response to "August Chess Life -- more sordid objectification of
women"
2004-08-03
message 1 of thread
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...g.goog le.com

Greetings,

Some women are more beautiful than are other women - this is a fact
which has to be faced. Attempting to deny that fact, by way of
rhetorical declamations, does not dispute the nearly limitless
evidence in support of it: Hollywood starlets of all decades, Laetitia
Casta's modelling income, and so forth. The imputation that those who
admit this fact and behave (or write) accordingly are immoral, is
equivalent to the imputation that it is immoral to seek and publish
the truth. I am glad that even in this day and age, there are men
such as Kalev Pahme who can describe things as they a one may, of
course, disagree with his description, but that does not make the
description immoral. You are applying an argument useful, perhaps,
against publishers of cigarette advertisements: looking at photos of
pretty women, unfortunately for your position, can not cause cancer,
and nor can the sometimes associative activities cause imbecility as
was alleged in some quarters.

Nowhere in the article does Pahme state the view which you have
imputed, that he "value(s) chessplaying women for their looks as much
as their play." Even if he had, I fail to see how the publication of
that view will bring women to harm. Surely most readers of chesslife,
who have sufficient intellect to perceive the timeless beauty and
rationality of the Ruy Lopez, can make the intellectual distinction
between when a woman is the subject of harm, and when a woman is the
subject of admiration. And, naturally, of course, if a woman is 2900
on the looks scale, and a mere 2200-2400 on the rating scale, one must
assign value proportionately.

Having dispensed with the question of immorality, it is also important
to answer your accusation of irrelevance. For instance, how is it
that the photograph of a chessplayer can be irrelevant to chess, in a
chess periodical which is free to publish both text and images related
to chess? Or, in regard to the text, why shouldn't sassiness on the
part of chessplayers be encouraged?

Rather than conlude that Pahme's article represents "a disgraceful
editor's obsession with women as objects of desire", I prefer to
conclude that in so far as women are desired, they are subjects of
(or, the subjects of) desire - not objects. The object of desire is
the man who is engaged in the process of desiring. Pahme is only
subjecting women to admiration, not to harm - quite a different tack
from that of your own, as your admiration for women, and the
willingness to publish thereof, is by no means complete or certain.
It is you, The Masked Bishop, who wishes to subjugate women, as you
wish to restrict the freedom with which they may be admired and
supported - you wish to keep them in their places, by not letting
anyone encourage them to be sassy, or willful. You want to remove
their pride in their looks, and humiliate them. You don't want a
woman to be her own boss.

The Masked Bishop wrote: "It's a terrible, deadening, and sexist
messaged to send to our young people...while you explain to your
female chessplaying students and [your] daughters that according to
the USCF, sassy looks do matter." How a woman looks, and how she
presents herself and carries herself, DOES matter, and the USCF should
not engage - as The Masked Bishop suggests - in an effort, by either
omission or comission, to deceive its readers. Women, and girls,
should be encouraged to be healthy and self-confident. As more and
more women become involved in chess, the USCF should not hesitate to
draw attention to the both their success and beauty where these are
present. The young like to be admired for these things, and
expressing this admiration enhances their tendencies towards
self-confidence and self-reliance, and their will to accomplish great
things. Or, shall we have the ancient charge of corrupting the young,
and not honouring the gods, to be levelled against Pahme? And, like
Socrates, will Pahme nobly drink the hemlock, rather then become
intellectually dishonest?

A rose by any other name, is still a rose.


Regards,
Victoria Snyde

Victoria, show us your tits.

nor can the sometimes associative activities cause imbecility as
was alleged in some quarters.

Well, THAT'S a relief. All those months reading Chess Life with one hand, I
was getting worried....

she will do that if you show your manhood

"The Masked Bishop" wrote in message
news
Victoria, show us your tits.

A rose by any other name, is still a rose.


Regards,
Victoria Snyde







And would smell as sweet! You clear thinking and accessment of TMB rates an
AOL me too award.

"The Masked Bishop" wrote in message
news
Victoria, show us your tits.

You are incorrigible.

"The Masked Bishop" wrote in message
news
Victoria, show us your tits.

Wow. You're an asshole.

Regards,

Matt

Victoria Snyde wrote:

Attempting to deny that fact, by way of
rhetorical declamations, does not dispute the nearly limitless
evidence in support of it

Of course it does, though perhaps not successfully.

I am glad that even in this day and age, there are men
such as Kalev Pahme who can describe things as they a one may, of
course, disagree with his description, but that does not make the
description immoral.

It does not "make" the description anything, but it might indicate that it does not actually describe things "as they are".


I prefer to conclude that in so far as women are desired, they are subjects of
(or, the subjects of) desire - not objects. The object of desire is
the man who is engaged in the process of desiring.

Wrong. Back to school.


A rose by any other name, is still a rose.


Beautiful. Isn't that Gertrude Shakespeare?


All the best,
Lon

Lon Chaney wrote in message ...
Victoria Snyde wrote:

Attempting to deny that fact, by way of
rhetorical declamations, does not dispute the nearly limitless
evidence in support of it

Of course it does, though perhaps not successfully.

Rhetoric is a form of flattery. Nature always has the final word.

I prefer to conclude that in so far as women are desired, they are subjects of
(or, the subjects of) desire - not objects. The object of desire is
the man who is engaged in the process of desiring.

Wrong. Back to school.

Read your Kant, or take some graduate courses in philosophy.


A rose by any other name, is still a rose.


Beautiful. Isn't that Gertrude Shakespeare?

From fairest creatures we desire increase,
That thereby beauty's rose shall never die.

That's Shakespeare.


Victoria Snyde

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message news:uNWQc.239033$JR4.222527@attbi_s54...
"The Masked Bishop" wrote in message
news
Victoria, show us your tits.

Wow. You're an asshole.

Regards,

Matt

Thanks. The publicity which Chess Life has given to Jennifer Shahade,
in the August 2004 issue, is very beneficial. People are increasingly
out of form these days, especially in the US. I have kept an eye on
Jennifer Shahade for several years, and would hate for her to go the
way most young American women do in there mid to late twenties - if
not sooner. It is important for the top American female chess symbol
to be in good health, and some public comments to this end are not
without warrant. Of course, part of her beauty was given to her by
the gods. It is risky commit the blashpemy of not adequately and
appropriately expressing acknowledgment of their work, since the
development of one's vision benefits from guidance, as much as from
chance. Pahme deserves our gratitude. Having only Playboy and FHM
(which is really British owned) as the only guide in the US as to what
makes a woman beautiful, results in an excessive monochromaticism of
standards, with the predictable outcome as manifested in The Masked
Bishop's primary post in which some persons will consider that any
allusion to a woman's looks is degrading. To only examine a woman as
a clinical specimen, can be degrading. To look at a woman only in
chess terms, however, can be degrading, too. Jennifer Shahade needs
to be appreciated both as a chess player, and as a woman. Reducing a
person to that person's profession, seems to have become one of our
more unfortunate vices.

Regards,
Victoria Snyde