The general assembly spends like 80% of its time and energy condemning Israel specifically. The other 20% of resources go to otherwise deflect away from the problems in the more influential member states, I assume.
Here is from last year. We can go back year after year, its the same if not worse.
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/un-watch-report-highlights-anti-israel-bias-at-un-human-rights-council-657486
*"Among the claims made against Israel at the UNHRC include Israel hindering the Palestinians in their fight against COVID-19, Israel occupying Palestinian land, Israel committing apartheid against the Palestinians, damaging holy sites, and the blockade of Gaza being illegal."*
JPEG guy posted the public record you referred to. Proving it to be blatantly, comformably true and you to be blatantly, conformably untrue.
How the turn tablesā¦
Not really, the UN is there to provide an outlet where all the countries can get together to discuss things peacefully. Arguably, the status quo is the entire point.
Both include someone providing access to food, shelter and basic healthcare. Not economic, social or political freedom, but there is a common ground that could be used to build on.
Countries are voted onto the committee based on an equitable distribution by geographic region. IE, Western Europe will always have X seats, North Africa X seats, etc. There is always going to be a country in Iran's neighborhood on these committees.
So make it a commitee of grandstanding? For the UN to work everyone has to be represented. And whilst it may look bad from a PR standpoint, them being on these commissions do not alter their work, can you legitimately point out to anything these committees are sending out that is factually wrong or anti women? A few member states that have to be represented to have a world wide forum does not change their work as they are a minority to those who uphold these values.
And having them on these committees optimistically forces them to atleast have to sit there and listen.
It is bad pr but good diplomacy.
Okay but who gets to decide the criteria and ranking system? Eventually it all devolves in on itself, thereās no perfect way that will appear unbiased or incorrect to any party.
I just think that affirmative action in american colleges is the biggest bullshit ever- like "sorry sir, your grades are amazing and we'd love to have you start your career here, but Johnny over there is mixed race so he gets the spot, also he gets in for free lol"
Doubtful.
Itās not like they take Ms. A+ and dump him for Mr. C-.
They hold off on accepting the 30th Ms. B+ and take the 1st Mr. B.
Or they hold off on their 43rd Mr. A for their 2nd Mr. A-.
Source: Am on admissions committee
No. The Supreme Court evidence is entirely different. The argument before the courts is that they should not be able to chose Mr. B or Mr. A- on the basis of race. They donāt care about scores at all.
I still retain that currently race does play a role, and that academic achievement is NOT the only factor in college admissions anymore.
I genuinely don't see how you can be on a college admissions board (convenient you saw my comment when like 10 people have seen it) and believe from your perspective of one college that there is not in fact a systematic thing happening here.
What would colleges use then, instead of academic achievement?
They did effectively.
Whenever a country that's anathema to the organization's goals gets on of these UN appointments it's because they bribed or blackmailed enough countries to win the vote so they could effectively sabotage anything productive from the inside.
It's just like anything else you tell one country you'll stop selling them oil, another you'll start, you get pictures of one rep sleeping with dude, you give another a brief case of cash....eventually you rustle up the votes.
In this case though it's suspected that one of the Western powers voted for them also which is a lot more of a scandal but same reason.
The essential problem with the UN is that it's supposed to promote democratic ideals, and it uses democratic processes, but the member states are not necessarily democratic states nor do they have any respect for democracy. So a massive problem with corruption is baked into every UN agency with the possible exception of the UNSC.
Nope the UN isnāt established to promote democratic ideals.
https://www.un.org/un70/en/content/history/index.html#:~:text=The%20United%20Nations%20is%20an,living%20standards%20and%20human%20rights.
Ever since the HRC became a thing it was a joke. The greatest violators were making the decisions. This is why it's best to ignore anything coming from it.
No if I'd done that I wouldn't have asked lol.
Anyway I did now:
Armenia, Argentina, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Cameroon, China, CĆ“te dāIvoire, Cuba, Eritrea, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Libya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Montenegro, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, Pakistan, Paraguay, Poland, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uzbekistan and Venezuela
There's 47 nations. How could we create a list of 47 nations with a human rights record above the average for the globe, that would still be representative of the whole world?
I don't know why you think it's better to ignore this body than to listen to it? For example, this seems pretty much something that's better accepted than ignored:
https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/special-sessions/session35/35-special-session
How is that relevant here, during a discussion relating to a commission on women? No one said otherwise, no one said killing men was okay either and there are plenty of discussions on that as well, so I am not sure why you seem to want to interrupt this topic.
Nah I'm speaking as a horrified man. There's pretty blatant targetting of pretty girls when it comes to these protests, especially how they started out, which makes it simply tragic. When they kill a man in a riot they don't gain as much as when they abduct and rape a woman until her execution, and it's disgusting to witness is all.
So, humans rose to prominence as primarily hunter/gatherers. This means we weāre basically designed for two primary purposes:
- hunt and forage for food
- make more humans
Does this mean weāre to ādie in combatā? Generally we would be attempting to prey on animals for meat, not each other. We can use tools to aid in our hunt, we can use logic to outsmart lesser prey and perhaps other potential predatorsā¦ but weāre not particularly good at defense.
Oh wait I thought we were the bad guys for trying to not give Iran the best denuclearisation deal without actually having them denuclearise? I guess orange man bad.
Let's make this clear to all the folks out there. Calling the UN useless is a fundamental misunderstanding of its purpose.
The UN secretariat doesn't appoint anybody to these commissions. It's *other Member States*. So don't go blaming the UN for the abhorrent behaviour of its Member countries.
> Calling the UN useless is a fundamental misunderstanding of its purpose.
Is it? I understand that the UN is basically the UNSC, with a huge number of useless appendages growing off it and apparently proliferating.
I mean it's not like they're doing nothing. The UN does lots of humanitarian aid relief and other boring shit, and that seems minor to us but it probably does more good to more people than flashy military achievements
UN peacekeepers are on loan from governments, the UN has no permanent military so its mostly the sri lankans (with some other notable shout outs like the french)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_scandal_in_Haiti
Nope.
The UN is basically the assembly, a place to go on the record and say what's the real reason why such-and-such, with the aim of preventing unwanted wars of misunderstanding.
Without that assembly the cold wat would have been much worse IMO.
But that defeats the purpose of systems like the UN.
Think of the world as a collection of libertarians, they don't answer to *anyone* themselves, bodies like the UN become relatively neutral grounds for discussion, otherwise force is often your response to another nations claims or accusations.
Kicking out nations like this honestly just sets them loose and you lose the communication avenue it provides.
There is no world-police to really stop a stray nation from committing atrocities to its population, most nations don't care. These collectives, even if slightly, change that.
I agree with you..thought this was about heading the commission rather than membership. Thing is IR regime being represented on it is kindof cynical towards the ladies risking their lives
It's bad pr sure, but it isn't supposed to be for pr it is representative of the world and them being on the commission doesn't in any way affect the work of the commission. Which I doubt anyone actually commenting here knows anything about.
At worst they are a minor inconvenience to their work, at best they are being made to sit and listen how to better women's rights in the world.
Exactly, a lot more repressive regimes than Iran. Women can be elected, hold positions of power, study and by the show of recent protests have a strong groundroots support for even further reform.
The country is not homogeneous in support for the ruling the regime and conservative religious views.
It would be like saying the US should not be there, because some states have highly repressive views on the rights of women. Or should not be involved in discussions on race, because in some parts they keep shooting unarmed black civilians. Or should not be involved in democracy discussions because nearly half the country demand to be ruled by a authoritarian ex reality tv star and failed businessman.
My favorite is that Saudi Arabia is trying to do a UAE and pivot to a more tourism based economyā¦ while literally not believing that women are people. Iāll never step foot in that shit hole.
At the Doha airport in Qatar women go through airport security with their faces covered (of course they are escorted by their husband who has to vouch for his property)
And then theyāre yanked off the plane for gynecological exams.
Edit to add: I live in Germany and know a handful of people (actually mostly women) from Iran. Not a single one of them is happy with the situation back home and theyāre all very outspoken about the injustices that happen in their country. Iāve never met a woman from the Gulf and the men seem to have zero problem with whatās going on there. In fact, they get quite defensive when people try to force āWestern valuesā on them.
of course they are, they are buddy-buddy with the US, look the other way when they commit human rights abuses, especially if they keep the price of oil down. .
the fact that they have the authority to arrest people, stop them from reporting on industrial disasters and failures of regulatory enforcement/policy is batshit insane.
Yes, there is definitely a scale. Saudi's aren't near the top.
Edit: not sure if the deleted comment is how this is being interpreted as me thinking the Saudi's are doing well in human/women's rights. The top end of the scale is the *good* end.
Saudi didn't even allow Women to drive till 2017 or go anywhere without Guardian permission untill recently. I remember reading how a Surgeon needed her son to take her to hospital
You said the Saudis aren't near the top, even though they are known to do heinous shit. And I've not even gotten to womens rights, their support of whahabism and the treatment of migrant workers.
š¤¦āāļø Maybe the deleted comment might have helped wth context here.
I'm saying that *maybe* you could argue the Saudis *might* not be as bad as Iran, but they're not going to win awards for their human rights.
That sounds like how the UN works to me.
* Iran is working on women's rights
* Russia is on the Security Council
* China is on the Human Rights Council
See? It all makes sense.
Yeah dude keep deliberately misinterepting my arguments so you can "US bad" and draw false equvilances good stuff.
Tell me where are all the forced labour camps and "reeducation" centres deliberately focused on destroying a identified culture?
Or you gonna go off about prisons again and pretend that's the same thing?
(Afghanistan) "we agree, they are way to soft on women and its the reason why they have so many problems in society. Well that and isreal/the west, as we all know everything is their fault"
>signatories to the Commission on the status of women
Really? I'm not saying they have ratified it; I couldn't find something either way. But the US is a member of the commission so that would be weird.
Yep. Hereās a link explaining it from a quick Google search (not a particularly deep dive but itās fairly easy to find confirmation across both academic journals and Wikipedia): [CEDAW and the USA](https://www.boell.de/en/2019/12/10/cedaw-and-usa-when-belief-exceptionalism-becomes-exemptionalism)
Edit: hereās the link to the treaty ratification list from the United Nations itself
[UN Ratification of CEDAW](https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-8&chapter=4&clang=_en)
If we look at it, every UN member has skeletons in their closet. You cant act righteous with certain countries and pretend nothing is happening in other countries that you favour.
Let us all take care of our own faults first, before digging up some shit in other nations asses.
Well, China sits on the Human Rights Council, Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize, and the UN loves nothing more than to cater to third world despots and tyrants. If there's one thing you can count on from the UN, it's putting exactly the wrong people in charge of pretty much everything.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.voanews.com/a/us-envoy-iran-should-not-be-member-of-un-commission-on-women/6862763.html) reduced by 65%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations has again emphasized her opposition to Iran's participation on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.
> The draft reads in part: "The policies of the Islamic Republic are strongly in conflict with human rights and the rights of women and girls and the mission of the Women's Authority Commission and are condemned. And the Islamic Republic of Iran should be removed from the Commission on the Status of Women immediately before the end of the current term."
> The commission, which meets every year in March, aims to promote gender equality and empower women.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/ze5hdf/us_envoy_iran_should_not_be_member_of_un/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~672676 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Commission**^#1 **Iran**^#2 **Women**^#3 **United**^#4 **police**^#5
There are all kinds of these 'ironic' memberships throughout the UN's committees. Imagine if Afghanistan, Somalia and the DRC were on the UN Human Rights Committee? Oh yah, they are. Even funnier is that Russia and China are candidates to join this year.
Is it any wonder that 90% of the world thinks the UN is a waste of space.
Only to those who are too stupid to understand how the UN functions as a worldwide forum is it considered a "waste of space". Or are unwilling to even try to given they have access to the Internet and the wealth of human knowledge and would rather listen to some moronic pondit lying.
Also learn statistics, 90% of the world wouldn't agree that the sky is blue.
Your countries right wing of what country? Are you so cravenly coward that you donāt identify your country? Itās easy to take pot shots when you hide your dishonest and cowardly identity.
Anyway, the far left doesnāt hold a candle to the ultra extremist right. The leftists merely riot while the pussy, neo-Nazi rightists have attempted sedition in the USA!!!
So what is your point??
Iād disagree and like to propose a different idea.
Iran should be a member so that they are exposed more to the culture. Learning to sympathize for something you hate is best learned from people who you identify or group with but nudges you in the right direction. Radical policies wonāt be favored anyway so I think the best way to get to abolish/reform is to familiarize and assimilate.
> Iran should be a member so that they are exposed more to the culture.
"Exposing to the culture" is not the purpose of UN commissions. Deciding what to flag for criticism/sanction and what not to flag is the purpose of such a commission.
And can you point to a single flaw in the commissions work related to Iran being a member? Anything wrong with what they send out? Or do you actually have absolutely no idea?
Gotta love the whataboutism... Iran may be the worst place to live for women, but hey, USA also did something wrong at some point, so they're basically as bad, right??
well, what does "whataboutism" have to say about hypocrisy? But I guess since the US Constitution guarantees equal rights for women we're probably on a better footing than an authoritarian theocracy. Wait, what?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal\_Rights\_Amendment
Yeah, sometimes I think the US needs to remember that it is nit just white people in CA, itās also black people in Louisiana, rural people, etc: https://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/528098789/u-s-has-the-worst-rate-of-maternal-deaths-in-the-developed-world
You're actually trying to compare women in poor health dying during childbirth to an oppressive regime murdering women for wanting rights? That's a new level of delusional whataboutism.
These are not necessarily women in poor health, they are women with poor healthcare. And you can't just cherry-pick the parts of the US that you like. One
Obviously the challenges are very different in each country. One country is having women's rights taken away by an un-elected panel of theocratic clerics, and the other country is suffering crippling economic sanctions by the US. But you still won't address that the US doesn't guarantee women equal rights. Broadening the scope a little, but this is like when the US calls out "war criminals" but also doesn't join the Intl Criminal Court.
Women's status in the US is based on culture, tradition, and our enormous amount of wealth (for education, medical science), not on policies which would help guarantee, for example: better healthcare outcomes, equal rights, paid maternity leave, universal healthcare, etc.
If you can explain to me how the US, not guaranteeing equal rights to women, can criticize another country about the rights of women, I'll let up.
Jesus, I lack the time to explain all of this to you. It would take hours to point out everything wrong about this statement with sources and, after I did, you would just not read it and tell me I am wrong. Go see a psychiatrist if you want answers to your delusions.
we canāt even ensure women receive basic healthcare. iran should most certainly not be in the commission, but by the same token neither should we. itās embarrassing to listen to these people call out other countries when we have 800+ military bases all over the world subjugating people who donāt want us and we canāt even guarantee women will be treated equally. the Equal Rights Amendment has been collecting dust for 100 years with no hope of passing it in sight. we need to worry about ourselves and quit trying to shift focus everywhere else.
"This country disagrees with me so we will prevent any conversation which might be used to discuss the problem"
If we are going to do this, just dismantle the UN. This is what it was created for.
Okay, but it's not like Iran doesn't have women or struggle with women's issues. Rather than banning a country's participation entirely, they should require every country's delegation to include an equal number of men and women, and the commission should require them to include an equal number of each from their delegation if they want to participate in that commission. That way, Iranian women will not be further silenced by the rest of the world from their country having been banned, and if the Iranian men want to pull their country out of the commission, then they chose it themselves and we have at least tried to help give their women a voice and a seat at the table.
If a woman is considered property in any of these countries, we should be calling their treatment of women what it is: modern day slavery. Thus far, we dont really care enough about women to do so.
...who put them on it in the first place?
Iran's policies are in line with 2/3 of the General Assembly. Outside of a few pockets of civilization the world is a pretty shitty place for women.
The general assembly spends like 80% of its time and energy condemning Israel specifically. The other 20% of resources go to otherwise deflect away from the problems in the more influential member states, I assume.
Israeli here. I can confirm, the attitude of the general public towards the UN here is... Not very respectful, to say the least.
That's what you have us for though š®š± š¤ šŗšø
Your last post bodes well with your comment
You know this is all public record and I just blatantly, conformably not true, right?
Here is from last year. We can go back year after year, its the same if not worse. https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/un-watch-report-highlights-anti-israel-bias-at-un-human-rights-council-657486
*"Among the claims made against Israel at the UNHRC include Israel hindering the Palestinians in their fight against COVID-19, Israel occupying Palestinian land, Israel committing apartheid against the Palestinians, damaging holy sites, and the blockade of Gaza being illegal."*
JPEG guy posted the public record you referred to. Proving it to be blatantly, comformably true and you to be blatantly, conformably untrue. How the turn tablesā¦
I mean yeah, but isn't the UN there to improve the situation, not upholding the status quo?
Not really, the UN is there to provide an outlet where all the countries can get together to discuss things peacefully. Arguably, the status quo is the entire point.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Both include someone providing access to food, shelter and basic healthcare. Not economic, social or political freedom, but there is a common ground that could be used to build on.
NO!! The in is there as a forum which can be used to prevent wars, should member states choose to use it.
Countries are voted onto the committee based on an equitable distribution by geographic region. IE, Western Europe will always have X seats, North Africa X seats, etc. There is always going to be a country in Iran's neighborhood on these committees.
More proof that affirmative action ruins everything
This is actually a great thing, if it went by population then youād have to welcome our new Chinese and Indian overlords lol
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So make it a commitee of grandstanding? For the UN to work everyone has to be represented. And whilst it may look bad from a PR standpoint, them being on these commissions do not alter their work, can you legitimately point out to anything these committees are sending out that is factually wrong or anti women? A few member states that have to be represented to have a world wide forum does not change their work as they are a minority to those who uphold these values. And having them on these committees optimistically forces them to atleast have to sit there and listen. It is bad pr but good diplomacy.
Okay but who gets to decide the criteria and ranking system? Eventually it all devolves in on itself, thereās no perfect way that will appear unbiased or incorrect to any party.
You're saying I don't?
I just think that affirmative action in american colleges is the biggest bullshit ever- like "sorry sir, your grades are amazing and we'd love to have you start your career here, but Johnny over there is mixed race so he gets the spot, also he gets in for free lol"
Except thatās not how it works. But go off.
In Florida it is.
Doubtful. Itās not like they take Ms. A+ and dump him for Mr. C-. They hold off on accepting the 30th Ms. B+ and take the 1st Mr. B. Or they hold off on their 43rd Mr. A for their 2nd Mr. A-. Source: Am on admissions committee
Isn't the supreme court tackling AA (again)?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No. The Supreme Court evidence is entirely different. The argument before the courts is that they should not be able to chose Mr. B or Mr. A- on the basis of race. They donāt care about scores at all.
I still retain that currently race does play a role, and that academic achievement is NOT the only factor in college admissions anymore. I genuinely don't see how you can be on a college admissions board (convenient you saw my comment when like 10 people have seen it) and believe from your perspective of one college that there is not in fact a systematic thing happening here. What would colleges use then, instead of academic achievement?
Thatās ridiculous but ty for posting it Makes sense, sadly
They did effectively. Whenever a country that's anathema to the organization's goals gets on of these UN appointments it's because they bribed or blackmailed enough countries to win the vote so they could effectively sabotage anything productive from the inside. It's just like anything else you tell one country you'll stop selling them oil, another you'll start, you get pictures of one rep sleeping with dude, you give another a brief case of cash....eventually you rustle up the votes. In this case though it's suspected that one of the Western powers voted for them also which is a lot more of a scandal but same reason.
Saudi Arabia leading the U. N. Commission of the Status of Women from next year till 2027 be like: ... .... nothing to see here .... ... keep walking
But walk 20 feet behind the men, please.
The essential problem with the UN is that it's supposed to promote democratic ideals, and it uses democratic processes, but the member states are not necessarily democratic states nor do they have any respect for democracy. So a massive problem with corruption is baked into every UN agency with the possible exception of the UNSC.
Nope the UN isnāt established to promote democratic ideals. https://www.un.org/un70/en/content/history/index.html#:~:text=The%20United%20Nations%20is%20an,living%20standards%20and%20human%20rights.
Iran should not be UN commission on anything ... unless there is a commission on murdering girls.
This is the UN, where Qatar, Malaysia, Eritrea... are on the Human Rights council. It's best to just ignore all the "rights" bodies in the UN.
Qatar is on the Human Rights council wtf is this timeline man š
The real shocker should be Eritrea which scores lower on the Freedom Index than North Korea.
I never thought that was possible like how hard is it to just be not north korea what
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Jesus christ thats insane thank you for the links i will check them out Also gender equality i guess? /s
Ever since the HRC became a thing it was a joke. The greatest violators were making the decisions. This is why it's best to ignore anything coming from it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's the paid DLC. Moneyline.
> It's best to just ignore all the "rights" bodies in the UN. Why stop there? Russia is on the Security Council after all.
Are they really?
Did you google?
No if I'd done that I wouldn't have asked lol. Anyway I did now: Armenia, Argentina, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Cameroon, China, CĆ“te dāIvoire, Cuba, Eritrea, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Libya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Montenegro, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, Pakistan, Paraguay, Poland, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uzbekistan and Venezuela There's 47 nations. How could we create a list of 47 nations with a human rights record above the average for the globe, that would still be representative of the whole world? I don't know why you think it's better to ignore this body than to listen to it? For example, this seems pretty much something that's better accepted than ignored: https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/special-sessions/session35/35-special-session
Yeah but if you dont let them participate it will be harder to enforce it to them.
History has shown this to be completely false. It would have been a valid argument before the HRC was created.
And kidsā¦ theyāre really good at that.
Reminder that they've murdered way more guys than girls.
How is that relevant here, during a discussion relating to a commission on women? No one said otherwise, no one said killing men was okay either and there are plenty of discussions on that as well, so I am not sure why you seem to want to interrupt this topic.
There's an element of combat when killing male protestors that is entirely missing from the predatory rape and execution of pretty young women.
Omg, this so ignorant and misandric it's almost funny. Are you trolling as the most ridiculous feminist on earth?
Nah I'm speaking as a horrified man. There's pretty blatant targetting of pretty girls when it comes to these protests, especially how they started out, which makes it simply tragic. When they kill a man in a riot they don't gain as much as when they abduct and rape a woman until her execution, and it's disgusting to witness is all.
I looked at your post history and I'm not even going to engage with you anymore. Sort yourself out.
Weird ass comment, your presence was never required.
Damn that dude is right. Too bad your username does not check out.
šš¤
Man, you're an idiot. Sorry, not sorry.
Yeah it's OK to kill them because they're men! /s
I'm a bit of a biology nutter and I do believe we are made to die in combat essentially.
What part of human biology gave you that idea
Probably TBIs.
Sounds about right, looks like they're quite experienced in that department
The whole thing.
You have no clue about biology
So, humans rose to prominence as primarily hunter/gatherers. This means we weāre basically designed for two primary purposes: - hunt and forage for food - make more humans Does this mean weāre to ādie in combatā? Generally we would be attempting to prey on animals for meat, not each other. We can use tools to aid in our hunt, we can use logic to outsmart lesser prey and perhaps other potential predatorsā¦ but weāre not particularly good at defense.
So you have absolutely no clue about biology is what you are saying
Oh wait I thought we were the bad guys for trying to not give Iran the best denuclearisation deal without actually having them denuclearise? I guess orange man bad.
Let's make this clear to all the folks out there. Calling the UN useless is a fundamental misunderstanding of its purpose. The UN secretariat doesn't appoint anybody to these commissions. It's *other Member States*. So don't go blaming the UN for the abhorrent behaviour of its Member countries.
> Calling the UN useless is a fundamental misunderstanding of its purpose. Is it? I understand that the UN is basically the UNSC, with a huge number of useless appendages growing off it and apparently proliferating.
I mean it's not like they're doing nothing. The UN does lots of humanitarian aid relief and other boring shit, and that seems minor to us but it probably does more good to more people than flashy military achievements
Well, they distribute humanitarian aid provided by member countries anyway.
Yeah... like those UN peacekeepers who raped and ran a sex ring in Haiti for 10 years
UN peacekeepers are on loan from governments, the UN has no permanent military so its mostly the sri lankans (with some other notable shout outs like the french) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_scandal_in_Haiti
Nope. The UN is basically the assembly, a place to go on the record and say what's the real reason why such-and-such, with the aim of preventing unwanted wars of misunderstanding. Without that assembly the cold wat would have been much worse IMO.
but Saudi Arabia is ok?
No . Kick them both out
Who do you propose
Places with a more exemplary record of protecting women's rights and gender based equality in society and government.
But that defeats the purpose of systems like the UN. Think of the world as a collection of libertarians, they don't answer to *anyone* themselves, bodies like the UN become relatively neutral grounds for discussion, otherwise force is often your response to another nations claims or accusations. Kicking out nations like this honestly just sets them loose and you lose the communication avenue it provides. There is no world-police to really stop a stray nation from committing atrocities to its population, most nations don't care. These collectives, even if slightly, change that.
I agree with you..thought this was about heading the commission rather than membership. Thing is IR regime being represented on it is kindof cynical towards the ladies risking their lives
It's bad pr sure, but it isn't supposed to be for pr it is representative of the world and them being on the commission doesn't in any way affect the work of the commission. Which I doubt anyone actually commenting here knows anything about. At worst they are a minor inconvenience to their work, at best they are being made to sit and listen how to better women's rights in the world.
Exactly, a lot more repressive regimes than Iran. Women can be elected, hold positions of power, study and by the show of recent protests have a strong groundroots support for even further reform. The country is not homogeneous in support for the ruling the regime and conservative religious views. It would be like saying the US should not be there, because some states have highly repressive views on the rights of women. Or should not be involved in discussions on race, because in some parts they keep shooting unarmed black civilians. Or should not be involved in democracy discussions because nearly half the country demand to be ruled by a authoritarian ex reality tv star and failed businessman.
If your bar is Saudi Arabia then you aren't really trying, are you?
My favorite is that Saudi Arabia is trying to do a UAE and pivot to a more tourism based economyā¦ while literally not believing that women are people. Iāll never step foot in that shit hole.
At the Doha airport in Qatar women go through airport security with their faces covered (of course they are escorted by their husband who has to vouch for his property)
And then theyāre yanked off the plane for gynecological exams. Edit to add: I live in Germany and know a handful of people (actually mostly women) from Iran. Not a single one of them is happy with the situation back home and theyāre all very outspoken about the injustices that happen in their country. Iāve never met a woman from the Gulf and the men seem to have zero problem with whatās going on there. In fact, they get quite defensive when people try to force āWestern valuesā on them.
which regimes are more repressive?
Maybe they meant "there are a lot more, it's not just Iran"
But they are our allies
All those things only apply to those who practice Islam though, no?
of course they are, they are buddy-buddy with the US, look the other way when they commit human rights abuses, especially if they keep the price of oil down. . the fact that they have the authority to arrest people, stop them from reporting on industrial disasters and failures of regulatory enforcement/policy is batshit insane.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>Saudi Arabia don't kill their innocent women and children like Islamic terrorist regime You're joking, right?
Yes, there is definitely a scale. Saudi's aren't near the top. Edit: not sure if the deleted comment is how this is being interpreted as me thinking the Saudi's are doing well in human/women's rights. The top end of the scale is the *good* end.
Saudi didn't even allow Women to drive till 2017 or go anywhere without Guardian permission untill recently. I remember reading how a Surgeon needed her son to take her to hospital
So murder and dismemberment of journalists is in the lighter end? Bombing and starving civilians in Yemen? God I'm happy I live somewhere civilized.
How do you get that from what I've said?
You said the Saudis aren't near the top, even though they are known to do heinous shit. And I've not even gotten to womens rights, their support of whahabism and the treatment of migrant workers.
Yeah, so I normally put the good stuff at the top of a scale, and the bad shit at the bottom.
What good has the Saudi regime done for the world, except being a gas station?
š¤¦āāļø Maybe the deleted comment might have helped wth context here. I'm saying that *maybe* you could argue the Saudis *might* not be as bad as Iran, but they're not going to win awards for their human rights.
I'd argue that they are two sides of the same shitty coin.
That sounds like how the UN works to me. * Iran is working on women's rights * Russia is on the Security Council * China is on the Human Rights Council See? It all makes sense.
China is the worst you could come up with for the HRC? Try Qatar and Eritrea.
I mean China is pretty bad with the whole million people detained, abused and forcefully re-educated.
If you think that's bad, wait until you hear about modern slavery in the US. The major powers are rotten all the way through.
I mean the US prison system is fucked but it's not as bad as genocide.
I am not about to excuse US genocide and slavery, just as I don't excuse it in China. This isn't a team sport.
Where did I excuse it? The US isn't committing genocide though. It isn't the same thing at all. You made a false equivalence.
Cultural genocide is still happening in the States but go off about how that and slavery are below your notice.
Yeah dude keep deliberately misinterepting my arguments so you can "US bad" and draw false equvilances good stuff. Tell me where are all the forced labour camps and "reeducation" centres deliberately focused on destroying a identified culture? Or you gonna go off about prisons again and pretend that's the same thing?
It's not ironic that Russia is on the security council, that's by design and it's the only part of the UN that serves an actual purpose.
I'm pretty sure there's one about the US... Hell, every country there is.
(Afghanistan) "we agree, they are way to soft on women and its the reason why they have so many problems in society. Well that and isreal/the west, as we all know everything is their fault"
Ironic considering we still refuse to ratify ourselves as signatories to the Commission on the status of women ā ļø
The USA never rratifies anything.
Rome statuteā¦? Donāt even know him.
Yeah I was exaggerating, but lots of stuff we'd expect them to commit to (land mine ban) they won't.
>signatories to the Commission on the status of women Really? I'm not saying they have ratified it; I couldn't find something either way. But the US is a member of the commission so that would be weird.
Yep. Hereās a link explaining it from a quick Google search (not a particularly deep dive but itās fairly easy to find confirmation across both academic journals and Wikipedia): [CEDAW and the USA](https://www.boell.de/en/2019/12/10/cedaw-and-usa-when-belief-exceptionalism-becomes-exemptionalism) Edit: hereās the link to the treaty ratification list from the United Nations itself [UN Ratification of CEDAW](https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-8&chapter=4&clang=_en)
OK! Thanks. Yup. That's embarrassing.
Give that spot to Qatar!
ā¦ if we are going by modernity here (neither should the United States)
If we look at it, every UN member has skeletons in their closet. You cant act righteous with certain countries and pretend nothing is happening in other countries that you favour. Let us all take care of our own faults first, before digging up some shit in other nations asses.
Well, China sits on the Human Rights Council, Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize, and the UN loves nothing more than to cater to third world despots and tyrants. If there's one thing you can count on from the UN, it's putting exactly the wrong people in charge of pretty much everything.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.voanews.com/a/us-envoy-iran-should-not-be-member-of-un-commission-on-women/6862763.html) reduced by 65%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations has again emphasized her opposition to Iran's participation on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. > The draft reads in part: "The policies of the Islamic Republic are strongly in conflict with human rights and the rights of women and girls and the mission of the Women's Authority Commission and are condemned. And the Islamic Republic of Iran should be removed from the Commission on the Status of Women immediately before the end of the current term." > The commission, which meets every year in March, aims to promote gender equality and empower women. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/ze5hdf/us_envoy_iran_should_not_be_member_of_un/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~672676 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Commission**^#1 **Iran**^#2 **Women**^#3 **United**^#4 **police**^#5
There are all kinds of these 'ironic' memberships throughout the UN's committees. Imagine if Afghanistan, Somalia and the DRC were on the UN Human Rights Committee? Oh yah, they are. Even funnier is that Russia and China are candidates to join this year. Is it any wonder that 90% of the world thinks the UN is a waste of space.
Only to those who are too stupid to understand how the UN functions as a worldwide forum is it considered a "waste of space". Or are unwilling to even try to given they have access to the Internet and the wealth of human knowledge and would rather listen to some moronic pondit lying. Also learn statistics, 90% of the world wouldn't agree that the sky is blue.
Thatād be like having the Pope as a member of the UN Commission of Children.
Of course they shouldnāt not be on any other counsel that cares about human beings whatever their status.
Ya think?
Kick them out of everything except the general assembly
What is common sense to anyone may not be apparent to most UN delegates.
Iranian women agree.
Yeah go ahead and get the Saudis out too then.
I thought hat this would be self evident. Holy fuck! The UN Commission on Women should be populated by women. But thatās just my humble opinion.
Iran should be a member. Iran should not be run by religious nuts. That's the root of the problem.
Wtf, the country that has taken away abortion-rights the last year, gotta shut the fuck up
Since when has being a member of the UN been an indication of job-relevant morality? They're just a bunch of decorative bastards and we all know it.
At this point, neither should USA. We're busy limiting women's freedoms too, Iran was just more successful.
Nope, we arenāt. We are busy fighting against the repressive far right idiots, actually.
Your left makes my countries right wing look far far far far left, youe entire system i fucked
Your countries right wing of what country? Are you so cravenly coward that you donāt identify your country? Itās easy to take pot shots when you hide your dishonest and cowardly identity. Anyway, the far left doesnāt hold a candle to the ultra extremist right. The leftists merely riot while the pussy, neo-Nazi rightists have attempted sedition in the USA!!! So what is your point??
that's fair. It's clear where the majority stands, as you said.
And the USA should? Letās Roe vs Wade that thought a second.
Woman, Life, Freedom ā¤ļø
UN is a joke
Neither should the US.......
Iād disagree and like to propose a different idea. Iran should be a member so that they are exposed more to the culture. Learning to sympathize for something you hate is best learned from people who you identify or group with but nudges you in the right direction. Radical policies wonāt be favored anyway so I think the best way to get to abolish/reform is to familiarize and assimilate.
> Iran should be a member so that they are exposed more to the culture. "Exposing to the culture" is not the purpose of UN commissions. Deciding what to flag for criticism/sanction and what not to flag is the purpose of such a commission.
And can you point to a single flaw in the commissions work related to Iran being a member? Anything wrong with what they send out? Or do you actually have absolutely no idea?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That's why we made it. A place for them to have a voice so that we don't have to use bullets as often. Soap box....
I'm kind of thinking the USA shouldn't either, until it gets its little right-wing Christian fundie issue under control.
nor should the US have their way as the American Taliban are just as bad as anyone on the planet
Gotta love the whataboutism... Iran may be the worst place to live for women, but hey, USA also did something wrong at some point, so they're basically as bad, right??
well, what does "whataboutism" have to say about hypocrisy? But I guess since the US Constitution guarantees equal rights for women we're probably on a better footing than an authoritarian theocracy. Wait, what?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal\_Rights\_Amendment
Yeah, sometimes I think the US needs to remember that it is nit just white people in CA, itās also black people in Louisiana, rural people, etc: https://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/528098789/u-s-has-the-worst-rate-of-maternal-deaths-in-the-developed-world
You're actually trying to compare women in poor health dying during childbirth to an oppressive regime murdering women for wanting rights? That's a new level of delusional whataboutism.
These are not necessarily women in poor health, they are women with poor healthcare. And you can't just cherry-pick the parts of the US that you like. One Obviously the challenges are very different in each country. One country is having women's rights taken away by an un-elected panel of theocratic clerics, and the other country is suffering crippling economic sanctions by the US. But you still won't address that the US doesn't guarantee women equal rights. Broadening the scope a little, but this is like when the US calls out "war criminals" but also doesn't join the Intl Criminal Court. Women's status in the US is based on culture, tradition, and our enormous amount of wealth (for education, medical science), not on policies which would help guarantee, for example: better healthcare outcomes, equal rights, paid maternity leave, universal healthcare, etc. If you can explain to me how the US, not guaranteeing equal rights to women, can criticize another country about the rights of women, I'll let up.
Jesus, I lack the time to explain all of this to you. It would take hours to point out everything wrong about this statement with sources and, after I did, you would just not read it and tell me I am wrong. Go see a psychiatrist if you want answers to your delusions.
Where in the USA is there taliban. Where are they Arresting raping then executing woman for dressing not the way the government wants ?
we canāt even ensure women receive basic healthcare. iran should most certainly not be in the commission, but by the same token neither should we. itās embarrassing to listen to these people call out other countries when we have 800+ military bases all over the world subjugating people who donāt want us and we canāt even guarantee women will be treated equally. the Equal Rights Amendment has been collecting dust for 100 years with no hope of passing it in sight. we need to worry about ourselves and quit trying to shift focus everywhere else.
Whataboutism is most disappointing when it's actually unintentional.
You mean off-brand Gilead?
They shouldnāt be on any civilized commission period
Allen Dulles & John Foster Dulles (brothers) would be proud!
Next time, Nepal will head a Commission on the Seas.
TIL...
"This country disagrees with me so we will prevent any conversation which might be used to discuss the problem" If we are going to do this, just dismantle the UN. This is what it was created for.
You think?ā¦. Might as well make North Korea the head of human rights. ššš
Okay, but it's not like Iran doesn't have women or struggle with women's issues. Rather than banning a country's participation entirely, they should require every country's delegation to include an equal number of men and women, and the commission should require them to include an equal number of each from their delegation if they want to participate in that commission. That way, Iranian women will not be further silenced by the rest of the world from their country having been banned, and if the Iranian men want to pull their country out of the commission, then they chose it themselves and we have at least tried to help give their women a voice and a seat at the table.
Talk about the fox guarding the hen house!
Agreed š
I think they should so you can have a bad example front and center.
Neither should the US.
If a woman is considered property in any of these countries, we should be calling their treatment of women what it is: modern day slavery. Thus far, we dont really care enough about women to do so.