Ladies v Women

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Paul McKeown
Posts: 3514
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: Ladies v Women

Post by Paul McKeown » Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:07 pm

Jonathan Rogers wrote:As Paul says, the ECF speaks only of the wishes of the Eagle sisters. The suggestion is that the ECF should quite naturally jump at the opportunity to satisfy any request by anyone who has acquired the title of minister. But there is no suggestion at all that any extra funding will come our way on account of this, and it is clear that the ministers in question will not be in power this time next year and quite possibly never again at all.
And for the Eagle sisters it is merely slogan politics to satisfy their political hinterland.

And, as you say, they are very unlikely ever to achieve bottle-washing ministerial rank again, so why should the ECF tickle their chins?

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 8409
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Ladies v Women

Post by JustinHorton » Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:10 pm

Simon Spivack wrote: Jonathan has been active as an organiser over a number of years, as well as being a FIDE master
I have to say I don't see how either of these is relevant to the subject: why would you think otherwise?
Simon Spivack wrote:You are perfectly entitled to your bizarre views of individuals such as Mrs Dromey and Mrs Hodge. I don't believe Mrs Hodge's behaviour as leader of Islington Council when it came to children's care homes is at all defensible, but you may beg to differ
I also have to say that I've expressed no opinion about Ms Hodge's conduct, nor Ms Harman's and indeed I don't recall exprssing any view of them at all (other than satirising Paul McKeown's bizarre decision to cite them in his postings. I'm quite sure you're well aware of this. I am less sure that the invitation to differ that you offer is in admirable taste.
Last edited by JustinHorton on Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 8409
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Ladies v Women

Post by JustinHorton » Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:25 pm

Jonathan Rogers wrote:No one of this forum would object; for some reason I think that Justin has misunderstood this.
No, I don't think I have. Not least because I don't believe it. Some of the views expressed about the change have been pretty grim and shocking, as has some of the vehemence with which they have been expressed. There's something pretty mad going on when a minor and reasonable title change can bring forth responses like these. This is about Nazi death camps? About Patricia Hewitt, Harriet Harman and Margaret Hodge? Really? All because a couple of politicians with a longstanding interest in chess and history of support for the game suggest it might be a good idea to bring ourselves into the late twentieth century?

As I say, I don't believe it. When people respond like they have here, there's something else going on in their heads, and I don't think it's either something nice, or something which gives an attractive image of chess.

Tomorrow's S&B, Simon will be pleased to hear, has been run through a spellchecker.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3514
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: Ladies v Women

Post by Paul McKeown » Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:48 pm

JustinHorton wrote:This is about Nazi death camps?
Rob Thompson wrote:I call Godwin's law on this discussion
Rob, I think we're getting close to Godwin's Event Horizon here!

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3514
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: Ladies v Women

Post by Paul McKeown » Thu Jul 23, 2009 8:00 pm

JustinHorton wrote:Some of the views expressed about the change have been pretty grim and shocking, as has some of the vehemence with which they have been expressed.
Which views are grim, then? Lay it out, else retract.
JustinHorton wrote:As I say, I don't believe it. When people respond like they have here, there's something else going on in their heads, and I don't think it's either something nice,
What else is going on in their heads?
And what is not nice?
a) you don't know what is going on in someone else's head
b) that sound's rather close to an accusation
c) if you have something to say, spit it out
d) if you don't, then you shouldn't snear, snide or impute

Everyone else on this thread seems to be of one mind:
a) we don't think politicians should push chess players around or manipulate them for ideological plaudits
b) chess administrators shouldn't lapdog with politicians
c) it is up to women that actually play chess to decide what to do about women's chess; no one else

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 4166
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Ladies v Women

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Thu Jul 23, 2009 8:05 pm

Paul McKeown wrote: Everyone else on this thread seems to be of one mind
Uh, one of the first posts on the thread was mine, and I was in favour of the rebranding. And I don't think Rob has committed himself to one side or the other yet.

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 4146
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Ladies v Women

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Thu Jul 23, 2009 8:07 pm

Justin, it may have been better if I had not mentioned Ms Eagle's work in the Ministry of Justice. It is true that they are not the same. At least the proposal to change the name of the British ladies' title is unobjectionable and harmless, even if there is no particular evidence that current female chess players much care.

Still, you are the only one to have seen the run of this thread as in any way shocking. I think it is quite clear that the original objection was not so much the irreverent political agenda of the Eagle sisters (though I did say that it would be nice if powerful people could do something more constructive for the game - you are not going to argue with that?) but rather the instinctive reaction of the ECF to say "ah well, so be it"!

(I wrote this before seeing Paul's latest post, which says much the same, only better. Still I've written my post now and will submit it!)

User avatar
Rob Thompson
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: Behind you

Re: Ladies v Women

Post by Rob Thompson » Thu Jul 23, 2009 8:19 pm

I'm not going to commit myself one way or the other, because being neither a lady, a politician, or anyone vaguely connected to this, i really don't care. It all seems rather inconsequential and pointless. It could be either Women or Ladies, it won't effect me. The only reason i joined this was to invoke Godwin's law, which it seems only Paul has reacted to in any way, shape or form.
True glory lies in doing what deserves to be written; in writing what deserves to be read.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3514
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: Ladies v Women

Post by Paul McKeown » Thu Jul 23, 2009 8:52 pm

Yes, perhaps we could have kept the political out of it, but ideologues of the left and the right get my goat, as does cynical political grandstanding for a cheap headline.

I stand by the main plank: it is up women chess players to decide on these things and they alone.

Further discussion seems fruitless.

[And taking the discussion btw to a more amenable forum would be a breach of trust with this one - if the reference to the Streatham blog is such a veiled threat].

Done.

Paul Buswell
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:56 pm

Re: Ladies v Women

Post by Paul Buswell » Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:17 pm

Paul McKeown wrote:
JustinHorton wrote:
Paul McKeown wrote: I think the resentment, as Alex and Jonathan have both made clear, stems from the fact that Maria Eagle is not a chess player, but permits herself, nevertheless, to meddle in its affairs, presumably purporting to know what is good for it better than those actually involved in it.
As far as I am aware she has been involved in chess affairs for a number of years, an involvement that has not been previously resented.
Consulting the grading list, the last mention I can find of an "ME Eagle" is 1994. I assume that is the lady in question, there are no other plausible candidates.

So, not a chess player, then.
More of a chess player once than I ever will be: without a Year Book to check my recollection is that one or both were British Girls' Champions in the late 70s and one or both played for England Girls in the Faber Cup.

I disagree with what they are reported as suggesting, but I certainly think they have a standing in chess.

PB

Simon Brown
Posts: 749
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Sevenoaks, Kent, if not in Costa Calida, Spain

Re: Ladies v Women

Post by Simon Brown » Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:53 pm

Spot on Paul, as usual.

The Eagles were very active in the 70s and 80s and both were good players. Very good, actually - they could have been Ladies' or Woman's champions if they had wanted to be. If they have decided that another life is better for them, who can blame them?

Maria is still a force for good for us, Angela a little more remote. Don't knock them.

Simon Brown - having played both of them in the 70s and struggled to win. And I'm 2325 inactive since 1995.

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 3648
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Ladies v Women

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:06 am

Yes, the statement that Angela and Maria "aren't chess players" because they happen to have been inactive for a while was maybe the most startling thing about this (generally rather shocking) thread :(

Did a certain R J Fischer stop being a chess player post 1972? Or indeed did this forum's esteemed poster L W Barden?

The Eagle sisters both remain keenly interested in the game it would seem, and I would have thought that a perfectly good thing. To bring up certain other female Labour politicians to smear them is pretty disreputable - to quote that Niemoller poem can only be described as utterly deranged :roll:
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19349
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Ladies v Women

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:31 am

Stewart Reuben's original piece was at http://www.britishchess09.com/leading_entrants_09.htm.

In the context of this being short portraits of leading players in the championship, the comment about the retitling was almost a throwaway remark. My guess is that it was Stewart who decided on the retitling and he was just alluding to private remarks that the Eagles may have made to him at various times.

I don't really think the topic justifies the lengthy (mostly Horton) rants both here and in the Streatham blog.

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 4146
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Ladies v Women

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:37 am

Fine, fine (oh, is Justin ranting about this elsewhere now?). I said that if the original criticism is misplaced, it is because the ECF explained itself badly. That may well be the case. Roger's suggestion above certainly sounds plausible.

I myself never doubted Maria's chess credentials or interests. My comment was limited to (what the ECF reported to be) her apparent obsession with the women's titles. I suspect that we all agree that the priorities of the EWCA are likely to lie elsewhere. And my main criticism was aimed at the ECF itself.

This is one of those occasions where, if people read the original entries rather than some of the later ones when the thread diversified from the original themes, they might calm down a bit.

(I myself probably wrongly mixed things by commenting on some aspects of Ms Eagles work in the MoJ but I am in the company of many others including the former Lord Chief Justice and most of the criminal bar; consider it a cry of anguish if you will ...)

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19349
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Ladies v Women

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:52 am

Jonathan Rogers wrote:(oh, is Justin ranting about this elsewhere now?)
http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.com/

There's not much point replying there as he's the webmaster. If I did reply, I might comment that as he lives in Spain, he may not be aware of the general level of hatred that has built up in the UK against politicians in general and female Labour ministers in particular. As another guess, the original poster may not have realised the Eagles had a chess connection and thought it was female government ministers being bossy (again).

Personally I would have preferred the Streatham blog to concentrate on gossip about the Benasque tournament.

Post Reply