Why the double standard for Men and Women?
From ESPN Interview: Viswanathan Anand. five-time world champion dwelt on what he described a ‘pleasant and memorable experience’ during the 2000 World Championship, asserting that it’s largely a personal decision of players. “People may have political reservations and that’s their opinion. Personally, it’s a place that holds some of my best chess memories. The organizers were exceptionally nice to us and Aruna (wife) didn’t mind wearing the hijab at all. My focus was solely on winning the title,” he told ESPN.
I do not remember anyone demanded him to boycott or called him names because he decided to play and won. My question is why the double standard? Anand is a multi-millionaire. No one questioned him for competing. Most if not all of the 64 female players who qualified for the 2017 Women’s World Championship are poor. This title can change their lives on many levels. Why are they being attacked and insulted for choosing to compete?
Humpy Koneru and Harika Dronavalli are also both India. They played in Iran before in the Women’s Grand Prix without incident. They said the do not mind wearing the headscarf, just as Aruna, Anand’s wife? Why did they receive criticism and insults for doing the same thing as Anand?
Again, to make absolutely clear, I am not asking any player to compete or boycott. I only ask the question to try to understand people’s rationale on this issue. I would appreciate it if you can give me your honest opinion with respect for all players, regardless of their positions.
Thank you!
Because there is something wrong with going to a country and donning the hijab, meanwhile there are Iranian women who are physically punished for defying the mandatory hijab. Us going there and being forced to wear it, legitimizes what Iran is doing to the women fighting against that unjust oppression.
That is not the question. The question is Anand went to to Tehran, Iran to play and win the 2000 World Championship. Why was that OK and it is not OK for Humpy and Harika?
Greetings! I hadn’t seen anyone demanding others boycott, or namecalling over this issue. Is that true?
Yes. It got very ugly. Physical threats were even made.
I believe its an issue of freedom. No one should be forced to do anything the y do not want to, call it religious OE polítical issue.
Personally, I am a firm believer of the the old saying, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”
The West forcing it’s ideas of freedom on the East, since WW I, has resulted in the development of various political factions hijacking religion for their own political gains. People who don’t see through this are just as narrow-minded as those doing the exploiting.
However, if self-righteous people (who still believe they know what is best for the rest of the world) should have also been calling for Anand or any other supportive, visiting male to wear a headscarf himself in solidarity with the women. This would make light of the situation and force the question of how ridiculous all of this really is.
We are fools if we think we can force cultural change. Instead, we should be noble ambassadors of the cultures we are proud of, and which make us the best people we can be. To me, that usually looks like tolerance.
To expect women to be intolerant and men to be tolerant is, in fact, a double standard, and those calling for women to boycott an event that would mean so much to the women competitors -without asking anything of the men- are just as guilty of exploiting women as the accused.
I’m not saying it’s really that vital, but Paikidze won $20000 in US championship last year (not quite as rich as Gibraltar women’s prize), which is more than a 10000 euros FIDE Women’s GP win. Even the minimum $3750 for going out in round 1 will be hard for many in the field to pass up, even if they have an issue over the hijab.
As usual in such debates there is much emotional confusion distorting clear vision.
Several brief comments might clarify it a bit.
First, it is difficult and perhaps pointless trying to compare so literally what happened
in 2000 and 2016. The world has changed, cultural and religious evolved, so 2000 and
2016 may be incomparable.
Second, the analogy between the Indian man and Indian women seems confused.
These are very different cases. Going to country X to play chess and going to X to
play chess under a condition to follow local demands are two different situations.
There is no double standard because these are different people in different situations.
If, for instance, Anand were demanded to wear a turban to play, he would probably not
be happy. Millions of men wear turbans because it’s their culture and choice. Perfectly fine.
But it’s not for me: I would sweat, feel suffocating, uncomfortably and probably
played very badly. It’s not a matter of my “Western imperialism” but a simple
matter of life. Many women may feel similarly in hijabs.
Third, the concept of dress codes is a matter of degree. The extreme views are too
simplistic to be accepted. On the one hand, it is obvious that we cannot just “do only
what we want to do”. High level players represent not only themselves but also
their countries and chess culture so it’s very ok that in Baku or Moscow players
are asked to wear jackets and not shorts, T-shirts or bikinis. Some rules are good.
On the other hand, “doing what Romans do” is also too simple. When I go to a
country where people are discriminated, persecuted, and women
treated as semi-human I do not want to be racist and immoral. It is again not
a matter of Western values but a matter of human dignity and decency. Thus,
it is important to find a proper “golden mean” between total liberty and total
obedience to forced demands. To be clear: a very difficult task to find such a
middle point.
Last, in my personal opinion, the emotional debate seems to be a sign of a
broader issue in contemporary chess. Chess players have to travel more and
more often to places where various people and liberties are not respected
and tolerated. Most great tournaments are organized in Russia, China,
Azerbaijan, Iran, Uzbekistan, UAE, Qatar, and the like. Such regimes want to
present themselves as more civilized and pour money into sport shows
(be it a World Cup, Olimpics or chess tournaments).
These are extremely authoritarian states and every player has to make
her/his moral decision whether to accept invitations from places where
political opponents are murdered, women are disrespected, and vicious
regimes holding down millions of people living in misery while celebrating
chess tournaments in luxury hotels. Unfortunately, many chess players have
no choice but to participate in such ugly games. I feel very sorry for them
and the whole state of affairs.
Thank you for all of your thought in what I think was a response to my comment.
I think we are in agreement, but I would like to clear up a three points I made that may have been misinterpreted (no doubt on account of my lazy writing, for which I apologize), especially given the REAL context of this piece, which is the news that Iran will be hosting the next big Women’s competition.
1. To be clear, my statement of “When in Rome….” is meant for this context, as in adopting relatively harmless cultural norms. Of course I don’t condone the abuse of human rights, and would encourage everyone to take a stand when possible against abuses, in Rome or anywhere else! However, in this case, given Iran was the ONLY country to submit a bid, it seems respectful (and not too onerous) for women to wear a headscarf as part of the local custom.
2. While I can understand the frustration felt by some women over this issue, I would suggest their anger and frustration is mis-directed, and should instead be directed somewhere else, like, for example, EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD that did NOT submit a bid! Iran is to be commended for caring enough about women’s sports to submit a bid, and women contestants who can go, should go, and respectfully appreciate the chance to compete (even in a headscarf!), as opposed to not having a chance at all, as would be the case if it were up to THEIR OWN “freedom loving” countries who seem couldn’t care less about Women’s Chess. =(
3. For FIDE to reject Iran’s bid would be fascist. As much as I resent the idea of requiring women to wear a headscarf, I would not reject the bid if I were FIDE, and I would not reject the invitation to compete in Iran, if I were a female competitor. Again, if I was invited, I would go, wearing the head scarf out of respectful tolerance. If I really wanted to protest, I would ask any man who might be attending the event as an observer to wear a head scarf (not a turban!!), but, again, ONLY if I REALLY wanted to make a statement. He could do the talking for me. But, going to competition in Iran (even if it meant wearing a scarf) as someone who normally doesn’t but is tolerant and respectful, and strongly competing (and maybe even winning!) would seem to me to be enough of a statement of how to be tolerant and respectful of individual choices.
I really appreciate the thoughtful, respectful dialogue, and Ms. Polgar for all her leadership in the Chess world. Where is the petition I can sign to demand the United States make a bid to host the next one? I am sure Detroit could use the revenues and would have the space! =)
I might be attacked by many here, but I second the opinions expressed several times by Susan Polgar her, as well as what seems to be the official position of FIDE, USTA etc. Iran is a very progressive country in matters of women’s sports: they are the main promoters of women’s futsal, as well as having some pioneering programmes for women in Paralympic sports in the past years, which paid off in the last few editions of the Paralympics. Many Iranian women are MP-s. And so on… The issue here is the hijab. In the local culture, wearing one is a sign of respectability. It conveys the message that the woman in question is not living a promiscuous life; it’s simply part of the local culture and it also protects the (Western) woman from potential molestation. It is highly probable that not wearing one, basically showing your hair as a woman, is tantamount to nudity and pornography for the ordinary Iranian. Seemingly the players, generally well traveled and with an understanding for cultural differences did not object. I am also of the opinion that boycotting sports events because one doesn’t agree with something exterior to sports is absurd and bigoted. No player should be ostracized for participating in the tournament.
wearing scarf here in India is no big deal. its more cultural than religious I should say. why so much fuss about petty things?
– Can you hold the Olympics – the regular ones – Iran?
– For a world championship with a mix of players not just two (and not any of the regular open tournament) why not ONLY cosmopolitan or international cities?
– Hold the magnus-karjakin match also in iran
– is fide for the benefit of players accommodating all within a range of practicality or dictatorial? What is the purpose of Fide
– Indian women don’t have a problem because they are used to wearing the long scarf (dupatta) as part of Indian life
– Fide can hold 365 open or women’s tournaments in Iran and those who want can play no one will be too worried making the choice, but this is the world championship — fide should try to give all a fair chance… it’s a special title… some people deprived of a chance even before playing
There is one bid. If it is not held in Iran, there will be no women’s world championship. There is simply no sponsor.
If Fide can’t find a proper sponsor it should be scrapped
Accept defeat
Walk away from the table with dignity
Give someone else the chance
(What’s the championship any eay without the reigning champ willing to defend title)
— Why can’t women’s worldchampionship format made same as men’s and both title defenses held same time same venue
Its ridiculous if I pay to hold event in jungles of Amazon wil fide agree? I should try doubling the bid
— It would be great to have karjakin carlsen and yifan humpy playing same time… maybe more good for sponsors