Not sure if this was already posted.

The article describes the referenced court case, and the artist’s views and intentions.

Personally, I both loved and hated the idea at first. The more I think about it, the more I find it valuable in some way.

  • solo@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Personally, I both loved and hated the idea at first. The more I think about it, the more I find it valuable in some way.

    Thanks you for saying so and spending time thinking about this. The way I see things, the point here is to take a glance at how systemic sexism works through an art exhibit. That is, if you dare.

    Other examples that would illustrate what I mean in relation to systemic sexism, would be:

    • It is not sexism if a dude is not allowed in a lesbian bar. They are a minority group, and just want to do their thing.
    • It is sexism when a woman is refused to apply for a grandmaster chess tournament because of tradition/culture/etc. We live in a world that women are still not allowed participate in these tournaments.

    [edit: the strikethrough, cause apparently it’s not the case. There are women tournaments (only for women) and open ones (open to all). I think the example still stands, as an illustration to what I meant]

    • Maalus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      Women aren’t barred from joining chess tournaments. They have their own tournaments where men are not allowed. They don’t join “grandmaster level tournaments” whatever that means because they don’t have a high enough rating to compete. Reasons for this are complicated and largely unknown, with the main possible reason being they probably get less support worldwide for pursuing chess. Also there are titles that require less ELO points to qualify for, made for women, like “woman master”.

      • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Why are men and women playing chess in different leagues? Chess isn’t atheltic, nobody is going to have an advantage over another player because of gender or sex.

        • Luvs2Spuj@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          7 months ago

          Historic systemic sexism means women are under represented in the game. Different leagues aim to bring more women and girls into play because for example, a young girl can see women playing and want to get involved. It is much less likely if all they see is a boy’s club.

          Anyone can enter the ‘mens’ league, so whenever a woman is good enough to complete they can (and do).

        • RedFox@infosec.pubOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          Agreed. I’m not a chess player, but I view it as an intellectual sport or challenge. There’s no reason not to eliminate all gender specific separation IMO.

          I think it’s fun to see people in competition and achievements where we don’t have to care about the person’s physical attributes.

        • Maalus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          7 months ago

          Because historically it’s been shown that they are weaker players. At the top, the grandmaster title, only 41 women have it, out of like 2000 overall titles. So they created the women’s tournaments to encourage more of them to play chess. There are only two types of tournaments, open, where everyone can play, and women’s only, where only women play. A lot of female players play opens as well as women’s

          • JoBo@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Because historically it’s been shown that they are weaker players they were excluded, creating the illusion that they were weaker players

            • Maalus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              They weren’t excluded. Since early 1900 they played chess in chess clubs. Since 1920s women competed in high level tournaments. There isn’t many women in chess, so the chances of a higher rated player are lower amongst women. It doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen, or that women are weaker players. There is simply less of them.

          • Luvs2Spuj@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            The fact that there are only 41, is due to under representation not ability. That under representation is cause by many factors, including ignorant and damaging comments such as yours. You should be ashamed.

            In our life time it is entirely possible to see a female world champion and even the removal of the WGM (and other W titles) due to progress in repairing the damage caused by sexism.

            • Maalus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              I said in other posts, that women aren’t worse at chess - there is less of them, so higher ranked players aren’t as common. But keep your outrage.

      • solo@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Reasons for this are complicated and largely unknown

        Really?
        Well, systemic sexism is complicated, no doubt. You have to decide tho. Complicated or unknown? Cause it can’t be both.

        • Maalus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          It absolutely can be both. You don’t know that sexism in chess makes it so no women play chess at all. It is a factor, but you don’t know its impact.

    • RedFox@infosec.pubOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      When I first read it, the thought that came to mind was how stupid it is in this age to do anything that is restricted by gender when the rest of the world is trying to eliminate that.

      Once I read the part about the feelings, emotion, and experience the restriction brought was the actual art and not just the paintings, that’s when I thought it was clever. The definition of art seems to be ambiguous now, but I understand what she’s trying to to do and it’s still a clever in that it illicits an effect whether you wanted to visit the museum or not.

      I think people say they understand or empathize, but don’t really know what it means in a specific context until they experience it IMO.