Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

So I take it that if someone were to run male-only events you would make the same argument?

"sex·ismˈsekˌsizəm/noun
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
synonyms:sexual discrimination,*chauvinism,*gender prejudice,*gender bias"your hiring practices have generated numerous complaints about sexism""

I said somewhere else in this thread that I wouldn't object to men-only events provided that they weren't sexist; i.e. not deliberately, or even unwittingly, intended to harm or diminish women. Tom, do you believe that men are harmed or diminished in some way because there is a Canadian women's chess championship tournament? If you do, could you please fill me in?

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

"sex·ismˈsekˌsizəm/noun
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
synonyms:sexual discrimination,*chauvinism,*gender prejudice,*gender bias"your hiring practices have generated numerous complaints about sexism""

I said somewhere else in this thread that I wouldn't object to men-only events provided that they weren't sexist; i.e. not deliberately, or even unwittingly, intended to harm or diminish women. Tom, do you believe that men are harmed or diminished in some way because there is a Canadian women's chess championship tournament? If you do, could you please fill me in?

Private organizers should be able to restrict anyone from any event for any reason, imo. I would say even for no particular reason at all.

Any tournament funded even in part from CFC coffers should not be allowed to be restrictive by sex because there is only so much money available and any money that goes towards XX cannot go towards other things.

Restricting by age is not the same, imo. Everyone that lives long enough will be U10, U12, etc. as well as 50+, 65+, etc.

This debate has been going on for decades and I suspect it will continue for decades more. I expect 40 years from now the ratio of male to female adult players will still be on the order of 10+ to 1.

I am on the road right now, coming back from the National Open in Las Vegas and in the Open Section it looked to me that about 20% of the participants were females, mostly in their teens and 20s.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

Private organizers should be able to restrict anyone from any event for any reason, imo. I would say even for no particular reason at all.

Any "exclusion" by an organizer must not be legally considered "discriminatory", unless by reasonable, accepted exception.

This is not always so easy to establish (Though one would think it should be) - breach of an equality right.

Bob A

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

The hotel computer won't let me correct my typo. I meant to write "10%" instead of "20%". My apologies.

I would favour any private individual (as opposed to a government respresentative) in any private situtation (as opposed to one involving the government in some form) being allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason, real or imagined.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

The hotel computer won't let me correct my typo. I meant to write "10%" instead of "20%". My apologies.

I would favour any private individual (as opposed to a government respresentative) in any private situtation (as opposed to one involving the government in some form) being allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason, real or imagined.

*** dis·crim·i·nate / verb

1. Recognize a distinction; differentiate.

2. Make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age. ***

Tom, are you talking about #1 or #2?

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

*** dis·crim·i·nate / verb

1. Recognize a distinction; differentiate.

2. Make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age. ***

Tom, are you talking about #1 or #2?

#2

Consider the famous "baking a wedding cake for a gay couple" case. The government steps in and forces the bakers, against their will, to deal with the couple. Now I ask you how does society benefit from this?

People who are prejudiced are either going to find ways to discriminate covertly, or they will be enriched financially by having to deal with people they despise and just piss in the wedding cakes of future members of these groups.

People in the targeted groups don't benefit because now they cannot know if the people they are dealing with are covertly hostile. I personally would rather know if the people serving me food have a problem with me before I place my order. Certainly before I take my first bite.

Meanwhile people like the bakers are not suddenly going to "behave" because they are shamed. People tried shaming Brexit voters, and Trump voters, and look what happened.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

#2

Consider the famous "baking a wedding cake for a gay couple" case. The government steps in and forces the bakers, against their will, to deal with the couple. Now I ask you how does society benefit from this?

People who are prejudiced are either going to find ways to discriminate covertly, or they will be enriched financially by having to deal with people they despise and just piss in the wedding cakes of future members of these groups.

People in the targeted groups don't benefit because now they cannot know if the people they are dealing with are covertly hostile. I personally would rather know if the people serving me food have a problem with me before I place my order. Certainly before I take my first bite.

Meanwhile people like the bakers are not suddenly going to "behave" because they are shamed. People tried shaming Brexit voters, and Trump voters, and look what happened.

Tom, I am in complete agreement with you that private chess organizers should be given complete leeway to discriminate against anyone they want to for their events.

But you've made some interesting and more general comments here. You seem to imply that there should be no placing of shame, nor forcing of actions, to people of prejudice IN GENERAL. And your reasoning is that the prejudice they feel is never going away because of being shamed or forced into doing something they don't want to do. While your reasoning has a ring of truth at least for some people, it opens up a philosophical debate: should we assume that all prejudice is thus acceptable and should not be fought at all, or should some prejudices be fought against in the hope that eventually the vast majority will realize that such prejudices are wrong?

What came to my mind in reading your comments was this: In the 1960s there was the fight for civil right for black Americans, and part of that was the desegregation of schools, colleges and universities. When the government stepped in and forced busing of black American students into schools in Mississippi and Alabama (and possibly other states), there most definitely was hostility. Armed troops had to protect the students. I don't know how long it took, but eventually everyone accepted that blacks had the right to an education side-by-side with whites, and protection by troops is no longer needed. But it's true that some hostility remains, racism still simmers under the surface. The 2016 U.S. election brought a lot of that back to the forefront, and the Black Lives Matter movement is borne out of the perception of this still present racism. So we haven't actually "solved" racism, but I guess the question I'm putting to you is, do you think that there has been PROGRESS in fighting racism because of the steps the government took to force schools to accept blacks? And if yes, then do you think the general idea of fighting prejudices is worthwhile?

This is going way beyond the argument that private chess organizers should be allowed to be prejudicial in organizing chess events. I agree with that, even if blacks were specifically excluded from specific privately-run events. But I'd be against the government running chess events and excluding blacks or any other group. I'm ok with boys and girls being in their own sections (of a government-run program) if both groups are ok with it themselves. Brad Thomson says women are insulted by being offered their own events: have you yourself seen any evidence of that?

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

Tom, I am in complete agreement with you that private chess organizers should be given complete leeway to discriminate against anyone they want to for their events.

But you've made some interesting and more general comments here. You seem to imply that there should be no placing of shame, nor forcing of actions, to people of prejudice IN GENERAL. And your reasoning is that the prejudice they feel is never going away because of being shamed or forced into doing something they don't want to do. While your reasoning has a ring of truth at least for some people, it opens up a philosophical debate: should we assume that all prejudice is thus acceptable and should not be fought at all, or should some prejudices be fought against in the hope that eventually the vast majority will realize that such prejudices are wrong?

What came to my mind in reading your comments was this: In the 1960s there was the fight for civil right for black Americans, and part of that was the desegregation of schools, colleges and universities. When the government stepped in and forced busing of black American students into schools in Mississippi and Alabama (and possibly other states), there most definitely was hostility. Armed troops had to protect the students. I don't know how long it took, but eventually everyone accepted that blacks had the right to an education side-by-side with whites, and protection by troops is no longer needed. But it's true that some hostility remains, racism still simmers under the surface. The 2016 U.S. election brought a lot of that back to the forefront, and the Black Lives Matter movement is borne out of the perception of this still present racism. So we haven't actually "solved" racism, but I guess the question I'm putting to you is, do you think that there has been PROGRESS in fighting racism because of the steps the government took to force schools to accept blacks? And if yes, then do you think the general idea of fighting prejudices is worthwhile?

This is going way beyond the argument that private chess organizers should be allowed to be prejudicial in organizing chess events. I agree with that, even if blacks were specifically excluded from specific privately-run events. But I'd be against the government running chess events and excluding blacks or any other group, and I believe this is what Peter McKillop was saying also. I'm ok with boys and girls being in their own sections (of a government-run program) if both groups are ok with it themselves. Brad Thomson says women are insulted by being offered their own events: have you yourself seen any evidence of that?

Government should never discriminate based on e.g. race. Jim Crow laws did just that. Further any business that hopes to do business with government should not receive that business unless they don't discriminate.

For the rest, the free markets can handle it. Let's suppose I own a restaurant and won't serve Group X. Someone else can open a restaurant that will serve Group X, as well as everyone else. They will not only corner the market on one type of customer, but also get a large group of people who are sympathetic to the discrimination against Group X members. Instead, we have government demanding that racists potentially make profit off of customers that the racists are prejudiced against. That is madness, imo.

I don't consider being prejudiced to be morally wrong. I consider it to be a sub-optimal way to live as it is limiting.

I did a survey of women chess players in the CFC around 1996(?) and quite a few were insulted by offering separate titles, for example, from the responses I received. It was contained in one of the Governors' Letters of the period. I think the one with the AGM.

Brad knows that well as this was during his tenure as a CFC employee.

[Brad Thomson]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

I did a survey of women chess players in the CFC around 1996(?) and quite a few were insulted by offering separate titles, for example, from the responses I received. It was contained in one of the Governors' Letters of the period. I think the one with the AGM.

Tom, I believe I recall an AGM where at some point you accepted a nomination as Governor, and then joined the table just in time to vote against the woman's program. I was there at the time as an employee, and without a vote of course. Is this correct? It would have been earlier than 1996 I think, possibly Winnipeg 1994, or Toronto 1995. Someone made a comment about not wanting chess to be a boys only club (I am not sure how this makes sense) and then you responded with an analogy about washrooms. :)

Anyone with the old Governors' letters from this era could find the results of the vote.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

Tom, I believe I recall an AGM where at some point you accepted a nomination as Governor, and then joined the table just in time to vote against the woman's program. I was there at the time as an employee, and without a vote of course. Is this correct? It would have been earlier than 1996 I think, possibly Winnipeg 1994, or Toronto 1995. Someone made a comment about not wanting chess to be a boys only club (I am not sure how this makes sense) and then you responded with an analogy about washrooms. :)

Anyone with the old Governors' letters from this era could find the results of the vote.

I have to say that I was not aware that the position I now hold (Elimination of the women's chess incubator), was being espoused by a well-known significant Canadian player, back in the mid-1990's. Obviously, though, he failed to convince the majority of VM's (Any?) at that time, since we still have the Canadian parallel separate women's system.

Whether Tom and I have exactly the same rationale for this position would maybe need more discussion.

Bob A

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

If I'm not mistaken, Tom once ran for Women's Coordinator - with a platform that he would abolish the women's program. (he lost).

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

....

This is going way beyond the argument that private chess organizers should be allowed to be prejudicial in organizing chess events. I agree with that, even if blacks were specifically excluded from specific privately-run events. But I'd be against the government running chess events and excluding blacks or any other group, and I believe this is what xxx was saying also. I'm ok with boys and girls being in their own sections (of a government-run program) if both groups are ok with it themselves. Brad Thomson says women are insulted by being offered their own events: have you yourself seen any evidence of that?

Whoa, whoa, whoa,.....

Please **NEVER** associate my name with anything that even remotely hints that I might be in favour of a chess tournament that excludes blacks. What we have been talking about here are chess events/tournaments which, while technically discriminatory on the basis of gender or age (two examples), do not harm or diminish another segment of the population. And by the way, I've asked Bob Armstrong and Brad Thomson to explain how men are harmed or diminished by a Canadian women's championship and neither of them has even attempted to answer the question.

Regarding Tom's wedding cake example, unfortunately there is no foolproof way to stop some people from using their ignorance and prejudice to hurt other people. That's the way the world is: wall-to-wall assholes with a minority of decent people sprinkled in. In the wall-to-wall assholes group I include those supposedly decent people who are willing to stand by and watch while others get hurt. Regarding the anti-gay baker(s), so long as my tax dollars are being used to support their business (roads, communication systems, water, hydro, police, etc.) they'd better damn well serve that gay couple, politely and without pissing in their cake. Otherwise they can stick their business out in the bush where it would only be accessible via a three day portage.

P.S. That's why we have laws to try to limit the damage that the assholes do to others!!

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

I have to say that I was not aware that the position I now hold (Elimination of the women's chess incubator), was being espoused by a well-known significant Canadian player, back in the mid-1990's. Obviously, though, he failed to convince the majority of VM's (Any?) at that time, since we still have the Canadian parallel separate women's system.

Whether Tom and I have exactly the same rationale for this position would maybe need more discussion.

Bob A

Would you please tell me, precisely and coherently, what the "Canadian parallel separate women's system" is?

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

If I'm not mistaken, Tom once ran for Women's Coordinator - with a platform that he would abolish the women's program. (he lost).

I'm sorry if I have not read Tom's posts carefully enough to tease out his fundamental argument against the parallel separate women-only "system".

Would someone who is clear from his posts, or Tom himself, give the fundamental position.

I'm interested to see the extent to which my argument for "women's incubator elimination" is like Tom's (If it is; Tom and I have very different views on a number of other things, from my reading of his posts from time to time.......but I do admit he usually seems to back them up with some evidence, and reasonable supportive arguments!)

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

...........And by the way, I've asked Bob Armstrong and Brad Thomson to explain how men are harmed or diminished by a Canadian women's championship and neither of them has even attempted to answer the question........

Hi Peter:

In previous posts, I have alerted Ct'ers that with respect to women's chess, Brad Thomson and I have some very different views, and when we hold a similar position, we still may have very different arguments why we hold the position. I think that generally we are being treated separately in discussions, where appropriate, and I think this is important.

Issue: Peter has asked me to explain "how men are harmed or diminished by a Canadian women's championship".

Answer: The Canadian Women's Closed Championship in no way diminishes or harms male chess players! Is this clear? I believe it may be different than Brad's answer, and maybe a few others.

Issue: Is there a problem of any kind with a Canadian Women's Closed Championship?

Answer: NO - clear? But this is only so long as it is held as a one-off "tournament". As I have said multiple times already, and feel I am not being heard, I have no problem with tournaments that are: Male-only; Female-only (Such as a Canadian Women's Closed Championship); Junior-only; Junior Girl-only; Senior-only; Glasses-only, etc. The sticker is finding the capitalist entrepreneur organizer who has figured out how to make money holding one of these tournaments.

Issue: Is there any problem with the whole parallel separate women-only chess "system", with women-only titles, at both the FIDE and national (Including say the Canadian Girls' Youth Chess Championships) chess levels?

Answer: Absolutely YES. It is retarding the speed of improvement of women's chess in the world. GM's ALL state that improvement comes from playing strong players. Simply put, in the women-only system, a woman player spends more time playing weak (Or weak relative to the open system) players than they would in the open system. Hence they are failing to improve as rapidly as they are capable of. Hence the advancement of women's chess is now being slowed down by the enticing of women to play in the weaker system (Enticed by titles, prizes, chances for national representation and trips/perks at world tournaments, etc.)

Bob A

P.S. As a VM for years, I worked more closely with a number of Women's Coordinators over the years than many VM's. We discussed issues, and they sometimes asked me for written considerations about issues. So, though not female, I have had some time discussing women's chess with women players. However, I admit none of them ever agreed with the elimination of the women's chess "system" (sigh).