And what is this garbage too?
I don't know the identity of this clown. Come to that, I don't know of any examples of the "work for sex" which they claim is a "fact" in chess, and they don't offer any. But much more important than either, is the fact that when women have to work for sex, or have to put up with sexual harrassment in order to obtain or continue in work, that's not something that's to their advantage, that's something they hate and are afraid of.
I know this and so should everybody else. It's just not that hard to know.
I know, too, that there are people in chess who don't know that, who think it's funny, even, that women might have to work for sex. How widespread that kind of attitude is in our sport, I don't know.
Perhaps we should try and find out. Perhaps there's a reason why a simple question like this
gets the answer that it does.
3 comments:
Wow. It's not at all clear what he's saying. But it sounds like an awful thing to say, whatever it is. Glad that there was universal strong objection on his twitter. What is he talking about? Maybe he just thinks his english is better than it is. Is it Surov? I did a little bit of help for the site improving a few english pages before they stopped doing english news, that was with Deviatkin, who seemed a very nice guy. Seems he's gone now, I don't know the story.
It's worse than something Short would say, no? Whatever it is. (Short, n. international unit of gauche sexist remarks) Maybe it's witty in russian. I guess there's a lost-in-translation element, sometimes weird things happen because of that, like that time Jobava threatened on air to take Giri outside and show him what it's like, based on nothing at all (a confusion over "ironic".) And I've had awful things happen in a relationship just because of problems with english, assuming things were understood when they weren't.
I think you're the guy to get to the bottom of this. :-) I guess he meant something. But what? I think he needs to apologize. And explain what he really meant. Then (probably) apologize for that also.
Surov was trying, and failing, to allege that there is also a casting couch mentality in FIDE whereby the only chance for some women to become officials is to agree to subject themselves to sexual advances by FIDE chiefs.
However the tweet was so badly worded that it turned the blame on its head.
That's a plausible claim, but it does run into at least two objections, which are contained in the paragragh beginning "I don't know the identity".
Post a Comment