You can scroll down to the last paragraph for the bottom line.

Netflix' Queen's Gambit is premised on the following feminist belief:

a. No woman has ever been a champion of intellectual fields men excel in; b. because of men's cultural oppression of women that completely bans them from succeeding and then feeds itself by making girls believe they can't; c. so if we invent a fictional story about such a woman it would make girls and society imagine and believe - and women will be half of intellectual fields men excel in.

The above belief is refuted by the case of the woman who now sues Netflix. The media is already attempting to apply dislogic, to simultaneously acknowledge the feminist wrongdoing to this woman and blame men for it while arriving again at the conclusion that feminism is correct and great. So now is a good opportunity to explain how the Queen's Gambit is premised on a false belief, that leads to sexism (of the feminist variety), and as an inevitable result will necessarily harm women like the one suing Netflix. The above belief has two problems, we'll start with the minor one.

The minor problem is, that this reasoning is false. Point a is not true. There was a woman who won in the 60s and 70s all the men in chess and became the champion, in more than one tournament.

This raises the question - where was back then the complete ban that point b assumes. This case clearly disproves its existence - at least as a complete ban, which is how it is believed by feminism to have been as point b reflects. The case shows that point b is false.

Let's describe here what exactly point b denies and lies about: what is denied by point be is the fact, that women and men are rather similar intellectual, but, men have higher variability. To illustrate think about cats and dogs. All cats have more or less the same size, but dogs can vary in size considerably - from tiny Chiwawas to formidable Caucasian shepherds. In a large number of qualities, research shows that women are like cats and men like dogs - women are more similar to each other, men are more different, have higher variability. This applies to intelligence as well. If we look as the distribution of intelligence in both sexes, we find that the average is the same, but, not the variability: The bell curve of women's IQ is narrower than men's bell curve. This means that if we look at the most stupid 1% of humanity, most of these 1% will be men, but in the same way, if we look at the top 1%, most will be men as well. The curve is flatter for men. More men then women are dispersed on the edges. More women than men are concentrated around the middle, around the average. The result of this state would be that in the outliers of humanity - the best mathematicians, the best chess players, the best physicists - equal opportunity, equal welcoming, equal cultivation, will not produce equal numbers of the two sexes, but more men, not because any cultural ban, but because more men then women reside on the outskirts of humanity. Women will appear there, because women are not banned there, but in lesser numbers than men,becausee of the simple human property of different variance in the two sexes which means less women are found on both extremities of the distribution of human properties. This has little bearing on the 99% of humanity (in fact, probably closer to 99.99%), who are more or less similar. Feminists were never willing to confront this state of things. As a result, feminists, left with no explanation, invented point b (actually, it is more likely that feminists denied the variance difference, with the purpose of stating point b, looking for ways to criminalize and penalize the male sex).

This brings us to the problem of point c, which is the major problem. If a tiny faction in humanity (called feminists) convinces an entire society in point b, such a society, believing that the only thing causing women to be absent from the top intellectual ranks of humanity is men's banning of women, will go through the following phases, all amounting to sexism and violence:

  1. To be able to believe in point a, it will ignore the women who have excelled, since these women are the clear rebuttal of point a and what makes the entire structure a false beliefs collapse.

  2. It will make men feel guilty and accountable for what is in fact a property of nature, of distributions of human qualities.

  3. Since men can't change the innate properties of the human population, they will have no way of making the blaming stop - it will thus necessarily become perpetual.

  4. Since no amount of blaming of men could make them able to change innate humanity, the pressure on them won't change reality. Since society believes in point b, it concludes that reality hasn't changed solely because men refuse to abide - and increases pressure. Point 4 then repeats itself perpetually - society increases level of aggressiveness perpetually.

  5. At which point two things happen: society decides to simply deny men equal opportunity, "to balance numbers", their equal opportunity is thus defined as "privilege". And, women who do not excel are given a status of excellence arbitrarily - there are not enough of them to fill the ranks to reach 50% in the highest levels of those fields so those of the lower tiers are promoted artificially. Being the best is no longer relevant - sex determines success. Men are banned from entering highest levels to "balance". But hey. This sounds familiar, where have we seen that? Oh - of course! This is the ban point b postulated! Only with the sexes switched. The very false belief in b, made b a reality but in the other direction.

  6. Such a civilization, then necessarily deteriorates intellectually. The highest intellectual positions were given artificially to people who would never be there under equal opportunity. This means that fallacies, miscalculations, errors, are now disseminated to the public as coming from "the best and finest", and trusted. This then creates an entire society of error and mistake. Beside all the millions who need to live in error and dislogic and suffer (in school, university, the work place), two small groups are in tremendous suffering: the best men, and the best women. The former are denied an opportunity to fulfill themselves, they lose their lives. They are the woman that feminism imagined in point b - the talented one who missed her entire life because of a ban against her sex - if feminist think this condition is tragic enough to reshuffle all of society, well, there are thousands of men living this tragic life. The latter, the best women, are suffering too. Tremendously. They are never trusted. Such women always existed - the distribution of women is less thick on the extremities but not empty, they are the minority there but are still there. We knew them throughout all of history - we have books they wrote in ancient Greek. Now, most women with their rank, were implanted, they are inapt. People become accustomed to this: they don't expect a woman's novel to have a plot, because women were given status without needing to perform, to "balance", they don't expect a women's scientific work to be more that marketing of a banal idea, for the same reason - point c made everyone teach themselves that expecting women to perform as men is chauvinism. Because such equal opportunity, they learned, prevents 50:50, so setting equal standards is morally wrong, while treating women like children by regarding a scribble as fine art to balance numbers in the highest ranks is a moral decree (and they are taught to tell themselves that "millions of years of oppression" are the cause of lesser performances - that "with time" through treating women as children, they won't need to). So, they don't expect excellence - and then when truly extraordinary women come along, they treat them like children, and, these exceptional women, are humiliated. In some cases, as the USSR champion, they are simply deleted, to fortify point a in order to protect the ensuing false conclusion through b and c.

The entire premise of feminism reflected in the Netflix series is anti-women, anti-men, anti-humanist. Yes, on the outskirts of humanity, among the 0.0001% or so, there are more men on both sides of the distribution - the good and the bad one. This is not a result of men's actions nor something men have any control over. Denying it does not lead to any sense of equality - only to denial of equal opportunity from men, denial of the women there since their existence refutes the conspirative assumption, ever-increasing, perpetual blaming and anger toward men at large, and feminism diminishing the talented women, treating them like children, because of low expectations caused by lowered standards "to balance numbers".

​

https://preview.redd.it/kt7kdtoke9o71.png?width=460&format=png&auto=webp&s=d845ee68081936ce27380f8a5e525200c8f8d0fa

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2021/09/chess-champion-sues-netflix-over-sexist-the-queens-gambit-line