lichess.org
Donate

Boycott of Rapid and Blitz Wch in Riyadh

@josevitor91 ... yes, really bro

Certain cultures may certainly have valid reason to object to the "tie" and being "forced" to wear one.

Necktie as a phallic symbol
Much has been written on the significance of dress and the language of clothes. Alison Lurie, fashion historian, writes that "before we are near enough to talk, our clothes announce our sex, age, social class, and possible information (or misinformation) as to occupation, personality, opinions, sexual desires and mood." Like any other language, we must choose our words carefully, remembering that meaning depends on the context of the place and circumstances. What message does the necktie convey?

For over two thousand years - since at least the Quinn dynasty - the necktie (or cravat) has been the most widely used, and the most multicultural of all phallic symbols. The necktie has always been, for a certain class, a celebrated piece of male equipment. The ties were a mark of allegiance, wealth, and belonging at a time when cloth was hard enough to come by for clothes, never mind for articles of gratuitous adornment. They told others, both inside and outside the elite, that the bearers of the neckpieces were the people who mattered - the people who belonged. The tie is a pure fashion statement, a useless, unnecessary item of clothing in addition to its symbolic announcement. However, there are other negative attributes associated with the necktie.

Indeed, the tie was suitably born soaked in blood. The word "cravat" comes from "Croat", the nationality of the soldiers who won Turkey (previously in the Austro-Hungarian Empire) for Louis XIV of France, and who marched victoriously into Paris adorned in colourful silk handkerchiefs tied around their necks. The French King soon copied this style and began a similar fashion among the European aristocravats, pun intended. Indeed, Louis XIV called an entire regiment the Royal Cravattes. Most reference books blame the necktie on the French. The tie evolved from the French cravat, a scarf tied around the neck. The French called it a cravat in reference to the Croatians, who wore colorful scarves around their neck in battle. Considering its origin and symbolic meaning, why do we wear ties now?

Ties which both hang flaccidly from the neck to the groin like a penis, and also point to it, are the very symbol of the phallus, which is so envied by other men and women not for its actual qualities, as much as the social meaning attributed to the gender of its owner. The tie is thus a symbol of the domination of men over women, and of power in general. Consequently, a ruling was made by a particular group...
The last post displays the differences of cultures, how a garment of clothing can represent many things to differing peoples. Point is, it is not an issue that demands boycotting chess events.

A boycott is seldom an effective measure to further a cause, albeit a just cause. To suggest every chess player should not participate in an event (an event that pays their bills and supports a family); over the issue of one country not providing a visa to another country (a country that would not participate anyway, that has laws prohibiting it's citizens from traveling there); is foolishness.

The event in SA by all accounts of the media and participants has been a resounding success. In interviews, players have stated how they are greatly impressed with the event and the courtesies extended. It is a big step in the right direction for SA to end some of it's "practices" in subjugating woman. It's a slow process to reverse.

The Event would not be taking place without the SA bid. And now people call to boycott it over politics? Makes no sense.
The Event has been contracted for 3 years to take place in SA. In interviews today, a commentator suggested that next year it is proposed that "all those who wish to participate will be allowed to do so." Apparently, negotiations have taken place between disputing countries to remedy the situation.

A similar agreement was probably too difficult to come by this year in the time allowed. In all the interviews, every participant has praised the event, the organization and accommodations. Woman players have expressed they have been treated fairly with no disrespect. (There is no forced wearing of any garments, no forced accompaniment as doomsday nay-Sayers predicted.) It is a big step forward for SA to show a progressive attitude, that it is willing to make the right choices regarding human rights. It certainly has the money to sponsor major chess events that would enhance the development of chess worldwide.

Of course, the world will watch and see. Putting on a big show of it in a major sporting competition today does not ensure changes will be made tomorrow.

Not a single competitor has expressed any regret about participating. We'll see if this holds true after the completion of the event and players have returned home.
That's not true. The event was given to SA only a few months ago.
What's not true? Nothing was said about when event was given. Yes, only a few months ago was it awarded. It is a 3 year contract.
Since it was awarded only 3 months ago, I suggested it was not enough time for SA and Israel to settle their long standing dispute of it's citizens (By each countries laws) to travel to the other. It appears, for next years event, this might be settled by Israel to allow it's players to travel to SA and SA to issue visas.
Ah. I misunderstood your statement. I thought it said contracted 3 years ago. Sorry about that.
So, because SA was given this bid 3 years ago, they should be allowed to trample other cultures? Not sound is your reasoning.
IM lovlas il y a 1 jour #38
Ah. I misunderstood your statement. I thought it said contracted 3 years ago. Sorry about that.

PoetRunner il y a 30 minutes #39
So, because SA was given this bid 3 years ago, they should be allowed to trample other cultures? Not sound is your reasoning.

I mean do you even read the posts above you ? sigh

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.