"Stupid bitch thinks he's smart because of his college degree but doesn't know dick about machining." Is a less sexist and more accurate interpretation, your degree doesn't mean you're better or smarter than anyone else just because they chose another path. This has fuck all to do with sex, race, whatever.
Somehow i don't see the meme as sexist until i read the comments
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.
I guess, but nothing about this really pertains to gendered strength or weaknesses. At least not in reality.
Spatially smart
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.
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
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?
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.
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"
yeah i didn’t see it as man vs woman until someone decided to include a stupid twitter screenshot in it
but hey, engagement bait = successful
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.
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.
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
