Chess Is A Sexist/Misogynist Game Watch

This discussion is closed.
User414413
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#81
Report 9 years ago
#81
(Original post by Naffy)
There's nothing wrong with polygamy..get a life
There also nothing wrong with polyandry... get a life.
0
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#82
Report 9 years ago
#82
If it were the other way round - that the King was the most powerful piece on the board and the Queen was the one who needed protecting - you'd still be saying the game was misogynistic by implying that women can't take care of themselves and that men are much more powerful than them. Both have advantages and disadvantages, but people always focus on mens' advantages and womens' disadvantages, in order to call sexism.
0
The Cornerstone
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#83
Report 9 years ago
#83
You succeeded in queening 3 pawns in one game :lolwut: who were you playing against a baby?
0
Unknown?
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#84
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#84
(Original post by tazarooni89)
If it were the other way round - that the King was the most powerful piece on the board and the Queen was the one who needed protecting - you'd still be saying the game was misogynistic by implying that women can't take care of themselves and that men are much more powerful than them. Both have advantages and disadvantages, but people always focus on mens' advantages and womens' disadvantages, in order to call sexism.
I didn't base discussion on the strength of the pieces but that the piece called the "queen" can be on the board more than once at the same time whereas in a standard chess match you can only have one king. This sort of implies that the king is married to multiple queens/women where the sexism comes in which I was talking about.
0
Unknown?
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#85
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#85
(Original post by The Cornerstone)
You succeeded in queening 3 pawns in one game :lolwut: who were you playing against a baby?
No I queened 2 and still had my orginal queen.
0
The Cornerstone
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#86
Report 9 years ago
#86
(Original post by Unknown?)
No I queened 2 and still had my orginal queen.
Still it's quite challenging to do one, you have to take out most of the powerful pieces to succeed.
0
Libtolu
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#87
Report 9 years ago
#87
I just wasted seconds of my life reading this, i didn't even get a laugh out of the stupidity of this troll.

Mr troll please try harder.
0
Unknown?
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#88
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#88
(Original post by The Cornerstone)
Still it's quite challenging to do one, you have to take out most of the powerful pieces to succeed.
Well it was near the end of the game and there were few pieces left on the board. I had taken all of the oponent's pieces except for his king and just had my queen and a few pawns left over so I protected them with my queen and moved them to the end of the board to queen them.
0
CLK-GTR
Badges: 0
#89
Report 9 years ago
#89
I'm liking the OP's pattern of thought. Even though your over-thinking this, the points you make are actually supported by decent enough evidence. If there were an interesting discussion of the day, you might have actually got something for this.
0
Racheld25
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#90
Report 9 years ago
#90
Thought way too deep into this.
Its a game....
0
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#91
Report 9 years ago
#91
(Original post by Unknown?)
I didn't base discussion on the strength of the pieces but that the piece called the "queen" can be on the board more than once at the same time whereas in a standard chess match you can only have one king. This sort of implies that the king is married to multiple queens/women where the sexism comes in which I was talking about.
Maybe that is what you were talking about - however, I think that if the roles were reversed, if the King and Queen swapped places, one might still make a case that the game is misogynistic, based on the strength of the pieces.

The point being that, both genders are in a position where it might be suggested that the game is discriminatory against them. But people choose to focus on misogyny rather than misandry. You can potentially interpret the game as sexist against either gender, but choose to interpret it as sexist against women rather than men.
0
Simplicity
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#92
Report 9 years ago
#92
Its not sexist, but it is racist. Whites get the first move, what sort of racist crap is this, did the BNP invent the game or something.

P.S. Saying that black player always has to struggle to achieve equality.
0
Sophisticated Aesthete
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#93
Report 9 years ago
#93
(Original post by Unknown?)
It could be but the queen has to protect the king and has to do all of the man's work.
'All of the man's work'? Now you are being sexist. It's simple as this: The Queen's a bisexual polygamist. The chess board is a matriarchal world. She is in charge, not the King. (Isn't it always like that with kings and queens, though?)

Oh, and apparently the colours used to be red and white, not black and white, which would mean it's not racist.

Nice attempt though. There's some potential for a Freudian analysis as well – go on.
0
Jrumsey
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#94
Report 9 years ago
#94
(Original post by Simplicity)
Its not sexist, but it is racist. Whites get the first move, what sort of racist crap is this, did the BNP invent the game or something.

P.S. Saying that black player always has to struggle to achieve equality.
never thought about that but in Draughts blacks go first, so you could then say that to compensate for being discriminated against in chess instead of equalising it they put more effort into empowering the minority groups and then the balance of power shifts ...
0
JPMcGrath
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#95
Report 2 years ago
#95
Yes, it is true that you can promote pawns to queens multiple times, but that does not mean it ever happens, at least in games beyond the 10-year-old level. In any serious game, when a player manages to get into a position where he threatens to promote a pawn, his opponent would resign.

That said, this idea that the game is racist or sexist is just plain idiocy. What do you want? A nice diverse set of colors for each side, and every piece with the same capability? Grow up, or play a different game! Try Candyland.
0
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#96
Report 2 years ago
#96
2010 called. It wants its thread back.
2
PRINOVA
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#97
Report 3 days ago
#97
according to Indian literature (where chess actually started) its not queen its vajeer(वजीर) which meant someone who can run the kingdom when king is not available, simply right hand of king...... but you'll again say that it's still sexist cause there are no female, then listen closely ma'am there aren't any men eighther, chess or shatranj(शतरंज) never defined gender of any pawn😑😑
1
z-hog
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#98
Report 3 days ago
#98
One thing is for sure, it's impossible to justify separate leagues for men and women in our time. Not that I'm aware of a clamour for it among female chess players but to be consistent with modern feminist and egalitarian values... they should all compete together, shouldn't they?

Whether that would leave women better off is impossible to tell at this stage, how many would make it to the top 10 or 20 players in the world? How would that affect prize money, do they perhaps see more of it with a league of their own? We should try it, for the sake of genuine equality.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice now or on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (122)
19.55%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (58)
9.29%
No I am happy with my course choice (352)
56.41%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (92)
14.74%

Watched Threads

View All