Whinging feminists in the media

vriesmays

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Women feel uncomfortable as it is traditionally a man's game, and the patriarchy prevent women from feeling welcome or equal. Also it was designed by a man and the game only has one female piece due to hatred of women. Men want to erase women.

Something along those lines.

I thought it was because the smartest people are mostly men.

Something along those lines.

Mike Murdock

Deleted User wrote: »

Because deeply inadequate men want to sulk and spend their lives beating themselves off to gonzo porn while hating women?

IF you want to play that broad, brush-stroke game, they are no different than the man-hating harridans that make up a sizeable proportion of intersectional feminists.

Are they?

Sunny Disposition

One thing that bothers me about current feminism is how little attention is paid to the gap in life expectancy.
Obviously the gender pay is a serious issue, it’s also a complex issue despite some saying otherwise. But as serious as that is, lower life expectancy in men is way more serious.

py2006

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

One thing that bothers me about current feminism is how little attention is paid to the gap in life expectancy.
Obviously the gender pay is a serious issue, it’s also a complex issue despite some saying otherwise. But as serious as that is, lower life expectancy in men is way more serious.

Feminists tend not to care about anything relating to men (often dismissive of it too) and I wouldn't expect them too. They are about womens issues and inequalities (as they see it).

They really don't see the irony in their claims to be about the inequality of the sexes.

Sonics2k

vriesmays wrote: »

I thought it was because the smartest people are mostly men.

Something along those lines.

Eh no, not really. Even in the 20th century quite a lot of the big breakthroughs that directly impacted human history were made by women, in quite a number of cases men took the credit.

Historically speaking, again no. Typically speaking throughout history women were actively denied the same education as men, and not just at a University level but through childhood too.

So while men turned out "smarter", it's largely down to the simple fact that women weren't provided with the same education and infrastructure.

py2006

Sonics2k wrote: »

Eh no, not really. Even in the 20th century quite a lot of the big breakthroughs that directly impacted human history were made by women, in quite a number of cases men took the credit.

Historically speaking, again no. Typically speaking throughout history women were actively denied the same education as men, and not just at a University level but through childhood too.

So while men turned out "smarter", it's largely down to the simple fact that women weren't provided with the same education and infrastructure.

Aren't you referring to the wealthy? In this country a lot were forced to leave the educational system VERY early due to poverty.

Tell me how

Mike Murdock wrote: »

You can see why movements like MGTOW have sprung up.

The examples I have seen of people who prescribe to the MGTOW ethos, and I am yet to have a conversation with someone in the real world who does so, leads me to think that these people selectively removing themselves from the gene pool might not be a bad thing.

Most of us here grew up in an Ireland where spousal rape was not possible to prosecute, where women, if not mandated to, frequently gave up their careers in order to look after the children and it was common for the property and funds being distributed in a will to go to the eldest son, irrespective of if there was a girl born before them. In the generations before that, it was common for dowry to be offered with a daughter so as to entice someone to marry her.

Now, while some ignore these types of realities and suggest that women have always been more preferably treated in society, more have reacted to their emergence as a group entirely capable of independent focus, desires and motivations from that of the men around them, more have reacted to this more equitable society by seeing any advancement of women as being to the detriment of men and, as you say, some of these have gone a step further in deciding to exclude themselves from pursuing women or interacting with them in any way which they have control over.

As I said, such people deciding to do this is probably not a bad thing but I would worry about some people who find themselves drawn to such ideals at a time in their lives when they are experiencing normal challenges of finding their own place in the world. The one thing I wouldn't do is blame all women for the difficulties they suffer.

vriesmays

Sonics2k wrote: »

Eh no, not really. Even in the 20th century quite a lot of the big breakthroughs that directly impacted human history were made by women, in quite a number of cases men took the credit.

Historically speaking, again no. Typically speaking throughout history women were actively denied the same education as men, and not just at a University level but through childhood too.

So while men turned out "smarter", it's largely down to the simple fact that women weren't provided with the same education and infrastructure.

Which break throughs in the 20th century were done by women. Come on back up what you're claiming.

Which education is denied to women to stop them from becoming chess grandmasters.

People aren't smarter because of their education . They are born smarter.

Tell me how

vriesmays wrote: »

Which break throughs in the 20th century were done by women. Come on back up what you're claiming.

Which education is denied to women to stop them from becoming chess grandmasters.

People aren't smarter because of their education . They are born smarter.

• Marie Curie was the first person to win the Nobel prize twice and she was key in the emergency of X-rays as an incredibly useful diagnostic tool.
  
• Ada Lovelace is known as the worlds first computer programmer.
  
• Grace Hopper was the key developer of COBOL, which is still used today.
  
• Heddy Lamar is known as the inventor of WIFI.
  
• Adele Goldberg was the inventor of a programming language which inspired the first Apple computer.
  
• Katherine Johnson was a mathematician whose work was crucial to the first US space flight. (see below a pic of her with her code for this)

• Elizabeth Feinler led an internet networking group who developed the naming scheme of .com, .net, .edu which are used in one or 2 places online today.

You either lack the ability to use google, or have a completely closeted mind to the idea that woman can be and often are just as smart as men.

As for your point on chess, young girls have had few role models of their gender to observe, become impressed by and be motivated to get involved in chess and so it has remained a sport which is seen as 'for the boys'.

EddieN75

Tell me how wrote: »

• Marie Curie was the first person to win the Nobel prize twice and she was key in the emergency of X-rays as an incredibly useful diagnostic tool.
  
• Ada Lovelace is known as the worlds first computer programmer.
  
• Grace Hopper was the key developer of COBOL, which is still used today.
  
• Heddy Lamar is known as the inventor of WIFI.
  
• Adele Goldberg was the inventor of a programming language which inspired the first Apple computer.
  
• Katherine Johnson was a mathematician whose work was crucial to the first US space flight. (see below a pic of her with her code for this)

• Elizabeth Feinler led an internet networking group who developed the naming scheme of .com, .net, .edu which are used in one or 2 places online today.

You either lack the ability to use google, or have a completely closeted mind to the idea that woman can be and often are just as smart as men.

Does that mean that everything else except 7 things in an entire century were invented by men?

vriesmays

As for your point on chess, young girls have had few role models of their gender to observe, become impressed by and be motivated to get involved in chess and so it has remained a sport which is seen as 'for the boys'.

It's not about role models. Highly smart people don't have role models. They challenge existing beliefs and come up with their own ideas. Men don't require role models to do great things.


These are a tiny tiny fraction of the discoveries /inventions of the 20th century. The other 99.999% got done by men. Not because they are better educated but because they are smart, clever people.


We're already 20% into the 21 st century. Where are all the great new original ideas by women.

Tell me how

EddieN75 wrote: »

Does that mean that everything else except 7 things in an entire century were invented by men?

Up until the late 19th century, in America at least, most higher education facilities were closed to women.
Women were not accepted to Oxford until 1920, they were not awarded degrees from Cambridge until 1948.
In Ireland, the first women were admitted to Trinity in 1904.

Now, given that this was when females were admitted to key higher institutions, how many of their lecturers do you think were women in these early years, who did these female students turn to for mentoring, advice and inspiration?

Do you not think it is likely that the reason men are listed as inventors in so many key areas that it is because women weren't even allowed to take part in the study and research in the same way?

Morgans

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

You did

Thanks. I didnt. I said (and you quoted me) that if they were issues.

I believe they arent issues. They don't come from any deeply felt sense of grievance, they are the product of whataboutery merchants, and have been honed by pseudo-intellectuals over the last two decades. These are largely in response to a fear that the traditional benefits of being male in a patriarchy are being eroded by a group who are a little too vocal, a little too uppity, and a little too successful. It's just rhetoric.

As was intimated earlier by another poster, if these 'mens' issues could somehow garner the support from those constantly whineging about feminists on boards, they could make actual real-life improvements to those affected. However, as it stands, its just a list for bad faith arguments when complaining about those who are actually trying to make real-world changes, for a previously oppressed group.

vriesmays

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you not think it is likely that the reason men are listed as inventors in so many key areas that it is because women weren't even allowed to take part in the study and research in the same way?

It's because men's minds are geared to inventing, even in preschool it's the boys
who take apart a toy to examine it. Everyone knows this.

If women require role models and a good education then they'll never invent anything.

Tell me how

vriesmays wrote: »

It's because men's minds are geared to inventing, even in preschool it's the boys
who take apart a toy to examine it. Everyone knows this.

If women require role models and a good education then they'll never invent anything.

If all it took was the mind to do something, then there shouldn't be a need for any formal education institutions.

I think your views as dancing on the edge of trolling but if that is not your intent, I apologise in advance for suggesting it.

If it is not your intent, and you truly believe this, I disagree with you entirely.

jackboy

To be honest talking about inventing is beside the point. Almost no one (male or female) will ever even try to invent something. It is an incredibly rare thing to do.

Morgans

McGaggs wrote: »

Anyone who thinks it's all about make versus female is a mug who is thinking exactly how the elite want you to think. It's about them versus us. Us being the 'ordinary' people, and them being the ruling class. The ruling class is different in each country, but they all look out for their own interests. They aren't necessarily all men; gender isn't something that factors into being part of this group. You can blame all your issues (for men and women) on the patriarchy, but you need to realise it's discriminating against everyone who isn't them.

I find it ridiculous that we're told that we need diversity in boards and in senior management, and the solution is more women. There's no diversity of thought between a BlackRock College attitude and a Holy Child Killiney attitude.

That's pretty marxist but correct to my mind. It's pretty clear that women were one of the groups that have been oppressed historically, and it lives on, to a greater or lesser extent, in today's society. They clearly weren't the only group. The griping and whataboutery that happens from those complaining that there are feminists working to reduce the inequity shows that men were oppressed.

But it suits the elites to have the countless characters giving out about feminists, seeming them as the problem, rather than those who are keen to keep all historically oppressed groups, in their place.

vriesmays

Tell me how wrote: »

If all it took was the mind to do something, then there shouldn't be a need for any formal education institutions.

I think your views as dancing on the edge of trolling but if that is not your intent, I apologise in advance for suggesting it.

If it is not your intent, and you truly believe this, I disagree with you entirely.

Disagree all you want, I'm correct and you're wrong.

Anyway, Ireland's dumbed-down formal education system will never produce a great philosopher or chess champion - male or female.

Morgans

Deleted User wrote: »

It makes a mockery of competition and equality.

Rather than people getting positions based on their qualifications/skills, they're getting it based on their gender. So.. if you, as a male, is passed over for a position, it's not something you can compete against. You can't get better education, skills, knowledge, etc to compensate.. against the decision to choose someone else because they fit a desired factor such as gender or race. It's completely unfair.. and it pushes us away from having an equal society, where people are rewarded for the investment they put into their personal development.

In my experience, women would be less likely to be hired if they one was to admit she was trying for a family, or pregnant at the interview. WHat has changed is that most employers would be clever enough to admit that wasnt the reason. Given that women had to give up their public sector jobs when getting married in the past, the fact that there is now legislation preventing the exact scenario you talk about has to been as a good thing.

Therefore the hypothetical discrimination, based on race or gender, that you outline must be done in the private sector, where for I guess societal or perhaps CSR reasons, there is some bottom line benefit to having a woman or minority of lesser skill in that position. However, the bottom line benefits must be worth more than having a white man in that position and be worth paying.

As for the equal society where "people are rewarded for the investment they put into their personal development" - that only works if everyone has the same amount to invest in the first place.

The J Stands for Jay

Tell me how wrote: »

• Marie Curie was the first person to win the Nobel prize twice and she was key in the emergency of X-rays as an incredibly useful diagnostic tool.
  
• Ada Lovelace is known as the worlds first computer programmer.
  
• Grace Hopper was the key developer of COBOL, which is still used today.
  
• Heddy Lamar is known as the inventor of WIFI.
  
• Adele Goldberg was the inventor of a programming language which inspired the first Apple computer.
  
• Katherine Johnson was a mathematician whose work was crucial to the first US space flight. (see below a pic of her with her code for this)

• Elizabeth Feinler led an internet networking group who developed the naming scheme of .com, .net, .edu which are used in one or 2 places online today.

You either lack the ability to use google, or have a completely closeted mind to the idea that woman can be and often are just as smart as men.

As for your point on chess, young girls have had few role models of their gender to observe, become impressed by and be motivated to get involved in chess and so it has remained a sport which is seen as 'for the boys'.

I think they were asking for examples where men had stolen the credit. I could be misremembering this, but the discovery of DNA?

The J Stands for Jay

Morgans wrote: »

That's pretty marxist but correct to my mind. It's pretty clear that women were one of the groups that have been oppressed historically, and it lives on, to a greater or lesser extent, in today's society. They clearly weren't the only group. The griping and whataboutery that happens from those complaining that there are feminists working to reduce the inequity shows that men were oppressed.

But it suits the elites to have the countless characters giving out about feminists, seeming them as the problem, rather than those who are keen to keep all historically oppressed groups, in their place.

Yeah, arguements between, say, Jordan Peterson and Germane Greer (poor examples, my mind is drawing a blank today) are keeping us from where we should be looking, 99% versus 1%.

Morgans

McGaggs wrote: »

Yeah, arguements between, say, Jordan Peterson and Germane Greer (poor examples, my mind is drawing a blank today) are keeping us from where we should be looking, 99% versus 1%.

And if Boards was populated by threads where that was the focus, all the better. I cant remember coming across one.

Yet here we are, where every group that appears to be promoting the case of the underdog are demonised the a consistent cohort of posters for one reason or another - for wanting equality, for looking to divide everyone, for being a tool of the elites, for wanting an end of capitalism. Just depends whose turn it is.

Morgans

Morgans wrote: »

That's pretty marxist but correct to my mind. It's pretty clear that women were one of the groups that have been oppressed historically, and it lives on, to a greater or lesser extent, in today's society. They clearly weren't the only group. The griping and whataboutery that happens from those complaining that there are feminists working to reduce the inequity shows that men were oppressed.

But it suits the elites to have the countless characters giving out about feminists, seeming them as the problem, rather than those who are keen to keep all historically oppressed groups, in their place.

where would you say that women are oppressed in a western culture? I mean now. Not in the 70s/80s. Nowadays. Where is this oppression towards women as a gender?

Morgans wrote: »

In my experience, women would be less likely to be hired if they one was to admit she was trying for a family, or pregnant at the interview.

Naturally. If the position is competitive, and demands a lot of time/attention from the employee. If someone is going to be out of work for a critical period for the position, then it stands to reason that others would be given preference.

WHat has changed is that most employers would be clever enough to admit that wasnt the reason. Given that women had to give up their public sector jobs when getting married in the past, the fact that there is now legislation preventing the exact scenario you talk about has to been as a good thing.

And now? I find that those who want to talk about discrimination, sexism, etc towards women tend to dwell far too much in the past, and not enough in the present.

As for being related to the scenario, I described.. only if you're looking from the perspective of women's rights. It does nothing to maintain equality for both genders, since women are receiving preferential treatment based on their gender....

Therefore the hypothetical discrimination, based on race or gender, that you outline must be done in the private sector, where for I guess societal or perhaps CSR reasons, there is some bottom line benefit to having a woman or minority of lesser skill in that position. However, the bottom line benefits must be worth more than having a white man in that position and be worth paying.

As for the equal society where "people are rewarded for the investment they put into their personal development" - that only works if everyone has the same amount to invest in the first place.

Why must it be done in the private sector? That makes little sense. Any movement that seeks to remove competition and the qualifications of the candidates from the equation, replacing them with the gender, ie, female... is pushing a movement of discrimination, since a man can't become a woman, nor should he have to.

As for your last paragraph, equality. Not equality of outcome. Not the equality that feminists love to preach about. The whitewashing of peoples choices made throughout their lives when puts them in the right position for being best for a role.

Morgans

Deleted User wrote: »

where would you say that women are oppressed in a western culture? I mean now. Not in the 70s/80s. Nowadays. Where is this oppression towards women as a gender?

Naturally. If the position is competitive, and demands a lot of time/attention from the employee. If someone is going to be out of work for a critical period for the position, then it stands to reason that others would be given preference.

And now? I find that those who want to talk about discrimination, sexism, etc towards women tend to dwell far too much in the past, and not enough in the present.

As for being related to the scenario, I described.. only if you're looking from the perspective of women's rights. It does nothing to maintain equality for both genders, since women are receiving preferential treatment based on their gender....



Why must it be done in the private sector? That makes little sense. Any movement that seeks to remove competition and the qualifications of the candidates from the equation, replacing them with the gender, ie, female... is pushing a movement of discrimination, since a man can't become a woman, nor should he have to.

As for your last paragraph, equality. Not equality of outcome. Not the equality that feminists love to preach about. The whitewashing of peoples choices made throughout their lives when puts them in the right position for being best for a role.

Do I take these 1 by 1.

So. Just women in western culture, I see you've added. Nice goal post move.

But it is still the societal expectation that the female will need to decide (often between the ages of 25-45), whether they want to have a family or focus on their career. Women will have to make a compromise of sorts and their decision will determine their life prospects. The bigger compromise the bigger the family that they would like. It is not a decision that men have to face. Depending on the decision they make, it can have a big impact on earning potential. Whether we get to a culture where there is no penalty for making that choice, I dont know. Its one of the reason why some feminists would take an anti-family position. At least the feminists won the contraception battle so they have some control over this.

Those women who were forced out of jobs in the past still affects their current pension provisions today. The discrimination doesn't just stop because it is recognized.

There are other simple factors like VAT on tampons etc where I can see the argument to change.

I dont think that its a coincidence that the caring professions such nurses and carers, feminine dominated, deemed critical during the pandemic, and generally have huge public support are some of the worst paid.

You seem to hold the opinion that there is no discrimination towards women NOW while simultaneously suggesting that its only natural to discriminate against pregnant job applicants. I know of women who take off their wedding ring when going for interviews as it suggests that they might be trying in the near future. Regardless of being the best applicant, they might not get the job. Cold hard business this is. Profits to make, industry to grow, shareholders to satisfy. Tough luck on the women, but not something that needs addressing.

I have experience of recruitment in public sector, private sectors and in academia and discriminating based on gender is illegal in both academic and public sector role, with all recruitment information recoverable under FOI, if a disgruntled applicant wished to do so. And the hiring manager can be in serious problems if found to discriminate - PC gone mad.

Therefore the hypothetical discrimination, where one race or gender is deemed more appropriate, that you outline, is far more likely be done in the private sector, where for I guess societal or perhaps CSR reasons, there is some bottom line benefit to having a woman or minority of lesser skill in that position. However, the bottom line benefits must be worth more than having a white man in that position and be worth paying. Cold hard business this is. Profits to make, industry to grow, shareholders to satisfy. But this time, its something that needs to be addressed. The idea that its cut and dried who is the best and who is second best in any interview process is of course nonsense.

Finally, you have equality of opportunity and equality of outcome 180 degrees incorrect. Simply, equality of opportunity ensures everyone starts at the same place (the fastest/best person win the race) equality of outcome is that everyone ends at the same place regardless of where they start.

Those who seem keen to preach about meritocracy don't seem to recognise the benefits they have, and are keen to ensure that people do not start in a line. As if someone who starts out life in Direct Provision is as likely to end up the CEO of a bank as Ivor from Foxrock.

Pawwed Rig

Morgans wrote: »

Thanks. I didnt. I said (and you quoted me) that if they were issues.

I believe they arent issues.

So higher rates of suicide, homelessness, work place deaths, lower life expectancy etc are not issues that require attention?

Morgans

Morgans wrote: »

So. Just women in western culture, I see you've added. Nice goal post move.

It's not a goalpost move since you made no mention of women in non-western nations previously... the automatic assumption would be that we're talking about western nations since that is where feminism, and women's rights have been established for the longest period.

Now, making the claim of moving goalposts is telling in itself.

But it is still the societal expectation that the female will need to decide (often between the ages of 25-45), whether they want to have a family or focus on their career. Women will have to make a compromise of sorts and their decision will determine their life prospects. The bigger compromise the bigger the family that they would like. It is not a decision that men have to face. Depending on the decision they make, it can have a big impact on earning potential. Whether we get to a culture where there is no penalty for making that choice, I dont know. Its one of the reason why some feminists would take an anti-family position. At least the feminists won the contraception battle so they have some control over this.

Actually, that is a decision that many men will have to face, as marriage is a partnership, and their incomes would be shared... generally putting more pressure on the man to provide. In a traditional society.

As for starting a family, many women can't have children, or choose not to have them. By placing the importance of having children above those who don't have children (whether male or female, married, relationship or single), you're discriminating against those without children.

Those women who were forced out of jobs in the past still affects their current pension provisions today. The discrimination doesn't just stop because it is recognized.

still in the past. Are you going to stick to my points, or question? Or will you continually return to the period that is no longer relevant.

There are other simple factors like VAT on tampons etc where I can see the argument to change.

I dont think that its a coincidence that the caring professions such nurses and carers, feminine dominated, deemed critical during the pandemic, and generally have huge public support are some of the worst paid.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

You seem to hold the opinion that there is no discrimination towards women NOW while simultaneously suggesting that its only natural to discriminate against pregnant job applicants. I know of women who take off their wedding ring when going for interviews as it suggests that they might be trying in the near future. Regardless of being the best applicant, they might not get the job. Cold hard business this is. Profits to make, industry to grow, shareholders to satisfy. Tough luck on the women, but not something that needs addressing.

Choosing another woman or a man, for that matter, because the candidate is going to have children isn't discrimination. I understand that feminists love to push that it is.. but our life choices affect our availability to commit to a job. If you are seeking a position which is time-intensive, such as a manager or director, but you're going to be gone for the first 6 months, and also be missing work due to family commitments, such as doctors appointments, teachers meetings, etc.... then that is a relevant factor in deciding if someone is suitable for a job.

It's no different from applying to a job, and telling them that you've got cancer, and will be missing from a significant portion of work, due to treatments.

Now.. if it's a mainstream job which doesn't require such a strong commitment (which many jobs are), then, the woman being pregnant shouldn't be a strong factor..

I have experience of recruitment in public sector, private sectors and in academia and discriminating based on gender is illegal in both academic and public sector role, with all recruitment information recoverable under FOI, if a disgruntled applicant wished to do so. And the hiring manager can be in serious problems if found to discriminate - PC gone mad.

I've also been involved in interviews and recruitment as a manager. There are many ways to show preference for other candidates should they wish to do so. Now, if that pregnant person is the best person for the job, that's a different story than the one you put forward.

In any case, you shifted goalposts yourself when you introduced pregnancy in relation to my own scenario..

Therefore the hypothetical discrimination, where one race or gender is deemed more appropriate, that you outline, is far more likely be done in the private sector, where for I guess societal or perhaps CSR reasons, there is some bottom line benefit to having a woman or minority of lesser skill in that position. However, the bottom line benefits must be worth more than having a white man in that position and be worth paying. Cold hard business this is. Profits to make, industry to grow, shareholders to satisfy. But this time, its something that needs to be addressed. The idea that its cut and dried who is the best and who is second best in any interview process is of course nonsense.

Love your repeated use of "hypothetical discrimination"for the situation that you didn't put forward. And you're cherry picking depending on what gender you're talking about. You're outraged that pregnant women might be passed over, but will find excuses for men being passed over. That says a lot.

Finally, you have equality of opportunity and equality of outcome 180 degrees incorrect. Simply, equality of opportunity ensures everyone starts at the same place (the fastest/best person win the race) equality of outcome is that everyone ends at the same place regardless of where they start.

Those who seem keen to preach about meritocracy don't seem to recognise the benefits they have, and are keen to ensure that people do not start in a line. As if someone who starts out life in Direct Provision is as likely to end up the CEO of a bank as Ivor from Foxrock.

Ahh... thanks for that. I really needed you to correct my understanding of equality. Yup. that is most definitely obvious sarcasm.

Morgans

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

So higher rates of suicide, homelessness, work place deaths, lower life expectancy etc are not issues that require attention?

I believe that suicide, homelessness, workplace deaths and life expectancy are all issues that should be addressed. I'd want as much a safety net as possible for everyone, good old socialist me.

As was rightly pointed out earlier, the list of issues are whines from where feminist lobbyists have been successful in gaining attention and forcing action that made real changes. Sadly the issues are not important enough for men (or anyone) to mobilise to the same effect.

However, it is YOU who is looking through this as a gendered lens and whinging about the success of feminist/feminine concerns.

Morgans

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh... thanks for that. I really needed you to correct my understanding of equality. Yup. that is most definitely obvious sarcasm.

You did.

Morgans

Yep. There would be far less bellyaching about feminists if only they supported mens issues.

99nsr125

Tell me how wrote: »

• Marie Curie was the first person to win the Nobel prize twice and she was key in the emergency of X-rays as an incredibly useful diagnostic tool.
  
• Ada Lovelace is known as the worlds first computer programmer.
  
• Grace Hopper was the key developer of COBOL, which is still used today.
  
• Heddy Lamar is known as the inventor of WIFI.
  
• Adele Goldberg was the inventor of a programming language which inspired the first Apple computer.
  
• Katherine Johnson was a mathematician whose work was crucial to the first US space flight. (see below a pic of her with her code for this)

• Elizabeth Feinler led an internet networking group who developed the naming scheme of .com, .net, .edu which are used in one or 2 places online today.

You either lack the ability to use google, or have a completely closeted mind to the idea that woman can be and often are just as smart as men.

As for your point on chess, young girls have had few role models of their gender to observe, become impressed by and be motivated to get involved in chess and so it has remained a sport which is seen as 'for the boys'.

So there has only been 7 women of any importance

I couldn't have proved the victim complex better if I tried