Amid all the hoopla of today’s Day Without a Woman, I’d like to focus on an underreported story involving actual injustice and the rebellion of two remarkable women that speak to real empowerment.
The first is Dorsa Derakshani, an Iranian Grandmaster chess player (# 2 in her country), who wore a headband instead of the traditional headscarf (hijab) while competing at a festival in Gibraltar last January. The outraged Iranian Chess Federation booted her off the team along with her 15 year old brother who had the audacity of agreeing to play an Israeli opponent.
From the Federation, “A first step, these two will be denied entry to all tournaments taking place in Iran,” he continued, “And, in the name of Iran, they will no longer be allowed the opportunity to be present on the national team.””
Ah yes, good old fashioned Jew hatred and women’s oppression. Oddly enough I’ve not heard a peep from women’s movements about this. Have you?
Side note here, can someone tell me again why we continually put up with such backward nonsense from Iran?
Another person whose name you should know is Nazi Paikdze, a 23 year old Russian born chess player living in Florida who holds chess titles of International Master and Woman Grandmaster. Pakidze refused to compete in the Women’s World Chess Championship held in Tehran last month because the players are forced to wear hijabs, stating, “I think it’s unacceptable to host a WOMEN’S World Championship in a place were women do not have basic fundamental rights and are treated as second class citizens.”
Indeed. 
She is also spearheading a personal campaign against holding tournaments in Iran that goes far beyond the forced wearing of hijabs and speaks to the overall oppression and restriction of rights for women living in many middle eastern countries. Click here to be taken to her site and add your name to the protest.
Another statement from Ms. Pakidzde:
“A message to the people of Iran: I am not anti-Islam or any other religion. I stand for freedom of religion and choice. I‘m protesting FIDE’s decision not because of Iran’s religion or people, but for the government’s laws that are restricting my rights as a woman. My personal experiences with Iranian people have been nothing but wonderful. One day I hope to visit Iran and see women having complete freedom and equality.”
Bold, empowering and full of decency and commonsense, both Ms. Paikdze and Derakshani should be center stage at today’s rallies, marches, strikes, etc…held in the name of better treatment for women. Yet they will not be. In fact, not a word will be spoken about the oppression of women in the Muslim world. Why is that?
The anti-Trump freak out going on here has moved our eyes off the ball of what injustice and empowerment truly mean. I don’t see this as progress and it’s certainly not empowering.
Freedom Through Empowerment 
Good article Tricia,
You know the answer to the question as to why no word will be spoken about oppressed women in Muslim countries is that it does not fit their narrative. These “put upon” women do not recognize any suffering except that which is theirs and fits their agenda.
I happened to catch a bit of Rush Limbaugh today and his opinion was that these woman on strike are doing so because they are suffering from guilt because they support abortion and they know it’s a baby despite calling it a tissue mass.
That opinion could have some merit. My thinking is they are all wacky and have too much time on their hands. But then again I could be off base since my golf game today was terrible and that may have clouded my judgement,
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Dennis and yes I do know the answer to that question. I don’t agree with Limbaugh in his thinking there. I think it has more to do with the constant barrage from all quarters to be OUTRAGED on a daily basis and the need to feel like you are doing “something” moral and good, which if you like left wing policies you will find much about all the protests to like.
Now get back out there on the golf course and improve you game! ;:
LikeLike
American feminism is obviously outdated, out classed and in great need of a vast infrastructure rebuilding program.
Where is the female version of THE Donald who will stand up and make American feminism great again?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Don’t look at me, lol!
LikeLike
Feminism is like masculinism. There is no need for either. The real issue is whether we respect each others God-given rights? Will we obey our Creator or not? Will we love each other enough to respect each others God-given rights? Will we recognize each other as servants of God, our ourselves?
Feminism, as its is fashioned today, is a power grab that justifies itself based upon the hatred of those its adherents hate. It is not pro-woman; it is anti-Conservative male, anti-Jew, and so forth.
If a movement is going to have real value, then what has to stand out is what that movement stands for, not what it stands against.
Where does today’s civil rights movement reside? Look to Constitutional Conservatism. Constitutional Conservatism is not about race, sex, creed, gender identity, able-ism, or any such identity nonsense. It is about the American people being a people using their government to protect each others rights instead of a government that supposedly gives its people some rights.
LikeLiked by 3 people
So true Tom. We’ve devolved in to a modern day tribalist society with each group demanding not only more for themselves, but also punishment for those not locked in to hard left positions. Today’s feminism and civil rights groups is really just progressivism masked in fake virtue. And progressivism is at its heart militantly socialist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whatever it is, progressivism is not about progress. Whenever we implement what these so-called progressives want, it is almost always a step back. Why? Because progressivism = socialism = covetousness
LikeLiked by 1 person
This past Presidential election has triggered emotions that have challenged our ability to LISTEN and HEAR opposing views. Dogmatism is running rampant. Focus is directed to factional survival rather than meaningful growth and development. There is no founding ideology today holding our country together. We have become a society of competing issues (ex. health care, social security, women’s rights, etc…) rather than a nation (conceptually) seeking safety, stability and overall advancement for its citizens (regardless of political affiliations.)
We have learned that HATRED and THREATS OF VIOLENCE creates media attention designed to distract and numb our senses by using an onslaught of negative reporting. We wake up every morning wondering what new “Trumpism” will take center stage that day.
We, as a nation, are as GUILTY for permitting these atrocities as our elected officials. We treat these “leaders” as “GENERALS” and take sides behind them to “support” their battles. We are naive believing their focus is on our well being. In reality, their focus is on their POWER and desire to remain in POWER. This is done in the name of “ADVANCEMENT” and better “POLICY” making.
Opposition to our current administration is doing everything possible to return the structure of government to traditional ways. Using terms like “undignified” and “unprofessional” to justify their actions seeks to undermine the current administration’s policies even if society is hurt in the process. I don’t care whether one supports or opposes the president’s platform, he is our president and should be allowed to implement the platform he ran (and won) on. When a president actually follows through on campaign promises, this should add credibility to the individual’s character whether you support or oppose the agenda. Unfortunately, our president has a tendency to place his foot in his mouth, yet refuses to acknowledge (almost) ANY mistakes. Where he gains credibility in ACTION taken, he loses credibility my making unnecessary accusations. His ego and temper magnify resistance with powerful opponents (ex. media, political action groups, advocate organizations, etc…) which ultimately causes increased interference with his agenda.
The rising anger among our citizens can only be quelled when we become willing to follow a PEACEFUL dialogue and discourse. The “losing side” in elections need to accept changes even if they oppose them. They can and should offer modifications to mitigate policies they oppose, but must accept the final proposals as current policy and law. It these policies and laws do not work, the next election offers an opportunity for change again.
Shouting OVER EACH OTHER only makes our voices reach our OWN EARS. This approach will NEVER lead to COMPROMISE and QUALITY CHANGES.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed Jonathan.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello.
I don’t comment on Islam being oppressive, because I don’t feel my comments can do any good. I can’t influence Iran. I don’t feel FIDE should have a world chess championship where women can’t uncover their hair if they want to, but generally feel that white non-Muslims writing of the hijab oppressing women misses the point. I have had friends who wore hijabs. I would support them if they claimed it is oppressive, but outsiders doing the same may be seeking to limit freedom themselves, and express distaste for Muslims rather than for Islam.
Peace grows if I oppose the oppression and wrongdoing of people who might appear to be on my side. If I join a white chorus against the hijab, Muslims may band together against that white chorus.
Almost everyone dresses as they do because clothes send social signals, and signals are acceptable or unacceptable to different groups. Non-Muslims should not impose their clothing signal vocabulary on Muslims. The question is not, is the Hijab oppressive, but, how can we increase freedom? I don’t feel restricting hijabs increases freedom.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for coming by Clare. I agree with you that restricting hijab wearing would not increase freedom and I’ve never been one to call for that, although I do understand the security implications.
Personally I believe it should be left to individual choice and while neither of us could on our own influence places like Iran to treat their women better, many voices could. I feel the energy some here in the West spend screaming for rights women already have is wasted and could be far more effective when directed in areas where injustice and harm against women is systemic.
LikeLike
Hi trish.
Would like to simply say three cheers for any female chessmaster.
Hip hip…..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Right CS? Smart, smart women out there just dominating the chessboard.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep. Bobby Fisher, Boris Spasky, Garry Kasparov, and then Svetlana Rimskykorsikov just rolls off your tongue. 😉
Seriously, good for the girls.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If she played the tournament was in Iran, perhaps the saying ” when in Rome, do like the Romans” might apply. But then what women chess players from other countries would even go to Iran if they were mandated to wear the hijab in order to play?
If I was her, I would have said “When in Rome……….to her Mullahs but that probably would not have made any difference either. Yet the hijab is worn freely by many women in the USA? The difference though is the word freedom of choice.
Strange world we live in. One side of the world beliefs differs from the other, same as in ancient times. Check out if you are interested how the saying When in Rome came about, that still has not changed apparently over the years.
The problem is whether a person takes an oath, he or she has to deal with their choice. When differences involve religious beliefs, it becomes volcanic. If she chooses to live in Iran, she is making a choice, in my opinion.
https://rudymartinka.com/2015/01/16/king-solomons-advice-on-oaths-to-god-and-laws-of-man/
Regards and goodwill blogging.
LikeLike
Hi Scattered. Sorry for the late response but you got stuck in my spam jail for quote some time. My apologies! I get what your saying but the tournament was in Gibraltar, not Iran. She lives in Germany now and does not travel there any ore to play. She said when she did she always wore the hijab. It doesn’t bother me if people choose to wear it, it’s the being forced to part that really gets under my skin. Especially because here in perpetually outraged America the feminists just shrug their shoulders over women abroad being humiliated like this.
LikeLiked by 1 person