Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

RyukHunter t1_iuljvd7 wrote

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

>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