Grand Master Chess Player Refuses To Defend Her Title In Saudi Arabia. She is wrong
Having won several competitions Anna Muzychuk has proven herself to be a brilliant chess player. Nonetheless, when it comes to political correctness and irrational behaviour she doesn't seem to be quite as a sharp.
The competition is supposed to take place in Saudi Arabia. Due to the way the culture operates there, women are treated differently compared to the Western standard. This makes many people feel unease. The differences are so great that it appears as if women are being humiliated as second class human beings. More or less she refuses to be escorted by men outside of buildings or wear the traditional abaya. Her words:
Let's assume though that the competition was not hosted in Saudi Arabia but rather in some tribe in the Middle of Africa. Will would be so quickly political to judge those people by their ways? Would we scorn and compare them to our culture if we were asked to respect their culture while we were there?
Anthropologists evaluate these situations quite differently because they understand that every culture is a long-term byproduct of a myriad parametres that have come together over long periods of time. It will be silly to judge customs of other countries based on our own. This is why, in the short period they are within a culture context, they make sure to learn the few perks that they have to follow in order to contact their business.
Anna Muzychuk is obviously judging the matter from a western feminist point of view that deals with equality and respect. This line of thinking though is counter intuitive since as a feminist she should respect the cultural differences and not try to judge people based on the western cultural upbringing. In other words, she appears to look down on the differences of another culture, evaluating her own point as superior. This is exactly what racists do in her own country and I am sure she would disagree with them.
She is not wrong because I say so. She is wrong because she is intellectually dishonest when it comes to her own values. In Africa she would have to be careful not to point to people because that's rude. We wouldn't want to walk into a Japanese house with our shoes on. Heck in japan they can choose not to hire someone based on the colour of their skin but most people don't care about this because, you know..Japan!. Russia is against homosexuality yet she visited plenty of times. I bet that anyone could find something "offensive" from another culture in order not to visit. Ukraine, her own country, has not been a model country with human rights either.
Humans have different behaviours all around the world. These attitudes are not meant to be taken as personal attacks. We are all visitors on this planet and we have to accept that we all victims of past cultural upbringing. As the old saying goes "When in Rome, Do As Romans Do". Unfortunately our modern feminist culture of entitlement has turned this into "Fuck Rome, It doesn't deserve my intellectual dishonesty".
Let us not also forget that even her own league is segregated. Chess tournaments tent to be female or male exclusive.
I think your post contains some faulty logic, this is not an insult but just a statment which i believe is true. I would like to have a respectable discussion with you to try to flesh out the argument you are making and see if we can find some common ground and understand each other's point of view. There are two main concerns I have with your post.
Firstly I would like to establish whether or not you are as intellectually dishonest as you claim Anna is. Would you be as critical of her if she was a black woman who refused to go to a nation which treated black people as second class citizens who were refused the right to marry, obtain a passport, travel, or seek an education without permission from a white gaurdian?
Well this is analogous to the conditions that, according to a 2015 Report by Human Rights Watch, women in saudi arabia live under and if you would not be willing to pose the same criticism in both scenarios then how can you justify this distinction? If you can not justify it then perhaps you should question your own intellectual honesty.
As a man who believes strongly in the equality of men, women, and all other individuals under the law I can very much sympathize with why she would take this moral stance, and I would imagine in this analogous situation you would agree. So you should equally well apply the same logic to both scenarios, unless there is a moral distinction between the two.
Secondly you mention a perspective of evaluating cultures, which anthropologists use, to justify your claim that she is wrong in passing judgement on other culture's. This appears to be a fallacious argument, which attempts to avoid making an actual case for cultural relativism by appealing to an expert opinion. This wouldn't be too bad, after all there is nothing wrong with appealing to experts in certain scenarios; however you appear to conflate expert opinions on anthropology, which seeks to study behavior and cultural developments of humans, with expert opinions on philosophy, which seeks to evaluate values based on logic.
In addition to these points there are a number of other areas in which your post is lacking. You make multiple leaps of logic, such as the fact that you attack her as being intellectually dishonest without actually making the case that her refusal to travel to a country which does not recognize the fundamental rights of individuals of her gender is morally equivalent to respecting the quirks of culture of a country which she may have chosen to travel to.
Id love to hear a response to this to see you explain your reasoning and promote a dialogue which advances both of our understanding of the issues at hand.
I lived in Japan and saw basically or non-Japanese treated as second class citizens. It happens all around the world. I mention this in my post above. Read before you comment. Heck, try to use google and check that this is happening everywhere across the globe and people are ok with it. Fat people, people with zits, ugly and such are also treated as second and even third class citizens. Such is the world.
Human Rights are a joke for the very reasons I mentioned above. Only apply on paper, not real life.
Your fourth paragraph is nonsensical but tried to appear intellectual. Simply, you can visit a country that treats you differently because as a human being should be able to accept that some cultures are different as others. Whether you are an anthropologist or not is irrelevant. It is common sense.
I actually explained how she is intellectually dishonest by mentioning that she was ok to visit Russia that doesn't accept LGBT rights but she has problem being escorted my men for a few days in another country.
Pick up on reading comprehension before you try to pass criticism.
None of these people are discriminated against by law though are they. She has less rights legally in Saudi Arabia, hence her making a stand and not wishing to visit. Totally understandable in my opinion.
Firstly there is no need to be defensive. As I said before these are not personal insults, I'm just trying to understand your perspective.
Now I did overlook that sentence about Japan, but there is no need to claim that I'm not capable of reading; your argument should be strong enough to stand on its own without trying to attack my character over an honest mistake.
As far as the substance of your post goes...
In your first paragraph here in your response and in the paragraph where you mention Japan you seem to be making the argument that we do not subject Japan's racial discrimination to moral scrutiny so we should therefore not subject Saudi Arabia 's gender discrimination to moral scrutiny. Is this a fair characterization of your argument?
If so I think that this argument as it stands is not valid, after all we could take this argument the other direction and say "We subject Saudi Arabia's gender discrimination to moral scrutiny so we should subject Japan's racial discrimination to moral scrutiny". This would be just as suitable unless we make an argument for moral relativism or to be specific, metaethical moral relativism being applicable to these issues and that this relativism then implies that we can not pass moral judgments on other cultures.
Now you have not made this argument, but rather originally differed to the perspective of anthropologists and have now back tracked that position to simply claim that its common sense that one should be willing to subject themselves to the standards of another society because a human being "should be able to accept that some cultures are different [than] others."; however saying "well it's just common sense" is not an argument and functions to portray me or anyone who disagrees with this claim as lacking common sense. Additionally I would claim that the statement is wrong in two regards, not only is this not common sense, but it is an indefensible position to take when we look at it in certain applications and therefore can not be a general principle.
For example if one is born or otherwise finds himself in a society which would allocate him to a life of slavery, would you not agree that he would be justified in passing a moral judgement on said society or should he just say "when in rome" and resign himself to slavery?
This post is gettting kinda long and I think ive made my core points so I wont go on in this post, but I would also like to add two points. First that I never made the claim that she, or anyone else, was or was not intellectually dishonest and second that when you call my writing nonsensical, back it up and point out where I am wrong, I am receptive to criticism.
This post was edited for clarity.
I'm not so sure she's just seeing everything through the prism of her own culture. I bet there are many Saudi women who also secretly hate these rules and sexist norms. People are capable of extending their views on morality above what is "normally" done culturally, it's not as simple as saying they are two different cultures so both should be respected equally. Treating women as second class citizens is a bad idea in her opinion (and mine) and if she wants to make a stand against that then more power to her.
Hmm that’s a real tough one and definitely a touchy topic. I think you’re right that she may not have the same reaction if it was in a different country with the same practices.
Most people don't realize (or rather) refuse to distinguish between taking a personal offense vs respecting cultural differences.
You are definitely right. Half of my family comes from the Middle East and they assume my family was “oppressed” when that is far from the truth. They love their home country despite what people tell them to feel.
We would all feel oppressed if we traveled back in time
100 years from now, people would see western culture being oppressive.
You are definitely right. Our women culture works for us in 2017 and we are still working to improve it in 2017. The thing is, what is acceptable and is being worked towards in other countries isn't exactly the same as us. That is completely okay, as long as what is being worked towards is what the women in that respective country what.
Yes. There is a nuance to seeing these issues when trained in Anthropology.
But also no. She clearly has her values regarding treatment of women that mean more to her than attending a tournament.
Every individual is going to have something that they care about more - maybe she doesn’t give a shit about how Russia treats homosexuals. Does that somehow negate her opinion on how Saudis treat women?
The idea that somehow someone cannot have an opinion about morality without also sharing the same values as everyone else. It’s a bit of a crap argument.
I also share her opinion about how Saudi women are treated. Also as a trained Anthropologist I understand why that opinion I hold is problematic and influenced by my own perceptual and cultural conditioning.
I’m also not a woman, so my opinion doesn’t have the same impact on me, than, say, how child rapists are protected by the Catholic Church, or how the alt-right are using syllogism and linguistic tricks to bring fascism further into the mainstream.
She’s using her position to make a values-statement. Good on her.
Yes because she mentions human rights as the center of her opinion. Human Rights are not a buffet.
So we only listen to the opinions of those who subscribe wholesale to every social issue?
I don’t think that’s possible personally. I don’t think a person can literally be standing for every social issue.... because there are likely as many issues as there are people on the planet.
Like I said, I care about human rights.... but there are some I just cannot give energy too because of a number of reasons. I can support them in spirit but also have to strategically choose where I invest my energy in this matter...
Where can I make the most profound change?
Perhaps for her, women’s rights are where she can make the most impact.
It seems though that there are many cases where ‘women’s rights’ and the women who speak up for them are critiqued by impossible standards, moreso than other issues.
Why is that, do you think?
Not all cultures are the same and some cultures are just shit.
I don't have to respect a culture that thinks cutting girls clitorises of is the right thing to do.
I don't have to respect a culture that forces a certain dress code on women.
I don't have to respect a culture that doesn't allow women to go alone outside.
I don't have to respect a culture in which it is a crime for a woman to flee her home if she was abused.
I don't have to respect a culture in which if a woman sleeps with another man besides her husband, she is stoned to death.
I don't have to respect a culture in which there are sex segregated spaces.
Anna Muzychuk did nothing wrong. Those who should be criticized are Western feminists who are not taking a stand regarding womens rights in Saudi Arabia and under Sharia law.
We should have respected cultures that thought having slaves was a good thing?
You've drifted away from the point with your own narrow point of view. You can't just force your principles on others, because you think you are right. You need to evaluate this line below more seriously. Not respecting a culture does not solve its cultural issues. It has to be approached with delicacy.
I'm not forcing my principles on others, I'm just criticizing a culture based on facts. If no one is criticizing the negative aspects of culture then that culture will never change.
I think we can all agree that forcing women what to wear is not a good thing. Or that cutting womens clitorises is not a good thing. Or stoning women to death because adultery is not a good thing. Or not allowing women to go outside without a man is not a good thing. Or not punishing spousal or statutory rape is not a good thing. Or selling little girls into marriage is not a good thing.
Political correctness as it is used by many today kills reasoning and logical thought.
I ask you what I asked @kyriacos: do you respect a culture that thinks using slaves is completely fine?
None of this is good but as I said it has to be approached with delicacy, otherwise what you will have is people rejecting your actions as a defense mécanism because they in some way, think you are infringing on their rights. You have to respect culture but entirely it's priniciples. It has to be approached in a way that you do not offend people.
Yes:
I don't normally just dump YTube links but this gets the point across; you're disagreeing with yourself. Is deciding not to visit a brash, indelicate thing only a brute would do? It sparks debate and social change. Exactly what is needed =/
A reasonable point, thanks ✔
Chess and politics unfortunately do not mix. (I say this ironically as the President of my state's chess federation.) I do respect Ms. Muzychuk for having the courage to follow her convictions, even if they do seem a bit contradictory.
every citizen on this earth has his rights
until they don't
Great chess player (Anna Muzychuk) he deserves to win the match.
Thanks for sharing information.
Darn, you didn't even get the gender right.
Maybe she "should" be free to make her own decisions without having other people decide what she "should" do?
She is free to make her own decisions such as not traveling there.
Nonetheless, based on her own human rights values, she is wrong.
This is the odd thing about feminism. It is self defeating.
I'm perplexed as to why you get to decide she is wrong - you might disagree, but why do you get to say if she is wrong? Presumably she thinks she is right, and she could probably spank you at chess. Are you wrong at chess?
You haven't understood much. By the way; he explained. Its like you got nothing from what was written. Becareful with that picture you posted above, our dresscode and everything else is influenced by our society and other pricnicples created by us human animals.
Becareful with spellig or you mite look illuterate and wrong like u dont undertsnd mutch
Might ;-). Appologies if I sounded a bit harsh; and thus your retaliation. 🏳
No worries - my issue with this post is that kyriacos appointed himself arbiter of good taste and started telling someone else how to live her life by his standards.
Whether his standards are utter bullshit is another issue...
I'm not sure how I came to be following him, but have since stopped because he winds me up