What is the thing in the sentence that make you think it's because they are women?
Why would Kasparov say this?
Sort:
Are you sure he wasn't referring to the Polgar sisters' dogs?
pdela wrote:
What is the thing in the sentence that make you think it's because they are women?
Has he ever said that about men?
Jun 17, 2010
0
#5
woodshover wrote:
pdela wrote:
What is the thing in the sentence that make you think it's because they are women?
Has he ever said that about men?
Kasparov has been in conflict with everybody from Karpov to Putin
Why is that a troll question?
Jun 17, 2010
0
#8
The background behind his obnoxious words is that the Polgar sisters are actually the experiment of a man who believed he could raise chess prodigies. He gave the newspapers an ad to marry and have kids, totally for this purpose, claiming nurture is dominant over nature, and he apparently proved his point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r
I wonder what the sisters had to say about it.
Training method. I don't see how this can have anything to do with their sex.
In US culture, calling a woman a dog is particularly insulting but calling a man a dog isn't. So when someone from the US hears that Kasparov called the Polgar sisters trained dogs, it almost automatically takes on the form of a gender based insult.
You got to admit, it sounds pretty crappy.
Jun 17, 2010
0
#13
orangehonda wrote:
In US culture, calling a woman a dog is particularly insulting but calling a man a dog isn't. So when someone from the US hears that Kasparov called the Polgar sisters trained dogs, it almost automatically takes on the form of a gender based insult.
You don't mind being called a trained dog? If not, I guess it's the person, not what you think you represent.
Jun 17, 2010
0
#15
pdela wrote:
Still I don't know why is this gender related, maybe I'm just fool
Nah, I don't think so!
Has he ever said that about anybody else? Everybody has to go through GOBS of training to play at that level.
trysts wrote:
orangehonda wrote:
In US culture, calling a woman a dog is particularly insulting but calling a man a dog isn't. So when someone from the US hears that Kasparov called the Polgar sisters trained dogs, it almost automatically takes on the form of a gender based insult.
You don't mind being called a trained dog? If not, I guess it's the person, not what you think you represent.
For sure it would be insulting to me -- but I think to call a woman any kind of dog, at least in US culture, adds to the insult. I guess the point Kasparov was trying to get across was that they had no real skill, it was more like a circus performance by trained animals. But when I hear it, I, like a few others also assumed, related it to gender in some way.
Of course I've seen trolls or otherwise agitators throw out the gender aspect simply to do it, for example in Kosteniuk's you tube video where she beats Carlsen, a commenter asked "Maybe he did this because you're a woman. Kasparov did it against Judit Polgar"(referring to breaking the touch move rule). Kosteniuk dismissed the idea. However in this case I don't think it's totally unfounded and I do think culturally it is more insulting in the US to call a woman a dog than to call a man a dog. Kasparov may not have meant it that way (although I'm sure he wouldn't have cared too much) but to me it has those overtones.
orangehonda wrote:
trysts wrote:
orangehonda wrote:
In US culture, calling a woman a dog is particularly insulting but calling a man a dog isn't. So when someone from the US hears that Kasparov called the Polgar sisters trained dogs, it almost automatically takes on the form of a gender based insult.
You don't mind being called a trained dog? If not, I guess it's the person, not what you think you represent.
For sure it would be insulting to me -- but I think to call a woman any kind of dog, at least in US culture, adds to the insult. I guess the point Kasparov was trying to get across was that they had no real skill, it was more like a circus performance by trained animals. But when I hear it, I, like a few others somehow assumed, related it somehow to gender.
Of course I've seen other troll like or otherwise agitators throw out the gender aspect just because, for example in Kosteniuk's you tube video where she beats Carlsen, a commenter asked "Maybe he did this because you're a woman. Kasparov did it against Judit Polgar"(referring to breaking the touch move rule). Kosteniuk dismissed the idea. However in this case I don't think it's totally unfounded and I do think culturally it is more insulting in the US to call a woman a dog than to call a man a dog. Kasparov may not have meant it that way (although I'm sure he wouldn't have cared too much) but to me it has those overtones.
It's kind of hard to believe you could get to their level with no real skill, but it does sound like that's what he meant. What would he base this opinion on?
Jun 17, 2010
0
#19
orangehonda wrote:
trysts wrote:
orangehonda wrote:
In US culture, calling a woman a dog is particularly insulting but calling a man a dog isn't. So when someone from the US hears that Kasparov called the Polgar sisters trained dogs, it almost automatically takes on the form of a gender based insult.
You don't mind being called a trained dog? If not, I guess it's the person, not what you think you represent.
For sure it would be insulting to me -- but I think to call a woman any kind of dog, at least in US culture, adds to the insult. I guess the point Kasparov was trying to get across was that they had no real skill, it was more like a circus performance by trained animals. But when I hear it, I, like a few others also assumed, related it to gender in some way.
Of course I've seen trolls or otherwise agitators throw out the gender aspect simply to do it, for example in Kosteniuk's you tube video where she beats Carlsen, a commenter asked "Maybe he did this because you're a woman. Kasparov did it against Judit Polgar"(referring to breaking the touch move rule). Kosteniuk dismissed the idea. However in this case I don't think it's totally unfounded and I do think culturally it is more insulting in the US to call a woman a dog than to call a man a dog. Kasparov may not have meant it that way (although I'm sure he wouldn't have cared too much) but to me it has those overtones.
I think it was because it is blitz
I read on here, that Kasparov referred to the Polgar sisters as trained dogs. Is that because of their training method, or because they're women?