|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > February 2005 > Important chess issues
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Important chess issues
|
|
| MilChess 2005-02-15, 5:52 pm |
|
Aurora wrote:
quote:
> Phil
> I might agree with some of your points about the reasons for women
only
quote:
> events if this process of segregating women into female only events
> didn't start when they are juniors and as such have no caring
> responsibilities.
> Aurora
I think Barbara and Phil have very different opinions about chess for
women and juniors. I think we should talk about it more. It is very
interesting. Can we start a new threat so it does not get mix up with
other USCF political or personal issues? Aurora, would you mind be the
moderator for it? Thanks a million.
| |
| Petrel 2005-02-15, 9:47 pm |
|
"MilChess" <MilChess@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108490002.065134.89170@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
>
> I think Barbara and Phil have very different opinions about chess for
> women and juniors. I think we should talk about it more. It is very
> interesting. Can we start a new threat so it does not get mix up with
> other USCF political or personal issues? Aurora, would you mind be the
> moderator for it? Thanks a million.
Yeah, well, the problem is that issue brings out people with profound
philosophical differences which are not going to be resolved by consensus
and a group hug. "Barbara Villiers" is, as she has described herself
elsewhere, an "unabashed right-winger" with "no use for egalitarianism." I
haven't dug up her husband (correct me if I'm mistaken) "Aurora's" political
views, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were similar. Therefore, those
of us who favor women's right to participate in all-female events, precisely
because we DO favor "egalitarianism" and a leveling of the playing field,
are going to be locked in pretty much irreconcilable conflict with
"Villiers" and her co-thinkers until one or the other group dies out. It
follows that "Aurora" is not likely to be a balanced moderator, any more
than I would be.
petrel
| |
| Aurora 2005-02-16, 5:50 pm |
|
Petrel wrote:
quote:
> "MilChess" <MilChess@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1108490002.065134.89170@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
for[vbcol=seagreen]
very[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Yeah, well, the problem is that issue brings out people with profound
quote:
> philosophical differences which are not going to be resolved by
consensus
quote:
> and a group hug. "Barbara Villiers" is, as she has described herself
quote:
> elsewhere, an "unabashed right-winger" with "no use for
egalitarianism." I
quote:
> haven't dug up her husband (correct me if I'm mistaken) "Aurora's"
political
quote:
> views, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were similar. Therefore,
those
quote:
> of us who favor women's right to participate in all-female events,
precisely
quote:
> because we DO favor "egalitarianism" and a leveling of the playing
field,
quote:
> are going to be locked in pretty much irreconcilable conflict with
> "Villiers" and her co-thinkers until one or the other group dies out.
It
quote:
> follows that "Aurora" is not likely to be a balanced moderator, any
more
quote:
> than I would be.
Petrel
I can only agree with one thing you say, you wouldn't be a balanced
moderator. I may be BVs husband but don't think I cannot have my own
views. As for be in favour of female only events to level the playing
field, that is probably the most sexist comment I have heard about
women's chess. So they cannot play with the real boys?
Aurora
quote:
>
> petrel
| |
| Aurora 2005-02-16, 5:50 pm |
|
Petrel wrote:
quote:
> "MilChess" <MilChess@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1108490002.065134.89170@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
for[vbcol=seagreen]
very[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Yeah, well, the problem is that issue brings out people with profound
quote:
> philosophical differences which are not going to be resolved by
consensus
quote:
> and a group hug. "Barbara Villiers" is, as she has described herself
quote:
> elsewhere, an "unabashed right-winger" with "no use for
egalitarianism." I
quote:
> haven't dug up her husband (correct me if I'm mistaken) "Aurora's"
political
quote:
> views, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were similar. Therefore,
those
quote:
> of us who favor women's right to participate in all-female events,
precisely
quote:
> because we DO favor "egalitarianism" and a leveling of the playing
field,
quote:
> are going to be locked in pretty much irreconcilable conflict with
> "Villiers" and her co-thinkers until one or the other group dies out.
It
quote:
> follows that "Aurora" is not likely to be a balanced moderator, any
more
quote:
> than I would be.
Petrel
I can only agree with one thing you say, you wouldn't be a balanced
moderator. I may be BVs husband but don't think I cannot have my own
views. As for be in favour of female only events to level the playing
field, that is probably the most sexist comment I have heard about
women's chess. So they cannot play with the real boys?
Aurora
| |
| Aurora 2005-02-20, 9:47 pm |
|
Petrel wrote:
quote:
> "MilChess" <MilChess@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1108490002.065134.89170@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
for[vbcol=seagreen]
very[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Yeah, well, the problem is that issue brings out people with profound
quote:
> philosophical differences which are not going to be resolved by
consensus
quote:
> and a group hug. "Barbara Villiers" is, as she has described herself
quote:
> elsewhere, an "unabashed right-winger" with "no use for
egalitarianism." I
quote:
> haven't dug up her husband (correct me if I'm mistaken) "Aurora's"
political
quote:
> views, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were similar. Therefore,
those
quote:
> of us who favor women's right to participate in all-female events,
precisely
quote:
> because we DO favor "egalitarianism" and a leveling of the playing
field,
quote:
> are going to be locked in pretty much irreconcilable conflict with
> "Villiers" and her co-thinkers until one or the other group dies out.
It
quote:
> follows that "Aurora" is not likely to be a balanced moderator, any
more
quote:
> than I would be.
Petrel
I can only agree with one thing you say, you wouldn't be a balanced
moderator. I may be BVs husband but don't think I cannot have my own
views. As for be in favour of female only events to level the playing
field, that is probably the most sexist comment I have heard about
women's chess. So they cannot play with the real boys?
Aurora
|
| |
|
|