Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Breaking Barriers one move at a time

@Hacktical You're right in that there are no physical barriers to play chess. But if a game were 99% the opposite sex that would for most normal people (including myself) be a barrier to want to show up to a tournament and compete.

@Hacktical You're right in that there are no physical barriers to play chess. But if a game were 99% the opposite sex that would for most normal people (including myself) be a barrier to want to show up to a tournament and compete.
<Comment deleted by user>

@WuraolaA, thank you for sharing your story. Congrats on winning a prize at the chess tournament! That is a really cool achievement! I hope you inspire other women in order to be brave and play.

The comments in this section by @Hacktival, @oldtimes, and @bacteriabacitracin are disappointing and embarrassing. WuraolaA's post is: 1. celebrating an achievement that she performed at a high level at a chess tournament where she was the only female participant; and 2. sharing her story to inspire other women to follow suit. Each of you that I previously identified have ignored the first point. I am especially disappointed in you, @oldtimes, for missing this because of your professorial style posts replying to this blog post drip with condescension. But you somehow managed to miss this point. Therefore, if WuraolaA, was the only woman at that tournament then women were underrepresented and it would be right for her to encourage more women to participate to come closer to a 50% participation rate.

By my count, this is how many posts the following users have made on this topic:

Hacktival - 5
OldTimes - 23
bacteriabacitracin - 13

If you are going to try to LARP / moonlight as a lawyer on a chess forum, and insult women by telling them what their experience is and should be, at least make sure you are getting the basic facts straight. Each of your responses is disappointing and embarrassing in multiple ways.

@WuraolaA, thank you for sharing your story. Congrats on winning a prize at the chess tournament! That is a really cool achievement! I hope you inspire other women in order to be brave and play. The comments in this section by @Hacktival, @oldtimes, and @bacteriabacitracin are disappointing and embarrassing. WuraolaA's post is: 1. celebrating an achievement that she performed at a high level at a chess tournament where she was the only female participant; and 2. sharing her story to inspire other women to follow suit. Each of you that I previously identified have ignored the first point. I am especially disappointed in you, @oldtimes, for missing this because of your professorial style posts replying to this blog post drip with condescension. But you somehow managed to miss this point. Therefore, if WuraolaA, was the only woman at that tournament then women were underrepresented and it would be right for her to encourage more women to participate to come closer to a 50% participation rate. By my count, this is how many posts the following users have made on this topic: Hacktival - 5 OldTimes - 23 bacteriabacitracin - 13 If you are going to try to LARP / moonlight as a lawyer on a chess forum, and insult women by telling them what their experience is and should be, at least make sure you are getting the basic facts straight. Each of your responses is disappointing and embarrassing in multiple ways.
<Comment deleted by user>

@yojoey said in #133:

@WuraolaA, thank you for sharing your story. Congrats on winning a prize at the chess tournament! That is a really cool achievement! I hope you inspire other women in order to be brave and play.

The comments in this section by @Hacktival, @oldtimes, and @bacteriabacitracin are disappointing and embarrassing. WuraolaA's post is: 1. celebrating an achievement that she performed at a high level at a chess tournament where she was the only female participant; and 2. sharing her story to inspire other women to follow suit. Each of you that I previously identified have ignored the first point. I am especially disappointed in you, @oldtimes, for missing this because of your professorial style posts replying to this blog post drip with condescension. But you somehow managed to miss this point. Therefore, if WuraolaA, was the only woman at that tournament then women were underrepresented and it would be right for her to encourage more women to participate to come closer to a 50% participation rate.

By my count, this is how many posts the following users have made on this topic:

Hacktival - 5
OldTimes - 23
bacteriabacitracin - 13

If you are going to try to LARP / moonlight as a lawyer on a chess forum, and insult women by telling them what their experience is and should be, at least make sure you are getting the basic facts straight. Each of your responses is disappointing and embarrassing in multiple ways.

I like would you have written, i did not find the words you could find. So i quote anything you have written, critize nothing and subscribe.

And one point i like to underline: @WuraolaA has reason to be proud of and reason to tell us all about it. What a game schess would be if less rating means there are no things to be proud of. It is vice versa. Less rating means only there is a fantastic journey ahead if you like and work on it. Also Magnus likes to learn to more. This jorney is never done, neer over. What an adventure. For every player. Don't try to spoil this for any player, it is unfair and evil.

My respect to @WuraolaA. Keep on playing, keep on fighting, keep on writing!

@yojoey said in #133: > @WuraolaA, thank you for sharing your story. Congrats on winning a prize at the chess tournament! That is a really cool achievement! I hope you inspire other women in order to be brave and play. > > The comments in this section by @Hacktival, @oldtimes, and @bacteriabacitracin are disappointing and embarrassing. WuraolaA's post is: 1. celebrating an achievement that she performed at a high level at a chess tournament where she was the only female participant; and 2. sharing her story to inspire other women to follow suit. Each of you that I previously identified have ignored the first point. I am especially disappointed in you, @oldtimes, for missing this because of your professorial style posts replying to this blog post drip with condescension. But you somehow managed to miss this point. Therefore, if WuraolaA, was the only woman at that tournament then women were underrepresented and it would be right for her to encourage more women to participate to come closer to a 50% participation rate. > > By my count, this is how many posts the following users have made on this topic: > > Hacktival - 5 > OldTimes - 23 > bacteriabacitracin - 13 > > If you are going to try to LARP / moonlight as a lawyer on a chess forum, and insult women by telling them what their experience is and should be, at least make sure you are getting the basic facts straight. Each of your responses is disappointing and embarrassing in multiple ways. I like would you have written, i did not find the words you could find. So i quote anything you have written, critize nothing and subscribe. And one point i like to underline: @WuraolaA has reason to be proud of and reason to tell us all about it. What a game schess would be if less rating means there are no things to be proud of. It is vice versa. Less rating means only there is a fantastic journey ahead if you like and work on it. Also Magnus likes to learn to more. This jorney is never done, neer over. What an adventure. For every player. Don't try to spoil this for any player, it is unfair and evil. My respect to @WuraolaA. Keep on playing, keep on fighting, keep on writing!

@yojoey said in #133:

@WuraolaA, thank you for sharing your story. Congrats on winning a prize at the chess tournament! That is a really cool achievement! I hope you inspire other women in order to be brave and play.

The comments in this section by @Hacktival, @oldtimes, and @bacteriabacitracin are disappointing and embarrassing. WuraolaA's post is: 1. celebrating an achievement that she performed at a high level at a chess tournament where she was the only female participant; and 2. sharing her story to inspire other women to follow suit. Each of you that I previously identified have ignored the first point. I am especially disappointed in you, @oldtimes, for missing this because of your professorial style posts replying to this blog post drip with condescension. But you somehow managed to miss this point. Therefore, if WuraolaA, was the only woman at that tournament then women were underrepresented and it would be right for her to encourage more women to participate to come closer to a 50% participation rate.

By my count, this is how many posts the following users have made on this topic:

Hacktival - 5
OldTimes - 23
bacteriabacitracin - 13

If you are going to try to LARP / moonlight as a lawyer on a chess forum, and insult women by telling them what their experience is and should be, at least make sure you are getting the basic facts straight. Each of your responses is disappointing and embarrassing in multiple ways.
@Murphy_the_Irish_red said in #135:
I like would you have written, i did not find the words you could find. So i quote anything you have written, critize nothing and subscribe.

And one point i like to underline: @WuraolaA has reason to be proud of and reason to tell us all about it. What a game schess would be if less rating means there are no things to be proud of. It is vice versa. Less rating means only there is a fantastic journey ahead if you like and work on it. Also Magnus likes to learn to more. This jorney is never done, neer over. What an adventure. For every player. Don't try to spoil this for any player, it is unfair and evil.

My respect to @WuraolaA. Keep on playing, keep on fighting, keep on writing!

Thank you so much
I'm honestly really grateful

@yojoey said in #133: > @WuraolaA, thank you for sharing your story. Congrats on winning a prize at the chess tournament! That is a really cool achievement! I hope you inspire other women in order to be brave and play. > > The comments in this section by @Hacktival, @oldtimes, and @bacteriabacitracin are disappointing and embarrassing. WuraolaA's post is: 1. celebrating an achievement that she performed at a high level at a chess tournament where she was the only female participant; and 2. sharing her story to inspire other women to follow suit. Each of you that I previously identified have ignored the first point. I am especially disappointed in you, @oldtimes, for missing this because of your professorial style posts replying to this blog post drip with condescension. But you somehow managed to miss this point. Therefore, if WuraolaA, was the only woman at that tournament then women were underrepresented and it would be right for her to encourage more women to participate to come closer to a 50% participation rate. > > By my count, this is how many posts the following users have made on this topic: > > Hacktival - 5 > OldTimes - 23 > bacteriabacitracin - 13 > > If you are going to try to LARP / moonlight as a lawyer on a chess forum, and insult women by telling them what their experience is and should be, at least make sure you are getting the basic facts straight. Each of your responses is disappointing and embarrassing in multiple ways. @Murphy_the_Irish_red said in #135: > I like would you have written, i did not find the words you could find. So i quote anything you have written, critize nothing and subscribe. > > And one point i like to underline: @WuraolaA has reason to be proud of and reason to tell us all about it. What a game schess would be if less rating means there are no things to be proud of. It is vice versa. Less rating means only there is a fantastic journey ahead if you like and work on it. Also Magnus likes to learn to more. This jorney is never done, neer over. What an adventure. For every player. Don't try to spoil this for any player, it is unfair and evil. > > My respect to @WuraolaA. Keep on playing, keep on fighting, keep on writing! Thank you so much I'm honestly really grateful

The barriers are created by us, in our heads.

Stop adding fuel to the fire.

The barriers are created by us, in our heads. Stop adding fuel to the fire.

@CappuNei said in #137:

The barriers are created by us, in our heads.

Stop adding fuel to the fire.

This has nothing to do with the blog post. Did you even read the blog post or are you just coming here to as in your words "adding fuel to the fire"? Another low-effort post. There are a lot of men on this website who have nothing better to do than to explain the female chess experience to women.

@CappuNei said in #137: > The barriers are created by us, in our heads. > > Stop adding fuel to the fire. This has nothing to do with the blog post. Did you even read the blog post or are you just coming here to as in your words "adding fuel to the fire"? Another low-effort post. There are a lot of men on this website who have nothing better to do than to explain the female chess experience to women.

@OldTimes said in #20:

The links you provide are nothing more than anecdotal accounts, not actual evidence.
These accounts do not constitute objective proof that an entire group of individuals is guilty of sexism.
At most, they illustrate isolated incidents that cannot be extrapolated to condemn an entire community.

And nobody is condemning the entire community of chess players for the crimes of a few. Acknowledging that barriers exist, and that sexism exists, does not condemn all men. In fact, from my own personal experience, there are typically five men working for change to each not so great man I have met. (Which so far is a better statistic than even women, although that might be skewed due to me meeting more men on average than women.)

And anecdotal accounts are evidence. They're a firsthand account of what happens, and therefore a primary source.

You then proceed to cite two privately written articles on Lichess—one of which was heavily criticized at the time in the blog section, while the other, quite remarkably, was authored by you. In it, you lament being attacked online simply for being a woman.

I am sorry, but I must call you a liar.

I personally know dozens of female chess players, and not one of them has ever reported encountering sexist remarks. Many of them even had profile pictures on Chess.com—one would assume that, for a malevolent sexist villain, hell-bent on upholding the patriarchy, such images would be an irresistible invitation to harass a poor, defenseless damsel. And yet—nothing. No harassment, no vitriol. And yet you, a mere floating username in the vast ocean of the internet, claim to be a victim.

Sexual harassment existing does not equal every single human being sexually harassed. I thought this would be quite obvious.

I know female friends that have never been sexually harassed. And I know myself, and many others, who have been. And I'm just a username that sounds vaguely female (after all, very few male chess players would choose @greenteakitten as a handle).

This is not the struggle of a true sufferer—it is victimhood as an aesthetic choice, not a necessity. The reality is simple: on the internet, all it takes to silence any unwelcome voice is a block button and a report to the moderators.

Yes, a block and a report. And then they come back. Again and again. They get IP banned and come back on a VPN. They stalk your every move, and find you on other websites and keep coming back...for a year and a half. And they're always telling you that you owe them.

Blocking and reporting can only preserve so much of one's sanity.

Victimhood is not an "aesthetic" choice. Especially not with all the harassment that comes when anybody speaks out on this topic. I mean, you're literally proving yourself wrong here by attacking people here. It's a huge headache to say anything on the topic because of the backlash, so it really isn't something people do for convenience.

What I see before me is not oppression but a username accompanied by a rating that betrays a rather meager level of play. Perhaps your time would be better spent studying chess instead of fabricating accusations against an entire community just to cast yourself as the protagonist of some imagined injustice.

Low ratings = Liar

What beautiful logic! Such an amazing statement... /s

@OldTimes said in #20: > The links you provide are nothing more than anecdotal accounts, not actual evidence. > These accounts do not constitute objective proof that an entire group of individuals is guilty of sexism. > At most, they illustrate isolated incidents that cannot be extrapolated to condemn an entire community. And nobody is condemning the entire community of chess players for the crimes of a few. Acknowledging that barriers exist, and that sexism exists, does not condemn all men. In fact, from my own personal experience, there are typically five men working for change to each not so great man I have met. (Which so far is a better statistic than even women, although that might be skewed due to me meeting more men on average than women.) And anecdotal accounts are evidence. They're a firsthand account of what happens, and therefore a primary source. > You then proceed to cite two privately written articles on Lichess—one of which was heavily criticized at the time in the blog section, while the other, quite remarkably, was authored by you. In it, you lament being attacked online simply for being a woman. > I am sorry, but I must call you a liar. > > I personally know dozens of female chess players, and not one of them has ever reported encountering sexist remarks. Many of them even had profile pictures on Chess.com—one would assume that, for a malevolent sexist villain, hell-bent on upholding the patriarchy, such images would be an irresistible invitation to harass a poor, defenseless damsel. And yet—nothing. No harassment, no vitriol. And yet you, a mere floating username in the vast ocean of the internet, claim to be a victim. Sexual harassment existing does not equal every single human being sexually harassed. I thought this would be quite obvious. I know female friends that have never been sexually harassed. And I know myself, and many others, who have been. And I'm just a username that sounds vaguely female (after all, very few male chess players would choose @greenteakitten as a handle). > This is not the struggle of a true sufferer—it is victimhood as an aesthetic choice, not a necessity. The reality is simple: on the internet, all it takes to silence any unwelcome voice is a block button and a report to the moderators. Yes, a block and a report. And then they come back. Again and again. They get IP banned and come back on a VPN. They stalk your every move, and find you on other websites and keep coming back...for a year and a half. And they're always telling you that you owe them. Blocking and reporting can only preserve so much of one's sanity. Victimhood is not an "aesthetic" choice. Especially not with all the harassment that comes when anybody speaks out on this topic. I mean, you're literally proving yourself wrong here by attacking people here. It's a huge headache to say anything on the topic because of the backlash, so it really isn't something people do for convenience. > What I see before me is not oppression but a username accompanied by a rating that betrays a rather meager level of play. Perhaps your time would be better spent studying chess instead of fabricating accusations against an entire community just to cast yourself as the protagonist of some imagined injustice. Low ratings = Liar What beautiful logic! Such an amazing statement... /s

Dear humans saying there are no physical barriers to chess:

You are absolutely right. Nobody is barring women from chess.

But I don't think you're reading it right.

This is first and foremost a blog celebrating an achievement. Second of all, it is encouraging more women to take part in chess.

You are all saying that there is no physical barrier and we should just "get over it" and go. Well, this is a blog that is doing exactly that - telling female chess players they have nothing to fear, and can go play chess even if it seems intimidating at first. And you're criticizing it for trying to break down the psychological barrier that you want broken down...? I don't get it; I would think that y'all are on the same side here.

If I was a man, and I wrote a blog sharing the octopus I crocheted and encouraged other male crocheters to go to crochet clubs, even when they feel like it's intimidating being in a room full of women? And I told them that it's okay to go anyway and break down that barrier? Would you tell me "Cherry, you're wrong!"?

Being in a room where you're the only person of a gender/race/age/anything really can be intimidating. It's just psychology. It's not that we don't know that nothing is barring us from going in there. Humans just...work like this. And reassuring people that it's okay to look different from the majority in the room is not only a good thing, it's necessary.

Dear humans saying there are no physical barriers to chess: You are absolutely right. Nobody is barring women from chess. But I don't think you're reading it right. This is first and foremost a blog celebrating an achievement. Second of all, it is encouraging more women to take part in chess. You are all saying that there is no physical barrier and we should just "get over it" and go. Well, this is a blog that is doing exactly that - telling female chess players they have nothing to fear, and can go play chess even if it seems intimidating at first. And you're criticizing it for trying to break down the psychological barrier that you want broken down...? I don't get it; I would think that y'all are on the same side here. If I was a man, and I wrote a blog sharing the octopus I crocheted and encouraged other male crocheters to go to crochet clubs, even when they feel like it's intimidating being in a room full of women? And I told them that it's okay to go anyway and break down that barrier? Would you tell me "Cherry, you're wrong!"? Being in a room where you're the only person of a gender/race/age/anything really can be intimidating. It's just psychology. It's not that we don't know that nothing is barring us from going in there. Humans just...work like this. And reassuring people that it's okay to look different from the majority in the room is not only a good thing, it's necessary.