Why was it mostly men on the march?

[noblegiraffe]

I've seen quite a few photos of the march yesterday, and they pretty much all look like the one below. Vast majority men. Why is that? Why is Robinson's patriot messaging and call-to-action landing mostly with men and not women?

Voting by sex wasn't massively different in the last general election - men were certainly more likely to vote Reform, but not by a huge amount, so generally politically we're not that different.

Source?

I used to go on quite a few marches when I lived in London, but from experience, these things always start out peaceful and then kick off quite suddenly. Sometimes you miss the drama and only read about it on the news later and sometimes it kicks off next to you and you're in the eye of the storm. I'm too old and boring to be getting tasered.

Which Muslim countries would they not be allowed to protest in?

What's the point? It's like saying most people attending a breastfeeding class were female. What is the point your making?

I lived in London, many areas, pretty much none posh, for years and have lived in other big cities in the world also. Most of them have mixed populations.There are places I tended to not go at night (dark emptyish streets in poorer areas) but it wasn't because of the existence of brown or Muslim people. I'd do the same in most cities because big cities tend to have wealthier and poorer areas and poorer areas have higher crime rates

That does not make London as a whole a "no go area". Which other UK cities ARE "no go areas"? I'm wondering if you are someone who's perhaps just not very used to big cities or seeing a mix of people?

Which major city is a “no-go area for white Britons”?

Most muslims in particular do not want to 'integrate' into our society/ culture. They view the west in general as sinful. Our culture is beneath them quite simply. This was confirmed to me by a close friend who is a moderate muslim and fully 'integrated

Source? (One individual’s claim is not a source)

And as for your trip to Rotheram….I am sure that happened.

@JHoundshalk we start with Afghanistan?

I expect they were being gentlemanly and kind because wimmin shouldn’t be bothering their pretty little heads with real man stuff like politics, and also a lot of them were well up for a ruck and someone needs to be at home to phone round and get a solicitor to play the get out of jail police custody before Monday card.

Can you post these clips of the march that looked like a 'replacement for football hooliganism' please. Thanks.

I find Whitechapel, Shoreditch, in fact many parts of East London some of the most diverse parts of the capital, where all sorts rub along quite well together. Sorry you felt that way. I never have.

So as it’s mostly women who suffer from DV, maybe it was the women that caused it… what a stupid fucking thing to say b

All your posts on this thread have unfounded and unsubstantiated claims and generalisations.
I wouldn't p#ss on Tommy Robinson or whatever his name is if he was on fire let alone watch a video from a convicted criminal.

As opposed to areas which feel intimidating and violent because of the white sub cultures?

There are loads of places, both urban and rural where this happens.

The very fact that football fans have to be kept separate before and after a match is fucking terrifying - what’s wrong with people that this is necessary?

Because men tend to think their opinions matter.

Oh. Nail on head.

Afghanistan for obvious reasons.

Egypt unless you want to be sexually assaulted by countless men.

Saudi because you shouldn’t be out without a man

Iran/ Iraq see above especially if you are a young woman and deliberately not wearing a hijab.

etc

Quite, I was gonna say, a lot of the areas that were known as 'rough' say back in the Victorian era where the population was mainly white.... are the same areas that are seen as "rough" now. The skin colour of the people concerned isn't the main element of that.

Very low IQ, generally. Other than manipulative leaders taking advantage of that. Nothing much changes.

I just want to ask a question please to the people here saying they went to the march. I’ll start by saying I do understand having pride in your country (I do too). I also understand having concerns about immigration and the impact on the UK. But what I can’t get my head round is why you would go to a march led and organised by Tommy Robinson and supported by Katie Hopkins when both have undeniably racist and bigoted views. I suppose I’m trying to understand how you can give your support in a very public, visible way to people like that? They are people who divide communities, spread hate and make minorities feel threatened and fearful.

I was on the train heading into London yesterday. It was packed with families and also men on their own, also women going in groups - all were going to the march. I know this because they were all discussing it and where to congregate/how long it was going to be etc. Most had flags and unfurled them either on the train and wore them getting off, then onto the tube. I actually (no idea how I was so ignorant) did not know the march was on, so I was looking it up when I got to the city. Young kids of around 10 were wrapping flags round their shoulders. I saw flags on prams. So a real mix and definitely not just men. They all seemed to be sane and sensible average run-of-the-mill people!

The common demoninator the world over is poverty and overcrowding.

As I previously stated there were many "non white" people there marching. I saw caribbean looking men, black men, brown men and also Asian men AND women who could have been Japanese or perhaps Korean...not sure.

So you’ve gone from many of our major cities to ‘areas’ within our major cities. That’s progress I guess.

Maybe because women who support free speech dont also support Tommy Robinson. Support for free speech is also not equal to support for reform.

Reform voting does not also indicate support for Robinson - I believe they said he would not be allowed to join? So commenting as if the 2 are interchangeable is inaccurate.

You saw some, not many.