...or knights. So no, it's not.
or Bishops; or Rooks.
It really makes no difference other than for the written or digital game scores.
That is true, but you shouldn't say it now because the phrase "All lives matter" downgrades "Black lives matter".
Some brief Chess history: Initially, the rules of the game were quite fluid since it was introduced through trading routes. When the rules were written down by Spanish priests in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Queen Isabella was considered to be a stronger ruler than her husband Ferdinand. The rules of the game at the time reflected the strength.
The queen is the most powerful warrior in the game. She is even willing to lay down her life so that her army prevails.
The king is less powerful and whiny. He is so weak that if he is captured, he throws a tantrum and the army falls.
Yes, the game is sexist. It portrays women as being the stronger sex.
Really like what you explained there. Long story short, in our decade, it seems good to me to have some "sexist" thinking, on the Women/Dame/Queen side, since :
- Most highly paid jobs are lead by Men
- Polyandricity is very little well known compared with polygamy
And
- Who still says that female is the weak sex ?
In Nature, where we come from and should respect more, it happens often that the female eats the male after reproduction. Let's say for insects like spiders.
Is this way nature sexist for spiders ?
Also, none of us would be there without a female and a male, so be it for chess.
This thread started off as a joke, but if it starts attracting misogynistic or racist comments, it will be locked. Just thought I'd let you know.
David, moderator
I think we should change the names of the pieces from King and Queen to “Regent” and “Assassin,” respectively. Not because I find the names sexist or bigoted in any way, just because I want to see people in the world flip out about insignificant things.