Forums

Gender re-writing of history

Sort:
sawdof
long_quach wrote:

I am blocking @BadeeyaDancininSeptember

The user is not saying anything intelligent. Just making hot air.

You don't remember the 21st night of ...

sawdof
Tychooju12 wrote:

The longer I live the more I'm convinced that women are not just the female counterpart of men in human species. I think they are somehow defective, incomplete like the Maker had a hangover when he was creating them and missed a spot or two.

Is that chauvinism? Yes, probably. But it's also my life experience.

Sometimes we just attract liked minded people ...

long_quach
sawdof wrote:
Tychooju12 wrote:

The longer I live the more I'm convinced that women are not just the female counterpart of men in human species. I think they are somehow defective, incomplete like the Maker had a hangover when he was creating them and missed a spot or two.

Is that chauvinism? Yes, probably. But it's also my life experience.

Sometimes we just attract liked minded people ...

No.

It is in our history, in our mythologies. In Chinese mythology.

Remember Eve and the Serpent.

This time the woman is the serpent.

Flutiyama

Let me see if I'm understanding correctly: Are you questioning the historicity exclusively of the Manhattan chess club as to if woman were or not allowed on the premises, or are you questioning the historical existance of some chess clubs being "gentlemen clubs" altogether? Because I believe both should be very easy to prove either way before assuming a dystopia; nevertheless the second one is way easier to prove than the first. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSzZwRBJVvY Here's a video where a 79 year old champion says in the first 40 seconds that in their chess club, women were NOT ALLOWED until 20 years ago. Don't believe he'd lie on purpose, but it's easy enough to check, if you feel like it.
Not sure about the Manhattan chess club, but I'd bet all my chips that it was a gentlemen's club for most of its history.
[Edit] I happened to find the Constitution and By-laws of the Manhattan Chess Club from the late 19th century (1877, most places in the US didn't allow women to VOTE at the time) here https://books.google.td/books?id=zfcUAAAAYAAJ&printsecArticle V, on membership, only claims "Every chess player of good moral character shall be eligible to membership"; but over the course of the entire text, the only pronouns to talk on members/ organization are with the words "him" "himself" or "gentlemen". Not conclusive enough, but I also found some news articles that show that AT LEAST women tournaments were being held in the MCC at around 1937-1938; no information on membership, though.

long_quach

@Flutiyama

1. That's a Chess.com video. Chess.com is a private company out to make money for itself. It has no credibility to me.

2. It is not a chess club.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenaeum_Club,_London

3. Thanks for reminding us that is is only 100 years since women got the right to vote in America. In terms of history, that was only yesterday.

David
long_quach wrote:

Was there an un-written rule "no girls allowed"? No.

...

There is no such rule, written or un-written.

They obviously wouldn't be if they walked into a club like that with people already like yourself in it.

Plenty of girls become interested in chess but are then discouraged from it - it's been the same story in STEM fields. Recognising that this is a historical problem and trying to do something about it is why affirmative action policies exist.

It's not re-writing of history, it's a recognition that the already written history has its own biases and assumptions and deserves re-examination.

David
long_quach wrote:

The Serpent tempted Eve with the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge first.

You know that Adam is standing right there while the serpent tempts Eve and does nothing to protect her or their relationship with their Creator? It's a failure of all that he's entrusted with and called to.

As you are amply demonstrating in this and other posts.

landloch
long_quach wrote:
landloch wrote:
 

The wiki article took the 1938 language from:

https://billwall.phpwebhosting.com/articles/Manhattan_CC.htm

There is no expressed ban on females, although as another poster points out, that could have been a tacit understanding.

I Googled and came across that page too.

Repeating hearsay is not proof of anything.

Hmm. I have to put on my thinking cap and use my imagination for this one.

I didn't reference Wall as proof of the club's policies. Rather, for some reason he believes women were not allowed before 1938 and his document provides references that may give evidence of that. An intellectually honest approach would be to check those before assuming Wall and the wiki author(s) were engaging in some kind of Orwellian speak.

On a related note, you seem to be dismissive of oral history. A blanket dismissal of oral history is just as naive and lazy as a blanket acceptance of it.