Thursday, February 21, 2013

Mailvox: chess and its consequences

Stickwick is having some trouble figuring out how the act of turning a chess set into dolls could possibly ruin chess:
[T]he clue-meter is still reading zero on this one. I don't understand how marrying chess pieces ruins the game of chess any more than I understand how using dolls to mount an assault ruins doll play. How exactly does chess get ruined? There's some abstract concept here that's going over my head. 
There is. The point is not a material one concerning how the game of chess has been forever ruined by a single improper use of the pieces involved.  The point is a metaphorical and illustrative one showing how the little girls' actions tend to demonstrate a total and characteristic lack of interest in, and respect for, a traditional game created by men and predominantly played by men for centuries.  Now, the chess wedding itself would be no problem at all so long as the little girls happen to be content to leave the boys alone with their chess sets in the future... which we have all learned from experience is very unlikely to be the case.

Consider video games.  As nearly as long as I have been involved in some way with the industry, since 1989, there have been complaints that men simply doing what men wish to do are a problem.  For at least some women, men making games for other men to play is a Very Serious Problem.  Oceans of ink have been spilled and numerous organizations have been formed specifically in order to prevent boys from continuing to simply play chess with their chess sets, metaphorically speaking.

What on the one hand is an amusing little anecdote of a little girl turning a chess set into a marriage ceremony has a direct relationship to Congress imposing laws that have resulted in 75 percent of the men's college gymnastics teams to close and reduced the number of men's teams by 17 percent from 1981-2005.

The reason The Sports Guy's mantra, "Women Ruin Everything", rings so true is because it is so easily demonstrated in everything from gymnastics to demographics, from wrestling to war.  We see it in the military standards.  We see it in the NFL's pink shoes.  We see that we are now living in a world where rhythmic gymnastics and synchronized swimming are Olympic sports and wrestling is not.  If it weren't for the unsustainable nature of equalitarianism and the inevitable collapse, another century would likely see the elimination of fencing, track-and-field, and hockey in favor of medals being awarded for flower arrangement, gift-wrapping, and appearing on the most celebrity magazine covers.

The observable fact that Women Ruin Everything is why men of my generation tend to react to female interest in their activities with much the same sort of horror one sees survivors of the Holocaust reserving for former Nazi death camp guards.  We know perfectly well that it isn't going to be long before that first innocent little suggestion for improvement is made....

69 comments:

Houston said...

"We know perfectly well that it isn't going to be long before that first innocent little suggestion for improvement is made...."

This is one of the dominant themes in Pixar's "The Incredibles". The lives of two supermen (Mr. Incredible and Frozone) become boring and miserable when they get married and allow their wives veto power over decisions. Recall the scene where Frozone needs to find his suit (which his wife has deliberately hidden) so he can go out and save the city. His wife yells at him imperiously, "I am your greatest adventure!" She has no concept of what she has ruined in the service of the female imperative.

taterearl said...

Women do ruin everything they get involved with.

Eve had it all...but still wanted to eat forbidden fruit.

A good man whom a woman respects will transform her into the best she can be.

A said...

Not to mention in every history course I ever took half of the girls would do their research papers on women in history, or feminism in countries that aren't already awash in it (like North Korea). Aside from some queens and the anomalies like Joan d'Arc, who the hell cares about what women have accomplished? I mean, even Robert Cecil controlled Elizabeth I, who everyone thinks was a genius monarch.

Anonymous said...

That post deserved a response? Don't feed the trolls....

Stickwick said...

Thank you for following up on this. I made an attempt to understand the abstract concept later in the thread, but I'm not sure it's correct.

I want to understand this better. What follows are actual inquiries, not rhetorical questions or "gotchas."

I get that the girls were showing no respect for the game of chess. Does the misuse of, or lack of respect for, something matter if it doesn't at any time infringe on someone else's ability to use it properly? You've explained that this infringement happens with women all too often, and I'm in complete agreement. So, is the only concern here that girls playing wedding with chess pieces betrays an inherent tendency of females to run roughshod over that which they neither understand nor value? Is this tendency enhanced in girls whenever they're allowed to misuse something?

(Again, what follows are serious questions, no "gotchas.") Would it be valid to say that my nephew shows no respect for whatever function dolls serve when he metaphorically fires his sister's dolls out of a cannon? If yes, does this ruin doll-play? Either way, is it irrelevant, because with boys this sort of thing is not an early manifestation of a tendency to tear down that which they do not understand or value?

rycamor said...

Stickwick...you are trying to read too much into this. Any sane pair of adults will look at the girls doing this and think it is charming and cute. As long as that's as far as it goes, all is cool. VD just said it is metaphorical evidence of a deeper problem. The problem comes with the next step:

A few more boys show up to play chess and a man makes the quite reasonable suggestion "if you're not going to actually play chess with a public set *intended* for chess, let the boys use it." And the girls' mother reads him the riot act and says who is he to define what a chess set is for because that is just a social construct and a tool for the Patriarchy and what the girls are doing is FAR better than the boys playing some ancient war game of strategy and domination. Even that is just kinda cute except when she manages to enlist the aid of a nearby policeman to evict the boys so more girls can play wedding with a chess set.

Again, metaphorical, but this is pretty much what is happening all over the West.

Huggums said...

@Stickwick

No one cares that the girls are using the pieces as dolls. It's pretty cute actually. No one cares that the girls don't have any respect for the actual use of the pieces as a matter of fact. What I and believe other men care about is the fact that it's never enough for women to have and do their own thing. Men have to accommodate the women. It starts out with one or two women joining something that was functioning for years without women's interest or input, and then women start complaining. As a gamer, I'll use Vox's example.

- There aren't enough female protagonists
- The women in the games are unrealistically beautiful and set unrealistic standards (as if every male protagonist isn't one of several idealized male aesthetic categories: hardened, grizzled bodybuilder/war vet, impossibly pretty boy, Captain James T. McBadass, etc)
- Not enough women are playing games so we need to bitch to game developers until they start making games girls wanna play.

None of these women will ever, oh I don't know, go buy a book on programming or study games and make whatever game they want. It's not enough. Men's and boys' fun has to be ruined. I'm black and I can't name a single black video game protagonist off the top of my head. I could bitch about it oooooooooooooor I could shrug my shoulders and keep playing. Or I could put in the effort and develop my own game. There is absolutely nothing getting in my way except my personal choices and responsibilities. Women (as a group) just don't do that. They have to ruin it.

Snoeperd said...

I never understood why sports and colleges are so intertwined in the USA. Here in europe everyone pays for their own sports so you don't have the problem of someone else deciding which sports are important

VD said...

Does the misuse of, or lack of respect for, something matter if it doesn't at any time infringe on someone else's ability to use it properly?

No.

So, is the only concern here that girls playing wedding with chess pieces betrays an inherent tendency of females to run roughshod over that which they neither understand nor value?

There is no "concern" at all. I thought it was a hilarious dagger into the heart of feminist theory. But it also served as a useful illustration of how a problem develops from the female lack of interest in male activities.

Is this tendency enhanced in girls whenever they're allowed to misuse something?

I don't think so. I think the problem is when the boys are told to alter what they are doing in order to accommodate the girls. You know, the girl wants to play football, but she doesn't want to get tackled. So no one can tackle her. That sort of thing is where it starts.

Daniel said...

Stickwick - your questions:

Does the misuse of, or lack of respect for, something matter if it doesn't at any time infringe on someone else's ability to use it properly?

No, technically and yes, practically. Let's leave sex out of it for a minute. A gorilla in the wild comes across someone's mislaid hat. The animal tosses it around, smells it, and tosses it back on the ground. The owner returns to find it, none the wiser. No harm done.

Conversely, if a tree falls in a forest, and no one hears it...;-)

However, one can't disregard the practical matter. The gorilla has been introduced to the hat. The gorilla is very likely to now seek out the hat. Is it, therefore an infringement of the proper use of a hat when the gorilla smells it out and bashes in the owner's hut door?

Wedding chess is the gorilla in the forest ("ruining" the purpose of the hat temporarily and unnoticed). Women ruining chess by preventing the boys from doing anything but abandoning the board to weddings is "gorilla in the hut": a general prediction, based on experience.

One does NOT necessarily lead to the other, but the latter is unlikely to occur without the former. See also girls wrestling at the boys varsity state championships, even though there was formerly a separate girls wrestling division. The invention of girl-on-girl wrestling led to the institution of the idiotic girl-on-boy wrestling at its highest levels.

Is the only concern here that girls playing wedding with chess pieces betrays an inherent tendency of females to run roughshod over that which they neither understand nor value?

I don't know the concerns of others, but it is less a concern than an observation for me. A-ha! There go those innocent, unaware little devils again, socializing to their will.

Would it be valid to say that my nephew shows no respect for whatever function dolls serve when he metaphorically fires his sister's dolls out of a cannon?

Yes.

Daniel said...

If yes, does this ruin doll-play?

Ask any girl! Doll-play fired out of a cannon is doll-play ruined. As long as he doesn't break, burn, strip naked or dismember the dolls, it is ruined in the "gorilla in the wild" sense, but with little potential for the "gorilla in the hut" sense.

Either way, is it irrelevant, because with boys this sort of thing is not an early manifestation of a tendency to tear down that which they do not understand or value?

Irrelevant yes, but not because of the lack of tendency. The chess girls, after all, aren't intentionally devaluing chess, whereas the nephew is intentionally devaluing dolls. Yet the chess girls have far greater potential for "gorilla in the hut."

The reason is simple: boys will occasionally attack girl things, and when they do, they do it on purpose. That purpose could be to get a rise out of their sisters or to demonstrate frustration or just because it is fun to wreck things.

But when they are chopping heads off Barbie, or dousing My Littlest Petshop in gasoline and setting it to light, or seeing if My Little Pony can survive a firecracker suppository, they are doing it with the purpose of ruining the objects or games.

Girls, however, are, at the most rational level of awareness, unwitting destroyers, and far more thorough. Girls unknowingly (at a rational level) take on and transform men things for many reasons: in order to be included, because it "sounds like fun", to socialize, to ensure that men/boys aren't "getting too out of hand" (i.e. "to civilize") or whatever.

So it comes down to intended and unintended consequences. A boy turns barbie into a violent chess piece because he wants to "ruin" barbie. A girl turns violent chess pieces into a wedding soap opera because she wants to reform chess in her image.

The boy ruins by intention. The girl ruins far more unintentionally. Hell's fury is no match for a woman's emotional response, so to speak.

There is a very good illustration of this in A Throne of Bones, by the way, actually several. But I'm thinking of one in particular. If you haven't read it, you may want to track it down - I'm thinking of the bit with (vague - avoiding spoilers) the girl, the guy and the father.

VD said...

Would it be valid to say that my nephew shows no respect for whatever function dolls serve when he metaphorically fires his sister's dolls out of a cannon?

Absolutely. In fact, if you ask him, he'll probably say as much.

If yes, does this ruin doll-play?

Ask his sister....

Either way, is it irrelevant, because with boys this sort of thing is not an early manifestation of a tendency to tear down that which they do not understand or value?

Correct. Normal men either ignore or make fun what they do not understand or value. The idea of joining in not only doesn't occur to them, it horrifies them. This is why we get so angry when women stick their noses into things they don't like. We simply cannot fathom it. Stingray has explained it, but I still find it hard to grasp.

Most men probably can't even tell you what half their wife's interests are. They don't care. They're just glad she likes them and are happy so long as they don't get sucked into them.

Daniel said...

We see that we are now living in a world where rhythmic gymnastics and synchronized swimming are Olympic sports and wrestling is not.

As much as I hate the religious indoctrination of the Olympics, this point nails it to the floor far more effectively than any complaints that Jimmy Savile might have had a ghostly hand in the opening worship ceremonies.

When they take out one of the two sports that began the athletic component of the contests, millennia ago, and people start to wonder if men's track is next, I don't think there's getting around it: under the existing paradigm, the natural social poison of women has been allowed to flow freely.

Martel said...

Another great one is co-ed fraternities. When I was in college one of the houses was told they had to go co-ed by their national. They broke away and were able to stay all-male, but it cost them all kinds of time, hassle, and money.

A year's worth of work not to have to have female brothers.

Tom said...

As to Stickwick's nephew, we've actually tried to teach our 3 yr old boy to treat dolls like pretend babies. So, don't be mean to them, love them, protect them, etc.

Of course the 3yo doesn't translate this to how he deals with his 1yo baby brother. He'll pour water on his head when he's asleep, he'll steal his blanket, he'll wrestle with him, he'll smack him in the head. Good brother sort of stuff.

Daniel said...

A year's worth of work not to have to have female brothers.

And that wasn't a restoration to status quo, in any case. They went from being a part of a national organization of men to a breakaway. Two very different structures.

Women, and the idiot men who included them, broke the local's national fraternal support, even if they were able to win the battle for independence.

Huggums said...

Also, what rycamor said. This isn't a slam against women and girls and how they like to do things. It's just that they need to stop invading male space.

Stickwick said...

rycamor, Huggums, all of that makes sense, and I get it. Nietzsche was right, women are blind and unjust towards that which they, personally, don't love. The gamer analogy is good. (Confession: one reason I occasionally enjoy playing games like Ghost Recon with my husband is that the male characters are idealized. The other is that it's the closest I'll ever get to experiencing an all-male milieu.)

There is no "concern" at all. I thought it was a hilarious dagger into the heart of feminist theory. But it also served as a useful illustration of how a problem develops from the female lack of interest in male activities.

I understand the latter two points, completely. What still confuses me is "they ruined chess." It's a relatively minor point.

Kickass said...

Stickwick, you being female changed the uses of the game pieces to suit you own purposes. It doesn't matter that you didn't play wedding, you played something other then chess.

The boys learn the rules and then set about trying to win within the game construct. Otherwise it wouldn't be winning.

Women attempt to change things to do what they want to at that moment and rules go out the window to do so. Men find out the rules and then use them for their own purposes to win.

Stickwick said...

Okay, never mind that last statement I made. I hadn't read the follow-up comments yet. After all of your explanations, I finally get it. Hallelujah!

Wedding chess is the gorilla in the forest ("ruining" the purpose of the hat temporarily and unnoticed). Women ruining chess by preventing the boys from doing anything but abandoning the board to weddings is "gorilla in the hut": a general prediction, based on experience.

This was an especially helpful analogy.

You guys are great. Thanks.

Jestin Ernest said...

Daniel said...
I don't think there's getting around it: under the existing paradigm, the natural social poison of women has been allowed to flow freely.




and yet, the poison was STILL implemented by MEN.

i can only identify 19 female members sitting on a committee of 105.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_International_Olympic_Committee

face it boys, the rot is deep in Western Civ.

Stickwick said...

Normal men either ignore or make fun what they do not understand or value.

Ask most women, and they'll likely tell you that making fun of something ruins it for them. In woman's world, if you don't have approval for doing something, you shouldn't do it.

Sometimes it goes to the extreme. Not only must you approve of something, but you must celebrate it, in order for a woman to feel like she is allowed to do something. And she'll extend that mandate to cover those for whom she feels sympathy, e.g. homosexuals.

VD said...

Ask most women, and they'll likely tell you that making fun of something ruins it for them. In woman's world, if you don't have approval for doing something, you shouldn't do it.

That is one reason why I don't give even a quantum of a fuck what the average woman thinks about anything. I'm far more concerned about meeting the approval of my late and much-lamented dog.

Denton said...

To paraphase a lot of old timers: Women have ruined Boy Scouting. Introducing moms into the mix have pretty much destroyed it,

So yeah, the Sports Guy maim is true.

Daniel said...

has been allowed to flow freely.

I had men in mind when I wrote that, Jestin. I have no intention of ever talking girls out of their desire to play wedding chess. I'm more interested in ensuring that men beat the hell out of other femme men who scalzi-rig the game to allow for girls to blow through it like a giddy, pretty but naturally destructive hurricane.

Anonymous said...

In the early history of chess, the queen was only allowed to move one square diagonally, rendering the piece slightly less useful than a pawn... hmmm... I wonder what could have happened to prompt the change to make the queen the most powerful piece on the board?

Stingray said...

Correct. Normal men either ignore or make fun what they do not understand or value. The idea of joining in not only doesn't occur to them, it horrifies them. This is why we get so angry when women stick their noses into things they don't like. We simply cannot fathom it.

Most men probably can't even tell you what half their wife's interests are. They don't care.


You've answered it right here. You make fun of and laugh at what you do not understand or value. Women perceive that you are laughing at what they do value and then take that to mean that what is important to them is somehow of less value to what is important to you. If that is the case, we must make what is important to you something that we can be good at and accomplish. Men garner respect for each other through doing these things and doing them well. If we cannot do them then you must not respect us. So, we but it, so we will be noticed (Yes, I realize that being noticed and respected are two very different things, but they don't always feel different to us). In short, if we are good at man things you will notice us and like us more.

You would be surprised at how much attention a woman can get when she is good at man things, especially when she is good at them without changing the game. Other women want this attention and the only way they can get it is by changing the rules. They cannot grok the irony.

Stingray said...

I'm far more concerned about meeting the approval of my late and much-lamented dog.

Herein why women should never, ever lament being compared to being treat like a dog from their men.

Philalethes said...

Jestin Ernest said...
i can only identify 19 female members sitting on a committee of 105.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_International_Olympic_Committee


Precisely, and this thread is all about why not a single one of them should have been allowed there in the first place. It's the camel's nose in the tent.

It's not about some kind of "majority vote" (though women are in fact the majority worldwide), it's about the universal instinct of males to please females. In most species, this instinct is limited to specific and defined channels, e.g. male bower birds competing to build the most elaborate (and useless) bowers because the female chooses her mate on that basis; but amongst humans the possibilities are open and nearly limitless.

Human males will always instinctively tend to defer to females' wishes and "feelings", if there isn't an obvious reason not to (and they are not already on their guard—in which case, there would be no women on the Olympic Committee), because of the perennial, implicit possibility of nookie—and/or the deeply embedded desire not to offend Mom (in those men who have not completed the separation from Her, an ever-increasing majority in the modern, "civilized" world). Thus the presence of even a single female in what was formerly a male space radically changes the character of that space.

"Women want total freedom, or rather—to call things by their names—total license. If you allow them to achieve complete equality with men, do you think they will be easier to live with? Not at all. Once you accept them as your fellows, they will become your masters." — Marcus Porcius Cato (the Elder, a.k.a. the Censor), 234-149 BCE

Jestin Ernest said...

aniel said...
I'm more interested in ensuring that men beat the hell out of other femme men who scalzi-rig the game to allow for girls to blow through it like a giddy, pretty but naturally destructive hurricane.



well, what plan of attack do you have for reversing the Gramscian march through academia? because that's the inflection point for most of this.

the elites and intelligentsia consider it a point of 'honor' ( in whatever debased meaning that word has nowadays ) to send their children to the 'best' college they can get into. at this point, not merely the 'best' colleges but ALL the colleges and the entire educational system all the way down to pre-school is run by ideological marxist-feminist-homosexualists.

manly men are fine and all. i would even agree that one manly man is worth two femly men. however, when the femly men outnumber the manly men + the majority of women + the overwhelming majority of the entrained minorities of both genders ...

the law of large numbers starts to tell.

Daniel said...

well, what plan of attack do you have for reversing the Gramscian march through academia? because that's the inflection point for most of this.

I'm not interested in saving the world. I'm interested in running my own squad and seeing how we do.

Besides, Academia is well-past collapse, populated now with more women than men, and is little more than a finishing school. The fact that it retains influence over the collapsing media that it built, the collapsing government that it built, and the collapsed economy that it built is of no relevance. If there are pockets of integrity there still surviving, good for them.

I have no interest in saving cancer.

Philalethes said...

Stingray said…
You make fun of and laugh at what you do not understand or value. Women perceive that you are laughing at what they do value and then take that to mean that what is important to them is somehow of less value to what is important to you. If that is the case, we must make what is important to you something that we can be good at and accomplish.


Women have always resented men's lack of respect (the respect they give other men) for them. This may be an insoluble problem, especially as the male disdain for females is part of the process males must go through to separate from their mothers—so they can become developed men the next generation of women can respect.

The fact is that the female is the basic type of the species (all embryos begin as female, some later change to male; there are some species which consist entirely of females, but none which consist entirely of males; the male is the real "second sex"), though few outside of a handful of biologists understand this. It takes effort to become fully male, and one immediately available way toward this end is to push away the female—as boys do at a certain age of development, when the sexes begin to differentiate. As in, "Yuck, girls!" Thus boys (and men) have always criticized their less-male-developed fellows as "sissies" (i.e. sisters), "effeminate", etc. Which at least implies a lack of respect for females themselves. And anyway it's simply true that, judged by male values, females don't measure up. Why should they? They aren't males.

Feminism has been an attempt to redress the female grievance about this situation. Unfortunately, it has only made everything worse—even as it has demonstrated females' real power by its very illogical, insane success. Certainly, men should have seen it coming, and stopped it in its tracks—but women do rule the world, even if they don't know it, and thus apply their power in unconscious and often all-too-destructive ways.

It would all be too funny if not for the suffering involved—not least, of course, the suffering of all the women who believe they've "won", but can't understand why they aren't happy yet.

Martel said...

Speaking of dogs, I'm not one to post this type of thing, but count me impressed.

http://livetostream.com/video/6e6c81faef49/the-next-time-someone-asks-you-for-a-dance

If a dog can learn to take a man's lead this well...

Stickwick said...

Herein why women should never, ever lament being compared to being treat like a dog from their men.

So true. Interesting to note that my husband's late, great dog used to shit-test him about once a year. It's inherent in the breed (Norwegian Elkhound) to be stubborn and challenge the authority of the alpha from time to time. Apparently, that was good practice for marriage. :^D

Stingray said...

Martel,

Exactly.

This is what I was thinking of with my above comment.

Anonymous said...

For real-life consequences that will get people killed, and as a nation make us less safe, use the following transformation:

For "Chess Set" read "Ranger School."

ar10308 said...

"Ask most women, and they'll likely tell you that making fun of something ruins it for them. In woman's world, if you don't have approval for doing something, you shouldn't do it."

Which is why the surefire way to ruin a young girl's crush on a badboy is to make fun of him.

Martel said...

I've been watching some WWII documentaries lately. When I see the stuff going on in Normandy or Iwo Jima, and I think of women being there, I cringe.

We incorrectly assume that all future battles are going to be like the hit & run fights with Afghan guerrillas. There is a chance for a full on war in the future. In that happens, instead of just concentrating on killing the enemy, we'll have to worry about mentruation-friendly latrines.

Jestin Ernest said...

Daniel said...
I have no interest in saving cancer.



*shrugs*

in many ways, i agree with Vox, that the current system is no longer salvageable, that implosion is pretty much inevitable.

but there's deeper questions:
1 - what IS the proper shape of a society?
2 - HOW do you defend that society against it's dissolution.
2a - what are the societal forces which seem to act against all societies?
2b - are there psychological precursors which can be identified at an individual level?

i would suggest familiarization with the DSM III or IV is a prerequisite for answering these questions.

Vox's socio-sexual hierarchy is fine ... as far as it goes. the problem is that it ( and the rest of the manosphere ) makes no attempt to integrate the effect of deviant psychologies on a society.


HalibetLector said...

@Huggums Funny you bring up games. I work in the field and what I'm seeing is that those very same women who like to complain are actually doing something about it. But they don't learn how to program or design games. Instead, they become Product Managers.

Product Managers are responsible for overseeing game development and are the ultimate deciders of what does and does not get in the game. Most of the male Product Managers come from other fields - some are programmers, some are game designers, some are business guys, but all of the male product managers I've met (who weren't later fired for incompetence) have an expertise in something related to making a game. The female Product Managers, on the other hand, don't have any qualifications. They didn't study game design, programming, marketing, art or anything as far as I know (I think my current product manager was an english major). Their only qualifications are they like playing games.

So, we have people who know nothing about software development, game design or even marketing demographics trying to manage a process they can't do themselves. Even better, they often make decisions that explicitly go against the suggestions of the game designers. You'd think they would be fired after their first failed game, like the men are. Unfortunately, that's not the case. They get moved to another team instead. In one notable case, they threw the engineering team under the bus and the product manager was actually promoted.

Yohami said...

Then the top chess players are going to be male, and feminism is going to blame that on men, and not in the girls that didnt bother / werent interested in the first place.

Same for every tech interest, and for every field that requires frontal competition.

Their solution as Vox says, is to remove the men from the chess, and reform the game so all the girls get medals for making nice chess marriages, and claiming that anyone not backing this horror is a misoginist.

Yohami said...

Stickwick,

"Does the misuse of, or lack of respect for, something matter if it doesn't at any time infringe on someone else's ability to use it properly?"

It's not just the respect, it's also about interests.

Give girls and boys the same set of electric cars. You'll see that the boys are curious about how the thing works, some will dismantle them and play with the electronics and probably break them, will observe the wheels, the traction, the flow of electricity.

Girls will just put dolls on the cars and make a parade.

This evolves into men doing useful stuff and women not doing useful stuff.

Enter feminism and politics, and you´ll see a transference of toys from boys to girls, and banning boys for messing up with the toys, thus preventing them from learning.

Then they will find a way to say that the girls not doing anything interesting with the toys is the boy's fault.

Huggums said...

@HalibetLector

"Funny you bring up games. I work in the field and what I'm seeing is that those very same women who like to complain are actually doing something about it. But they don't learn how to program or design games. Instead, they become Product Managers.

Product Managers are responsible for overseeing game development and are the ultimate deciders of what does and does not get in the game. Most of the male Product Managers come from other fields - some are programmers, some are game designers, some are business guys, but all of the male product managers I've met (who weren't later fired for incompetence) have an expertise in something related to making a game. The female Product Managers, on the other hand, don't have any qualifications."

I can't believe I allowed myself to believe, even for a moment after that second sentence, that they might actually be trying.

Stickwick said...

*sigh* First Female Player to Participate in Regional NFL Combine

I was thinking about this tendency for women to invade and destroy all-male groups/activities, and wondering how they would like it if men insisted on horning in on traditionally all-female activites. Then I remembered a conversation I had recently with a female friend, who is PISSED that a couple of men joined the quilting forum she belongs to. She said, and I quote: "Men have their own things, why can't they let us have this?" My irony cup runneth over.

I've been watching some WWII documentaries lately. When I see the stuff going on in Normandy or Iwo Jima, and I think of women being there, I cringe.

Speaking of which, the big brouhaha now is whether or not women should be subject to the draft. Reasonably speaking, if they can be admitted into combat positions, then why should they be exempt from the draft? This is where the rubber meets the road, and however this debate turns out, it'll become blazingly obvious to all whether American women truly believe in equality.

Trust said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trust said...

I remember when NOW marched against an all-male golf club. Jesse Jackson offered to march with them, and they declined because he wasn't a woman.

Daniel said...

“I realize I may not make an NFL team this year,” Silberman told the NFL Network, “but for me, I’m expecting to have fun, to meet really interesting people and hopefully perfect my technique from the other tremendous kickers that will be in attendance.”

Yeah. Great. Because, you know, the millions of dollars the NFL pours into the combine seamlessly doubles as a free buffet.

Notably, I'll bet you a donut hole that this "kicker" didn't bother to try out for the U.S. Women's National Football Team, who plays at world's this year in Finland, despite the appropriate fun, interesting people, and tremendous kickers who would be there in abundance.

Feh said...

First Female Player to Participate in Regional NFL Combine

I want that btch hit so hard she is knocked out of her helmet and her shoes.

Speaking of which, the big brouhaha now is whether or not women should be subject to the draft.

The main purpose Leftists have in recommending a draft is to make American military power unusable.

And, considering the purposes for which American military power is used these days, and the methods by which it is used, that might not be such a bad idea...

Daniel said...

The combine is non-contact, Feh.

And if she did try out for the Women's National Football team, she didn't make the cut:

http://usafootball.com/news/press-box/us-womens-national-team-selected-2013-world-championship-finland

Philalethes said...

Stickwick said…
Speaking of which, the big brouhaha now is whether or not women should be subject to the draft.


As someone who had to go into (what I thought would be permanent) exile from home, family and friends to escape conscription, feminism's absolute failure to demand equal treatment in this area has made it abundantly clear that the whole thing is a crock of (cow)shit.

Personally, I think females should also be subject to circumcision at birth, as are the majority of males in this country. That'd be some meaningful equality. But of course, it's a federal crime (since sometime in the 90s, in the swiftest Congressional action since December 8, 1941) to do any such thing to a girl. All animals are equal….

Duke of Earl said...

There're a lot of women who a draft, combat operations, and being killed, would improve tremendously.

We just have to make sure that they only go into women only units, so they don't get men killed when they (inevitably) die.

ray said...

good post and commentary, especially enjoyed Philalethes

Daniel said...

We just have to make sure that they only go into women only units, so they don't get men killed when they (inevitably) die.

Uh-huh. Because they always remain contained within their concessions, and would never ever put another unit at risk, if they do remain within the confines.

You damn well know that the "Women's Only" Units would be stationed in the Pentagon.

Miserman said...

During one game of chess with my then eleven-year-old niece, she asked me why the game ended with the capture of the King. Instead, she said the game should end with the capture of the Queen and not the King because the Queen was more powerful and important than the King.

I stopped playing chess with her after that.

She also dislikes me playing male characters in video games and wants me to play female characters.

rycamor said...

Yohami said...

...Girls will just put dolls on the cars and make a parade.

This evolves into men doing useful stuff and women not doing useful stuff.


Au contraire... This is quite useful for the propagation of a society: girls practicing their natural roles as nurturers (both of children and relationships), and their aesthetic roles in livening up their surroundings. There's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is encouraging them to disrespect male intent, and turning into the demanding harpies of modern womanhood.

Philalethes said...

Duke of Earl said...
There're a lot of women who a draft, combat operations, and being killed, would improve tremendously.


Doubt we'll ever see Hillary, or Pelosi, in the front lines. The women there will be the dupes. (As they say, "Rich woman's war, poor woman's fight.") Unfortunately, women are, if anything, even more easily duped than men, on average. It's the women "leaders"—beginning with those at the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention with its "Declaration of Sentiments"—who are really at fault. The average woman has just bought into what her "elders" have told her.

Whatever happened to the tradition of "leaders" leading from the front? Caesar did, as did Alexander, and Henry V of England. Did Napoleon? Lincoln certainly didn't, nor anyone since him in America.

Yohami said...

Rycamor,

Right, I meant doing as creating / stuff that requires logical / mechanical skills and problem solving.

papabear said...

"but there's deeper questions:
1 - what IS the proper shape of a society?
2 - HOW do you defend that society against it's dissolution.
2a - what are the societal forces which seem to act against all societies?
2b - are there psychological precursors which can be identified at an individual level?"

The ancients addressed these political questions and with a better understanding of human psychology than psychologists who have grown up preceiving an atomized "society" as being normal. Indeed, the first problem is the failure to recognize that for those who are living in megacities, they do not really live in a "society," but as one in a amalgamation of individuals with little or no ties to one another.

Steve Johnson said...

We see that we are now living in a world where rhythmic gymnastics and synchronized swimming are Olympic sports and wrestling is not.

Far far better that women compete in rhythmic gymnastics than in boxing, weight lifting, or wrestling.

Rhythmic gymanastics and synchronized swimming are actually feminine pursuits and the women in them look and act like actual women. Most of the female athletes in the Olympics look like grotesque parodies of men.

VD said...

They get moved to another team instead. In one notable case, they threw the engineering team under the bus and the product manager was actually promoted.

Ah, so you work for Ubisoft....

Feh said...

Whatever happened to the tradition of "leaders" leading from the front? Caesar did, as did Alexander, and Henry V of England. Did Napoleon? Lincoln certainly didn't, nor anyone since him in America.

Actually, yes, Napoleon did lead from the front. He personally directed his battles and was at risk in combat.

But to answer the larger question, it became pointless and stupid for a national leader to lead from the front as soon as wars became so big that they involved entire nations and could not be settled via one battle in one day. Lincoln, for example, was responsible for directing the entire national war effort from Texas to Virginia, and it would have been absurd for him to put himself in the front lines at Chancellorsville or the Wilderness.

tz said...

I can only remember the little girl playing dressup scene in E.T. ...

Wedding chess - wait until the boys are in the middle of a game at a crucial point that will decide the winner and the girls come along and start pulling pieces since they want to do another wedding.

Boys might try various forms of mayhem on dolls, but they will never force girls to do so (unless they end up as Omegas - cue "It will apply the lotion" scene from Silence of the Lambs...).

That is what is so dangerous about suffrage. If there is any real power, women will use it to force men into things which are destructive to society. It is exactly like having the population double with immigrants from Latin America in one day, all of whom have a different culture and would vote based on THAT culture. It isn't intrinsic, the pioneer women in Wyoming weren't a threat to civilization. But the prim and prissy do-gooders in the big cities on the coasts were. It was state-by-state as is proper.

Remember, it was Margaret Sanger - a woman - who founded Planned Parenthood (I forget the earlier more nazi-like label). Carrie Nation that led to the original drug war known as Prohibition.

Women when not empowered by government thugs can often accomplish much good - Florence Nightingale as an example. But giving political power - coercion - is like the scene in LotR where Galadriel is offered the ring. A dark queen. As terrible as the dawn and treacherous as the sea...

Martel said...

Jeff Goldstein has a clever solution to some of this gender-roles-shift-with-the-wind stuff:

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=47522

tinlaw said...

It takes a super intelligence to finally make me understand. Thanks. I shall keep this in mind as I deal with my little ones.

Martel said...

Point of info: the Civil War was the last time America put generals on the front. Their casualty rates were enormous and they don't grow on trees, so after that it's was generals in the rear.

Toby Temple said...

.... with the white pawns as the wedding party and the rest of the pieces as the audience.

Girl 1: Today, chess. Tomorrow, the world!
Girl 2: Bwahahahaha!!!

kh123 said...

"(I think my current product manager was an english major)."

Welcome to the creative exec end of the entertainment industry in general.

Anonymous said...

Even if we stick to the original metaphor of chess, it can be argued that women are working on ruining it.

There are womens-only chess tournaments and there are women's-only ranking systems, at high amateur levels all the way up to internationally. This is done ostensibly to "promote women's participation in chess", because without a separate rankings system and separate women's only tournaments, very few women could ever compete. Everyone in the chess community knows that these things are a joke, but nobody is allowed to say so. And the sponsor dollars roll in to the women's tournaments and the money into the poor woman player's coffers.

Thankfully, the best woman player on the planet, Judit Polgar, has always refused to take part in this ridiculous feminist charade. She does not play in woman's tournaments or receive a woman's ranking. She only plays in men's tournaments.

Of course, she can afford to do this because she is so good (top 30 in the world)--really, the only woman in the world who can play competitively at the highest levels.

Cause or effect? I'd say both.

Joshua_D said...

Consider it ruined.

http://i.imgur.com/wI6yFBV.jpg

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.