I saw two boys playing with a chess set. They were playing chess.
A few hours later, I saw two girls playing with the same chess set. They were conducting a marriage between the white king and the white queen, with the white pawns as the wedding party and the rest of the pieces as the audience.
73 comments:
On the other hand, my youngest niece was playing chess at age 6. Not very well, but better than I did at that age.
And no, her parents aren't the kind who try to steer their kids away from traditional gender roles. They're fundamentalist Christians.
Ahh, I got a smile out of this one. Good stuff
Celebrate diversity. Oh, they don't mean that.
Just remember, for all the complaints about the Tanzanians and Papuans, there men are men, women are women, and they can still tell the difference, and have policies based on it. They and their culture will still be around. We will have to relearn after the collapse.
I have played chess with my niece, but I think she enjoys the interaction with me more than the game.
I saw two boys playing with a chess set. They were playing chess.
A few hours later, I saw two girls playing with the same chess set. They were conducting a marriage between the white king and the white queen, with the white pawns as the wedding party and the rest of the pieces as the audience.
Women Ruin Everything, Chapter 1, Page 1
Deep Blue used to do the same thing in between matches.
Wedding party chess is so boring. Now this is the type of chess I would play.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV1bpMamCtY
My little girl (aged 7) wanted to learn chess, and was getting on pretty well, but has lost interest lately.
Her older sister was running a court intrigue with the pieces, complete with arranged marriages (and the princess refusing), bossy queens, knights who were secret lovers of the princess... that kid wants to write romances. It was quite cute, actually. :-)
Women Ruin Everything, Chapter 1, Page 1
It just sounds like girls were being girls. How were they ruining anything?
So, are we talking lack of intellect on the girls' part, or lack of imagination on the boys' part?
Jesus, people, the boys are being boys by playing a strategy game, and the girls are being girls by playing romance. Both are doing what they're made to do. Don't read too much into it.
There's no lack, just an illustration. It takes plenty of imagination to play chess, and a certain intellectual capacity to personalize and appropriate pieces beyond their original purpose.
It's the fact that chess, a game based on logic, strategy and adaptation, designed by men, is accepted on its terms and played (for the most part) by boys, becomes a personalized sandbox in the hands of girls.
Even small boys who play imaginatively with a chess board will tend to simulate a form of warfare, even if they don't remember or know the actual rules of the game.
Where the "women ruin" bit comes in is when one member from these two exemplar sexes meet across the board: the boy will quite reasonably expect a game to be played and followed to the rule. The girl will have her feelings hurt because the boy is so oppressive with restrictions. The game won't be ruined for the girl (she'll get drama and personalization) but it will be ruined for the boy (he won't have played a game.)
Just to be clear, I don't think there is anything wrong at all with the girls playing wedding with a chess board, and in no way "ruined" the imaginative social game they played. The ruin comes when the two sexes meet, and the game is only played (and won, by default) by the female.
This merely highlights the innumerable difference between the sexes, and the innate capacity of the female to use absolutely everything as an extension of her social objectives.
When someone claims that there is only one race, the human race, I instantly reject the concept as folly. There are at least two distinct creatures, separated by far more than race: men and women.
Women Ruin Everything, Chapter 1, Page 1
Woman bad, man good.
Those females who will not conform to maleness must be eliminated, for the greater good.
Lack of intellect or imagination?
Good point. My guess is there's not a really a lack on either side; simply different priorities.
The Feminist Fallacy, in my mind, is the idea that the activities women tend to enjoy most and be best at aren't as important as men's activities, and therefore women should do their best to become men.
The Male Chauvinist Pig fallacy is the same thing, except the MCP concludes that women themselves are unimportant except as servants and pets for men.
'I do.' = 'Checkmated.'
As other said, it's not a question of lack or anything that needs to be fixed. Give some kids cardboard boxes and the boys will make forts while the girls make houses. That's just how we're built.
As long as a girl who actually wants to play chess isn't forced to play wedding instead -- which is the feminist bogeyman that never really happens -- there's no problem.
Daniel, as usual, you've explained this very well.
Comments like those of Toby and Jeigh Di add to the sex-confusion with which women are perpetually inundated. We get feminists telling us we're nothing without a hard-charging career, that we should aggressively compete with men, and we don't need husbands or children to be fulfilled. But there is ample evidence that this paradigm is completely detached from reality. We women are biologically driven to be non-aggressive and marriage- and family-minded. We find out from sources like AG and Dalrock that most men lament the lack of these feminine virtues and that they're necessary for the survival of civilized society. So, a few of us women seriously rethink the feminist paradigm and realize we long for traditional roles, we don't want to compete with men (we want to be loved by them), we want to participate in civilized society, and we're tentatively ready to embrace our femininity. But comments like those above make it difficult. They confirm what we've suspected all along, that we're not really much of anything because we're female and desire female things.
Black king, white queen, if they're like most---
What? They weren't marrying the black king with the white queen?!?
Racists!!
'I do.' = 'Checkmated.'
This gets my vote for funniest comment so far.
"I do = Checkmated."
Anonymous wins the thread.
It made me smile to imagine the boys being boys and the girls being girls. Such will always be so, no matter how our feminist overlords keep banging their heads against the brick wall of reality.
Ah,
But you see, they've been socialized to be this way.
This just proves we have a 'long way to go' and need more education, more government services, more affirmative action, more (gov't funded) daycare and more activism on the part of media/arts/community and 'feminist leaders' to ensure that true equality is finally met...which means that little boys will play wedding and girls will play chess.
- Apollyon
Ah, but you see, the patriarchy causes that! Or at least that's what feminists will tell you.
I suppose every religion needs a devil to explain away its failures and contradictions, and blank-slate feminism is no different.
Funny story. I wonder if you saw this at one of those outdoors chess set-ups that you find throughout Europe.
They confirm what we've suspected all along, that we're not really much of anything because we're female and desire female things.
However, that concern has at least one foot in the feminist grave. I can completely see how a remark like "Women Ruin Everything, Chapter 1, Page 1" could be taken as kick at the traditional womanliness of women (for want of a better word), but would it seem so hurtful if feminists had not spent so much intellectual capital insulting girls for "playing chess" that way in the first place?
After all, Free to Be, You and Me made it clear that boys were supposed to play with dolls, and girls were supposed to be doctors. These were the new roles - a girl who played wedding with a queen and king, officiated by a bishop, attended by pawns, was a bad thing, a stupid thing.
Is it possible that the combination of (possibly harmless) male jocularity laid over that feminist sheen of "naughty girl, no princess games for you," and not the jokes alone, are sending the bad message?
I could be completely wrong in my interpretation, but I read Toby Temple's statement, I laughed at it, and thought it only semi-serious.
The natural differences are truly natural: a source of stress for the feminized, a source of amusement for the non-feminized. A tragedy for the former, a comedy for the latter.
As I said, I may be way off here. It has occurred before.
'I do.' = 'Checkmated.'
I wish I had said that.
It seems like this is more an example of "There will never be sexual homogeneity" more than "There will never be sexual equality."
I can completely see how a remark like "Women Ruin Everything, Chapter 1, Page 1" could be taken as kick at the traditional womanliness of women (for want of a better word), but would it seem so hurtful if feminists had not spent so much intellectual capital insulting girls for "playing chess" that way in the first place?
Better question: Would he have said it at all but for feminism's influence?
It seems like this is more an example of "There will never be sexual homogeneity" more than "There will never be sexual equality."
You're new here, I see.
Is it possible that the combination of (possibly harmless) male jocularity laid over that feminist sheen of "naughty girl, no princess games for you," and not the jokes alone, are sending the bad message?
No, that's not it. The problem with jokes (especially for sarcasm-impaired people like me) is that it's hard to discern tone on the 'nets. If Toby's comment was truly in jest, then it's cute and funny. If it wasn't a joke, well, it cuts pretty deep. I couldn't possibly care less what other women think of me. In fact, I get a charge out of riling feminists by demuring to my husband and emphasizing my submissiveness. But I do care what men think of me. A lot. To be ridiculed by a man, especially for something that's biologically hard-wired, is actually painful.
You're probably understanding the joke wrong, Stickwick. Chess board is put outside by the city, girls use it to play house -> chessboard ruined for anyone who would like to use it for its intended purpose.
To be ridiculed by a man, especially for something that's biologically hard-wired, is actually painful.
This is a point of interest to me, so I'm sorry if it seems like I'm flogging it. Please take it in the spirit it is intended, which is not to harm, but to better understand:
Assuming Toby Temple intended the statement to mean this (not saying it did or didn't):
Girls who play "chess wedding" are stupid and ruin the game for the rest of us.
Then, do you feel that such a statement ridicules you, personally? Would you tell me how?
Then, do you feel that such a statement ridicules you, personally? Would you tell me how?
Kinda, sorta. I'm happy to answer your questions, but be aware that my particular problem with this may be atypical.
When I played with my father's chess set, it wasn't to play house or wedding. I used the pieces for role-playing the Fellowship's journey, e.g. through the Mines of Moria. I guess what bothered me about the comment is the idea that, like the wedding party, I failed to play with the chess pieces the way they should have been played with and, by doing so, I ruined something.
Here's my problem. I've never belonged in female world -- I'm too weird and masculine -- and have no desire to conform myself to female standards in order to belong. However, for as long as I can remember, I've wanted to be in the male world. Not as a naturalized citizen (I don't actually want to be a man), but as a permanent resident. For the most part, men are pretty welcoming, but I think comments like "women ruin everything" in response to girls failing to act like boys reinforces the fact that I don't really belong there.
Heh. Cute.
It's just good to hear about kids being kids.
Stickwick,
I could have written your last paragraph and I thought that same thing when I read the comment about women ruin everything. I think some of this is difficult for us as we find ourselves in some sort of weird limbo when it comes to men and women. We don't really fit in either group. Toby likely was joking, but as you said, over the inter webz it's impossible to tell and it's difficult to wrap one's head around having to remain in this limbo. Luckily, our husbands couldn't care less what group we come from.
husbands couldn't care less what group we come from.
Wow, that very much did not come out the way I meant. ;)
But I do care what men think of me. A lot. To be ridiculed by a man, especially for something that's biologically hard-wired, is actually painful.
If you want to be accepted by men, you have to learn how to take the cheap shots. Men have been learning how to deal with them since they were boys. There are two ways to earn respect from men: be excellent or be tough.
I think comments like "women ruin everything" in response to girls failing to act like boys reinforces the fact that I don't really belong there.
Ironically, that is a very female reaction. Don't worry about belonging. Enjoy the acceptance you earn when it comes.
Every boy who joins a new sports team knows it's going to take a while before he gets accepted, and that his character will be tested, often unfairly. That's how we learn to deal with it.
We don't really fit in either group.
Exactly. In spite of any tendency to skew a bit masculine, the lone wolf outsider thing isn't very appealing. It'd be nice to belong somewhere.
Wow, that very much did not come out the way I meant. ;)
That was funny. But I knew what you meant. :^D
Vox, thanks for the response and the advice. Yes, I did have a female reaction to the women-ruin-everything comment. In the female world, such comments mean "get lost, you're not wanted," and that pretty much holds until the end of time. It's very helpful to know that it doesn't mean the same thing in the male world. I truly did not know that. One more reason male world is a lot more fun than female world.
In the female world, such comments mean "get lost, you're not wanted," and that pretty much holds until the end of time.
More importantly, one man isn't assumed to speak for the entire group.
I thought Czech-mates was a publication for east-european mail-order brides. Hey, maybe Amazon should merge with eHarmony.
To be ridiculed by a man, especially for something that's biologically hard-wired, is actually painful.
It is supposed to be painful, though not by a man in particular. We are all fallen. We are "biologically hard-wired" for sin, evil, and stupidity, and occasionally the opposite. We are to overcome the hard-wiring with our intellect and will and are held to the standard that we are capable of doing the right thing.
Also, is it really better to be ridiculed by your fellow females for the identical things?
Women ruin only the things the men allow them to ruin, however we live in a very permissive society. Women desire to change things - this is no different than men, but they are less circumspect about it. And when the evils appear they cannot admit they are known side-effects of the very policies they said they wanted.
"Game" is one of the things you get - and far from the worst possible thing - when Christianity and Natural Law are abandoned.
Or to repeat a maxim: "Before removing a fence, one ought to check whether it is to keep you in or to keep something else out".
Have you liberated yourself or the barbarian invaders?
Stickwick, you've got it covered:
In the female world, such comments mean "get lost, you're not wanted."
Thank God it's a man's world, is all I've got to say to that!
I've chopped my own finger off, been concussed with a baseball bat (aluminum, thank goodness), been poisoned, knocked out by a steer, punched senseless by dad (for fun) and thrown clear by a pto, but I don't know anything meaner than a mean girl with another girl in her sights.
The vicious social webspinning, backstabbing, degrading and outright lying that goes on to figure out who is in and who is out makes the Annual Homecoming Nerd Purge look like a Country Gentleman's Society. At least the jocks let the dorks out of the trunk of the Camaro at the end of the night.
More importantly, one man isn't assumed to speak for the entire group.
Ah, yes. In female world, if no one else speaks up, it's assumed that everyone agrees with the person who made the statement. But I forgot that silence in male world usually means dissent.
I want to thank you and Daniel for your responses. I don't come here to vent, I come here to learn. Many times over the two of you have provided insights and practical solutions. It's very much appreciated.
When I played with my father's chess set, it wasn't to play house or wedding. I used the pieces for role-playing the Fellowship's journey, e.g. through the Mines of Moria.
...also role-playing Moria with a chess set is not akin to doing a wedding (neither of which are forbidden things). I'm still interested to know why you personalized the comment about chess wedding, when you never did that yourself.
My guess is solipsism: you instantly identified with the little girls playing wedding, and identified the comment as being judgmental of your childhood sense of alienation or something, but that might be too much.
Just as a reminder or clarification: I'm not one who judges solipsism to be a bad thing. I just think it is an interesting universal trait of women that makes sense as tool for survival and successful female objectives.
It'd be nice to belong somewhere.
Yes, it would. But I long ago came to the conclusion that I would rather be accepted by men, if not really belonging, than belonging with the women that I know and have known in real life. I am not welcome with men all the time, as it very much should be, but I am welcome more often than not. It's enough. Would I like more? Sure, but I can't fly either, so really, it is enough.
Having said all of that, it would be very different if I were not married, because that is the one place I very much do belong.
The Checker Challenge with Beatrice Fastwater is allowed (innuendo and some language)
Stickwick, I took Toby Temple's comment as being either
(A) snarkastic misogynegging -- i.e., grossly misrepresenting the general tone and views of the men's movement commentariat in order to pick a fight with and get some attention from time, or
(B) ironic, exaggerated Agree&Amplify mockery of the above.
Stickwick,
Over the years I've seen your comments at Vox's most of the time people who don't know you're female respond to you as if you were male.
In some ways that may be positive in some ways not. On the whole I find your contributions well thought out and interesting. It doesn't matter to me that you're a girl. Although I suspect your husband considers that fact to be a positive.
I'm still interested to know why you personalized the comment about chess wedding, when you never did that yourself.
I don't know if I possess the insight to answer your question, Daniel, but I'll try.
I didn't identify with the wedding, but with the simple state of being noticeably female. If the girls had been trying to muscle the boys off the chess set so they could play wedding, or were insisting that the boys play wedding instead of chess, then I would have been the first to agree that this is a case of women ruin everything. But they were just being harmlessly female, doing what comes naturally without getting in anyone's way or trying to force the boys to do something. As macho as I think I am, I know I'm still female and have intrinsically female habits and ways of thinking. My masculine traits set me apart in female world; my feminine traits set me apart in male world. The former is catastrophic, but I'm fine being farangi in female world. The latter, as I'm learning from Vox, is not catastrophic. It was just the idea that my female traits might alienate me from the one place I really want to be that set me off.
I am not welcome with men all the time, as it very much should be, but I am welcome more often than not. It's enough. Would I like more? Sure, but I can't fly either, so really, it is enough.
That's pretty much where I'm at. I don't want to invade every aspect of male world; and, sometimes, I do want female company. As long as my feminine traits won't get me banished from male world, it's all good.
@ Acksiom: That may well be the case. I'm not very good at picking up on those things.
@ Res Ipsa: Thank you. That's really cool. BTW, I deliberately picked an androgynous handle (with a Monty Python reference) so that I would be taken more seriously by men. And, yes, my husband is generally pleased that I'm a girl. (Most of the time.)
I took the "women ruin everything" as playful teasing. Like when I take my husbands antique history books and decorate with them. And, funny, one of my favorite decorative pieces is a ridiculously expensive carved chess board that has never been used to play chess (we have several others). Of course I ruin everything, I accept his hobbies and passions, I just make them pretty.
At least note that in this, a significant part of multiculturalism is failing. It was a king and queen instead of two of the same or interracial.
I've never understood the rulesnfor the king and queen. Unless the king is a gamma.
But they were just being harmlessly female, doing what comes naturally without getting in anyone's way or trying to force the boys to do something.
Stickwick, they were ruining CHESS. It had nothing to do with the boys.
And, yes, my husband is generally pleased that I'm a girl. (Most of the time.)
OT, but how are you feeling, Stickwick?
Stickwick, they were ruining CHESS.
I'm getting zero on the clue-meter here. How were they ruining chess?
@ Wendy: Doing well, thanks.
How were they ruining chess?
By taking the king and queen and marrying them. That's not chess. It's turning the pieces into dolls. Basically he's saying that they just weren't using the chess pieces as intended and therefore ruining the game. It's like my son using his sisters crayons as bombs or arrows and ruining their given intent. Crayons are to color with, but ruins their intended use when turing them into arrows.
And because, well . . . now the game has cooties.
My parents gave my brother and I dolls once when we were 7 and 8.
They were great gifts. We insisted my mom teach us how to sew so that we could make them camouflage army clothes (mine) and an Indian costume (brother's). They then went outside to become the targets of our tanks, model airplane fighters, and assorted army men and indians.
I think they lasted two whole days. Then we discovered if we squeezed their bodies the right way, they made a great fart noise. That was pretty funny for another week or so...
I think my parents are still quietly laughing as they provided direct proof that the liberals are full of $hit.
It's like my son using his sisters crayons as bombs or arrows and ruining their given intent. Crayons are to color with, but ruins their intended use when turing them into arrows.
I was thinking about the same thing -- my nephew using his sister's dolls as artillery. But the 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.
i've seen very few girls playing chess.
what does that tell you?
Wait, wait, wait ... I think I've got it ...
Marrying the chess pieces ruins the game of chess in the same way that a man getting punished for a crime he didn't commit ruins the concept of justice. Is that it?
Stickwick:
The reason is because this tendency in girls can and does carry over into other areas of life, especially in areas where it doesnt belong and does a lot of damage. Take the feminization of society as primary evidence in support of this.
Again, they're not being bad, they're just being normal girls. But normal girls ought not be doing certain things, wouldn't you agree? (I'm not talking about dolling up chess, here.)
As if something as godawful and pointless as chess could be ruined.
"You know, I was a star chess player when I was younger"
"Dude, whatever, get back to fixing my computer for 40k a year"
Any parent knows that this is true
Stickwick, I think what they mean by the girls ruining Chess is that women are taking something like Chess and turning it into something else which simply would have no real utility or appeal to the male world.
Think of it this way... if women fully ran the world, what would Chess turn into? This example suggests that if women had their way, Chess would pretty much turn into a bastardized medieval version of Ken & Barbie.
But don't take this the wrong way, Stick. Nobody's saying that women suck. It's a feature, not a bug. The bug happens when women are told to compete in the world of men and men are told they're pond scum compared to women. As long as the girls don't force Barbie Chess onto poor little innocent gamma Rapey McRapersons, and as long as boys don't try to make GI Joe out of girls, we would be fine.
It just sounds like girls were being girls. How were they ruining anything?
Hahaha! You're so cute, Stickwick.
Actually, that is comforting. Given the indoctrination being blasted at them. It seems, given their druthers, they still do exactly what they should do. All good, carry on.
Oh, to make this officially o.t.
Sexual equality is what it is, and is generally seen in the traditional roles... including the allowance of male excesses, even the rewarding of that with even more excess. That IS equality, if it isn't what it seems, either. Figure it out yourself. I have... a chess game to play.
Reminded of a study oft cited by Christina Hoff Summers. Hasbro did a gender neutral doll house in grey and lets both boys and girls pay with it to see what happened.
The girls dressed the house up in pink curtains and furniture.
The boys launched shit off the roof and turned it into a Fortress of doom.
It's baked into us and validated by our peers. It's only when people or things (feminists) try REALLY hard to condition people with a repeated barrage of lies about gender norms and constructs etc... that you can convince the impressionable that they want to be/do something else to avoid a 'gender stereotype'.. even if it makes them uncomfortable, they will accept it to 'fit in' and be good.
Let kids naturally play with what they want when they want, biology will take care of the rest.
"Ruining" is intentional overstatement. It's not like "oh no, some girls were playing marriage with a chess board somewhere, now the game is ruined, RUINED I say!"
When I was a kid, even though I was bad at it, I had respect for the game and anyone who was good at it. Nobody taught me to respect it, as neither of my parents particularly liked chess. It was just obvious to me from the first sight.
Had I seen girls of my age do that with a chessboard, it would have been a first step into making me who I am; someone who doesn't take women seriously.
"Ruining" is intentional overstatement. It's not like "oh no, some girls were playing marriage with a chess board somewhere, now the game is ruined, RUINED I say!"
I'll take your word for it, 'cuz that's how it sounded to me. (My husband calls me "Sheldona," because I'm about as adept at recognizing sarcasm and playful hyperbole as Sheldon Cooper.)
Had I seen girls of my age do that with a chessboard, it would have been a first step into making me who I am; someone who doesn't take women seriously.
Fair enough.
LOL. Same here. The girls decorate the doll house and have a ball pretending to be Mamas. The boys blow up the doll house and then send in the seal tea.
No difference in the sexes, who came up with that nonsense?
seal TEAM
"Funny story. I wonder if you saw this at one of those outdoors chess set-ups that you find throughout Europe. "
Then you would see this, except substitute the Black King for the tree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9eD23GpFdk
And the White Knights would look on in rueful envy.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.