Alan's answer does not address the first sentence of what he has quoted from me. It would have been better to have excised it.
Alan Walton wrote:
Simon Spivack wrote:She is rather more photogenic: were the grades reversed, I very much doubt that the coverage and commentary would have been significantly different. The opprobrium should mostly be directed at the more culpable of the two allies: probably the father.
Why would you assume the father is more culpable, ...
I have done no such thing.
My premise is that it is likely
that the father is more culpable. I am not asserting, or assuming, that he is. However, if
he is deserving of greater blame, then the attacks should be more directed at him than his daughter. Conversely, should it be established that the daughter is the stronger character, then the blame should primarily head her way.
We do not know whether the two of them came to the same decision at the same time, or one led the other. However, a common assumption is that the parent would take the lead in the situation described, unless the parent is feeble-minded (improbable for someone who plays chess at above 2200 FIDE level) or far older than fifty odd years. Often there is a situation of economic dependency between a child aged twenty and a parent aged fifty. In Germany, as I understand it, it is normal for university education to stretch out for longer than in the UK. Many decisions will effectively be made by the parent on behalf of the young adult.
Alan Walton wrote:... equally culpable as her father ...
If one assumes they are both equally responsible, then why target mainly the girl? One explanation, given in a previous message, which I find utterly unconvincing, is that it is because of her higher grade. The other I have already provided.
The silence is deafening when it comes to my suggestion that this affair doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Why is it worthy of greater vituperativeness than the picaresque shows of certain other individuals?