ChatterBank1 min ago
Oh Dear They Are Certainly Out To Get Ukip.
40 Answers
http://
So women may not do as well as men at poker, bridge and chess as men, big deal, but is that being sexist?
/// Explaining his comments on BBC Radio 4's The World at One, he said: "I pointed out that in certain areas, women did not do as well as men, and then I cited poker, bridge and chess. ///
/// "My point is that there are some things that men are better than women at, some things that women are better than men at, and you don't necessarily want to impose a minimum of either sex at the top of any profession or at the top of any board." ///
So women may not do as well as men at poker, bridge and chess as men, big deal, but is that being sexist?
/// Explaining his comments on BBC Radio 4's The World at One, he said: "I pointed out that in certain areas, women did not do as well as men, and then I cited poker, bridge and chess. ///
/// "My point is that there are some things that men are better than women at, some things that women are better than men at, and you don't necessarily want to impose a minimum of either sex at the top of any profession or at the top of any board." ///
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"I pointed out that in certain areas, women did not do as well as men, and then I cited poker, bridge and chess"
Eh?
What's he talking about?
Seriously...I have absolutely no idea what this man means. Is he saying that with the same tuition and practice, men will always beat women at skill based games?
Hilarious.
Absolutely hilarious.
Eh?
What's he talking about?
Seriously...I have absolutely no idea what this man means. Is he saying that with the same tuition and practice, men will always beat women at skill based games?
Hilarious.
Absolutely hilarious.
If he had wanted to make that point, he might as well have come up with some examples of things that women are better than men at. The comment " I'm sure there are areas men are not as good as women.." is just a bit revealing.
Anyway, he's picked three bad examples -- there are some very good women chess players, not that many currently, but that's little to do with any inherent advantage men have over woman and a lot to do with perception and opportunity. Same applies to the other two -- there are several top women poker players, ditto bridge.
Anyway, he's picked three bad examples -- there are some very good women chess players, not that many currently, but that's little to do with any inherent advantage men have over woman and a lot to do with perception and opportunity. Same applies to the other two -- there are several top women poker players, ditto bridge.
He seems to be saying that women are no good at being politicians either. His remarks about those games are possibly based on the perception/probable reality that there are fewer top female players. But the reason for that is probably a lot to do with the reason why there are fewer female politicians
This reminds me of old episode of Friends where Ross and Rachel hire
a male nanny for their baby.
Joey says, "You can't have a male nanny - that would be like a woman doing..."
Rachel and Monica turn on him and say, "Go on...what 'male' job can a woman not do???"
Joey is thrown for a moment, but then answers..."Penis model".
Personally, I'm with Rachel and Monica on this one.
a male nanny for their baby.
Joey says, "You can't have a male nanny - that would be like a woman doing..."
Rachel and Monica turn on him and say, "Go on...what 'male' job can a woman not do???"
Joey is thrown for a moment, but then answers..."Penis model".
Personally, I'm with Rachel and Monica on this one.
Well, if he represents UKIP's ability to communicate clearly and intelligently then heaven help them
Only a minority of people are excellent at those games; the majority may be men but that doesn't prove much
and many poker and chess masters have 'interesting' psychological make-ups, and display behaviour verging on autism
So the relevance of all this to business he also failed to explain.
And his weasely explanations today have made him appear even more stupid.
Most worryingly, his main point - apart from being a logical non sequitur from the whole chess nonsense - is absolute tosh
/you don't necessarily want to impose a minimum of either sex at the top of any profession or at the top of any board/
So, because of varying degrees of expertise at poker, it would be ok for the board of a major organisation serving the general public to have NO men or NO women serving on it.
Righto Stuart!
I should stick to being a 'spread betting tycoon' if i were you
It looks like pontificating on bigger issues is only going to cause yourself and your party a lot of embarassment
Only a minority of people are excellent at those games; the majority may be men but that doesn't prove much
and many poker and chess masters have 'interesting' psychological make-ups, and display behaviour verging on autism
So the relevance of all this to business he also failed to explain.
And his weasely explanations today have made him appear even more stupid.
Most worryingly, his main point - apart from being a logical non sequitur from the whole chess nonsense - is absolute tosh
/you don't necessarily want to impose a minimum of either sex at the top of any profession or at the top of any board/
So, because of varying degrees of expertise at poker, it would be ok for the board of a major organisation serving the general public to have NO men or NO women serving on it.
Righto Stuart!
I should stick to being a 'spread betting tycoon' if i were you
It looks like pontificating on bigger issues is only going to cause yourself and your party a lot of embarassment
He is being a little disingenuous. He could have said that women don't do as well at the high jump or weightlifting too.
His point is that women aren't as good as men on boards, as directors, or at the top of any profession, isn't it? We've heard such arguments before: we were told women weren't as good as men at being lawyers or judges or as doctors. Back in the seventies, young women counsel were told that they were fit for family law but nothing else. When a woman became the first High Court Judge, she was officially styled MR Justice, such was the shock to the system.The objection was ill-founded then, and it is now, though the man still evidently thinks that 1970 is now.
His point is that women aren't as good as men on boards, as directors, or at the top of any profession, isn't it? We've heard such arguments before: we were told women weren't as good as men at being lawyers or judges or as doctors. Back in the seventies, young women counsel were told that they were fit for family law but nothing else. When a woman became the first High Court Judge, she was officially styled MR Justice, such was the shock to the system.The objection was ill-founded then, and it is now, though the man still evidently thinks that 1970 is now.
Svejk
That would be missing the point. Even if there were only a very small number of top female chess, bridge and poker players, it would not necessarily mean that women aren't as good a men - it may simply mean that women don't take up these pastimes.
It's like saying that women are inherently better at needlepoint, knitting and dressmaking than men because that's how their brains work.
No...it just means that for a number of societal reasons, more women get into those crafts than men.
That would be missing the point. Even if there were only a very small number of top female chess, bridge and poker players, it would not necessarily mean that women aren't as good a men - it may simply mean that women don't take up these pastimes.
It's like saying that women are inherently better at needlepoint, knitting and dressmaking than men because that's how their brains work.
No...it just means that for a number of societal reasons, more women get into those crafts than men.
Is it a necessary requirement of being a successful and useful company director at board level that one needs to be good at poker, bridge or chess?
No one should want inferior candidates to be appointed to top jobs merely to fill quotas at the expense of talent, this is true enough -but implying that those women candidates being considered for board position are inferior is what is sexist.
As far as poker and chess goes, I do know that women are in the minority at the top level, but I do not know why that it is. I play poker fairly regularly, both in live tournaments and online, and although men far outnumber the women players, the difference in "skill" or tactics is not that appreciable. The consistently winning tactic in poker centres around aggression, and many have suggested that aggression is linked to testosterone so therefore men are naturally better. But this is not borne out by the evidence - experienced winning women players are just as aggressive as their male counterparts when they need to be.
Cannot speak as to bridge. Don't play the game :)
No one should want inferior candidates to be appointed to top jobs merely to fill quotas at the expense of talent, this is true enough -but implying that those women candidates being considered for board position are inferior is what is sexist.
As far as poker and chess goes, I do know that women are in the minority at the top level, but I do not know why that it is. I play poker fairly regularly, both in live tournaments and online, and although men far outnumber the women players, the difference in "skill" or tactics is not that appreciable. The consistently winning tactic in poker centres around aggression, and many have suggested that aggression is linked to testosterone so therefore men are naturally better. But this is not borne out by the evidence - experienced winning women players are just as aggressive as their male counterparts when they need to be.
Cannot speak as to bridge. Don't play the game :)
The pity is that his underlying point was meant to be that we should not have enforced quotas anywhere, though he focussed on women, for some reason. There's no reason to have half the members of a board women, any more than there is to have the relevant percentage Jewish or black. But his illustration is so crassly stupid (or 'sexist' if you will) that it shows him, and indirectly his party, to be utterly out of date and, well, bigoted about a large section of the population
Latest Posts
ChatterBank10 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Crosswords12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Businesses Warn Of Job Losses Threat As...
News15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.