Feminist Chess

After reading "that pawn promotion thing..." I was reminded of some of my linguistic studies that looked at gender neuturing language and cultural preconceptions.  I don't ever remember chess being brought up in this.

 Has anyone ever heard of an arguement for chess to be neutered? Or does the raw power of the queen make feminists happy even though the only definite female piece is not nearly as important as the king?

Not trying to start any arguements or anything... it just amazes me I've never heard anyone having an objection to this while I hear people crying out that it should be chairperson not chairman.

Anyway... chess.com you have made me late for work again!

I think the other thread already proved that the pawns are all female by virtue of queenability, ergo there are 17 points worth of grrl-power on each side at the start, and IF the Knights, Bishops and Rooks are all considered male, that means there are 22 points worth of man-power in each army as well (not counting the King).  That's not *exactly* equal, but it's not too disparate on the face of it. 

(Moreover, I would argue that the eight pawns are collectively worth even more than eight points, because of their ability to act collaboratively and ultimately promote.)

ALSO, since we've already proven that pawns are female, AND we know that they can be promoted to Knights, Bishops and Rooks, it's technically unsound to assume that any of those pieces is male in the first place.  It's therefore quite possible that the King is the only 'male' piece on the board.

 Oh man! I laughed so hard!

Based on past questions/lack of clarity I think you misunderstood my question.

Has anyone ever heard anyone object to the language of chess.  Much in the same way people make objections of chairman (its based on latin roots not gender) and if anyone had heard people make objections of the most important piece being the king.

I tried to give context to my question by saying my studies of linguistics peeked my interest.  I am not concerned one way or the other by peoples thoughts on this issue, I was wondering if anyone had ever heard complaint.  The other threads mentioned make me believe that it has but possibly in another way.

Thank you for your responses all be them not quite what I was looking for.  I blame my title of the thread (I was already running a bit late when I started to type...)

I have recently been pondering this question. I have always wondered why there are seperate male/female tournoments and catagories for chess. There is no physical advantage or mental for that matter that men possess over women in the field of chess. so why is it that men dominate the 'worlds greatest chess players', of course there are many women players that are better than i can even imagine but you know what i mean...i believe it is because women are less likely to be encouraged to take up chess at a young age and are less likely to be taught  ect...Many feminists that i have talked to believe it is because of the 'aggressive nature of chess' but personally chess is not an agressive game for me. rather a calming one. As noted by others the power dominance of the queen as opposed to the fragility of the king is interesting. 

why do women dominate "the rate of increase of number of IMs and above per decade" so overwhelmingly over men? Because fewer women are content to do chores while men play chess/ watch football on TV. Herein is also hidden the response to above post, which doesn't deserve an explicit response.

 I think chess is vegetarian. Here are two terms to consider: 1. Pushing wood and 2. Eating pieces. Now if a player eats pieces, and pieces are considered wood, then players eat wood. Therefore, chess is vegetarian.

So where's the beef? 

Other than the implications behind the names of some of the pieces and the term "chessmen" itself, which terms specifically do you see as potentially gender-based that may cause a neutering revolt?

Batgirl - Thats about it really... this thread was created simply as a result of reading some of the comments in that pawn promotion thing thread bringing back memories of annoying discussions for the feministish parts of some of my linguistic courses... and I realised chess was never brought up.  I was just curious if anyone had ever been annoyed or heard of someone who was annoyed by the names.

I wasn't really sure what to expect as answers.

I am revolted by the mere thought of neutering, but that is just because I assume I am to be on the receiving end. 

Getting back to exiledcanuck's original question, No I have never heard anyone, male or female, object to sexism in chess.  If we still played by early 15th century rules where the queen was the weakest piece, somebody might object.  

DeepGreene> I think the other thread already proved that the pawns are all female

So, according to this idea the piece of lowest rank is female? The pawn's main goal in life is to become His queen, and even upon attaining that rank she's often asked to make great sacrifices... a favor the king doesn't return. And if the king manages to obtain many queens he's very happy and almost always wins.

I think the game becomes much more liberal if we imagine the pawns to be a mix of men and women. That would mean the founders of the game believed that anyone could become a knight... or a queen... as they chose. ;)

Choice? The freedom to choose? Why LikesForests, giving others the freedom to choose goes against everything the game of chess was founded upon. We look for forcing lines and to restrict movement... you've turned the whole game upside down.

Back to d4, e4 or Nf3 for me!

It seems, even if there is some remote faction of anti-gender-specific-language revolutionaries in chess, it's been pretty silent, and probably with good reason.