189
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2026
189 points (96.1% liked)
World News
57952 readers
861 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah that's true, but "Islamic takeover" is quite a bit broader than that. If I was reading too much into it then my bad, but there's this idea on the internet that Iran was wholesome and secular before the Ayatollah showed up with their evil Islam (not to defend the Iranian regime obviously).
If outlets were to be believed, major cities like Tehran featured a cosmopolitan atmosphere with active café culture, Western fashion, and mixed-gender socialization.
Women gained the right to vote in 1963, pursued higher education in large numbers, and worked in professional fields like law, medicine, and government without any mandatory dress codes.
In contrast to the current situation IMO you can call that wholesome and secular.
It's important to bear in mind that those pictures show well-off urban people, who were by no means the majority.
During the first half of the 20th Century, even up to the 70s maybe, there was a growing sentiment amongst well-educated people throughout the Islamic world that secular societies like those of Europe and the US would be the way forward for their own countries.
Egypt for instance made great progress towards a more modern society under President Nasser. Before the 2 world wars, Turkey famously had Ataturk. These leaders framed religion as a personal matter while positioning the secular state as the vehicle for modernization, anti-imperialism, and economic progress.
Things were not all sunshine and rainbows of course, and there was terrible inequality and governments tended to be authoritarian. Rather than working tirelessly to foster more fair and open societies, the US and European govts were quite happy to exploit the nascent regimes for economic gain (typically access to oil) and political advantage (over the USSR).
Shitty behavior by US and European govts went a long way to destroying any good reputation and moral standing they may have had in the Middle East. Examples include, but are not limited to, the CIA coup that installed the Shah in the 50s and the 1956 Suez Crisis, where Britain and France held secret meetings with Israel and devised a plot where Israel would attack Egypt across the Sinai Peninsula, giving Britain and France a pretext to intervene militarily as "neutral peacemakers" to secure the canal zone.
So after islamic revolution iranians (especially women) lost nothing?
And how much if at all did that change in the meantime? With a source please.
Still do on all counts, dress code aside, though I have to question how important the right to vote is under either brutal dictatorship. For instance here's how the women's tertiary education graph looks like, noting that the Shah was overthrown in 1979. This is Iran, not Afghanistan. Also in general "modernity" under the Shah only penetrated into the upper class of society; ironically the vast majority of women saw more improvement in hallmarks of women's rights (education and such) under the Ayatollahs.
Women's education is quite literally the only improvement in terms of women's rights.
Women are forbidden from divorcing their husbands without cause, their testimony is worth less in court, married women have to leave their job if the husband deems this necessary, they can only have one husband (men can have 4 wives and up to 95 additional temporary wives), premarital sex has more grave consequences for women than for men etc. Most egregiously, if a woman is murdered, it's up to their next male living relative, if the murderer gets prosecuted. And if they decide on a blood money settlement, women are worth half as much as man.
Women are legally considered second class citizens in Iran. No amount of education fixes this.
Why aside?
And about education it's worth noting, that the UNESCO Institute for Statistics does not deploy it's own researchers to count students. Instead, its global database relies on states self-reporting their national figures.
https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/medias/fichiers/2025/08/WG_EMIS_2_Dynamic-Templates.pdf
Because this is something that changed after the Shah. The other things didn't, that's my point.
And do we have reason to doubt Iran's figures? They have no reason to fake them, and in any case the decline from 2014 isn't something you'd find in doctored data. Besides, again this isn't Afghanistan; the Iranian regime has no problem with women's education.
As well as my government (Russia) have no reason to hide or skew the number of casualties our bloody "leader" caused. Right?
I'm sorry I'm resorting to sarcasm, but I don't believe in the honesty of the tyrannical regimes.
Except it does have a reason to skew the number of casualties.
Without a concrete reason to doubt them in this case, or evidence that they're lying, what you believe in is frankly irrelevant. If they're reliable enough for the UN, they're reliable enough for me; what's your evidence that they're lying?
Why this case is special?
Their totalitarian lips are moving.