If anything epitomizes our time, it just might be the image of a person shaking his fist at the heavens and screaming about the unfairness of it all. “How dare reality be reality!” is the idea. One manifestation of this is the spirit of entitlement of the less-competent insisting on being treated as more so.
Enter one Divya Deshmukh. Deshmukh is a great, and gorgeous, female chess player. But that’s not enough. Apparently feeling she’s been rooked by reality, she wants people to ignore her appearance and her lack of ability relative to the men.
That is, in the looks department, she’s perhaps number one inclusive of both sexes (at least to male eyes).
In chess, though, Deshmukh is ranked 38th among women — but only 1,378 overall.
But she still wants her, and other female competitors’, chess ability to receive as much “respect” as the men’s.
The Independent reports on the story:
Indian chess player Divya Deshmukh has hit out at the sexism that she believes exists among chess fans and called for women to start getting “equal respect” in the game.
Deshmukh won bronze at the 2022 Chess Olympiad and last year took victory at the Asian Women’s Chess Championship in Almaty.
The 18-year-old holds the rank of International Master, but has opened up on the challenging environment she must contend with as a woman in chess.
Highlighting comments made beneath interviews after a Masters event in the Netherlands, Deshmukh suggested that female players are “overlooked” and “under-appreciated”, with focus instead placed on their appearance.
“I have been wanting to address this for a while but was waiting for my tournament to be over,” Deshmukh wrote in an Instagram post. “I got told and also myself noticed how women in chess are often just taken for granted by spectators.”
“Most recent example of this on a personal level would be in this tournament [the Masters event],” she continued. “I played a few games which I felt were quite good and I was proud of them,” “and I got told by people how the audience was not even bothered with the game but instead focused on every single possible thing in the world, my clothes, hair, accent, and every other irrelevant thing.”
“I was quite upset to hear this,” Deshmukh added.
Such complaints bring much sympathy today, but are they realistic?
As for women’s chess’ lower levels of respect and recognition, this is explained by two preceding words: “women’s chess.” Why does a separate category even exist?
Because as in sports, the queens aren’t as good as the kings in chess. (In fact, unless I missed it, no woman is ranked among the top 100 in the world in overall standings.)
So a bit of perspective: Ask even tennis fans who won the junior Wimbledon, U.S. Open, French Open, or Australian Open titles, and you may get a blank stare. Many people don’t know these competitions even exist. (And despite the 18-and-under boys champion being better than the women’s champion, the latter gets infinitely more recognition and respect — not to mention prize money.)
There’s also how heavyweight boxers get far more respect, recognition, and money than lightweight ones. Generally, the market rewards those who are better more handsomely; people tend to want to see the best, the most.
So there is a way for Deshmukh, or any female player, to garner the respect and recognition she desires: Become the best — not just among the women, but the men, too. Any woman who could do that would get more publicity than she could ever want.
As for superficial qualities such as appearance, yes, women may be viewed as “sex objects.”
Men, however, may be viewed as success objects. This is why many women will swoon over successful men and why females rarely “marry down.”
Yet people, women in particular, notice men’s looks, too. Just consider all the stories about the “hottest” male athletes. Note as well the studies indicating that handsome and tall men have advantages in life and research showing that good looks win politicians — male ones included — more votes. (No small number of women cast ballots for Canada’s Justin Trudeau and California governor Gavin Newsom because of their attractiveness.)
In a nutshell, whether severe disfigurement is at issue — as with the actor who recently complained that his looks shouldn’t influence the roles he gets — or drop-dead gorgeousness, people will notice your appearance. Young Miss Deshmukh should realize, too, that very few men worldwide care about chess. But virtually all normal men will notice female beauty. That’s life.
There’s an even deeper issue here as well. Deshmukh’s gripe is yet another example of a now-stale feminist complaint: that the sexes should be viewed as the same and interchangeable (then, however, why have “women’s chess”?). Yet what’s a corollary of this notion of male-female sameness, this idea that your “sex” shouldn’t be considered a limiting factor in any dimension?
If you answered: the idea that “sex” is largely irrelevant and can and should be subordinated to “gender” (your perception of what you are), well, winner, winner, capon dinner. Accept the feminist supposition of the sameness of the sexes, that only the superficial differences separate them, and it follows that changing those superficial differences enables you to “change sex.”
And that, of course, is what they called the “transgender” agenda.
Anyway, young Miss Deshmukh may want to count her blessings. Would she rather be howlin’-at-the-moon ugly? Appreciate what strengths you have for as long as you have them — because, after all, the things of this world are all quite fleeting.
