I think it's mostly selection bias on behalf of the media. Photographers are more likely to take pictures of attractive young women than of other people and media outlets are more inclined to use these pictures as illustration to stories about movements they like.

two layers of consent manufacturing machinery here: a) photographers that need to sell pictures of events are incentivized to snap photos that look good, which very often means attractive looking people--with other considerations of course like blood and action. there is no psy-op that photographers have produced thousands of pictures of protestors in the process of a good throw, it's just a dope photo and something that happens a lot.

b) news organizations that purchase and publish the photography have the same bias for striking images, plus the narrative that aligns with the interests they represent. right wing US rags love hot women protestors against [state enemy], they don't publish photogenic members of demonstrations in the US, who also very much exist

Entirely sampling bias, you remember most strongly the most visually striking (and thus most photographed) protesters.

what's the outcome of these protests, getting liberated by the 5 guys in Scholz's might German Army?

Well yes, but that's probably not what they're thinking when they're protesting - instead drinking the koolaid on the EU's promise of autonomy, equality, rule of law, economic progress etc.

Or for Zionists, they're just zionists who happen to be younger women who are more likely than not to be conventionally attractive because they're young.

A lot of the places subject to these kind of NGO industrial complex color revolution techniques are legitimately socially conservative (legitimately as in, socially conservative in reality, not just western propaganda). If one is a 18-30 year old woman in Iran, Georgia, Ukraine, or Bangladesh, and you are educated enough to speak English, you probably are in a class position where you already materially benefit from the NGO-industrial complex in some way and would potentially materially benefit more from deeper entrenchment of the NGO-industrial complex in your country. In short, I certainly believe that there's selection bias in terms of which protestors are most photographed and used in media stories. In addition, I speculate that there is selection bias that makes it more likely for young english speaking women to play an active role in agitating against governments in socially conservative countries.

It's the same strategy as the Ukrainian fascists accepting Zelensky as the leader of Ukraine. It's harder to attack, and if it is attacked it's much more fiercely opposed due to patriarchal attitudes of protecting the poor weak women(from the patriarchal perspective) being horribly oppressed.

Even discussing this issue candidly like this makes me sound horrific. To put it into those words I had to hedge multiple time because otherwise it sounds awful.

Fronting women in revolution (colour rev or not) is extremely powerful.

EDIT: Throwing this in here because

Show

No offense comrade, but if that theory came from the mouth of a lib about leftist protests, I'd be on the floor laughing about the cope.

Having said that, yeah, you're probably on to something, it would not surprise me at all. It's an easy way to manufacture consent for western audiences. Women might conflate those images subconsciously with women's liberation, straight men might be more likely to support because horny.

I know protests are fake when its all of a sudden every other tiktok in my feed despite me having no interest. This happened with georgia, all of a sudden every other tiktok was about it from a obviously pro eu biased stance

don't think it's an industrial complex more than the natural self interest of western media companies wanting to dumb down any protest movement for its audience.

There's a lot at play, such as the general subconscious sexism that portrays women as meek and caring over the violent, selfish man. On average (talking out of my ass here) this means media will naturally bias towards using women in imagery portraying protests to evoke positive emotions, the same way we often see women being used to evoke something being a tragedy. Men may be used to make a protest seem scary or violent, or to make a tragic event look menacing - Just think of how we see women Vs men used in news articles about immigration/refugees!

There's also just the sex appeal. Young women with features appealing to white western audiences are going to be featured in protest photography more than the men. This bias is likely at every level - photographers will likely photograph women more, whilst editors will likely select women from that already biased selection of photos. It's compounding; Especially if these choices are actively biased rather than unconsciously so.

There are loads of interacting social forces behind what is filtered down and slapped on an article designed for clicks rather than any amount of deeper thought. You're more than likely picking up on one of the many ways we're fed a skewed version of reality from almost all fronts.

That hair is a work of art for sure