I would have to agree. Too many mornings I have rolled over and said "Bitch, fix me some goddamn toast" only to recieve an earfull of "1...d5" in reply. Not that I can really complain, her droll sense of humour is what I love about her.
I remember our wedding...
Pastor: Do you, uopen, take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife, to have and to hold, in sickness and in health, till death do you part?
Me: I do
Pastor: And do you, chess, take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband, to have and to hold, in sickness and in health, till death do you part?
chess: 17. Nf6#
> The subject of the book, according to a handful of reviews
> concerns, at least in part, the sexism that runs rampant in
> chess circles, as in society at large, but perhaps it is a little
> worse in chess circles.
I just can't help but chuckle a little when I read stuff like this. Yes, sexism exists, just like racism and a huge list of other isms.
You have to appreciate the irony when one of the oppressed sounds out against said oppression, because the entity they represent is just as good as the oppressor's entity, blah blah blah, and then the oppressed promotes the book at the oppressed only chess tournament because they need their own league to keep from getting slaughtered.
One need only look as far as the recent world championship match to see arguably the best female chess player ever get brutally spanked, and she was the only woman there. She won only one game, and that was against the lowest rated player at the tournament, Kasimdzhanov, and she lost the other game against him. Her overall score was the lowest of all participants, racking up one win, six losses, and seven draws, ending a full point behind her closest opponents.
If women want to be treated equally in chess, they need to participate equally and succeed equally. Having women's only champion titles, women's only tournaments, etc, only underscores the notion, even among women, that they cannot compete with men and need their own sandbox to play in.
When we have a world chess tournament where half the participants are women who got there on their own merit, then, win or lose, they have acheived equality. Until then it is just a bunch of whining.
Recognize I say all this fully knowing at least two things:
1) Plenty of women can kick my ass at chess
2) Plenty of people reading this are going to get all worked up and start labeling me without actually bothering to think about what I wrote because it was so politically incorrect it has to be bigotry or chauvenism.
Originally posted by tippedking🙄
> The subject of the book, according to a handful of reviews
> concerns, at least in part, the sexism that runs rampant in
> chess circles, as in society at large, but perhaps it is a little
> worse in chess circles.
I just can't help but chuckle a little when I read stuff like this. Yes, sexism exists, just like racism and a huge list of other ...[text shortened]... k about what I wrote because it was so politically incorrect it has to be bigotry or chauvenism.
Originally posted by tippedkingYou got to take into account that far less women take an interest in playing chess. Therefore the probability of women being world chess champions are considerably less.
> The subject of the book, according to a handful of reviews
> concerns, at least in part, the sexism that runs rampant in
> chess circles, as in society at large, but perhaps it is a little
> worse in chess circles.
I just can't help but chuckle a little when I read stuff like this. Yes, sexism exists, just like racism and a huge list of other ...[text shortened]... k about what I wrote because it was so politically incorrect it has to be bigotry or chauvenism.
Originally posted by tippedkingI'd say from the above that you clearly did not read the book. Nor have I, but the reviews tell me enough to realize how little your comments speak to the argument you referenced.
You have to appreciate the irony when one of the oppressed sounds out against said oppression, because the entity they represent is just as good as the oppressor's entity, blah blah blah, and then the oppressed promotes the book at the oppressed only chess tournament because they need their own league to keep from getting slaughtered.
Originally posted by tippedkingYou quoted me, and your comments (that part I quoted) resemble an all too familiar rant. That particular rant is further evidence of the problem I attempted to highlight in the post that you quoted.
I was commenting on what I quoted, which was a post by another user here. I have not read the book, nor have I said I did 😉
Part of your post, however, is a considerable percentage of the serious discussion within this thread (for which I am grateful):
Originally posted by tippedking
If women want to be treated equally in chess, they need to participate equally and succeed equally. Having women's only champion titles, women's only tournaments, etc, only underscores the notion, even among women, that they cannot compete with men and need their own sandbox to play in.
As I understand it from the reviews and interviews, your view, as expressed here, compliments the arguments in Susan Polgar's Breaking Through, which speaks to, among other things, the success of her sister Judit in reaching the level of chess skill that permitted her to compete in San Luis. It also seems (again from reviews) that Shahade offers a view a little different from Polgar, although perhaps not so different on this point.
I am ordering both books, so will likely have them read by mid-November. If I'm way off here, I'll say so after I read these books.
As soon as women get the aggresive "kill Kill Kill" Gene born into them like men have, they just wont get into a game where the object is to smash your opponent, and "kill Kill Kill"
This is where men dominate, and thats why chess is mostly a mans game.
Just like most men are'nt into interior design, and hairstyling.
most straight men anyway......
Originally posted by GrandmousterAre you making the case for eliminating war by simply eliminating men ?
As soon as women get the aggresive "kill Kill Kill" Gene born into them like men have, they just wont get into a game where the object is to smash your opponent, and "kill Kill Kill"
This is where men dominate, and thats why chess is mostly a mans game.
Just like most men are'nt into interior design, and hairstyling.
most straight men anyway......
Interesting idea, lol.
That would improve the quality of life for billions of people.
Angela
