013.htm ki000032.htm ki000052.htm ki000087.htm ki000147.htm ki000292.htm ki000014.htm ki000033.htm ki000053.htm ki000088.htm ki000148.htm ki000305.htm ki000015.htm ki000034.htm ki000054.htm ki000091.htm ki000174.htm ki000307.htm ki000016.htm ki000035.htm ki000055.htm ki000093.htm ki000175.htm ki000322.htm ki000017.htm ki000036.htm ki000056.htm ki000094.htm ki000182.htm ki000331.htm ki000018.htm ki000037.htm ki000057.htm ki000095.htm ki000183.htm ki000345.htm ki000019.htm ki000038.htm ki000058.htm ki000096.htm ki000184.htm ki000385.htm
Getting back to the subject: I thought it is a good idea to reduce the page to a forum as long as the page contains nothing but discussion and opinions. If you think this is a bad idea, you can change this on Discrimination in Go (please notice the objections to your summary then) instead of making a duplicate of the page which was about to be renamed.
I admit everything got worse afterwards. We may leave it at that.
Tapir
There is a problem though, that the summary is pretty vapid. It focuses on professional Go and statistics, neither of which could be described as key.
Most importantly, the summary answers the question Is there discrimination based upon gender? Yes, there is, in favor of women and explains, hopefully rather clearly, why we state that such is the case, at least at the professional level. This makes up the start of the summary and the first half of the summary as well.
While it is undeniably preferable, focusing on the general population of go playing people may be beyond our capability. Starting with our inability to find a representative sample of these people, unless someone wishes to begin such work. National associations, about we can get information and contain a reasonable number of people for a number of countries, are not a representative sample, but rather a self selected sample.
Rereading the summary, there is only one sentence that might be statistical: ... the percentage of go professionals or open title holders that are women is significantly less than the percentage of women in the general population. A sentence that is rather thin on statistics. In no other sentence is there even a whiff of statistics.
Rather than vapid, might describe it as modest in that the summary does not go beyond what may be substantiated.
How might we re-write it to strengthen the wording, making it less vapid without overreaching ?
The summary doesn't include the possibility that women are discriminated against by, at an institutional level, this job title of female professional. A female professional can be perceived as inherently weaker due to the lower entry requirements and the ring fenced tournament ciruit. I.E. Females are treated as inferior by default. The summary at present, while containing some facts, seems to have little value.
How might we re-write it to strengthen the wording, making it less vapid without overreaching ?
That's a good question, but until you have some comprehensive research, can you really make a good summary?
Yes, it seems that we can summarize what information we have at this time. Indeed, that may be a critical step in determining what additional information we might wish to obtain.
![[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]](images/stone-hello.png "Sensei's Library")