Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

imnitwit OP t1_iukytzn wrote

Reply to comment by imnitwit in This data is not beautiful: Iranian regime's recent murders [OC] by imnitwit

and I can't stay silent about this so I write it here. it's not a women's movement. it's not women-led, it's not a women's rights movement, it's not about equality. it started because of that. Mahsa Amini was the trigger, a flame that ignited that path for all of us. not first of its kind and not its last(sadly). it's a fight for freedom. it's not a fight for democracy or equality or any of your first-world 21st century jargon. it's a crowd being fed up and naturally revolting. of 198 death cases, less than 15 are women. while making this image, I feel shamed that I knew none of the guys, I never heard their names (except for one who was my actual in-real-life acquaintant) I felt shamed but blamed media. support our fights, be our voice but do not categorize it. it's very pure, natural and raw, too beautiful to be taken with sides and groups and parties. it's simply people, against tyranny.

71

rammo123 t1_iul3usz wrote

I don't know why the media is so hellbent on downplaying the role of men in these protests. It's a powerful image to show men and women protesting together for human rights.

42

draypresct t1_iumcl7u wrote

>I don't know why the media is so hellbent on downplaying the role of men in these protests.

They're not. They're showing the protests as being led by students; i.e., young men and women. They're depicting the protests as motivated (in large part) by the disproportionate oppression of women.

9

lasershurt t1_iumd113 wrote

Indeed; this is a very strange comment section.

I read about the people dying; the "men" dying, yes. It was in the news.

I think people are confusing "the media isn't covering it" with "I personally haven't read the news at all."

6

Blackwater-zombie t1_ium9slp wrote

Because men are expected to put themselves in the line of danger throughout history and across cultures.

5

Smarterthanlastweek t1_iumjwai wrote

What right exactly? To show hair? Why is having to cover one part of the body so important when we already have to cover so many other parts?

−1

Eye61penny t1_iul53yj wrote

Men are a afterthought of society.

−9

GenitalFurbies t1_iulj9pv wrote

I think I get what you're going for here but that's objectively not true in so, so many ways. If you said media instead of society you might have more agreement as men are the "default" in a lot of things and especially in armed conflicts, but that men are an afterthought? Come on, that's absurd.

Edit: said as a white man in the US

Meant that highlighting women in a conflict tends to garner more media buzz because men are the default.

8

RyukHunter t1_iuljvd7 wrote

>Meant that highlighting women in a conflict tends to garner more media buzz because men are the default.

That's kinda what it means to be an afterthought? People think you don't matter cuz it happens to your kind anyways. People have this expectation that men will be causalities in an armed conflict. So yes... An afterthought.

11

GenitalFurbies t1_iulkchb wrote

Default != Afterthought. Default is what is assumed, afterthought is what is forgotten. I stand by the media bias of highlighting women because it generates clicks

3

RyukHunter t1_iulknjb wrote

>Default != Afterthought. Default is what is assumed,

It is the same here tho. Cuz assumptions lead to forgetting. You think something is the default and hence nit do anything about it. When they are the ones that need help. That's called making them an afterthought.

>I stand by the media bias of highlighting women because it generates clicks

And you don't think that's messed up? Don't you think it needs to change so that the men can be seen too?

7

GenitalFurbies t1_iulmd3a wrote

So first, phrasing: what I meant was that I stand by that the media highlighting women does generate more clicks, which does generate more support. I am ok with this.

Everyone is forgotten in time unless they're a martyr, like it or not. One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic. I hate that it's accurate but it is. Highlighting the women in this fight is the most effective way to garner international support. It's not about the individual sacrifices of those people, it's about what other governments can justify doing to help without jeopardizing their other endeavors. It's all a game, and we're all pawns.

I'd also add that Memorial Day started in 1868 well before women were in the military.

This isn't a sexist issue. It's a humanist issue. Stop trying to make it anything else.

−3

RyukHunter t1_iulokmo wrote

>So first, phrasing: what I meant was that I stand by that the media highlighting women does generate more clicks, which does generate more support. I am ok with this.

And men fall in the blindspot of that. Because the solutions will be made with women and children in mind only. You can't solve something you don't pay attention to. It might work here and there but more nuanced problems won't be solved.

While I agree that garnering support is good... It's of no use to certain groups if it doesn't go to everyone who needs it. Strategy wise what you say is sound but if you want to help men as well, it doesn't work. Cuz it will mostly be seen as a women's issue.

>I'd also add that Memorial Day started in 1868 well before women were in the military.

Yeah and? It came out of some kind of patriotism... To honor military service. Not men. Recognise the reasons. They are important (And I'd say the current form of celebrating such things has an negative effect as well. Promoting the expectation that people, mainly men, have to make that sacrifice in such circumstances). Positive (Making a sacrifice for your country) and negative (Being a causalty in a war or killed by your government for protesting) reasons make a lot of difference.

>This isn't a sexist issue. It's a humanist issue. Stop trying to make it anything else.

It is a lot more than a human issue. Not highlighting men won't solve their problems. And will cause more problems down the line. That's how it becomes an issue of sexism as well.

So ultimately... Highlight women and children but make space for men as well. Because if you don't highlight then then how will society care about them? That change won't come on it's own.

4

Blackwater-zombie t1_ium9iq4 wrote

It’s basically marketing, the reason for the fight has to be sold to the rest of the world in a way that the world will feel compassion and actually do something. Otherwise the rest of the world tends to just standby and not get involved.

2

Smarterthanlastweek t1_iumjm07 wrote

> it's a fight for freedom.

To show hair??? Seems like a lot of deaths for that.

Seriously, Why is having to cover one part of the body so important when we already have to cover so many other parts?

−3

imnitwit OP t1_iunxw4j wrote

no, that's my point. it's not about women's right to show hair, "only". it's against the systematically imposed tyranny. it can be manifested in many ways, not letting you show your hair, not having the right to divorce "by default", not letting you take custody of your child after divorce, arresting you for no reason, genocide, not letting you work because of your religion, etc.

every one of these manifestations target a group, and all those groups are exhausted. showing hair isn't about showing hair, it's about the right to show hair and it's only one of the reasons, yet it is a reason.

3

Smarterthanlastweek t1_iuo5bd3 wrote

> it can be manifested in many ways, not letting you show your hair, not having the right to divorce "by default", not letting you take custody of your child after divorce, arresting you for no reason, genocide, not letting you work because of your religion, etc.

It really seems they should be highlighting these things then.

FATHERS not getting their kids is a big problem in the west by the way. And lots of people also have big problems with how sexually explicit the west has gotten. It's a shit show! If that's what Iranian youth want, I wouldn't recommend it.

0

imnitwit OP t1_iuotf7n wrote

i know man. that's the whole point of what I'm saying, and this plot. that these must be highlighted (not only what the west wants to hear) and that it's not explicit to women.

and true, though I don't have an ideal eastern state in mind, I dare not to have a lazy answer. most of the people want what they see in Hollywood.

1

Smarterthanlastweek t1_iupnpz0 wrote

> most of the people want what they see in Hollywood.

Look at how here in the west they're teaching little kids IN SCHOOL that they can cut up their genitals and be the other gender. Look at the steep rise in fatherless families. Look at the porn problem and normalization of things like "Onlyfans" we have. Look at the rise in drug addiction. And decide if we're the example you want your emerging adults to be following.

1

imnitwit OP t1_iv13qz0 wrote

yes. those aren't my opinions. I mentioned what the majority of the people I see want.

1

Smarterthanlastweek t1_iv15vnl wrote

Then tell them to look up those things. I know there are many things not so good in islamic cultures, but don't make our mistakes.

2

cheapcardsandpacks t1_iul1019 wrote

Where there's a government, there's tyranny.

−16

ThePanoptic t1_iuljlhp wrote

it seems pretty alright for 180 other countries, and it has been going really well for the U.S. over the past 300 years.

Maybe live around the woods or something where there is no need to have an intermediate to govern society.

Where there is government, there is tyranny sometimes; where there is no government, there is no functioning society all the time.

6

cheapcardsandpacks t1_iulp65t wrote

We can function without a gov. Look into communal living. When you shop, go to work, etc, you don't need a gov. The gov forces mandatory schooling. They tell you if you don't give them money you'll go to prison, also known as tax.

−2

mfb- t1_iulrbg3 wrote

> We can function without a gov.

Not with modern living standards, not with the current world population. Sure, having a few people living in caves doesn't need a government, but that's not a realistic option today for most.

1

cheapcardsandpacks t1_iulxtr6 wrote

Look into anarcho communism. Why do you think we can't function without a gov. Give me some examples

−1

VisenyasRevenge t1_iumaz40 wrote

Because there will always be assholes who dont give a shit.

2

cheapcardsandpacks t1_iumnql6 wrote

That's why everyone can defend themselves. Also there can be security groups that can keep the peace like the cops. The gov is the biggest most powerful asshole

0