MovieChat Forums > The Queen's Gambit (2020) Discussion > Burnt out on female empowerment

Burnt out on female empowerment

posted 3 years ago by CheekyMonkey (584)
22 replies | jump to latest

I like chess... Beautiful and maddening game

I know this is based on a novel, but I can't bring myself to watch a series about a girl chess master... Maybe I'm just burnt out on all of the women empowerment narratives that I can't appreciate something like this anymore... Which is a shame, because I know I'll probably miss out on some of the rare good stories among the banalities

Is the series actually good, or just hype like Atomic Blonde and other such shows/movies? Is it believable that the girl can chess? Is the story worth spending the time on?

Is this one of the exceptions?

[–] TylerAArse (2654) 3 years ago

I guess if it's not about the white male, there's a problem.

[–] TimMC (9143) 3 years ago

It's always funny when racism raises its ugly head.

HINT.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

You are not it's audience.

[–] TheArgentinian (6429) 3 years ago

How fragile...
Women had to put up with stories about men for a hundred years. Quit yer whining

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

[–] TheArgentinian (6429) 3 years ago

Sorry, my reply was meant for OP

[–] ccr1633 (1413) 3 years ago

There were no leading female characters in film until the last 5 years or so.

[–] Ranb (7167) 3 years ago

Ouch, you really need to see more films. Here are some.

Alien 1979
9 to 5 1980
Million Dollar Baby 2004
Juno 2007
Breakfast at Tiffany's 1961
Erin Brockovich 2000
The Help 2011
Thelma and Louise 1991
Norma Rae 1979
Silkwood 1983

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8291) 3 years ago

It's a good series, though in no way rooted in reality.

There have been very few female chess players that have even cracked the overall Top 10--I can actually only think of one (Judit Polgar) but I'm leaving room for someone I'm not remembering--much less a female, Bobby Fischer-like wunderkind.

If you can get past that though it's a well-made show and the game of chess itself is properly represented.

[–] Goliard (1413) 3 years ago

Interesting. Why exactly do you say it's not "rooted in reality?" You're aware of Polgar, but a story about a woman like her who beats a male GM is "unrealistic," somehow?

The logic simply doesn't track.

Underlying this sentiment (and a Lot of other faux observations) is the inevitable conclusion people draw, based on the fact that there aren't many female chess players at the highest levels. Simply: the assumption is that "girls are fundamentally less able to excel at chess." Which is absurd. The reasons are MUCH more nuanced.

There are 900 NHL players, in a given season. Of those, 26 are black. Do you really think that comes down to athletic ability? Ridiculous.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8291) 3 years ago

She doesn't simply beat a GM; she has a Fischer-like run that culminates in her beating the current World Champion (i.e. the Boris Spassky stand-in).

I say it's not rooted in reality because, to date, such a thing has never happened. Once it has happened, and a similar series is made, we can say it has echoes of real life.

[–] Goliard (1413) 3 years ago

You're either being disingenuous, or you simply don't understand what the phrase "rooted in reality" means. Just because something hasn't happened yet does NOT mean it's impossible. It doesn't even mean it's unlikely. And it CERTAINLY doesn't mean it's "unrealistic."

Your claim is, not too put a fine point on it, absurd.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8291) 3 years ago

I mean it doesn't reflect any known actuality up to this point in history, unless of course you swap the genders, and then you have Bobby Fischer.

Furthermore, could a female ever become World Champion? I have no idea. Maybe. But there have been studies that have shown distinct differences between the female and male brain, and the male brain is better wired for the sort of problem solving that leads to chess ability.

This shouldn't be controversial. Despite what the modern world may have us believe, there are differences between the genders and that's okay.

[–] Goliard (1413) 3 years ago

It's not "controversial." It's just ridiculous. You seem to be unsure of the fact that there could EVER be a female world champion. This in and of itself is enough to illuminate the absurdity of your position. The lame attempt to couch it in terms of "any known actuality" is telling. The point is, it's Possible. Claiming you don't "know" if it is does you no favors.

I'll repeat: the fact it hasn't happened "to this point is history" is so besides the point it's really not worth addressing. It's REALLY not worth addressing Repeatedly, but why not: I'm bored. This is FICTION. It posits a series of events. Have they ever happened? No. Could they? OF COURSE THEY COULD. There's *no* narrative weakness, here.

And of COURSE there are differences between genders. Of course it's "okay." That's not at issue. Your "studies that show male brains are better wired for (this)" is too stupid to even debunk. You're just wrong. Period.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8291) 3 years ago

In fact, by claiming that "I don't know," I'm trying to be both accurate--being that I am not a prophet--and also considerate to the opposite sex.

If you'd prefer my less considerate, more blunt take then it is this: I think it's incredibly unlikely that we'll ever see a female world champion because the best men will always be better than the best women. However, I will leave a female WC open as a theoretical possibility.

Let me know when I've been proven wrong. I'll be waiting.

In the meantime, we'll continue to host the Women's World Championship so that women can have some kind of chance of being a "World Champion," even if only among the fairer sex.

[–] Goliard (1413) 3 years ago

"If you'd prefer my less considerate, more blunt take then it is this: I think it's incredibly unlikely that we'll ever see a female world champion because the best men will always be better than the best women."

You could have just left it at that. And I'll leave it at this: you have NO logical reason to find that "unlikely," besides your mistaken belief that men are (and always will be) inherently "better" at chess. Period.

[–] asom (6509) 3 years ago

Rooted in reality, let me check my reality:

It's well known that although on average male and female have approximatively the same level of intelligence or IQ the extremes are wider for men than for women. That means that the most intelligent men are more intelligent than that most intelligent women (same for the dumb side) and there are more extremely intelligent men than extremely intelligent women ...
And it's well known that males excel at math, spatial visualization, spatial perception and mental rotation while females are slightly better in vocabulary and reading comprehension and significantly higher in speech production and essay writing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis

Is this rooted enough in reality for you?? Do you have a different reality?

[–] Goliard (1413) 3 years ago

There is no "different reality," although if you ask a quantum physicist, they'll explain to you that literally Everything is relative. Your hilarious wikipedia research tells a Very Small part of the story; until you're better read, it's not really worthwhile to even try to explain any more to you. You're on the internet, go look some stuff up.

[–] asom (6509) 3 years ago

Of course there is no different reality, can you read sarcasm or is it too hard for you???

BTW, relativity theory IS different than quantum physics, maybe you need another wiki article as a starting point on that ...

The wiki bit was just a hint for you to dig deeper and to leave the "females and males are identical and equal" ideology aside. No, they are not.

You have nothing to explain, your ignorance is too deep and rooted on nothing but ideology.

" Just because something hasn't happened yet does NOT mean it's impossible." - it doesn't mean that it will 100% happen either ...

[–] Goliard (1413) 3 years ago

"Of course there is no different reality, can you read sarcasm or is it too hard for you???"

In an inflectionless medium, it's impossible to tell when someone is being sarcastic, or if they're just an idiot. See how that works? Of course not.

". . .leave the "females and males are identical and equal" ideology aside."

Please point out where I said anything of the sort. We'll wait. . .

"" Just because something hasn't happened yet does NOT mean it's impossible." - it doesn't mean that it will 100% happen either ..."

Your point? When did I say it would? I responded to the idea that it COULDN'T. You're terrible at the thinking thing. . .you should really quit.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Nah, you lost bro.

[–] Goliard (1413) 3 years ago

Another precinct heard from!!! The fact that you're assuming I'm a "bro" means you're automatically too stupid to enter this discussion. You can go.