Refugees

[Rinatinabina]

Do you think people generally would be more open to receiving refugees if they were primarily women and children?

For example if there were mainly women in tents in Calais do you think Britain generally would be happier accepting them than they are men?

YABU: it wouldn’t make a difference
YANBU: people would be more welcoming to women

@AlexaShutUp

Yes I did know some appeals, but on a much smaller level than the Ukrainian appeal.

Unfortunately due to the threat of terrorism etc from certain parts of the world, some form of restriction has to be set. People are up in arms when it has turned out in the past criminals/bombers have bypassed the asylum system by illegal entry. re economic migrants If we want to migrate somewhere like Australia etc for work there is a process to be gone through you cant just turn up.

The Ukraine scenario is different, as is the Afghan resettlement
However, homes, education etc have to be found for all these people.
I m aware many will join relatives already here, or may only wish to stay until their homeland is safe again.

Also there is a lot of Tory bashing that no homes are being built. Try saying that in the South East where many thousands of houses are being built, with no infrastructure to go with it.

What people are more open to, for understandable reasons of personal safety, is taking women and children into their own homes. This is happening somewhat with Ukrainian refugees in the part of Germany I live in. Taking in unknown men is statistically even riskier in terms of personal safety than unknown women and children. That's not about who's deserving in any way.

I recommend the City of Sanctuary UK website for information and links to how to help refugees from around the world including Syria and Afghanistan, and also now from Ukraine.

Yes I wouldn't let a strange man into my house. And by strange man I don't mean anything other than a man that I don't know exceptionally well. Having been the victim of domestic violence, financial abuse, emotional abuse and rape at the hands of my male partner previously, I know that it doesn't matter how well you think you do or do not know men they can turn out to be violent and dangerous, so a man I don't know is too big a gamble for mine and my children's safety. I wouldn't take any man in. I don't think that means I don't care about them, I just know that there is an indisputable risk which I am not willing to take that they could turn out to be violent. Not on account of their refugee status, on account of them being XY's

Unfortunately I think that plays out on a larger scale, and that we write off a lot of men and boys who are not abusive in any way and deserve a chance at life the same as anyone else.

@ADHDWoman

Oh 100% girls and women are so vulnerable to exploitation as refugees, but boys absolutely are as well. In somewhat different ways.

Boys and vulnerable men - in the same ways.

That's why I said somewhat different ways, because men and boys are much less likely to be sold or forced into marriages, but are much more likely to be forced into fighting and being cannon fodder. And both are at great risk of sexual exploitation

I have an adult size 14 year old son and am acutely aware of how vulnerable he is at the same time as being aware that he could be intimidating in certain contexts to people who don't know him! That doesn't change the fact that he too is more at risk from men than women!

It's not a value judgement - men and boys can be vulnerable and often are, but men and older boys are also more likely to be the ones who pose risk to others on average (not any one individual but statistically). They're often victims of violence but also perpetrators far more often than women and young children and everyone knows that!

And both are at great risk of sexual exploitation
I'm sorry but I disagree with you here. I think females the world over are at much greater risk of sexual exploitation and violence than males.

@AlexaShutUp

I used to work with unaccompanied minors, ie children. They were treated like shit by the asylum system, and they faced a huge amount of racism in the local community. I found it hard to believe that people could be so cold about kids who had been through the most unimaginable trauma. I guess their faces didn't fit.

So no, I don't think it would make a huge amount of difference.

I think people pretend it would make a difference to make them feel better about their internalised racism towards displaced people.

@Kendodd

And both are at great risk of sexual exploitation I'm sorry but I disagree with you here. I think females the world over are at much greater risk of sexual exploitation and violence than males.

I didn't say that young males are more at risk just that they are at great risk. Which they are

@ThinWomansBrain

From another recent thread on here about offering refuge in your own home, there were quite a few "women and children only" responses. Quite why posters assume that refugee males are more likely to be paedophiles that their own husbands or sons, not quite sure.

That's an odd one.

You don't know why people fear strangers more than there own husband/son. Really? I would have thought it was quite obvious.

You don't know why people fear strangers more than there own husband/son. Really? I would have thought it was quite obvious.

Yet most abuse is perpetrated by people already known to the victim's family. Not refugees, not strangers, but fathers, uncles, mum's partner...

@ADHDWoman

I hate so much the low value we put on men's lives. It's like we as a species have not progressed beyond the lifeboats on the titanic. Women and children first, as well as handful of men so long as they are 'first class' and everyone else can drown or die.

I totally agree!

I hate so much the low value we put on men's lives
Not true. There are more than 100 million women missing. Females don't even get to be born.

The above isn't to say we shouldn't value mens lives, we absolutely should.

I'd be comfortable with a teenage lad, I wouldn't have when DS was younger but now he is man sized I would. I wouldn't be comfortable with a man in my house as a single woman.

@Kendodd

And both are at great risk of sexual exploitation I'm sorry but I disagree with you here. I think females the world over are at much greater risk of sexual exploitation and violence than males.

At a statistical level, that's probably true, but sadly the majority of unaccompanied teenage boys that I worked with had been sexually exploited along their journey. They are certainly very vulnerable to this.

@LizDoingTheCanCan

You don't know why people fear strangers more than there own husband/son. Really? I would have thought it was quite obvious.

Yet most abuse is perpetrated by people already known to the victim's family. Not refugees, not strangers, but fathers, uncles, mum's partner...

Well, yes, but someone knows whether they're being abused by their husband or son don't they? And if they're not i.e. they know those people to be safe, it makes 100% sense that they would fear a stranger more than their own DH/son. It then follows, that wouldn't feel comfortable having an unknown man live in their home but would perhaps feel comfortable welcoming a woman and/or young children.

I really don't think it's that's hard to understand tbh.

Of course it's not hard to understand @NuffSaidSam

Given the amount of MNetters against unisex toilets and those who won't answer their phone or open the door to people they don't know, they're hardly likely to want strange men they know nothing about, living in their homes.

@ADHDWoman

I hate so much the low value we put on men's lives. It's like we as a species have not progressed beyond the lifeboats on the titanic. Women and children first, as well as handful of men so long as they are 'first class' and everyone else can drown or die.

On the Titanic more men from first class were saved than children from third class. So this "women and children first" got applied very selectively. Also, apart from the BIrkenhead, the Titanic is the only ship where this ever happened.

Do you still consider it sexist that men are most often the victims of the violence caused by other men, such as in wars? If it were up to women we'd have far fewer wars, if any. No female leader has ever started a war.

I don't think it would make any difference at all - bigots will be bigots.

Our track record as a nation is absolutely disgusting. We take far fewer than our share and bleat about it endlessly. We're a disgrace.

Of course they are more open to women and children. Women and children are far safer. It's not debatable. Men are a far greater risk. Men from a culture that doesn't value women or sees them as object are an even greater risk. It has bugger all to do with othering it has to do with common sense.

I dislike the whole idea that somehow women and children are more "deserving" of support. What they're doing in Ukraine is incredibly sexist, letting women leave but making men stay to fight. I thought the world was beyond this now, women should be seen as having the same capability as men

So you would be happy to put your child on a bus and wave him/her off? You would prefer to leave children to take their chances in an active war zone?

Someone needs to be caring for the children. If it comes to hand to hand combat, presumably the average man is going to do a better job, even if marginally, than the average woman.