Who Gets to Define “Nuance”?

From the Desk at Finca Luz

Who speaks, who decides, and who pays the price

This morning, I posted a question that has been circling in my mind:

How many American soldiers will die in the Middle East in the name of oil, power, and political self-preservation?

How many civilians already have?

And why do we continue to accept that the people making these decisions are, overwhelmingly, men?

The response I received was predictable.

I was told my view was “one-sided.” That I lacked “nuance.” That I should consider the perspective of an Iranian woman who supports regime change, even if that means conflict.

And then, a familiar phrase:

He expected more nuance from me.

Expected.

It’s a small word, but it carries weight. An assumption of authority. A quiet positioning of who gets to evaluate, to correct, to set the terms of the conversation.

Let me be clear.

I did not dismiss the oppression of women or LGBTQ people in Iran. Or anywhere.

I have spent years working directly with survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. The overwhelming majority were harmed by men. And just as importantly, they were failed by systems—legal, political, religious, and economic—designed and defended largely by men in power.

So when I speak about power, I am not speaking abstractly.

I am speaking from lived professional experience.

Acknowledging that geopolitical conflicts are often driven by resource extraction, political control, and male-dominated leadership does not erase the suffering of women under oppressive regimes. It places that suffering within a broader, recurring pattern.

These realities are not in conflict. They coexist.

And yet, there is a familiar move that happens in conversations like this.

A single “real” story is offered as a corrective. A guest. A friend. Someone who has lived under a regime and holds a different view. As though one perspective—especially one with the means to leave—can override structural patterns that repeat across cultures, borders, and decades.

It cannot.

Individual experiences matter. But they do not negate systemic truths.

There is also something else at play here.

The word “nuance.”

Who gets to define it?

And who gets to demand it—or expect it—from others?

Because what is being called “nuance” is often something else entirely.

Deflection.

Reframing.

A subtle insistence that the conversation move away from systems and back toward individual exceptions.

But I am less interested in exceptions.

I am interested in patterns.

Patterns of violence.

Patterns of power.

Patterns of who decides—and who pays the price.

So I return to the question.

How many will die?

How many already have?

And for what?

Until we are willing to look directly at those patterns—without immediately reaching for softer language or more “comfortable” perspectives—I suspect the answer will remain the same.

More than we are willing to count.

Read more at Behind the Scenes on Substack