17 ms·

The American chess champion challenging Iran’s hijab fetish

99 points by dfc 10y ago

eganist 10y ago
And in the end, it won't make a difference for one remarkably simple reason: Iranian leadership is ideologically driven. They're committed to maintaining their theocracy because they're genuinely convinced it's their right from God to control women. (Distinguishing leadership from people because the Iranian people tend to be much more pro-western.)
- kemiller2002 10y ago
  This maybe true, but it is a sign to the rest of the world that type of behavior is not acceptable. This act may not change Iran, but it may well help change many other places.
- jkot 10y ago
  It is not that simple. Women can vote in Iran and be elected, with 51% of population they even have voting majority. There are 6% women PMs, clerics have less seats. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36182796 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36182796
  - microcolonel 10y ago
    It doesn't seem that simple to me, though. The current regime is in place due to a coup; I have doubts that you'd be able to get much done for women post-1979 without paramilitary support. What would I know, though? :- \
  - bilbo0s 10y ago
    Anyone reasonably well educated on the MidEast region realizes that Iranian women are relatively well off. Certainly light years ahead of their arab counterparts. Better educated, more free and as you, rightfully, point out, they hold more positions in the government of the Islamic Republic than clerics do. But none of that is the issue. The question is whether or not this stricture violates human rights? I know from experience that if you ask an Iranian woman if she wants to wear a hijab, she will most likely say "yes". (I'm told that the fuss to do your hair every morning is something most women would just as soon do without.) The thing is women should have the right to say "no", even if most would never use that right. That's the issue. Not whether or not women would want to go without a hijab, or whether or not Iranian women are more free.
    - jkot 10y ago
      I understand it is human rights issue. My point is that many women voted for those rules. This problem could be solved in a single election.
      - gambiting 10y ago
        As an interesting sidenote - did you know that there were entire groups of women who were against giving women voting rights, in both UK and US? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-suffragism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-suffragism
        jkot 10y ago
        Nobody wants to be drafted, it is a waste of time. Women also voted against Equal Rights Amendment in 1970ties.
        truth_sentinell 10y ago
        Omg. Is that for real? How can people be so dumb? Can someone please explain?
        berntb 10y ago
        Think for five seconds. Consider that a population is told that something is the One True Way all their life -- and that anyone thinking differently is evil and should be thrown in jail. Are you really surprised that a large part of those people would agree with what they are taught? (In Iran's case, this is also asked in an interview situation where their answers probably will reach the secret police known for torture and rape.)
- 0xFFC 10y ago
  As Iranian , I must say, you are so naive if you think people who holds the power in Iran genuinely believe in something. They are professional politicians. They know what are they doing, and they don't give fuck about Islam. Just search and look how they treated with traditional religious people in Iran (religious people who believes power and religion should be separate). Actually this new generation of politicians (I mean Khomeini and after him) they are pretty good in changing old rules when they realize they are in losing side of the battle and not changing that rule will hurt they public figure in long run. Let me give you an instance, there is fuck load of hadith about chess itself being dirtier than alcohol (which punishment for it is death they catch you drunk 3 time), which in my opinion pretty absurd, like rest of religious beliefs. But Khomeini realized people will ask in long run what is dirty about chess ? And because it is so obvious that it is absurd, they changed the rule around 25 years ago. My point is there is distance between something like hijab, alcohol, betting and something like chess. The idiots (mullahs) can justify (and they are aware of this fact) hijab for simple ordinary rural people (which is their only base in country other than people who earn money from this corrupt regime), but they cannot justify that even for naive people in rural area what is wrong about chess. lets be honest, they don't give fuck about some bunch -not all of them, really small portion, I say it from my experience, right now I am student in Iran and I do regularly visit many universities in country- of student in university who shout and fight back for their rights, they would suppress them like lollipop if they try really hurt regime in any serious manner. If pressure become serious they would drop hijab rule in a day. They may show to you they are 100% firm about their beliefs, but believe me when they realize just 1% danger (serious threat to regime nature, they don't give fuck about some chess championship tournament, what would happen? Tournament will cancel ? I bet the actual power in Iran would even be more happy if tournament gets cancelled), they would change their most basic rule if they can find a way to justify themselves to their supporters.
  - microcolonel 10y ago
    Not to get too presumptuous as an outsider; but it seems like a political system is part of Islam. It certainly is prescribed in scripture and described through Muhammad, even if some or many disagree. That said, Iranian government doesn't seem to be running a "proper theocracy", so I guess that point is moot.
- radmuzom 10y ago
  > control women Very similar to conservative politicians in US trying ban abortion or limit access to it.
  - truth_sentinell 10y ago
    That's a completely different thing. In that case, you're dealing with another live, which is not the property of the woman...
  - programmarchy 10y ago
    No, not very similar. With abortion you're terminating the life of a child. Do homicide laws "control women", too?
    - brainfire 10y ago
      Allowing women to dress inappropriately has a societal cost greater than the life of one child. Many lives could be ruined by the moral failures encouraged and enabled by bare flesh.
      - programmarchy 10y ago
        Upvote for a fine illustration of Poe's law.
    - elros 10y ago
      No, no, you're not. There is no child. You're getting rid of an embryo, and embryos have no rights.
      - dogma1138 10y ago
        Well they do to some extent, ethic aren't that simple we as a society do criminalize feticide beyond the fact that a person (the pregnant woman) was assaulted, and in some jurisdiction feticide is or can be counted as homicide and murder. In many countries there are various laws governing fetal rights, and most people agree that at least at some point the fetus is considered a human being hence the commonality of "born alive" laws. This isn't an argument against the right to be able to have an abortion, but it is simply not true that embryos and fetuses have no rights either, fetal rights are a pretty big subject in ethics and morality and it is not an easy one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights
- berntb 10y ago
  >> Iranian leadership is ideologically driven. What a weird coincidence that all the dictators that oppress their population and steal the oil money have lots of ideology... and makes lots of external enemies to blame all problems on. And yeah, the Iranian upper classes seem even as West oriented as most any population in Western Europe.
- edko 10y ago
  A reason it won't make a big difference is that she is ranked 98th in the world, so the impact of her not going won't be the same as if Judit Polgar (who, according to the article, is OK with the headscarf rules), or any of the top-10 players, were boycotting it.
mrpopo 10y ago
This is an awful position, and I absolutely urge people to read the linked article, that was wrongly/partially cited: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/30/boycott-of-womens-world-chess-championship-iran-tehran https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/30/boycott-of-wom... EDIT: it seems my point does not come across. I will cite the american chess champion: "I will NOT wear a hijab and support women’s oppression." Women's oppression in Iran is not just about the hijab. It's about women not being able to do what they want. This boycott is going to have strong, negative, repercussions on women sportsmanship in Iran, which is what the Iranian chessmaster said in my linked article.
- sithadmin 10y ago
  >do you think that is what matters to most Iranian women who are forced to stay at home? It may or may not matter to those actually being oppressed. But publicizing Iran's human rights abuses and oppressive theocratic policies does matter (on some level) to Iran's elites, because it harms the country's image.
- ZoF 10y ago
  What an "awful position" Amazing. As an American I unapologetically support this woman's choice. There's nothing 'Brute force' about this. Fighting for equality in a specific context doesn't mean you understand or comprehend the injustices others have faced; She never claimed to though. "If you don't want to bear a scarf on your head" - yeah, that's what she is opposed to, wearing a scarf, not what the submission represents. These values you're denigrating as "american" and therefore "bad" really aren't.
- return0 10y ago
  The US is not even in the list of most militant secular cultures. It's not a choice; You can't say "don't go" as if they have a choice to go to another country to compete.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  This reminds me of the mental contortions that e.g. USA Southerners used to perform while attempting to justify slavery. You are so ideologically committed to hijabery that you can't comprehend a simple statement of personal preference. You may disagree with Paikidze-Barnes (and most people) about the significance and the effects of the hijab. But given her beliefs, surely any reasonable person can understand why she would choose not to travel to a place that would require her to betray those beliefs?
return0 10y ago
Why did FIDE choose iran to host the competition and did they at least try to make sure there is an exception to this (absolutely reasonable) request?
- Scarblac 10y ago
  Iran was the only country to enter a bid, and no.
bilbo0s 10y ago
Not sure how this affects Iran that much at all. I mean it won't affect the people or the government. The Tournament will go on happily without this player's participation. In my own opinion, a better response would be to hold the tournament in a place other than Iran. I'm not sure why that isn't the route that was chosen for protest ?
- saint_fiasco 10y ago
  If enough other players protest, I think they would move the tournament somewhere else. But like you say, if it's only this one player then the tournament can go on and there will be no reason to move it.
- Scarblac 10y ago
  It's not FIDE (the world chess federation) that's protesting this. They simply had one country offering to host the tournament and automatically gave it to them, period. For FIDE this also isn't a controversial place to hold this, they held a world championship in Khadaffi's Libya, wanted to hold one in Hussein's Iraq, and their president believes in aliens and makes money doing business with Assad.
- mason240 10y ago
  She isn't an organizer, she's a player, so doesn't have any direct control over where they hold events. Boycotting the event though does put pressure on the organizers to move the event.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > a better response would be to hold the tournament in a place other than Iran If the standard for moving the tournament because some people object to the local sartorial rules, they will never find a location. Someone will always find objection. Potentially every culture in the world is participating; they can't avoid some cultural adjustment for everyone.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    It's not some people, it's some player. And it's not "cultural adjustment" as if all morality is relative - this player is right, and can argue so on the basis of societal equality rather than on the existence of a grandiose deity.
SmokyBorbon 10y ago
> The 22-year-old U.S. chess champion’s sincere protest is a remarkable checkmate to the government of Iran... Ugh.
calibraxis 10y ago
Context: The Washington Post is from the militant nation which overthrew Iran's secular parliamentary democracy, and installed the brutal Shah: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat) In any vaguely functioning ethical calculus, forcing every single person into a dress code is nothing compared to murdering hundreds of thousands of people right next door to Iran (Iraq). No need to focus on what people in another country are doing. Focus on solving one's own barbarism. Leave others in peace to finally rebuild their stolen freedoms.
hackuser 10y ago
Step back and think of how much time and attention here in the West is invested in this article of clothing. Nations make laws about it; journalists write articles daily, it seems. Either many people in the West have a fetish with it or it's become much more than clothing; it's a symbol. In large part it's a symbol for fear of a religion, Islam. The clothing is alien to most people who read the Washington Post, a symbol to them of a religion that's alien to them. It's an excellent representation of fear of the unknown (which is exactly what the terrorists, lacking the resources to achieve their goals any other way, want to create: Terror, fear, to drive their targets to create large-scale conflicts that the terrorists cannot create themselves and otherwise nobody in any religion would want.) Social norms and rules exist everywhere for clothing, especially for women. Women in the west must cover their breasts, an absurdity in some other cultures (I vaguely recall an interview with women in one non-western culture, who laughed and asked, 'are men there babies? they are so obsessed with breasts?'). In the workplace, at houses of worship, and other serious places women must cover more of their bodies - bikinis generally are frowned upon! Other countries are more strict: In India, the strong custom, if not rule, is for women to cover themselves from the neck to the wrists to ankles (except in movies and ads, which are like the West). Other religions have rules too: Many orthodox Jewish sects required women to be fully covered, including something on their heads. And in the West, every woman's clothing is apparently fair game for everyone else's opinions. (And there are rules for men to, but far less attention to them.) Note how everyone likes to tell women what they can wear. EDIT: Some minor edits
- Nursie 10y ago
  Ah yes, moral relativism exists therefore fining, imprisoning, beating and even raping women who don't comply with clothing requirements is just fine, as that's their culture and we generally insist women don't go topless.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > imprisoning, beating and even raping women who don't comply with clothing requirements is just fine Something you said, not me. It's a pretty inflammatory statement, so could you be specific about who does that and how often? Certainly women are assaulted - mostly by men - in many countries for violating social norms about their bodies. A big part of the women's rights revolution in the U.S. was taking control of that: Women decide what they can wear (bikinis), when to have sex (birth control and sexual assault laws), when to get pregnant (birth control), when not to (abortion), when they can be touched and commented on (sexual harassment). Before, it was a bunch of men telling women what they could or couldn't do with their own bodies. IMO, the faster that principle of basic self-determination (applied in whatever ways the local women want) spreads around the world the better, including Iran but many other countries and cultures too, and the U.S. and Europe have a ways to go themselves. As one example, some online communities in those countries (not HN but known here) encourage the abuse of women.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
electriclove 10y ago
Good for her, I fully support her!
samfisher83 10y ago
For all this outrage why doesn't another country step up and host this tournament?
truth_sentinell 10y ago
What you need to understand here is that wearing a hijab or niqab is often not completely "her choice". Therefore it's seem as some form of opression. First of all,I'm not sure if Islam says is mandatory, but not all religious folks go with it side by side. For rational people, is not a secret that women are below men in most religions, specially Islam. I personally think these clothes are another shenanigan the patriarchs that wrote the Quran, used to "protect" their women (one has several), from other men. Same with the celibacy thing. So, even though women say they choose to wear it, IMHO, this is just the Stockholm syndrome. The reality is that women raised on Islam families suffer a lot of pressure, because in their irrational tradition, the family has to decide the live of the woman. If the woman reveals against this, there is one common consequence: Disinheritance, your family will not longer treat you as a member, etc. Sure, there are religious families more tolerable, but that's not often the case. And there's an even worst consequence a woman can face if she reveals against family traditions: Honor killing. So, having those consequences in mind when "choosing" to wear or not a hijab, is not choosing at all.
- hackuser 10y ago
  This sounds very speculative, but maybe not. Do you have some experience or expertise, or can you point to some things you've read?
neo2006 10y ago
a US citizen do not agree with a law in Iran and will not travel to Iran because of that, ok it'here right and I agree with here, now why the Washington post is writing an article about it? You tell me to help Iran women cause? Why waiting until a us women protest to think about Iran oppressed women. Or is it fine if Iran have a dérogation for the us women but keep oppressing the local women,who cares!! right?!! That article is an exemple of the US media and politics definition of freedom, it's only for us people everywhere in the world, all others we don't care about you ...unless you have some oil for us!!
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dal2101 10y ago
If you don't want to play by the house rules, leave. Quit whining or finding reasons to justify your actions. 1. Iran is a guest requesting to host the event, in this case, they should keep it neutral. 2. However, if this is Iran's games and they are the house master, then invitees respect theirs. If you're in another man's house jolly well respect him and his rules. If you don't like it leave, no one's stopping you. I don't like shoes to be worn in my house, if you don't wish to respect it, leave. Every sovereign nation has the right to their own set of beliefs, you don't have to like it but when you're in their country, respect it. It's their home. Disclaimer: I grew up with people of different religions and races and even served the army alongside them. Respect and tolerance goes a long way.
- hospes 10y ago
  The FIDE statutes and International Olympic Committee code of ethics are very clear on not allowing discrimination on sexual and religious matters. FIDE is an International Organization, If they do not respect FIDE's code, they should not apply for organizing FIDE's competitions.
angmarsbane 10y ago
If the women are required to wear the hijab to compete than why don't the male chess players wear the hijab as well? I imagine wearing something so contrary to what a player normally wears could affect performance. Other sports have uniform requirements so if the competition has to be held in this location and one set of players have to wear a specific uniform, in this case the hijab, then they should require all players, gender be damned, to wear the hijab.

99 points by dfc 10y ago

And in the end, it won't make a difference for one remarkably simple reason: Iranian leadership is ideologically driven. They're committed to maintaining their theocracy because they're genuinely convinced it's their right from God to control women. (Distinguishing leadership from people because the Iranian people tend to be much more pro-western.)

kemiller2002 10y ago
This maybe true, but it is a sign to the rest of the world that type of behavior is not acceptable. This act may not change Iran, but it may well help change many other places.
jkot 10y ago
It is not that simple. Women can vote in Iran and be elected, with 51% of population they even have voting majority. There are 6% women PMs, clerics have less seats. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36182796 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36182796
- microcolonel 10y ago
  It doesn't seem that simple to me, though. The current regime is in place due to a coup; I have doubts that you'd be able to get much done for women post-1979 without paramilitary support. What would I know, though? :- \
- bilbo0s 10y ago
  Anyone reasonably well educated on the MidEast region realizes that Iranian women are relatively well off. Certainly light years ahead of their arab counterparts. Better educated, more free and as you, rightfully, point out, they hold more positions in the government of the Islamic Republic than clerics do. But none of that is the issue. The question is whether or not this stricture violates human rights? I know from experience that if you ask an Iranian woman if she wants to wear a hijab, she will most likely say "yes". (I'm told that the fuss to do your hair every morning is something most women would just as soon do without.) The thing is women should have the right to say "no", even if most would never use that right. That's the issue. Not whether or not women would want to go without a hijab, or whether or not Iranian women are more free.
  - jkot 10y ago
    I understand it is human rights issue. My point is that many women voted for those rules. This problem could be solved in a single election.
    - gambiting 10y ago
      As an interesting sidenote - did you know that there were entire groups of women who were against giving women voting rights, in both UK and US? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-suffragism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-suffragism
      - jkot 10y ago
        Nobody wants to be drafted, it is a waste of time. Women also voted against Equal Rights Amendment in 1970ties.
      - truth_sentinell 10y ago
        Omg. Is that for real? How can people be so dumb? Can someone please explain?
        berntb 10y ago
        Think for five seconds. Consider that a population is told that something is the One True Way all their life -- and that anyone thinking differently is evil and should be thrown in jail. Are you really surprised that a large part of those people would agree with what they are taught? (In Iran's case, this is also asked in an interview situation where their answers probably will reach the secret police known for torture and rape.)
0xFFC 10y ago
As Iranian , I must say, you are so naive if you think people who holds the power in Iran genuinely believe in something. They are professional politicians. They know what are they doing, and they don't give fuck about Islam. Just search and look how they treated with traditional religious people in Iran (religious people who believes power and religion should be separate). Actually this new generation of politicians (I mean Khomeini and after him) they are pretty good in changing old rules when they realize they are in losing side of the battle and not changing that rule will hurt they public figure in long run. Let me give you an instance, there is fuck load of hadith about chess itself being dirtier than alcohol (which punishment for it is death they catch you drunk 3 time), which in my opinion pretty absurd, like rest of religious beliefs. But Khomeini realized people will ask in long run what is dirty about chess ? And because it is so obvious that it is absurd, they changed the rule around 25 years ago. My point is there is distance between something like hijab, alcohol, betting and something like chess. The idiots (mullahs) can justify (and they are aware of this fact) hijab for simple ordinary rural people (which is their only base in country other than people who earn money from this corrupt regime), but they cannot justify that even for naive people in rural area what is wrong about chess. lets be honest, they don't give fuck about some bunch -not all of them, really small portion, I say it from my experience, right now I am student in Iran and I do regularly visit many universities in country- of student in university who shout and fight back for their rights, they would suppress them like lollipop if they try really hurt regime in any serious manner. If pressure become serious they would drop hijab rule in a day. They may show to you they are 100% firm about their beliefs, but believe me when they realize just 1% danger (serious threat to regime nature, they don't give fuck about some chess championship tournament, what would happen? Tournament will cancel ? I bet the actual power in Iran would even be more happy if tournament gets cancelled), they would change their most basic rule if they can find a way to justify themselves to their supporters.
- microcolonel 10y ago
  Not to get too presumptuous as an outsider; but it seems like a political system is part of Islam. It certainly is prescribed in scripture and described through Muhammad, even if some or many disagree. That said, Iranian government doesn't seem to be running a "proper theocracy", so I guess that point is moot.
radmuzom 10y ago
> control women Very similar to conservative politicians in US trying ban abortion or limit access to it.
- truth_sentinell 10y ago
  That's a completely different thing. In that case, you're dealing with another live, which is not the property of the woman...
- programmarchy 10y ago
  No, not very similar. With abortion you're terminating the life of a child. Do homicide laws "control women", too?
  - brainfire 10y ago
    Allowing women to dress inappropriately has a societal cost greater than the life of one child. Many lives could be ruined by the moral failures encouraged and enabled by bare flesh.
    - programmarchy 10y ago
      Upvote for a fine illustration of Poe's law.
  - elros 10y ago
    No, no, you're not. There is no child. You're getting rid of an embryo, and embryos have no rights.
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      Well they do to some extent, ethic aren't that simple we as a society do criminalize feticide beyond the fact that a person (the pregnant woman) was assaulted, and in some jurisdiction feticide is or can be counted as homicide and murder. In many countries there are various laws governing fetal rights, and most people agree that at least at some point the fetus is considered a human being hence the commonality of "born alive" laws. This isn't an argument against the right to be able to have an abortion, but it is simply not true that embryos and fetuses have no rights either, fetal rights are a pretty big subject in ethics and morality and it is not an easy one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights
berntb 10y ago
>> Iranian leadership is ideologically driven. What a weird coincidence that all the dictators that oppress their population and steal the oil money have lots of ideology... and makes lots of external enemies to blame all problems on. And yeah, the Iranian upper classes seem even as West oriented as most any population in Western Europe.
edko 10y ago
A reason it won't make a big difference is that she is ranked 98th in the world, so the impact of her not going won't be the same as if Judit Polgar (who, according to the article, is OK with the headscarf rules), or any of the top-10 players, were boycotting it.

mrpopo 10y ago

This is an awful position, and I absolutely urge people to read the linked article, that was wrongly/partially cited: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/30/boycott-of-womens-world-chess-championship-iran-tehran https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/30/boycott-of-wom... EDIT: it seems my point does not come across. I will cite the american chess champion: "I will NOT wear a hijab and support women’s oppression." Women's oppression in Iran is not just about the hijab. It's about women not being able to do what they want. This boycott is going to have strong, negative, repercussions on women sportsmanship in Iran, which is what the Iranian chessmaster said in my linked article.

sithadmin 10y ago
>do you think that is what matters to most Iranian women who are forced to stay at home? It may or may not matter to those actually being oppressed. But publicizing Iran's human rights abuses and oppressive theocratic policies does matter (on some level) to Iran's elites, because it harms the country's image.
ZoF 10y ago
What an "awful position" Amazing. As an American I unapologetically support this woman's choice. There's nothing 'Brute force' about this. Fighting for equality in a specific context doesn't mean you understand or comprehend the injustices others have faced; She never claimed to though. "If you don't want to bear a scarf on your head" - yeah, that's what she is opposed to, wearing a scarf, not what the submission represents. These values you're denigrating as "american" and therefore "bad" really aren't.
return0 10y ago
The US is not even in the list of most militant secular cultures. It's not a choice; You can't say "don't go" as if they have a choice to go to another country to compete.
jessaustin 10y ago
This reminds me of the mental contortions that e.g. USA Southerners used to perform while attempting to justify slavery. You are so ideologically committed to hijabery that you can't comprehend a simple statement of personal preference. You may disagree with Paikidze-Barnes (and most people) about the significance and the effects of the hijab. But given her beliefs, surely any reasonable person can understand why she would choose not to travel to a place that would require her to betray those beliefs?

return0 10y ago

Why did FIDE choose iran to host the competition and did they at least try to make sure there is an exception to this (absolutely reasonable) request?

Scarblac 10y ago
Iran was the only country to enter a bid, and no.

bilbo0s 10y ago

Not sure how this affects Iran that much at all. I mean it won't affect the people or the government. The Tournament will go on happily without this player's participation. In my own opinion, a better response would be to hold the tournament in a place other than Iran. I'm not sure why that isn't the route that was chosen for protest ?

saint_fiasco 10y ago
If enough other players protest, I think they would move the tournament somewhere else. But like you say, if it's only this one player then the tournament can go on and there will be no reason to move it.
Scarblac 10y ago
It's not FIDE (the world chess federation) that's protesting this. They simply had one country offering to host the tournament and automatically gave it to them, period. For FIDE this also isn't a controversial place to hold this, they held a world championship in Khadaffi's Libya, wanted to hold one in Hussein's Iraq, and their president believes in aliens and makes money doing business with Assad.
mason240 10y ago
She isn't an organizer, she's a player, so doesn't have any direct control over where they hold events. Boycotting the event though does put pressure on the organizers to move the event.
hackuser 10y ago
> a better response would be to hold the tournament in a place other than Iran If the standard for moving the tournament because some people object to the local sartorial rules, they will never find a location. Someone will always find objection. Potentially every culture in the world is participating; they can't avoid some cultural adjustment for everyone.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  It's not some people, it's some player. And it's not "cultural adjustment" as if all morality is relative - this player is right, and can argue so on the basis of societal equality rather than on the existence of a grandiose deity.

SmokyBorbon 10y ago

> The 22-year-old U.S. chess champion’s sincere protest is a remarkable checkmate to the government of Iran... Ugh.

calibraxis 10y ago

Context: The Washington Post is from the militant nation which overthrew Iran's secular parliamentary democracy, and installed the brutal Shah: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat) In any vaguely functioning ethical calculus, forcing every single person into a dress code is nothing compared to murdering hundreds of thousands of people right next door to Iran (Iraq). No need to focus on what people in another country are doing. Focus on solving one's own barbarism. Leave others in peace to finally rebuild their stolen freedoms.

hackuser 10y ago

Step back and think of how much time and attention here in the West is invested in this article of clothing. Nations make laws about it; journalists write articles daily, it seems. Either many people in the West have a fetish with it or it's become much more than clothing; it's a symbol. In large part it's a symbol for fear of a religion, Islam. The clothing is alien to most people who read the Washington Post, a symbol to them of a religion that's alien to them. It's an excellent representation of fear of the unknown (which is exactly what the terrorists, lacking the resources to achieve their goals any other way, want to create: Terror, fear, to drive their targets to create large-scale conflicts that the terrorists cannot create themselves and otherwise nobody in any religion would want.) Social norms and rules exist everywhere for clothing, especially for women. Women in the west must cover their breasts, an absurdity in some other cultures (I vaguely recall an interview with women in one non-western culture, who laughed and asked, 'are men there babies? they are so obsessed with breasts?'). In the workplace, at houses of worship, and other serious places women must cover more of their bodies - bikinis generally are frowned upon! Other countries are more strict: In India, the strong custom, if not rule, is for women to cover themselves from the neck to the wrists to ankles (except in movies and ads, which are like the West). Other religions have rules too: Many orthodox Jewish sects required women to be fully covered, including something on their heads. And in the West, every woman's clothing is apparently fair game for everyone else's opinions. (And there are rules for men to, but far less attention to them.) Note how everyone likes to tell women what they can wear. EDIT: Some minor edits

Nursie 10y ago
Ah yes, moral relativism exists therefore fining, imprisoning, beating and even raping women who don't comply with clothing requirements is just fine, as that's their culture and we generally insist women don't go topless.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > imprisoning, beating and even raping women who don't comply with clothing requirements is just fine Something you said, not me. It's a pretty inflammatory statement, so could you be specific about who does that and how often? Certainly women are assaulted - mostly by men - in many countries for violating social norms about their bodies. A big part of the women's rights revolution in the U.S. was taking control of that: Women decide what they can wear (bikinis), when to have sex (birth control and sexual assault laws), when to get pregnant (birth control), when not to (abortion), when they can be touched and commented on (sexual harassment). Before, it was a bunch of men telling women what they could or couldn't do with their own bodies. IMO, the faster that principle of basic self-determination (applied in whatever ways the local women want) spreads around the world the better, including Iran but many other countries and cultures too, and the U.S. and Europe have a ways to go themselves. As one example, some online communities in those countries (not HN but known here) encourage the abuse of women.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

electriclove 10y ago

Good for her, I fully support her!

samfisher83 10y ago

For all this outrage why doesn't another country step up and host this tournament?

truth_sentinell 10y ago

What you need to understand here is that wearing a hijab or niqab is often not completely "her choice". Therefore it's seem as some form of opression. First of all,I'm not sure if Islam says is mandatory, but not all religious folks go with it side by side. For rational people, is not a secret that women are below men in most religions, specially Islam. I personally think these clothes are another shenanigan the patriarchs that wrote the Quran, used to "protect" their women (one has several), from other men. Same with the celibacy thing. So, even though women say they choose to wear it, IMHO, this is just the Stockholm syndrome. The reality is that women raised on Islam families suffer a lot of pressure, because in their irrational tradition, the family has to decide the live of the woman. If the woman reveals against this, there is one common consequence: Disinheritance, your family will not longer treat you as a member, etc. Sure, there are religious families more tolerable, but that's not often the case. And there's an even worst consequence a woman can face if she reveals against family traditions: Honor killing. So, having those consequences in mind when "choosing" to wear or not a hijab, is not choosing at all.

hackuser 10y ago
This sounds very speculative, but maybe not. Do you have some experience or expertise, or can you point to some things you've read?

neo2006 10y ago

a US citizen do not agree with a law in Iran and will not travel to Iran because of that, ok it'here right and I agree with here, now why the Washington post is writing an article about it? You tell me to help Iran women cause? Why waiting until a us women protest to think about Iran oppressed women. Or is it fine if Iran have a dérogation for the us women but keep oppressing the local women,who cares!! right?!! That article is an exemple of the US media and politics definition of freedom, it's only for us people everywhere in the world, all others we don't care about you ...unless you have some oil for us!!

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

dal2101 10y ago

If you don't want to play by the house rules, leave. Quit whining or finding reasons to justify your actions. 1. Iran is a guest requesting to host the event, in this case, they should keep it neutral. 2. However, if this is Iran's games and they are the house master, then invitees respect theirs. If you're in another man's house jolly well respect him and his rules. If you don't like it leave, no one's stopping you. I don't like shoes to be worn in my house, if you don't wish to respect it, leave. Every sovereign nation has the right to their own set of beliefs, you don't have to like it but when you're in their country, respect it. It's their home. Disclaimer: I grew up with people of different religions and races and even served the army alongside them. Respect and tolerance goes a long way.

hospes 10y ago
The FIDE statutes and International Olympic Committee code of ethics are very clear on not allowing discrimination on sexual and religious matters. FIDE is an International Organization, If they do not respect FIDE's code, they should not apply for organizing FIDE's competitions.

angmarsbane 10y ago

If the women are required to wear the hijab to compete than why don't the male chess players wear the hijab as well? I imagine wearing something so contrary to what a player normally wears could affect performance. Other sports have uniform requirements so if the competition has to be held in this location and one set of players have to wear a specific uniform, in this case the hijab, then they should require all players, gender be damned, to wear the hijab.