Iran, chess, and the psychological bullying of non-hijabi defiant women

At last, a big fish, help me reel this one in folks! :P

Do I think its fair to label anyone who dares to criticise the boycott as a psychological bully? Hmmm, not if the criticism is valid no.  Is that what the author is claiming though? Not likely for it appears that much of the criticism was unwarranted although as to the specifics and nature I have no idea until I examin the same sources as the author.  Also calling out someone for legitimate intimidation does not suspend all constructive criticism and its not entirely clear how it in fact would do although granted in many instances that does happen, but its irrational and illogical and usually transparent enough to be of little compelling value.

The main point of the article though is to ascertain what you would think if the roles were reversed. Do you support the French governments secular laws and the banning of the Burkini on French beaches? If not the you face a moral dilemma if you are also willing to acquiesce to the Iranian governments coercion policy.  

So out with it, where do you stand!

What about the heating/greenhouse effects of Hijab.

I know that my head becomes warm and I lightly sweat when I am immersed in a Chess game. Add a scarf to it and it becomes sweaty and  messy, after all the brain is running at high rpm and heating up. One of my friends's ears become hot and bright red when he is under time pressure.

Maybe scarf is a competitive advantage for the Iranian women

Imagine a semi sticky scarf on your itchy head when you are wondering whether to castle or Bb4...

Can you take it off to itch your scalp or fan your head a bit if it becomes too hot....what if Iranian men get tempted on seeing an uncovered female and lose their moral balance...uugghh that is a big risk...

BTW: I hated wearing a scarf since I was a kid

I think the heard scarf might be carbon neutral

i hated clothes as a kid , i was always happier running around naked , i grew up mores the pity , i entered a world that said oi get your pants on you are shaming public decency , i conformed

im nr 50 now and i love nowt better than going skyclad into battle  it sure shocks the opposition

You have a sharp mind Robbie. Excellent work. Keep it coming!

Seriously, what happens if a woman feels hot in the Hijab, does she run to the washroom

Hah!

Well lets see now, it's only EXACTLY what she's saying and she's only gone to the trouble of linking ALL the principal sources but I can see how a simple fella such as your good self might overlook subtle niceties of that sort when you have other worries pressing in on you, like fishing rods, hooks, maggots and those little scoopy-uppy net things and stuff.

The irony is tangible mate. That phoney 'dilemma' of yours serves as a masterclass in something called reductionism, the very thing that your blogger chum rails against in post #1. Perhaps I should take you by the scruff o' the neck and walk you through this slowly...

Like many others, I believe those filthy rats who push women around on French shores are essentially no different from those other filthy rats who push women around on Persian shores. But this isn't a deck-swabbing operation m'boy, or navigation by numbers; it doesn't follow you see that we fight in like fashion over there as we do over here for the simple reason that the two scenarios are somewhat lacking in the equivalence department, savvy?

If you haven't managed to work this one out for yourself I'm afraid I can't help you mate. Fellow Pict you may be, but the Off Topics can be cruel and savage waters and I run a tight ship, we can't afford the luxury of carrying dead weight on board.

Notwithstanding all of the above, pirates don't really do moral dilemmas anyway, they're far too lah-di-dah for our taste and they don't sit well with the ruthless idiom.

..........

Shame about the sail, listing like that an' all. I thought your first launch into this water was a handsome flyer mate until that regrettable encounter with US Admiralty, but this one's pish.

Dear Captain Sparrow piracy on the high seas has made you giddy!

Ok lets get down to business. False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none.  The Czech Benoni and the Latvian gambit are not entirely sound therefore there is no difference between them???  Is that really the case in this instance? For an argument of false equivalence to exist usually one of three things need to be present, the claim is made on the basis of magnitude, 'We all bleed red. We are all no different from each other.' or it can be demonstrated that the attempt at building equivalence is due to oversimplification and/or ignorance of additional factors.  Clearly this is not the case in this instance for while both scenarios are significantly different in some respects there is enough similarity to draw an equivalence and these other elements do not cause the equivalence to become so unbalanced as to warrant the charge of false equivalence.

For example murder is still murder regardless if ten people are killed by Mexican drug cartels using AK-47 assault rifles in a shoot-out with police or some hapless fellow who happened to be going to the corner shop to buy fruit chews was deliberately killed by someone throwing a piano from a tall building. There may be dissimilarities due to magnitude or other extenuating circumstances but if the equivalence is not being drawn on the basis of these factors or is not significantly relevant then the logic may still be sound. 

So me Bucky, you appear to be 'gas cookered', caught on the one hand remonstrating against the French government for enforcing French secular laws on the wearing of a type of garb and at the same time supporting the stance of Iranian government to impose upon female chess players the wearing of a particular type of garb.  Ouch! Time for you to walk the plank me ol son!

If women do not want to wear something, then they should not be forced to wear it. 

those are cultural standards though, arn't the iranian clothing rules actual laws over there?

Iranian clothing rules are fine .... for Iranians... but why should any non- Iranian visiting them forced to follow their clothing rules.... do we force western clothing rules on Iranians visiting or living here?? why the double standard here??? 

alright, wearing a suit and a tie is a custum.

Job interviews are a special circumstance, I would think.

In daily life:

Are iranian women allowed to wear any clothing they want? Are (let's say) north american women allowed to wear any clothing they want? It would be a pretty good way to measure freedom in a society (at least in the context of this discussion)

If you can't work that out by now, there is no point trying to explain...

No country is perfect, but people must criticize for things to improve.

Like I said before:

(in daily life) are iranian women allowed to wear any clothing they want? Are (let's say) north american women allowed to wear any clothing they want? It would be a pretty good way to measure freedom in a society (at least in the context of this discussion)

one thing in all of this that i've never seen anyone post about; what kind of assholes would name their kid Nazi???

oh yes, I agree. Nobody should force anyone to do anything, going to a chess tournament is someone's decision.

Although wristbands have a different cultural connotation than hijabs, no? 

If people do not want to go to the chess tournament, then they do not need too. I'll admit though, I do prefer western fashion 

edit: although, if a lot of women skip out, then it could be debated for moving the chess tournament to a country which would include more women. For the good of the tournament, of course.

umm actually we are.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/may/13/women-share-flat-shoe-photos-in-solidarity-with-fired-pwc-receptionist

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/12/nicola-thorp-high-heel-petition-receives-100000-plus-signatures

Isn't the tournament in question a really big tournament? Like, a prestigious tournament? I'll give you a radical situation to illustrate my point: imagine if 80% of women did not want to participate. It would be unfortunate for those woman to not have an opportunity to participate and gain prestige. 

Yep, and that's the difference between private sector policies and govenment mandates.

As you said, people have the choice not to participate in the Women's World Championship in Iran.  That's what the proposed boycott represents: choice.

I fully support the right to choose.