This social movement is no different than the DEI social movements.
Both produce unintended consequences
Telling people that "zen mode just solves the problem" isn't a real solution. The online chess experience, at its best, is social, and removing that aspect takes quite a bit out of the experience for a lot of players. It also places the burden on victims, where it shouldn't be.
@Jade-1 said in #485:
> This social movement is no different than the DEI social movements.
>
> Both produce unintended consequences
Anything anyone does can have unintended consequences. Should we stop doing everything? Come on. As others have said in this thread, you can do better than that.
It is okay to have disagreements. In fact, a healthy disagreement or discourse can often be beneficial for both parties.
However, the toxicity, passive-aggressiveness, blame-shifting, trolling, projection, insecurities, denial, disguised misogyny, and whatnot of so many people in this forum really make me sick. Maybe they are still a minority, but sometimes I feel truly ashamed to be a part of the online community, to be among such people. Today is one of those moments.
The ones who harass are guilty surely. But what about the ones who fuel them, encourage them with their irrational arguments, justify their behavior, and shift the blame onto others? Who would be worse? I honestly don't know. Unfortunately, it seems to me that some people would rather stay blind even when they have eyes.
@Jade-1 said in #478:
> Consider the fact there is no evidence that DEI training resolves any issues, but there is plenty of evidence to show that it actually harms DEI efforts.
> How can proponents of this social movement (stopping harassment in the chess world) will not face similar unattended consequences? Is there any evidence these blog posts and comments are improving social relations? Is it possible, and worth strongly considering, it can actually make them worse?
Can you share the evidence? I have only (A lot of) anecdotal evidence that it does help, but I'm ready to change my mind if presented with stronger, contradictory evidence.
You can also tell me what kind of harm, Because I don't see what it could be. Of course speaking up can makes aggressors or people who disagree with the change angry and they might express this anger. is this the kind of stuff you mean? But this would be a temporary effect, and the benefits of raising awareness (like knowing that we can find support when we take action) far outweigh this, how I see it.
But this raises an interesting point : You seem to agree that we need Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, but mean that training doesn't necessary helps/can harm.
How do you suggest we go about it?
(Also, what we do here is not really training but discussing.Are you sure your sources apply to this situation? )
You meant just blocking and ignoring, but this doesn't bring DEI, it just hides better that we need it. Using the zen mode is a bit like not coming back home alone in a dark street. Sure it addresses the immediate problem. But it means that the potential victims of harassment/sexual violence have less options in their every day life (What if I want to wear light clothes and come back home drunk in the middle of the night? ), which is not fair.
So the question is not how do we prevent aggression, the question is how do we prevent aggression *without* reducing women option on how to live their lives.
Historically, speaking up brought a lot of positive changes (from the french revolution to MeToo, for instance).
Plus, violence against women benefit a lot from the silence around them. For instance, the fact that most aggression are not reported and most reported aggression don't end up in being penalized. This is only possible because of the omerta surrounding it.
Anyways, I appreciate you engaging in the discussion in a constructive way, even if I still disagree with your points and intentions :)
@Jade-1 said in #483:
> Some possibilities:
>
> 1. Increased levels of harassment
> 2. Deepened backlash against equality
I'll answer to those separately, I didn't see them before posting the other message.
The 1 will for sure happen. We saw it here on this very thread. But it is a temporary setback, when the effects of such a post (a lot of people sharing their experiences and a lot of men telling OP that they learned much about the problem and it's extent, for instance) are lasting benefits that will have direct positive consequences in every interaction they will have in the future. That's a net positive.
The second one, I'm not so sure. Yes, people who don't see why women complain and don't see the problem are gonna freak and be upset. But I don't think it will produce much more people who are "against" womens rights. Here on this thread, The people against the feminist ideas that were presented were already outspoken opponents of feminism. On the other hand, there are a lot of posts from people sympathizing and overtly saying that they will take more action when they see a problematic situation!
I'll repeat the question of my other answer to make both comments self-sufficient :
You advocated a lot to jsut block, report, and not do anything else. Do you agree that this can just maintain the status-quo and not improve the situation?
Do you have suggestions on how to improve the situation ? (since it now seems clear to me that we at least agree that the situation is not OK. Do we agree on this? )
Again, thank you for engaging.
@Jade-1 said in #457:
> 356! I will answer post #356. Here it is:
> (1) I do not want anyone, female or male, to experience harassment of any type. It is sad this happens.
Thank you, we're on the same page there.
> (2) That said, Big Meanies have existed on the internet since day 1. They will never go away.
Agreed, practically speaking true.
> (3) I encourage people to toughen up. There's no need to write 50,000 word (this blog post + all the comments) about the perennial phenomenon of harassment. Waste of energy.
Minimizing harassment and toughening up are not mutually exclusive. If you understand that, and if you agree with your own points (1 and 2), why are you against speaking up? It's not a waste of energy. Change happens all the time. Do you believe things have been the same since our origin? No, clearly not. And there are so many factors contributing to that change, one of them is discussion and exchange of ideas.
If you don't agree that they are not mutually exclusive, why don't you tell everyone who knows you to be more mean towards you? After all, that'd make you only tougher and it'd be good for you in the long run, right? If you can't agree to this, my next question that'd follow is why can't you do as you preach? How is it different than discouraging others from speaking up, in order to create a better tomorrow?
> (4) Block people who violate the TOS, report them to the moderators, and move on with your life.
Blocking and reporting needs to be done. That's one way of dealing with it. The OP encouraged it too. However, if you can address the root cause as well, why won't you? Or are you convinced and feel hopeless that it's just a waste of energy? What rationale do you have to back this up? That social movements or speaking up doesn't help, or bring more bad than good? Any arguments or research done that could back up this claim?
> (5) Seek no glory for engaging in "courageous conversations"
Assumptions again. Can you specify where the OP implied that? If you can't, kindly don't assume.
@Jade-1 said in #478:
> Consider the fact there is no evidence that DEI training resolves any issues, but there is plenty of evidence to show that it actually harms DEI efforts.
Irrelevant misrepresentation and a red herring. This is not DEI and this is not mandatory or forced either. If you disagree, you need to clearly explain why.
> How can proponents of this social movement (stopping harassment in the chess world) will not face similar unattended consequences? Is there any evidence these blog posts and comments are improving social relations? Is it possible, and worth strongly considering, it can actually make them worse?
Sure, they would. They already did, as this thread is evident. Now let me ask you. How are the ones who are opposing this by telling others to toughen up, block and report, and ignore it bringing positive consequences? Also, how are they not bringing negative side effects by advocating this? For instance, someone who harasses might read their arguments and think it is okay to harass people. Or it's not okay, but it's no big deal either, since people should toughen up (shifting responsibility) and they can always block and report, so all's good! If you consider all these side effects, what's the logical argument that not speaking up will bring more good than bad?
@Jade-1 said in #485:
> This social movement is no different than the DEI social movements.
>
> Both produce unintended consequences
@TurtleMat gives good advice in #350. I forgot the name of this fallacy, but it's like saying cars are no different than lighting strikes since both produce noise. And seriously, can you tell me something that does not produce unintended consequences? Welcome to life, because that's everywhere.
I think I repeated some of the points already made by @TurtleMat above. I only saw them after posting myself just to clarify.
I've been following this discussion for a while now and have come to the following: some men are afraid of strong, self-confident women with sense. And now they are trying, under the protection of anonymity, to put women in their place or to exercise power over them. Many of these perpetrators are no older than 10 and go wild unchecked on this site. My advice: don't give him any attention! Ignore them, and in stubborn cases block them.
I commend @QueenRosieMary for taking the time to produce a well-written summary of the current situation for many women and girls in chess. It is not the first, best or, sadly, the last such blog but well worth reading. It is with some trepidation that I enter the fray but I will attempt to bring the discussion back to the main subject. In particular, I want to address some of the questions that were asked of men in the blog.
I would first say I welcomed the acknowledgement that the vast majority of men are: "are lovely, fantastic individuals. They are polite, respectful, friendly ... ". And also that males also suffer and that some women are also perpetrators. This is self-evident but it bears stating to avoid unnecessary and irrelevant criticism.
There are two questions asked of men ('guys'):
Q1 How aware were you before reading this of the issue?
Q2 How do you think you can make a difference?
Q1 Awareness
I started playing seriously a year or so ago and was shocked to realise that this was an issue in the 21st century. I dismissed it the first few times I heard about it as perhaps being not so widespread and/or serious.
The more I heard and read about the more I came to realise how prevalent it was. My awareness was helped by listening to chess podcasts and Jennifer Shahade got my attention. I read her book and the full realisation set in.
In all candour, I was surprised by how the book focussed on real fleshed-out stories and looked to the future to identify solutions. This was not the male-bashing I had expected but a well-articulated and reasoned account.
Q2 How do you think you can make a difference.
For me, I attempt to call out issues when I see them. Unfortunately, this is not always easy and I frequently opt out for fear of backlash and trolling. I can do better.
I also read blogs (such as this one) with an open, yet critical, mind to try and get an understanding of the big picture and use this to inform my decisions and comments.
I note the blog refers to the Women In Chess foundation and in particular their advocacy program. https://www.womeninchess.com/advocacy-initiative. I intend to watch this with interest in the hope that I can learn how best to make women and girls welcome in this male-dominated environment.
This can be particularly difficult when, even in the blog it states that she has "encountered male users who seem to persistently seek out both adult and underaged female users to encourage them to join their teams.". When does "you're welcome to join my team" turn from being welcoming and inclusive into something undesirable?
Similarly, I will seek guidance on how best to make women and girls feel welcome and comfortable in OTB tournaments. How to say "Hi, you're welcome here. I hope everything is OK" without this, by its very nature, treating the person as an outlier? Or, is it better (my current position) to ignore it altogether, shake their hand and say GG seemingly uncaring about any difficulties they may be facing. Again, the advocacy program may help with this.
I am just an older guy trying to a better chess player and a better human being.