Breaking the Silence

@SixtySecondsOfHell said in #819:
> Except I didn't say that. I said women have that as an option and many prefer that to enduring the chess world themselves.
>
> Forcing women into highly personal settings with a history of sexual harassment is never going to be an easy sell.
>
> If you don't like what I write I dont' really care btw.

Alright. So now let’s talk about the situation where a woman would actually want to participate in a large chess tournament. Because she enjoys the game of chess. We are not “forcing” her. She wants to compete in a chess tournament. So do we agree that she should be enabled to join those tournaments, that there should be an environment where she doesn’t have to be afraid to be the target of sexual harassment? Even if that means that some men have to change their behavior? Because I read your messages more like statements that there is not much to do about the situation and that this woman should rather stay away from tournament chess because we cannot force men to show reasonable behavior.

Regardless of that, the option to give birth to a chess master rather than becoming a chess master herself is not an actual option. You are suggesting that she would not only give up her own ambitions in the game (which maybe someone out there would see as an acceptable alternative) but she would even project her own ambitions on her child (aka son in this logic) who might not even have any ambitions in chess. If you’d give that suggestion to your daughter not only would that make you a (potentially) terrible father, but also a terrible grandfather.

You could as well suggest as an “option” to that woman that instead of playing tournament chess she could professionalise in making chess-themed cakes. That’s as ridiculous as your “option”, but at least you don’t put a burden on her child, too.

It course you don’t care if I like what you write. But still you attempt to provide “options” to those who are affected by what this forum and blog post is about. Do you believe any of those see your suggested “options” as actual reasonable alternatives to playing chess in tournament settings?

BROO NOO WAY @saintlouischessclub NO LONGER LM THATS CRAZY

Most man are garbage, rapers, feminists are right, with all the evidences, proofs, he is not in prison, allways support woman they never lie, amost. Only Neymar,Cristiano Ronaldo, Johny Deep, Mendy, Semedo, ..., innocent, all others but especially this poor ones are the most disgusting, and creepy. Lichess don't cut ties with FiFA, because footballers are good man, lichess should only fight rape in chess not in another sports and areas. I love lichess.

@M0r1 said in #821:
> Alright. So now let’s talk about the situation where a woman would actually want to participate in a large chess tournament. Because she enjoys the game of chess. We are not “forcing” her. She wants to compete in a chess tournament. So do we agree that she should be enabled to join those tournaments, that there should be an environment where she doesn’t have to be afraid to be the target of sexual harassment? Even if that means that some men have to change their behavior? Because I read your messages more like statements that there is not much to do about the situation and that this woman should rather stay away from tournament chess because we cannot force men to show reasonable behavior.

And your situation says they should wait for a man to do something before they act, even though the underlying environment all but guarantees they will experience this. Also, being "creepy" is not harassment, and most attractive women are very vocal about not wanting to spend time with most men, or being put in environments where they are forced to interact with men they don't like, for several hours, during a shared activity not designed for mixed genders.

> Regardless of that, the option to give birth to a chess master rather than becoming a chess master herself is not an actual option. You are suggesting that she would not only give up her own ambitions in the game (which maybe someone out there would see as an acceptable alternative) but she would even project her own ambitions on her child (aka son in this logic) who might not even have any ambitions in chess. If you’d give that suggestion to your daughter not only would that make you a (potentially) terrible father, but also a terrible grandfather.

If I had said that I'd agree with you, except I didn't say that. Many women consider motherhood an option, and that lifestyle is easier for women than sacrificing a family to study. That's pretty simple demographics. A woman who doesn't feel safe playing tournament chess isn't likely to play it regardless.

> You could as well suggest as an “option” to that woman that instead of playing tournament chess she could professionalise in making chess-themed cakes. That’s as ridiculous as your “option”, but at least you don’t put a burden on her child, too.

Or she could go on stream and make 4x what a male champion makes while other women complain about objectification. BTW women are not the only targets, nor men the only harassers.

> It course you don’t care if I like what you write. But still you attempt to provide “options” to those who are affected by what this forum and blog post is about. Do you believe any of those see your suggested “options” as actual reasonable alternatives to playing chess in tournament settings?

I didn't recommend it, I said women choose it. My option is an e-sport arcade setup that seems to work great for e-sports, yet male chessplayers would rather have women trapped across a board for several hours. Can't imagine why.

Ladies, pay attention.

p.s. -- please be mindful of making demands of my time. I am not put here to debate on the internet and I've already made this point five times. This is sealioning territory.

@M0r1 said in #818:
> Yeahhh, my comment was to your suggestion that rather than becoming chess masters themselves women should marry a chess master or give birth to a chess master if they are enthusiastic about chess. Ya know, cause that fits “much more neatly into [their] life style”
>
> I think I’ll opt for crying.

You think women don't choose marriage and motherhood over a career? If the career makes them targets for sexual harassment, they're not likely to remain in chess, which is what we see now.

Are you saying Regina Fischer made a poor choice having a son who played chess rather than playing it herself?

@SixtySecondsOfHell, I will try to keep it short. Since I don't believe it will be fruitful, and also because I don't want to hear the sealion term even though I never discussed with you in bad faith. And no, I am not trying to sealion you and manipulate and make you look bad by saying this (I looked it up). I never pushed you or forced you to reply.

I understand what you are trying to say, but I still find it strange, and doesn't make much sense to me. As another used once mentioned in this thread in a different context, I feel it's like throwing the baby with the bathwater. There are certain advantages of real-world interactions and OTB chess. By your rationale, why shouldn't we make everything virtual? In that case, it'd be safer for everyone isn't it? There is abuse and harassment in the cyber world too. I doubt arguing would get us anywhere though.

> 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.

It becomes really hard to understand your views and position when you drop comments like that. I honestly don't understand why you keep mentioning all these and use phrases like "sitting across unattractive socially awkward males". I doubt most chess players even care about these. I haven't played OTB chess myself, so perhaps I am not qualified to say this. It's just I find this bizarre, but of course, I could be wrong.

> 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.

Okay, that was not what I intended but now that I read it again, I can see why you'd take it that way. Apologies for that, I should have worded it better. I meant it from a point of argument, not as a personal attack. As I said, I think whether people would cross these lines or not would depend on their values as human beings.

> 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.

Good for you, but everyone's time is important. Not sure what you're trying to get at by mentioning this. I don't feel entitled to your reply or your time. Also, I never forced or pushed you to respond. So far you have engaged by your own free will. In any case, I think we can agree to disagree peacefully and call it a day. I would really prefer not to hear the sealion term again :)

Cheers!

@ClappingQueens said in #811:
> @SixtySecondsOfHell You are sitting here arguing over the importance of a fundamental American principle (innocent until proven guilty) with someone from Bangladesh. What is the point?
>
> It's sad that Lichess is taking the stance that it did in the article, but it's not surprising given that there are users on this platform from countries all over the world, most of which don't give their citizens the protections that we take for granted.

Haha, that made me laugh actually.

Firstly, we were not arguing over that, but his views regarding OTB chess. You would need to realize the importance of a fundamental global principle called reading in order to grasp the importance of a fundamental American principle, wouldn't you say? :) Jokes apart, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant to quote another user and misquoted someone else instead.

Secondly, I never said I don't support "innocent until proven guilty". Suggesting otherwise would be a gross misrepresentation. This is a legal term and all that I advocated for was to provide some sort of countermeasures by the chess organizations to protect potential future victims. Notice how Lichess also focuses on how the organizations failed to act sensibly.

Thirdly, I fail to see your rationale when you drag my country into this discussion. What does that have to do with anything? You are right that oftentimes most basic human rights are not granted here, but when did I personalize or brought them into the discussion? We are not there yet by miles, but we are getting there slowly, there is progress. There are good and bad everywhere. For instance, Guantanamo Bay exists in the country you tend to glorify, and conversely, the country you look down on has a noble price in peace. But what does that achieve when I mention this in an unrelated discussion?

> @SixtySecondsOfHell You are sitting here arguing over the importance of a fundamental American principle (innocent until proven guilty) with someone from Bangladesh. What is the point?

Lastly, on a serious note, this is borderline racism and microaggression 101. I couldn't care less honestly, but you shouldn't speak to people like this in general. How come someone from Bangladesh knows this, but you, from a first-world country, don't? What's the point of living there with all the amendments in that case?

@darius_h said in #815:
> @sgtlaugh I think my analogy went a bit over your head. Let me elaborate:

Maybe so, I am listening to see how :)

> 1. It's not a "simple garbage question" as you said. The guy has done nothing but mock presumption of innocence in this entire thread. If he is going to do that then he should apply to himself the same principle and resign as soon as he is accused of any sexual misconduct by anybody.

Yes, he did use humor and his responses were short. That does not mean they were not of value and there was no rationale behind them. Agreed that double-standard is despisable, however, I already explained why I don't think that applies here. Elaborating more below.

> 2. Funny enough the question itself is a straw man and a red herring, exactly what you accused me of. NOBODY here said he should keep teaching girls. We all want to see him formally investigated.

No, I don't think it was actually. Honestly confused about your answer right now. If you agree that they shouldn't keep on teaching women then why are we arguing? Just to be clear, no one here is demanding punishment for the alleged accusers without a formal trial or investigation. The focus was always on how the chess organizations failed to act sensibly to provide countermeasures (not punishment).

> 3. Regarding anonymity - fine. In that case I shall give 5 random homeless women a warm meal if they come out and tweet that he's assaulted them.

It doesn't work like that. Here the alleged victims were not anonymous, and these accusations happened over the span of multiple years. Sure, you can still concoct something up. People do that sometimes too, even in formal trials. And the repercussions would be severe if you do get caught. Usually under scrutiny such things don't hold up, which is why falsifying multiple allegations like this is not something you see often.

> 4. What is this "convincing evidence" you mentioned? I have yet to see it in the article? Allegations are not evidence, I think we've established that.

Multiple such allegations would be reasonable grounds to take a countermeasure against the alleged attackers. It doesn't matter if they are guilty or not, that is only for the law to decide. Just talking from an organizational point of view. Yes, allegations are not evidence. Perhaps I should not have used the word evidence.

Also, I am confused here. How come you agree that they shouldn't continue teaching women if you don't find them convincing? For instance, if someone anonymously mails USCF that a titled player assaulted them sexually, I couldn't find it convincing. It's easy to fabricate something like that, but more importantly, there is no accountability. It's different when you come on the record. If you are falsifying allegations, and later when there is a formal investigation and people find out about it, you will be in trouble. The same does not hold for anonymous reports. In this case, it was not anonymous, and multiple such reports. I find that pretty convincing to take some sort of organizational action, that's all.

I have sincerely enjoyed this high IQ debate. Compared to mainstream websites like facebook and twitter, the quality here is a cut above.

@SixtySecondsOfHell said in #825:
> You think women don't choose marriage and motherhood over a career? If the career makes them targets for sexual harassment, they're not likely to remain in chess, which is what we see now.
>
> Are you saying Regina Fischer made a poor choice having a son who played chess rather than playing it herself?

Women do choose marriage over career. And if it is a free choice there’s nothing wrong with that. But that question is not related at all to the topic of the blog. So I am not sure why you bring up the topic of women having the extra option of raising kids. Which, by the way, is also an option that we have as men. Women should be able to be married and mothers and also play chess if that’s what they want, these are not mutually exclusive. The topic here is about women who actually want to play chess, independent of their family status.

Likewise the question of Bobby Fischer’s mother is completely unrelated to the topic. As far as I know she had little interest in the game of chess and as such it was not a decision for her between raising a child or becoming a chess player.

Maybe I am not bright enough to get your points or you don’t manage to write them in a way that is easy to understand. Maybe it is a bit of both. To me your comments read like you try to find ways how everything can stay as is in the world of chess and to suggest alternatives to women to better deal with it rather than addressing the issues.