|
I've heard variations on your arguments a few times, and while they seem reasonable on their face, it's frankly just a variation of "concern trolling." 1.) It's a huge reach to say that having foreign women participate in this tournament will have any impact whatsoever on Saudi Arabian women. Saudi Arabians have TV, they have twitter, they know what chess is. Frankly, the only people who actually care enough to watch a chess tournament are people who already understand chess. Also, "challenge the regime"? Come on, refusing to comply as a women in KSA just gets you arrested or killed. 2.)> "One player said that such pitiful prize compensation as in the past is no less oppressive than having to wear a hijab.". That's a terrible analogy. It's not just wearing a hijab that's the cost. It's actually putting yourself at the mercy of a nation which has encoded sexism into it's national laws and identity. It's knowing that if something bad happens, your word is worth less than a man's in a court of law. It's knowing that your movements are at someone elses mercy because of your chromosomes. It's about knowing that by going there and spending money, you are legitimizing the archaic, systematic oppression that treats half of all people as less human than others. 3. It would be great if more people spoke up for human rights that don't affect them, but you have to pick your battles sometimes. Women have the right to advocate for themselves before everyone else. It's hypocritical to fault a woman for calling out sexism but not other human rights abuses, if you wont fault men who call out neither. And sexism in China is hardly comparable to that of the KSA. In short, I think she made the right call. As a woman, I would never willingly put myself at the mercy of a state that doesn't even pretend that I'm a full human being of equal worth to men. KSA is way out of the norm on this matter and need to change their laws if they expect western women to travel there. |
Also, it is not a huge reach to say that it will have any impact whatsoever. Knowing what chess is and actually seeing / meeting a female world chess champion are different and most people realize that.
Furthermore, yes, activists in nearly every oppressive regime are jailed or killed. Mandela was jailed. MLK Jr. was jailed. Manal al-Sharif, a women's rights activist in Saudi Arabia, was jailed. All of them were jailed under existant laws in the country at the time of arrest. But the fact that countries jail outspoken activists isn't reason enough to boycott an international event, else you'd be able to go nowhere.
As someone else mentioned, there is a fine line between boycotting and attending international events in controversial settings. On the one hand, you have a chance to further international understanding, show citizens what other cultures and people are like, and influence the country which is hosting you. On the other hand, you may be legitimizing oppression. Jesse Owens ran in the Olympics hosted in Nazi Germany. If he had boycotted, perhaps some would have agreed and others disagreed. Similarly here, some women agree with the decision and some disagree. You and the chess champion in the headline, as women, would boycott. These women, as women, would not. Both have some valid reasons.