SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Free Malaysia Today reports
At the [Malaysian] National Scholastic Chess Championship 2017, which took place in Putrajaya recently, the girl was informed that what she wore was "improper and had violated the dress code" for the tournament.
[...] The girl's chess coach, Kaushal Khandhar, wrote on Facebook, "In the middle of Round 2, (without stopping the clocks) Chief Arbiter informs my student that the dress she wore was improper and violated the dress code of the tournament.
"It was later informed (by Chief Arbiter) to my student and her mother, that the Tournament Director deemed my student's dress to be 'seductive' and a 'temptation from a certain angle far, far away'."
[...] Kaushal said after discussions with the chief arbiter, the girl was allowed to compete, provided she bought a pair of slacks for the next day, but that decision came at 10pm and with the event at Putrajaya, there was no way the girl's mother could buy anything for the 9am start the next day.
"Before the morning round next day, my student's mother called the tournament director regarding this matter. Initially he had replied that he was not aware of the situation but after a brief discussion, we realised he knew all the details on this incident prior to this phone call.
"He promised to return the call upon discussion with the chief arbiter, but this did not happen. He would further not answer or return any calls by my student's mother", Kaushal wrote, adding that the situation led to the inevitable decision of withdrawal from the tournament altogether."
We should perhaps note here that Malaysia is majority-Muslim.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday May 01 2017, @05:18PM (6 children)
If you read the article it is even worse.
That dress with tights under it would be suitable attire for a young lady to meet the frickin' Pope. In 500AD. But in $current_year it is apparently considered 'immodest' in even, well until recently, 'advanced' Muslim majority countries.
All cultures are not equal, they are not equally valuable. Some are downright dangerous to everyone, including their own people.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @05:53PM (1 child)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/26/us/united-airlines-leggings.html [nytimes.com]
You were saying?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @09:41PM
Boys too!
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/mar/01/grayson-bowell-boy-loses-tenpin-bowling-title-jeans-canada [theguardian.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @07:26PM
That dress with tights under it would be suitable attire for a young lady to meet the frickin' Pope. In 500AD.
Sorry jmorris, this kind of exaggeration only works when you're saying you're not a racist because you're ok with people who have improbable skin colors including purple spots and Martians.
That dress would certainly not be appropriate in any kind of polite company ANYWHERE in the West prior to the 20th century.
You demonstrate once again you are a fucking idiot with his head up his ass. All you know is you hate Moooooooslims because they're not "progressivist" enough, but you hate "progressivists" because they're not Moooooslim enough.
No, what it comes down is that your way of life is the One Right Way That It's Always Been (and we've always been at war with Eastasia), and you are so fucking insulated and so fucking provincial that you have no fucking clue what your OWN PEOPLE were like more than a century ago!
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday May 01 2017, @10:22PM (2 children)
That dress with tights under it would be suitable attire for a young lady to meet the frickin' Pope. In 500AD.
The photo doesn't appear to show tights, or if they are tights, they are basically skin-colored and resemble pantyhose. As someone who has been to the Vatican many times, I can guarantee you that a girl will not get in looking like she does in the photo. Dark tights? Probably -- depends on the guard, the length of the skirt/dress, and the age of the girl. (Little girls frequently get in with tights on.)
Bare knees and bare shoulders (even ones that "appear" bare) are a definite no-no even today at the Vatican. Oh, and BTW, this has nothing to do with gender -- men are also routinely turned away at the Vatican for wearing shorts or sleeveless shirts.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday May 01 2017, @10:34PM (1 child)
Actually, on second thought, they might let her in. Technically, everyone is supposed to have their knees covered to get into the Vatican. But now that I think about it, how picky the guards are about roughly knee-length stuff seems to vary. Hot days you often got tourists wearing next to nothing, and they'd be summarily rejected, but a lot of folks wearing skirts/shorts that roughly got down the knee area might get in. (I think they just got tired to ejecting people from the line.)
She might get away with it -- but if she were asking for advice, I'd personally advise her to wear something longer or bring a "wrap" to wear around her legs, or she could be rejected.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @08:39AM
Don't the priests prefer young boys instead of young girls? ;)
That said, should probably still be vigilant to keep your children safe from those pedophile priests.
By the way, I heard it was common for families to send off their sons to priesthood if they appeared to be "less interested" in women etc... That's what some Italian guy told me anyway.