@Geelse_zot said in #10:
> While I don't know the details of this partnership, I can tell you that a lot of women need breast surgery for medical reasons.
Yeah I should have mentioned it earlier, In 2021 they patnered with Motiva which is mainly a breast "enlargement" company.
@QueenRosieMary said in #7:
A wikipedia article with some quotes from individuals thirty years ago isn't evidence of current barriers in chess. It's evidence of singular opinions from thirty years ago.
The Facebook post by Polgar about events from almost four decades ago quite explicitly states that she removed the so-called barriers. I am not arguing that barriers didn't exist in the past. I'm saying they don't exist now, and they don't.
The lichess article to bolster your point is about *individual* male players behaving poorly. The allegations involved involved *criminal* conduct, and Shahade and Lichess weren't satisfied and expected (as well as the author) chess orgs to act in ways that are wildly inappropriate regarding *criminal* conduct. US Chess and FIDE aren't competent authorities to investigate or handle criminal conduct. The article clearly states the organizations took appropriate action.
Individual male players behaving poorly is a problem with individual men, not some abstract problem involving chess.
The article about online harassment is much the same thing - individual men/boys behaving poorly, and it appears the author has no problem with how the chess authority (Lichess in this case) is handling it. So again, the problem is not chess, per se, particularly in the case of internet randos acting like fools.
@TurtleMat said in #8:
> nice projection, now you just need a mirror, and you have a chance to catch up with reality!
You don't appear to know what projection means. Did you feel a personal attack was effective?
Well done! Hope you are always happy and creative.
Great blog! Gotta say the trolls in this forum are quite peculiar to see, not sure what they could possibly take issue with.
If you think Women cannot be as strong at chess as men, I've got a list of achievements to send your way.
She has won or shared first in the chess tournaments of Hastings 1993, Madrid 1994, León 1996, U.S. Open 1998, Hoogeveen 1999, Sigeman & Co 2000, Japfa 2000, and the Najdorf Memorial 2000.[5] Polgár is the only woman to have won a game against a reigning world number one player, and has defeated eleven current or former world champions in either rapid or classical chess: Magnus Carlsen, Anatoly Karpov, Garry Kasparov, Vladimir Kramnik, Boris Spassky, Vasily Smyslov, Veselin Topalov, Viswanathan Anand, Ruslan Ponomariov, Alexander Khalifman, and Rustam Kasimdzhanov.
J-U-D-I-T
P-O-L-G-A-R.
AKA Proof women can achieve the highest level in chess.
QRM Did good to link a post from Susan Polgar too, she disproves a lot of sexist nonsense you'll see amid lichess forums on simple well-written blogs.
If you are looking for some of Polgar's best games, she had an amazing classical match, she won 5.5-4.5 as a prodigy against the Late-Great Boris Spassky.
Thank you @WuraolaA
@WildWizard said in #2:
> Keep Playing chess :)
> You do You.
You are terribly right, you have to do your work
There are barriers to women in chess and it's quite evident.
Just ask the average chess player who's the highest rated male player and the name Carlsen comes up, but ask who's the highest rated woman and you hear crickets.
Not enough media attention has been paid to female chess and this is part of what is causing the happy.
We can only attempt to make it better going forward by encouraging women to play and providing a conducive environment for everyone to play competitive chess regardless of age, gender, race and religious divides.
@Hacktical said in #13:
> You don't appear to know what projection means.
Oh but I do. I'm quite clear with the psychological, physical, and mathematical definitions of projection. But seems you seel to have difficulties understanding what i meant :
The projection is you "letting ideology dictate how you experience the world." and projecting that to women complaining about structural violence, which is a really well documented thing and has nothing to do with ideology. denying it is refuting facts for the benefits of ideology.
Some bigots would like to let you think that it is ideology, but we are lucky : Truth don't care about what bigots think.
@Hacktical said in #13:
> Did you feel a personal attack was effective?
Yes, I think that my "personal attack" is
1) Waaaaayy less violent that denying structural violence and therefore wall less of an "attack" than what you did.
2) way more effective than engaging in a "debate" with people that mostly try to hide their discrimination and intolerance behind (badly executed) rethoric tricks. What you said is factually and morally wrong, and it needs to have a social consequence. I'm not here to educate you (you would resist anyways), just to make sure this kind on BS is not left unchallenged ;)
So you have the choice between educating yourself about structural violence, or keep getting backlash for your bigoted ideas. I know whick is better for you, but then again, i don't really care, your choice.
Bye, xoxo
@QueenRosieMary said in #7:
> Not sure whether this is meant as a troll post or whether you genuinely think there are no barriers to women playing chess.
>
> Some background:
>
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_chess#Sexism_in_chess
>
> www.facebook.com/susanpolgarchess/posts/women-not-allowedthis-was-a-historic-moment-for-me-as-well-as-for-womens-chess-a/1008004520695250/
>
> Women in chess have historically faced barriers including not being allowed to compete in the world championships or in traditionally "men's tournaments". They also have faced, and still do face, sexism, discrimination, harassment, and even assault at OTB tournaments just for being female and wanting to play chess.
>
> an example of the kind of things female chess players can face in the male-dominated chess world in OTB chess:
>
> adjva4.dpdns.org/@/Lichess/blog/breaking-the-silence/ZNTniBEA
>
> and an example of the things women chess players face online:
>
> adjva4.dpdns.org/@/QueenRosieMary/blog/breaking-the-silence-online/h9S8jea9
>
> The barrier is not "inside her head", it is real, and I think you know this too.
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.
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.
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.
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.