To think that white British/ American etcmen are just as much a threat to women as migrants?

[malificent7]

I am not excusing grooming, paedophile sex rings and unmonitored immigration at all but I hate all these protests.
I know that my white male ex teacher is a sex offender. Not to mention the Epstein scandal.
Aibu to think that ALL men are a danger to women...not just men of different ethnicities/ religions etc?

Austerity was neoliberalism economics rather than a social liberal policy. For 14 years the Tories did both. Child poverty was an unintended consequence of the neoliberalism orthodoxy that we've had 40 years of.

Neoliberalism is a right wing social and economic ideology encompassing deregulation, privatisation, trade, austerity and shrinking the state. It began with Thatcher and is responsible for much of the state of the UK today.

You seem to be claiming that the Tories aren't right wing, despite their fiscal and social policies but liberals. Do you mean that they believe in civil rights and democracy and aren't on the authoritarian spectrum of the right?

Exactly.
Its also not about skin colour as the pp keeps alluding to.

The thread title is
“To think that white British/ American etc men are just as much a threat to
women as migrants?”

The thread title is:
”To think that white British/ American etc men are just as much a threat to
women as migrants?”

My post was highlighting that yes, white men are also a threat but the focus by many far right groups all over the internet at the moment seems to be that migrants (brown migrants in particular) are the only ones committing heinous crimes.

It seems the problem is that statistics on ethnicity of perpetrators are not recorded/published.
We should be recording and analysing all of this information, how else will you know if there’s a problem/over representation with certain countries/cultures if you’re not recording them?

This was a massive issue with the grooming gangs as well, where ethnicity of perpetrators was not being recorded in the first place, and one of the changes to implement as a result of the report I believe

Also find it odd people are using Andrew Tate as an example of far right under this country, and how it causes misogyny in men here, yet think growing up under sharia law won’t have a worse effect on some of the men being shipped to these hotels

Andrew Tate and extremist content was used as an example to demonstrate how people can be radicalised online.

Small boat crossings have been happening since 2018, yet I've seen no evidence of refugees crazed by Shariah law wreaking havoc in the UK.

I'm wondering what people expect to happen if the ethnicity of perpetrators is released. Are innocent people from certain countries going to be banned? Tagged? Imprisoned? Deported? If so, are we going to introduce discriminatory practices into the legal system where innocent people are presumed to be sex offenders?

I think it would force politicians to face facts around the consequences of their decisions; and hopefully prevent illegal immigration from high risk countries.

You’re talking too much sense!

Are British men inherently all far right activists?

There is a lot of attention on migrants/ asylum/ seeker/ refugee sex attacks. You me toon white men in the UK/UK. You conveniently forget that there are a number of non white men in the UK and us who have heritage in said countries for up to and in excess of 200 years. Do some of them commit raped or are they all alabaster saints?

You're tarring all people, who question high levels of immigration with the same brush. I take it, we can do the same with the hard left - you know, all those who try to say there isn't a problem. With migrants attacking women.

You are suggesting that we break the law and openly discriminate? We send people back to countries where their lives could be at risk? Why only 'illegal immigration'? Many countries in the world are misogynist and have high amounts of VAWAG. We give visas to people from 'high risk' countries by the thousand.

You’ve seen no evidence, yet seem to be against any potential evidence being collated? Doesn’t make sense.

Either men are all the same everywhere, and no more or less likely to be rapists, in which case Andrew Tate and the like would make no difference, as men are the same regardless, so no need to worry.

Or it does make a difference, in which case you’re happy for men who were ‘radicalised’ elsewhere to be shipped in in droves, but not happy for British men to be ‘radicalised’ by Andrew Tate online?

How do you define a British man?

Plenty of expats choose those countries to live an work in

Who said they weren't a threat? Is the colour of a bloke's skin more important than the threat of assault? Not to me, it isn't.

I wrote something very similar earlier this morning when I shared a news article online. I asked how do they know that all the white men are not dangerous, and that you have no idea whether they are a danger to yourself or children? That more violence in the uk - particularly towards women and children - will be done by British men, not immigrants. To me it just shows that some of these protestors are utterly ignorant and that yes, it is outright racism. There are already a massive amount of British (white) men that are already a danger to women and children, and we are more at risk by one of them, and most likely someone we already know, than by some immigrants in a hotel. Absolutely not excusing any awful crimes that have happened, but they are not the men that most women should be scared of.

She’ll say she has ‘no idea what you’re on about’ and that you ‘can’t engage with the argument’.

But of course, you’re right.

Any man is a threat. But a man from a different culture with different morals and different options on how women should be treated are a much higher threat.

That's just common sense, but the twists and turns to avoid that are laughable.

I didn't say that evidence shouldn't be collated.

You're confusing what I'm saying. I said that people are being radicalised online and gave an example of Andrew Tate. I'm not happy about anyone being radicalised.

They do.

But you seem to be saying that there’s no evidence that these men are more of a threat?

But acknowledge that ‘radicalised’ men are more of a threat?

So which is it?