@sgtlaugh said in #807:
> I do not intend to sealion you :), but am honestly having a hard time understanding your points.
And you just want to have a reasonable discusssion!
>
>
> Yes, in many cases the current scenario is far from the ideal one.
>
>
>
> Feminism at its core is equal rights and opportunities for females. What point are you trying to make with health clubs buddy? If a system does not provide equal opportunities for both genders, then that's a problem. In such a case, feminist activists (don't confuse this with feminist extremists) will usually advocate and push for it to change.
We have female-only health clubs. I didn't say I supported or didn't support them, only that a precedent exists.
> Now once you do have equal rights and opportunities, you can have male-only health clubs, female-only health clubs, and health clubs for both genders and then it is for the individual to choose what they want to do with all these. Why can't it be the same for chess? If women want to play OTB with men, LET them! And ensure a fair and safe environment. If some women are conservative or for whatever reason are not comfortable playing with men, LET them play without men. That's perfectly fine too. As long as there is no prejudice and discrimination when it comes to gender, what's the issue?
The problem is women may want to compete in open events against the best, and should. OTB chess is a highly personal, interactive environment. Most women don't want to interact with most men yet live chess literally forces them to, with their full names on display, often in a preentry list, full names (with ages) on top 100 national lists (down to age seven! what about 13 and up being the minimum for info?), and in a game with numerous allegations of predators.
I can certainly know I wouldn't want any teenage duaghter of mine playing OTB, not just due to the privacy and predator risks, but the last thing I'd want for her is to have to stare across the board at some socially-awkward, unattractive male (of any age) that she would never otherwise go near, but now has to engage in a shared activity with for several hours, at a hotel away from home, in a tournament where she might have been preentered, where her full name and age is known from the top 100 lists. With that said, if she agreed to train to be a chess champion, she would endure this, but why bother if she can just marry a champion or have a child who becomes one and fit that much more neatly into her lifestyle?
Regina Fischer certainly did as much for chess as any champion.
> Unrelated discussion. Let's discuss ideas first. Also, your concepts and thoughts are very strange. I can see why
@QueenRosieMary got triggered, but in any case, we all should refrain from ad hominem and personal insults and instead focus on the discussion.
>
Nice example there calling my solution (e-sport arcades) "strange," since e-sports are all done that way.
> Here you also add a remark such as hotels are another personal environment that women should avoid. I mean, why? You are very concerned regarding the safety of women and think selective segregation is a good solution for most hazards that they face.
Women don't need to avoid hotels. Many will feel the need to avoid being on preentry lists that can easily be abused, and why is USCF posting full names anyway? They should switch to membership ID.
> Imagine this. You live in a town where crime is very common. You as the mayor of the town are concerned with the safety of the good citizens. Instead of addressing the source of the crimes and attempting to reduce them, you suggest the citizens stay indoors at night, you ask them to not wander alone in the city and to always stay on watch.
Many mayors have done just that. I grew up in NYC in the 1970s I think I've dealt with this issue before, but chess has specific steps that can be taken.
> May I ask what kind of life would that be? Wouldn't the better solution be to ensure proper steps are taken so that crime is reduced to an acceptable level? It might be difficult, it might need some time to implement, but isn't that the only proper sustainable solution? Also, in this analogy, it's useless to give such advice to people instead of solving the root issue. It only adds salt to their injury. Because these are common sense principles, if the crime rate is high, most people wouldn't go out at night anyway and would be unhappy regarding the situation.
No sealioning there....
> The same goes for your concern regarding the safety of women. They already KNOW that the world is unsafe for them. It is unsafe for males too, but much less than females. This is not a situation that they want to live in, it could be very suffocating. You and I, as individuals, may not be able to change the entire population. But shall we change ourselves first and stop giving them BS advice for a change?
My ideas can improve safety for women without fundamentally altering the game. E-sports do this all the time and they are way bigger than chess.
> Crossing the line, how interesting. Do you believe men have different "lines" than women? As people, we all do, but I believe it comes down to our values as human beings. Not as men or women. What's your "line" may I know, and how can someone test and provoke you to cross it? I am genuinely curious.
In a civilized society, our laws are our "lines." Intrusive questions with threatening overtones don't get an answer but do get filed "just in case." With that said, the lines that are crossed are crossed more often by men, though not always.
The Sealion comic was created as a specific protest against polite strangers who feel entitled to unlimited amounts of someone's time.
I didn't beat the #5-ranked nine year-old in the country (1991 Elo) in a quad yesterday by arguing on the internet.
