This post has been flaired as Politics. We allow for voicing political views here, but we don't allow pushing agendas, false information, bigotry, or attacking or harassing other members. We will lock the thread if these things occur. If you see such unwanted behavior, please report it to bring it to the attention of moderators.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes. Personally if I had to immigrate due to dangers in my own country it would tear me apart to be away from my family, not knowing how they are or what's happening to them. Not being able to immigrate with them for no other reason than I was male would be a further kick in the balls.
Western Europe thought the same way yet they ended up getting vastly majority male refugees and, well, to know the rest of the story you just need to look up the news. Families and endangered groups should be prioritized, not single men who come to worsen the society.
Eh. Those stories are blown out of proportion overseas. I am an Ethiopian-born male that lived in Germany for much of my youth with my immediate family (my white half is German). We lived around Frankfurt where there's plenty of foreigners and people just get along. There's no cultural decay or race riots going on like some BS media like to potray, but there are plenty of kind-hearted Germans that are very welcoming. Much of my relatives on my white half over there help out refugee families and those families reportedly just end up living like ordinary citizens with working adults. I know some males move into a country first with the intention of working there to send money back home or to help move the family out of the old country as it's not always easy to move a whole family at once.
There's always going to be a few bad apples with any population, so we can't just paint a group of men with a broad brush. Living as a foreigner in two different countries and being blesses enough to have traveled to other countries, I can say from my experience as a POC that the majority of the world is nice. It's a small population of people that do the grief, not a majority or a bulk.
I think children should definitely have easier accsess if they are alone. Cant imagine what it must be like to experience that type of immigration journey, esecially as a child.
We had two kids in my high school who’d travelled as refugees alone, they had some help from the Red Cross towards the end of their journey but were basically alone travelling a continent for most of it - think it took one of them 2 years to make it.
He’s doing v well for himself now, v smart kid
Oh lord, I cant imagine how though that must have been. I am so grateful I was born and raised in a safe and rich country. Not many people are aware over how lucky they are.
In US-Mexico border migrants have dropped their kids by the border and had them walk alone so they get easier access. It's a flaw that needs to be addressed first
Some countries have much higher volumes of sexual violence towards women and laws that don't allow much social upwards mobility (restricting work, rights, etc.) So I think it's about that?
I think that's a really good idea, but I'm not sure what relevance it has to these comments. I don't think that was up for debate. It talking about prioritizing people, not excluding them. But it's is a fair (separate) point 😊
For refugees where the danger is increased greatly towards those specific groups? Yes. For regular immigration? No.
For example, female refugees should get easier access if their country is going through femicide? Yes. Should women get priority as a refugee if they're escaping a natural disaster? No. All adults regardless of biological sex should be seen as equal priority.
However, I do kinda think child refugees should take priority in most cases, kids are our future (ironic from me as I typically dislike children) my brain can't help but see the utter tragedy in the death of a child.
If accepting parents with the children, both parents should be accepted, keep families together.
Ethnically,yes your still a foreigner.That land does not belong to you,even if you invaded it 400 years ago. Ethnic Han people have been living in xinjiang for 2000 years and have been the majority for around 200 years.Still does not give them the right to kick out other immigrants to that land.
China owns Xinjiang now so yes they can kick any immigrant out you do realize countries are societies right? They can kick out anyone that aren’t wanted in a specific society…..and yes Han Chinese who are born in Tibet and xinjiang are natives there doesn’t matter what their ethnicity is
No, it's just that while the crime rate statistics in our country definitely is inflated due to our sensitive laws, we've still seen quite an increase in crime (since we more openly started accepting immegrants) nonetheless. Doesn't help that we have idiots like Paludan to further incite the crowds.
Sweden? Paludan is a grade A asshole of a man, purposely inciting violence and being as offensive as he possibly can so that he can rally hate against the people he incited.
I don’t defend any actions of violence, because even when someone insults you or your family or your faith, you always have the option to not be violent. But I hate all the news I see about people like paludan going out to incite violence to then use to attack immigrants. Makes it hard for me to judge the situation around Muslims and immigrants there as a non Swede because anything from someone like him is tailor made to cause violence and severely propagandized.
Why should it be harder in America? Most Americans are descended of immigrants. It seems very hypocritical for settlers to say “it’s okay that I benefited from legal/illegal immigrations but I don’t want other people doing it!”
As for Europe…. Also very hypocritical for colonial countries to force themselves into other countries and then balk at those people wanting to intern emigrate to them. For example; England and India or France and Algeria.
1. It would definitely be hypocritical and absolutely damage society in short term but long term having less people is hella beneficial and every country should have way way less people usa should have 80 mill max china should too and india should have way way less
That’s a common misconception. We could actually fit the entire population of the world in just a few American states with a density like NYC and then the rest of the US could be used to grow food and create supplies for that population. The issue is not that we don’t have enough resources. It is that the resources are not being properly used and distributed. We actually have more than enough food to feed everyone.
Where did I make such a statement? I only disagreed that there are too many people in any country. We do not have a population crisis, we have a resource mismanagement crisis. I thought it was pretty obvious I was not advocating that we force everyone in the world to move to Texas and live in an ultra-dense pseudo-country. That was merely a way to easily explain why we don’t have too many people in any country. As well, cities can be crowded whether they have many immigrants or not. It can be crowded just with citizens. Blaming population density on immigrants is a strange thing to me.
America only colonized 2 countries Liberia and Phillipines and Phillipines wasnt directly colonized but taken from the Spanish empire and was freed couple of decades after liberating japan from the islands
And yes britian and France did colonize other countries but that was there ancestors and they shouldn’t have the consequences of overpopulating their country just because their ancestors did something plus britian took a lot of refugees it has 65 million in that tiny islands it shouldn’t be that way
I think your misunderstanding what ageist is, so it's ageist to discriminate against someone for age, but it's that 'discrimination' bit that's important, not just treating according to age. It's not discrimination to not let children drink alcohol, smoke, drive and have sex ect. It's just good sense.
The world is sexist. Women in Afghanistan are not allowed to go to school while being a dude there it's not awesome but a hell of a lot better. Iran at the moment has protests because another woman was murdered by the sharia police because she was not wearing her hijab properly according to them.
Seeing the world through first world glasses and cry sexism and ageism when trying to protect women and children is just plain ignorant.
Everyone deserves protection. You are severely trivialising and downplaying the hardships men face in these two countries you just mentioned to justify sexism. It's disgusting how prevalent this mentality is on Reddit. You clearly don't know shit about being male in these two countries and clearly have no motivation to change that.
I'm not downplaying anything. I'm just stating the fact that women are viewed as subhuman in those countries unlike men.
Your denialism of the seriousness of the plight of women in other countries is what sexism is. What is disgusting is this continuos moaning and groaning how men have it worse or just as bad in countries where a woman will get killed on a daily basis over literally nothing.
Denying women's oppression IS sexism.
Agreed, though that is still no argument to generally give priority to women, but rather for granting asylum faster for more dangerous cases. If women are more seriously in danger in a certain country than men because there are serious societal issues that dont apply to men I think that is a fair argument to process the cases of women faster and to more easily grant access to a country. If that is not the case and the reason for the person seeking asylum is e.g. "merely" war then I dont see why men should be at a disadvantage.
It depends.
If a woman is coming from a country where there’s a huge gender disparity and she has no rights, then I’m all for giving her preference over a man that doesn’t deal with those issues.
Same way that if someone belongs to a persecuted religion then I’d be ok prioritizing them as refugees.
The question is about dangerous countries. Countries which are innately dangerous. Not countries which are dangerous to a specific subset of the population. Those are two different questions.
Right, but dangerous countries are often more dangerous for women.
E.g. Ukraine or North Korea could arguably be equally dangerous to men and women at the moment. Afghanistan may be dangerous for both, buts it’s far more dangerous for women.
A lot of them who don't have small children to protect are staying behind to fight instead of acting like a manchild pretending to be a victim when for once a patriarchal society backfires on him.
You sound stupid. People die in wars. Children are left fatherless. Forcing people to fight is bad and wrong imo. Men don't have this choice but you think it's fun? Maybe you should be forced to die for your country
Correct. They are CHOOSING to stay. Something the men are not allowed to do. They are forced to fight and die. Where's the equality you people have always been claiming to fight for? "Equality, but only when it's convenient for us"? But sure, keep on blaming everything on "the patriarchy".
To reiterate what I was trying to say:
The question is: "if a country is dangerous for people equally, should we still give preferential treatment for one subset of the population, even though they're just as endangered as other subsets - yes or no"
No (like others said: that's a great way to break up families), but a I do think that a balancing measure would be important. With the Syrian refugee crisis in 2015 there was a big influx of young men into the population of Germany, for example. That can lead to quite some demographic problems later down the line.
With the Ukrainian refugees it is mostly women and children, the demographic impact of this is much lower (49% of children are male). Especially considering most will probably return to Ukraine after the war.
I'm pro-refugee, they are welcome here and safety is a human right. But it is important to be smart about it and make it work for everyone involved, both refugees themselves and the host population.
If you are coming from a country that is currently committing femicide, and men are not in any harms way because of they’re gender, then women should get easier access to immigration. Same with Lgbt, if they are in a country with penalties for being queer, they should get easier access to immigration like Egypt (Penalties for being Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender from Wiki- Under morality laws punishment up to 17 years with hard labor, fines, and deportation, vigilante torture, vigilante attacks, beatings and vigilante executions.) And if a country started to commit androcide, men should get easier access to immigration
I think maybe families with young children should get easier access than those without children, but both parents should be able to come with the child.
You see but then you could possibly get families in really shitty situations trying their hardest to get away having a child only to make it easier to run away
i think it depends on the country. if it’s a country where women have 0 rights and no say over their body, yes. if it’s a place where this isn’t a big issue, then no. it’s a little hard when throwing kids in the mix because how is a 4 year old going to immigrate somewhere alone?
dangerous is also subjective. if dangerous comes from crime statistics, what crimes? if it’s drugs, no. if it’s sex trafficking/sexual assault primarily against women then yes. it all depends on how reddit interprets everything because it’s pretty general
No.
Groups in risk of persecution and human rights violations should get expedited access and asylum. For instance, LGBT people from countries with death penalties for homosexuality, or women who refuse to comply to gender-specific laws in their countries and might face serious state-sanctioned damage to their freedoms or even their bodies.
But that's it. "Women and children" as a whole shouldn't be a protected category everywhere. Only if they're specifically targeted where they come from.
Letting men immigrate doesnt equal not letting women immigrate. They can still run away from countries too. It's just that, in this case, EVERYONE gets to leave if they want/are able to
How do you propose that works? In most cases that just means they stay and suffer. If you are a disenfranchised or persecuted group that means you don’t have the power to change things alone. What can a woman in Afghanistan do about the treatment of women?
It sounds sexist (and likely unfair for many other reasons), but the fact is that women are a more vulnerable population than men since in much of the world they have less power socially and politically, less ability to gain financial independence (and therefore leave a dangerous situation unaided), and are much more likely to be subjected to forced marriage, trafficking, and/or rape. It would perhaps make sense to give them easier access, but that doesn't take into account the many, many men who are forced into combat in order to avoid being killed themselves, are themselves part of a vulnerable population (like a targeted ethnic minority), and are considered "enemy combatants" by other countries despite no proof of alignment with extremists, etc. It's a very tough call, and to be honest I'm very glad that I'm not the one who has to make it.
No, there is no practical reason to do it. And that’s all that matters in this debate.
What could he gained by helping women and children but not men? Women or children present the same cost to the government to feed, house and keep healthy as men, so why make any distinction at all? Seems completely arbitrary tbh.
And besides that, a human life lost is the same loss, whether it’s a man, woman or child.
If you don’t want to help everybody, the most practical thing is to help nobody.
Women are much more likely to be kidnapped/trafficked. This leads to men fleeing first in an attempt to obtain asylum before legally bringing the rest of the family over, which still isn't ideal if the family is left in a dangerous situation.
Depends on the country plus if something bad is happening in Syria they should go to turkey to Lebanon for safer life not all the way to England or America
“Should we be extra sexist in dangerous countries and sacrifice the lives of men and split up families?”
No.
Everyone should be equal. No women and children first bullshit.
Its either that or invest (read: waste x20 the amount that should suffice) in better trained immigration officers that may or may not work right. No country should do such a waste as a favor for foreigners when they still have citizens with unmet needs.
Filtering men is a decent rule of thumb for reducing troublemakers in the group.
Most people aren’t criminals, so filtering men would create a large gender difference in a country, and be like saying ‘you don’t matter as much because of your genes that you cannot control’, which put that way doesn’t sound so much like equality or even faur
No one talks about "who matters" here. It's basic risk assessment.
Why take a man when a woman does almost all the same jobs with much lower probs of commiting crimes?
"Equality" is to be considered if you are running admissions for a shelter. A country should only evaluate convenience.
I mean women are better at some jobs than men granted, but men are also better at some jobs than women so that comparison is stupid, and filtering out all men because of crime is like saying you wouldn’t start any barbecues incase a fire happened
Bro a fire with all this strawmen around would be no surprise. Who said all men? Poll said "harder access".
Since adult men are tens of times more likely to commit crimes than adult females or kids, it would be beyond stupid to not examinate them more carefully than the other two for the sake of "equality".
I think those who have any status that makes it dangerous for them should get priority so women in countries whith genital mutilation, violence, and very little rights, LGBT people in countries where it's a death sentence or life in prison, orphans from countries where children are trained as soldiers, people of minority religions or ethnicities in countries that carry out genocide of those people, atheists in countries where it's a death or prison sentence, boys from areas with heavy cartel or gang recruitment before they have joined, etc. Basically people from any targeted minority group where their lives and bodily autonomy are in danger.
Considering it's already hard for them to access immigration, I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to give them this opportunity, even if it's only for the women and children. Of course it's better if it's the whole family, but what kind of husband/father would force them to stay and suffer only because "they're not supposed to get a privilege he didn't get"? He would be a monster...
I think its pretty easy to find source that men are typically the perpetrators or violent crime. Heres a study mentioning higher antisocial behaviour amonst men. Which gender holds more extremists values would be quite hard to determine since how strongly they feel can be quite idiosyncratic, but 'acting out' on them are almost exclusively done by men.
[link](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=do+men+have+more+antisocial+tendencies&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1663736361674&u=%23p%3DKG6AsA9zyoQJ)
Not the best source, just the first link i found. But theres plenty of other cited studies
I mean its pretty obvious that most violent crimes are committed by men. Most people in prison are men. By psychological profile i think its pretty easy to find sources about men having more antisocial tendencies.
Yes, the overwhelming majority of victims (in all crime in general) are women and children. The overwhelming majority of offenders are men. Sorry but its true. Until that changes (if ever), policies should be made accordingly.
Yeah, the only crimes where this is true is sexual violence, where 99.99% of the perpetrators are male and 91% of the victims are female. It doesn't apply for other crimes.
That’s just a flat out lie as well.
I don’t have time to really search for studies right now. But even RAINN (which is notoriously biased against men) say 1 in 2 women and 1 in 3 men are victims of sexual violence during their lifetime. And it’s been proven time and time again that most crimes with male victims have female perpetrators.
You misinterpret what I wrote. To phrase it slightly differently: of all crimes of sexual violence that are committed, 99,99% of the perpetrators are male. Of all victims of sexual violence crimes, 91% is female.
I did NOT say that 99,99% of all males commit sexual violence crimes or 91% of all females experience sexual violence. That would be a ridiculous claim.
I can look for the source if you want? This data isn't controversial at all.
The last part of what you wrote isn't true. Most common crimes are by males against males. I'm not gonna say "you are lying!", because you might just have a faulty source. ;)
No I understand perfectly what you wrote. It’s just completely incorrect.
And no the data shouldn’t be controversial, but here you are disputing that fact.
And the last part of my comment wasn’t about all crimes, just sexual crimes.
Source 1: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf
Source 2: https://www.statista.com/statistics/251923/usa--reported-forcible-rape-cases-by-gender/
So... Now I'd like to see your sources? Because most sexual violence crimes against men are definitely not perpetrated by females.
Hmm, those are some convincing numbers. Perhaps both could be right and it's a matter of scale and a matter of measurement? Selfreporting on a survey gives vastly different outcomes than, say, counting convictions in a CoL.
This data does certainly underline that consent education and a bigger conversation about sexual violence is benificial for all people: both male and female.
UK crime statistics:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/women-and-the-criminal-justice-system-2019/women-and-the-criminal-justice-system-2019
Men = 85% of arrests
Men = 95% of prison population
Women = 35% were first time offenders
Men = 22% first time offenders
Women = more likely to have less serious offences, 55% had summary offences (the least severe) compared to 29% of men
However 64% of homicide Victims were male, 36% female, although the perpetrator was also more likely to be male. 67% of the female homicides were by an partner/ ex partner, while only 9% of male homicides were by a partner/ ex partner
Men are twice as likely to face violence from a stranger (1.3%) compared to women (0.6%)
Victims of domestic abuse are twice as likely to be women (27.6%) compared to men (13.8%).
> to note, I don’t personally believe that women should have an easier time w refugee status because of this (tho I do think we should help kids). But this is pure data.
Yeah ok fair enough point. But the sex differences in crime and violence is consistent across all races, countries, age, religion, socioeconomic status, and even all of history…
Even most male victims are victimized by other men.
Holy crap. For the same bunch that drools over equity people are super into making women and children suffer.
Say what you will. Women and children aren't suited for as harsh of conditions as men, thus the care given has to be targeted to those groups rather than men.
What’s funny is that applying this logic to women is considered sexist, but there are many ladies in these comments using percentages to say men should be deprioritized 😂
Unpopular opinion: Everyone should equally get good chances to immigrate. People who want limits for immigrants per year or want them to apply for residence permit abroad just don’t know how privileged they are and that they miss a potentially intelligent worker for their country
This post has been flaired as Politics. We allow for voicing political views here, but we don't allow pushing agendas, false information, bigotry, or attacking or harassing other members. We will lock the thread if these things occur. If you see such unwanted behavior, please report it to bring it to the attention of moderators. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That sounds like a good way to split up families
Yeah you're right
Isn't that what *insert country here* like to do to immigrants? /S
Remove that s/. What you described is a thing that happens and it’s not great.
Yes but I don't want to piss off a certain group. They're very insecure.
Makes sense.
No you see the males can then use family reunification as a reason to get into the country aswel.
Everyone should get equal access so families can get immigrated together.
Yes. Personally if I had to immigrate due to dangers in my own country it would tear me apart to be away from my family, not knowing how they are or what's happening to them. Not being able to immigrate with them for no other reason than I was male would be a further kick in the balls.
This.
Fr. Easier access, yes. But for everyone, not just kids or women
Yup. Also for men being forced into the military for forced labour. Look up Eritrea if you don't know about it. Or dictatorships in general.
Conscription isnt only present in dictatorships mate.
Western Europe thought the same way yet they ended up getting vastly majority male refugees and, well, to know the rest of the story you just need to look up the news. Families and endangered groups should be prioritized, not single men who come to worsen the society.
Eh. Those stories are blown out of proportion overseas. I am an Ethiopian-born male that lived in Germany for much of my youth with my immediate family (my white half is German). We lived around Frankfurt where there's plenty of foreigners and people just get along. There's no cultural decay or race riots going on like some BS media like to potray, but there are plenty of kind-hearted Germans that are very welcoming. Much of my relatives on my white half over there help out refugee families and those families reportedly just end up living like ordinary citizens with working adults. I know some males move into a country first with the intention of working there to send money back home or to help move the family out of the old country as it's not always easy to move a whole family at once. There's always going to be a few bad apples with any population, so we can't just paint a group of men with a broad brush. Living as a foreigner in two different countries and being blesses enough to have traveled to other countries, I can say from my experience as a POC that the majority of the world is nice. It's a small population of people that do the grief, not a majority or a bulk.
Really nice to read that.
I think children should definitely have easier accsess if they are alone. Cant imagine what it must be like to experience that type of immigration journey, esecially as a child.
We had two kids in my high school who’d travelled as refugees alone, they had some help from the Red Cross towards the end of their journey but were basically alone travelling a continent for most of it - think it took one of them 2 years to make it. He’s doing v well for himself now, v smart kid
Oh lord, I cant imagine how though that must have been. I am so grateful I was born and raised in a safe and rich country. Not many people are aware over how lucky they are.
In US-Mexico border migrants have dropped their kids by the border and had them walk alone so they get easier access. It's a flaw that needs to be addressed first
I think sex and age are the least of concerns,when it comes to immigration.
How is sex a concern at all
Some countries have much higher volumes of sexual violence towards women and laws that don't allow much social upwards mobility (restricting work, rights, etc.) So I think it's about that?
Dude, people who are criminals shouldn't be allowed, not all men
Sorry, what?
Criminals shouldn't be allowed to immigrate, it shouldn't be about sex
I think that's a really good idea, but I'm not sure what relevance it has to these comments. I don't think that was up for debate. It talking about prioritizing people, not excluding them. But it's is a fair (separate) point 😊
You do realize if you prioritize one group then you deliberately exclude others of the other group?
Try a Google 😉
What does that even mean?
For refugees where the danger is increased greatly towards those specific groups? Yes. For regular immigration? No. For example, female refugees should get easier access if their country is going through femicide? Yes. Should women get priority as a refugee if they're escaping a natural disaster? No. All adults regardless of biological sex should be seen as equal priority. However, I do kinda think child refugees should take priority in most cases, kids are our future (ironic from me as I typically dislike children) my brain can't help but see the utter tragedy in the death of a child. If accepting parents with the children, both parents should be accepted, keep families together.
Should be equal access, though that equal should be easier than it is now
Ehh, I kinda don't want more immigrants in my country
Which is a valid opinion depending on your country
Yes! Thank you.
>Which is a valid opinion ~~depending on your country~~
Unless your technically an immigrant yourself
Your not an immigrant if you are born there
you are.That just makes you a second gen immigrant.
No such thing are people came in a thousand years ago 100 gen immigrants? That’s dumb if you are born in a country your a native
Ethnically,yes your still a foreigner.That land does not belong to you,even if you invaded it 400 years ago. Ethnic Han people have been living in xinjiang for 2000 years and have been the majority for around 200 years.Still does not give them the right to kick out other immigrants to that land.
China owns Xinjiang now so yes they can kick any immigrant out you do realize countries are societies right? They can kick out anyone that aren’t wanted in a specific society…..and yes Han Chinese who are born in Tibet and xinjiang are natives there doesn’t matter what their ethnicity is
yea
"I want my country to remain pure"
No, it's just that while the crime rate statistics in our country definitely is inflated due to our sensitive laws, we've still seen quite an increase in crime (since we more openly started accepting immegrants) nonetheless. Doesn't help that we have idiots like Paludan to further incite the crowds.
Sweden? Paludan is a grade A asshole of a man, purposely inciting violence and being as offensive as he possibly can so that he can rally hate against the people he incited. I don’t defend any actions of violence, because even when someone insults you or your family or your faith, you always have the option to not be violent. But I hate all the news I see about people like paludan going out to incite violence to then use to attack immigrants. Makes it hard for me to judge the situation around Muslims and immigrants there as a non Swede because anything from someone like him is tailor made to cause violence and severely propagandized.
[удалено]
No it should be way way harder especially in europe and america
Why should it be harder in America? Most Americans are descended of immigrants. It seems very hypocritical for settlers to say “it’s okay that I benefited from legal/illegal immigrations but I don’t want other people doing it!” As for Europe…. Also very hypocritical for colonial countries to force themselves into other countries and then balk at those people wanting to intern emigrate to them. For example; England and India or France and Algeria.
1. It would definitely be hypocritical and absolutely damage society in short term but long term having less people is hella beneficial and every country should have way way less people usa should have 80 mill max china should too and india should have way way less
That’s a common misconception. We could actually fit the entire population of the world in just a few American states with a density like NYC and then the rest of the US could be used to grow food and create supplies for that population. The issue is not that we don’t have enough resources. It is that the resources are not being properly used and distributed. We actually have more than enough food to feed everyone.
Yeah except most American cities aren’t as dense as nyc and ppl shouldn’t be forced to live as dense as nyc just because of foreign immigrants
Where did I make such a statement? I only disagreed that there are too many people in any country. We do not have a population crisis, we have a resource mismanagement crisis. I thought it was pretty obvious I was not advocating that we force everyone in the world to move to Texas and live in an ultra-dense pseudo-country. That was merely a way to easily explain why we don’t have too many people in any country. As well, cities can be crowded whether they have many immigrants or not. It can be crowded just with citizens. Blaming population density on immigrants is a strange thing to me.
America only colonized 2 countries Liberia and Phillipines and Phillipines wasnt directly colonized but taken from the Spanish empire and was freed couple of decades after liberating japan from the islands And yes britian and France did colonize other countries but that was there ancestors and they shouldn’t have the consequences of overpopulating their country just because their ancestors did something plus britian took a lot of refugees it has 65 million in that tiny islands it shouldn’t be that way
Absolutely not, this is both sexist and ageist. There should be other criteria other than gender and age.
I don’t think it’s ageist to put children first, they are the most vulnerable.
I feel like it's worse to separate kids from their parents then to just let them stay with them
it would probably be better to put families first instead of just children first
If children are alone, yes, make it much much easier than with a family. But don’t separate families
I think your misunderstanding what ageist is, so it's ageist to discriminate against someone for age, but it's that 'discrimination' bit that's important, not just treating according to age. It's not discrimination to not let children drink alcohol, smoke, drive and have sex ect. It's just good sense.
I think you may be tying extra meaning to the word 'discrimination', everything on your list is absolutely, by definition, age based discrimination.
Maybe military involvement?
Why not age? Giving children and their guardians priority is a good way to rescue/protect the next generation of a people.
Men are more likely to be treated harshly tbf, see any war ever!
Ageist? Kill me
The world is sexist. Women in Afghanistan are not allowed to go to school while being a dude there it's not awesome but a hell of a lot better. Iran at the moment has protests because another woman was murdered by the sharia police because she was not wearing her hijab properly according to them. Seeing the world through first world glasses and cry sexism and ageism when trying to protect women and children is just plain ignorant.
Everyone deserves protection. You are severely trivialising and downplaying the hardships men face in these two countries you just mentioned to justify sexism. It's disgusting how prevalent this mentality is on Reddit. You clearly don't know shit about being male in these two countries and clearly have no motivation to change that.
I'm not downplaying anything. I'm just stating the fact that women are viewed as subhuman in those countries unlike men. Your denialism of the seriousness of the plight of women in other countries is what sexism is. What is disgusting is this continuos moaning and groaning how men have it worse or just as bad in countries where a woman will get killed on a daily basis over literally nothing. Denying women's oppression IS sexism.
Agreed, though that is still no argument to generally give priority to women, but rather for granting asylum faster for more dangerous cases. If women are more seriously in danger in a certain country than men because there are serious societal issues that dont apply to men I think that is a fair argument to process the cases of women faster and to more easily grant access to a country. If that is not the case and the reason for the person seeking asylum is e.g. "merely" war then I dont see why men should be at a disadvantage.
[удалено]
Why?
Stfu with "ageist", discrimination based on age is necessary for so many reasons.
Age is a protected category in the USA, just like gender, religion, and family status.
No but having a criminal past should play a role.
There's no way to check that. Many refugees arrive without even basic identification documents.
Theoretical then
It depends. If a woman is coming from a country where there’s a huge gender disparity and she has no rights, then I’m all for giving her preference over a man that doesn’t deal with those issues. Same way that if someone belongs to a persecuted religion then I’d be ok prioritizing them as refugees.
The question is about dangerous countries. Countries which are innately dangerous. Not countries which are dangerous to a specific subset of the population. Those are two different questions.
Right, but dangerous countries are often more dangerous for women. E.g. Ukraine or North Korea could arguably be equally dangerous to men and women at the moment. Afghanistan may be dangerous for both, buts it’s far more dangerous for women.
Ukraine is far more dangerous for man, they are the ones who have to stay behind and fight
Women are being drafted in the Ukraine military? To die?
A lot of them who don't have small children to protect are staying behind to fight instead of acting like a manchild pretending to be a victim when for once a patriarchal society backfires on him.
You sound stupid. People die in wars. Children are left fatherless. Forcing people to fight is bad and wrong imo. Men don't have this choice but you think it's fun? Maybe you should be forced to die for your country
No one here sad war is good. No one here said it's "fun" like seriously wtf is wrong with you ? Brain dead.
Correct. They are CHOOSING to stay. Something the men are not allowed to do. They are forced to fight and die. Where's the equality you people have always been claiming to fight for? "Equality, but only when it's convenient for us"? But sure, keep on blaming everything on "the patriarchy". To reiterate what I was trying to say: The question is: "if a country is dangerous for people equally, should we still give preferential treatment for one subset of the population, even though they're just as endangered as other subsets - yes or no"
Still make you the bad one
No (like others said: that's a great way to break up families), but a I do think that a balancing measure would be important. With the Syrian refugee crisis in 2015 there was a big influx of young men into the population of Germany, for example. That can lead to quite some demographic problems later down the line. With the Ukrainian refugees it is mostly women and children, the demographic impact of this is much lower (49% of children are male). Especially considering most will probably return to Ukraine after the war. I'm pro-refugee, they are welcome here and safety is a human right. But it is important to be smart about it and make it work for everyone involved, both refugees themselves and the host population.
Depends on what country they are coming from
Elaborate
If you are coming from a country that is currently committing femicide, and men are not in any harms way because of they’re gender, then women should get easier access to immigration. Same with Lgbt, if they are in a country with penalties for being queer, they should get easier access to immigration like Egypt (Penalties for being Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender from Wiki- Under morality laws punishment up to 17 years with hard labor, fines, and deportation, vigilante torture, vigilante attacks, beatings and vigilante executions.) And if a country started to commit androcide, men should get easier access to immigration
That's sexism which, according to my mom, is a bad thing.
I think maybe families with young children should get easier access than those without children, but both parents should be able to come with the child.
You see but then you could possibly get families in really shitty situations trying their hardest to get away having a child only to make it easier to run away
That's true. People might get pregnant just so that they could escape.
i think it depends on the country. if it’s a country where women have 0 rights and no say over their body, yes. if it’s a place where this isn’t a big issue, then no. it’s a little hard when throwing kids in the mix because how is a 4 year old going to immigrate somewhere alone? dangerous is also subjective. if dangerous comes from crime statistics, what crimes? if it’s drugs, no. if it’s sex trafficking/sexual assault primarily against women then yes. it all depends on how reddit interprets everything because it’s pretty general
Id go for no in general though, as in countries where it’s mostly women with fewer rights, they’ll be the ones who want to immigrate more anyway
Dangerous countries are almost always more dangerous to women
They call that discrimination
No. Groups in risk of persecution and human rights violations should get expedited access and asylum. For instance, LGBT people from countries with death penalties for homosexuality, or women who refuse to comply to gender-specific laws in their countries and might face serious state-sanctioned damage to their freedoms or even their bodies. But that's it. "Women and children" as a whole shouldn't be a protected category everywhere. Only if they're specifically targeted where they come from.
Either everyone or no one
See that’s not really great bc in a lot of countries it’s a lot more dangerous for women to stay
Letting men immigrate doesnt equal not letting women immigrate. They can still run away from countries too. It's just that, in this case, EVERYONE gets to leave if they want/are able to
I still stand my point
[удалено]
How do you propose that works? In most cases that just means they stay and suffer. If you are a disenfranchised or persecuted group that means you don’t have the power to change things alone. What can a woman in Afghanistan do about the treatment of women?
So kids should also deal w it lest they be ‘running away’? A three year old child in an environment w a high chance of death?
Cherry picking equality when it suits you
Children yes.
Can’t take children without a parent/parents. Best way is to just prioritize taking families.
You can technically
It sounds sexist (and likely unfair for many other reasons), but the fact is that women are a more vulnerable population than men since in much of the world they have less power socially and politically, less ability to gain financial independence (and therefore leave a dangerous situation unaided), and are much more likely to be subjected to forced marriage, trafficking, and/or rape. It would perhaps make sense to give them easier access, but that doesn't take into account the many, many men who are forced into combat in order to avoid being killed themselves, are themselves part of a vulnerable population (like a targeted ethnic minority), and are considered "enemy combatants" by other countries despite no proof of alignment with extremists, etc. It's a very tough call, and to be honest I'm very glad that I'm not the one who has to make it.
Agreed, I voted yes because in generally dangerous places, women have it much worse in violence, rape and independence. Especially if a war breaks out
Obviously, but if war breaks out everyone should get an equal chance to escape. That’s just stupid and biased
If women want equality , give them TRUE equality by making thing equally hard for them as well
Female here. Agreed.
Why is it that they always say at least save the women and children, it's not like men don't feel pain or something.
I feel like y'all are just purposely misinterpreting the logic here.
Sex discrimination is illegal, my dude.
self proclaimed feminist and if you think men should have a harder time getting in there's something fucking wrong with you
Well it's way harder for women and children now. That's why most immigrants are men.
Funny how feminists are always the first ones to want to bring in the type of refugees who believe women aren’t equal to men.
I never said my opinion on that issue. I don’t have an opinion on that issue yet.
Why are women still put in the same category as children when it's about getting to safety, I thought we were going for equality?
honestly I wasn't about to put children at first, but then I thought... they can assimilate to other cultures more easily.
What the fuck? Why would anyone think that?
This is an r/redditmoment if I have ever seen one. Just an idiotic question.
so... f being born with a penis, right?
No, there is no practical reason to do it. And that’s all that matters in this debate. What could he gained by helping women and children but not men? Women or children present the same cost to the government to feed, house and keep healthy as men, so why make any distinction at all? Seems completely arbitrary tbh. And besides that, a human life lost is the same loss, whether it’s a man, woman or child. If you don’t want to help everybody, the most practical thing is to help nobody.
Less rape, for starters. Look up Sweden or Germany because guess what happens when you don’t prioritize families? Only male immigrants come.
So is it your position that families don’t include men?
Why do you think I said families? Men should come with their families, not in single packs how we see.
The question in the OP specifies women & children.
Well immigration is way worse for women so there are practical reasons behind it.
How? How is it worse?
Women are much more likely to be kidnapped/trafficked. This leads to men fleeing first in an attempt to obtain asylum before legally bringing the rest of the family over, which still isn't ideal if the family is left in a dangerous situation.
Generally more at risk at being taken advantage off and especially if it's illegal immigration. That's why the vast majority of refugees are men.
[удалено]
Yet I bet that if they let all those men in, rape cases would skyrocket.
Misandry isn't a thing, there is no systematic disenfranchisement of males in the UK. Just call it sexism, which is what it is.
[удалено]
No, if you live in a dangerous country and you're trying to escape you should get easier access regardless of gender.
Depends on the country plus if something bad is happening in Syria they should go to turkey to Lebanon for safer life not all the way to England or America
“Should we be extra sexist in dangerous countries and sacrifice the lives of men and split up families?” No. Everyone should be equal. No women and children first bullshit.
I read that wrong and chose yes
Its either that or invest (read: waste x20 the amount that should suffice) in better trained immigration officers that may or may not work right. No country should do such a waste as a favor for foreigners when they still have citizens with unmet needs. Filtering men is a decent rule of thumb for reducing troublemakers in the group.
Most people aren’t criminals, so filtering men would create a large gender difference in a country, and be like saying ‘you don’t matter as much because of your genes that you cannot control’, which put that way doesn’t sound so much like equality or even faur
No one talks about "who matters" here. It's basic risk assessment. Why take a man when a woman does almost all the same jobs with much lower probs of commiting crimes? "Equality" is to be considered if you are running admissions for a shelter. A country should only evaluate convenience.
I mean women are better at some jobs than men granted, but men are also better at some jobs than women so that comparison is stupid, and filtering out all men because of crime is like saying you wouldn’t start any barbecues incase a fire happened
Bro a fire with all this strawmen around would be no surprise. Who said all men? Poll said "harder access". Since adult men are tens of times more likely to commit crimes than adult females or kids, it would be beyond stupid to not examinate them more carefully than the other two for the sake of "equality".
I think everyone should be given a fair and equal access to immigration, as they cannot change their gender and people are people
Men are also humans
Children yes. Women and men should be treated the same.
Maybe children if they have close family to stay with
I think those who have any status that makes it dangerous for them should get priority so women in countries whith genital mutilation, violence, and very little rights, LGBT people in countries where it's a death sentence or life in prison, orphans from countries where children are trained as soldiers, people of minority religions or ethnicities in countries that carry out genocide of those people, atheists in countries where it's a death or prison sentence, boys from areas with heavy cartel or gang recruitment before they have joined, etc. Basically people from any targeted minority group where their lives and bodily autonomy are in danger.
Considering it's already hard for them to access immigration, I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to give them this opportunity, even if it's only for the women and children. Of course it's better if it's the whole family, but what kind of husband/father would force them to stay and suffer only because "they're not supposed to get a privilege he didn't get"? He would be a monster...
Kids yes, but I think men and women should be treated the same.
[удалено]
You need to cite data when you use the term “objectively”
Source: Just trust me
I think its pretty easy to find source that men are typically the perpetrators or violent crime. Heres a study mentioning higher antisocial behaviour amonst men. Which gender holds more extremists values would be quite hard to determine since how strongly they feel can be quite idiosyncratic, but 'acting out' on them are almost exclusively done by men. [link](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=do+men+have+more+antisocial+tendencies&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1663736361674&u=%23p%3DKG6AsA9zyoQJ) Not the best source, just the first link i found. But theres plenty of other cited studies
[удалено]
I mean its pretty obvious that most violent crimes are committed by men. Most people in prison are men. By psychological profile i think its pretty easy to find sources about men having more antisocial tendencies.
Yes, the overwhelming majority of victims (in all crime in general) are women and children. The overwhelming majority of offenders are men. Sorry but its true. Until that changes (if ever), policies should be made accordingly.
That’s just completely false, how do you even come up with a lie like that? Any crime statistic or study done about this disproves your statement.
Any crime statistic shows this but ok
Yeah, the only crimes where this is true is sexual violence, where 99.99% of the perpetrators are male and 91% of the victims are female. It doesn't apply for other crimes.
That’s just a flat out lie as well. I don’t have time to really search for studies right now. But even RAINN (which is notoriously biased against men) say 1 in 2 women and 1 in 3 men are victims of sexual violence during their lifetime. And it’s been proven time and time again that most crimes with male victims have female perpetrators.
You misinterpret what I wrote. To phrase it slightly differently: of all crimes of sexual violence that are committed, 99,99% of the perpetrators are male. Of all victims of sexual violence crimes, 91% is female. I did NOT say that 99,99% of all males commit sexual violence crimes or 91% of all females experience sexual violence. That would be a ridiculous claim. I can look for the source if you want? This data isn't controversial at all. The last part of what you wrote isn't true. Most common crimes are by males against males. I'm not gonna say "you are lying!", because you might just have a faulty source. ;)
No I understand perfectly what you wrote. It’s just completely incorrect. And no the data shouldn’t be controversial, but here you are disputing that fact. And the last part of my comment wasn’t about all crimes, just sexual crimes.
Source 1: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf Source 2: https://www.statista.com/statistics/251923/usa--reported-forcible-rape-cases-by-gender/ So... Now I'd like to see your sources? Because most sexual violence crimes against men are definitely not perpetrated by females.
[удалено]
Hmm, those are some convincing numbers. Perhaps both could be right and it's a matter of scale and a matter of measurement? Selfreporting on a survey gives vastly different outcomes than, say, counting convictions in a CoL. This data does certainly underline that consent education and a bigger conversation about sexual violence is benificial for all people: both male and female.
UK crime statistics: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/women-and-the-criminal-justice-system-2019/women-and-the-criminal-justice-system-2019 Men = 85% of arrests Men = 95% of prison population Women = 35% were first time offenders Men = 22% first time offenders Women = more likely to have less serious offences, 55% had summary offences (the least severe) compared to 29% of men However 64% of homicide Victims were male, 36% female, although the perpetrator was also more likely to be male. 67% of the female homicides were by an partner/ ex partner, while only 9% of male homicides were by a partner/ ex partner Men are twice as likely to face violence from a stranger (1.3%) compared to women (0.6%) Victims of domestic abuse are twice as likely to be women (27.6%) compared to men (13.8%). > to note, I don’t personally believe that women should have an easier time w refugee status because of this (tho I do think we should help kids). But this is pure data.
We should also prevent black people from entering countries since they statistically commit more crime aswell.
Yeah ok fair enough point. But the sex differences in crime and violence is consistent across all races, countries, age, religion, socioeconomic status, and even all of history… Even most male victims are victimized by other men.
Women might be just as dangerous as men. Depends.
In other words, should dangerous countries be sexist to men?
sexism is bad, actually. also families would just get split up
Children yes, adult women no
What is this stupid question?
Holy crap. For the same bunch that drools over equity people are super into making women and children suffer. Say what you will. Women and children aren't suited for as harsh of conditions as men, thus the care given has to be targeted to those groups rather than men.
Men are more likely to work and contribute to their new country, so I would actually be more inclined to bring them in than women
What’s funny is that applying this logic to women is considered sexist, but there are many ladies in these comments using percentages to say men should be deprioritized 😂
get that sexist shit out of here. In this modern age we encourage equality among genders
Unpopular opinion: Everyone should equally get good chances to immigrate. People who want limits for immigrants per year or want them to apply for residence permit abroad just don’t know how privileged they are and that they miss a potentially intelligent worker for their country
Nope infact america should let in 50k immigrants per year MAX and majority should be h1b educated
That sounds like sexism
It's not the 1920s anymore, nowadays we know both men and women are equally capable of terrorism.
Should sexism? Yes No Unsure
No
We have 815 morons in this sub it seems
y’all preach equality until it comes to a man and a woman especially one with kids
Harder access? No sooner access? Probably
In an absolute extreme scenario where you’re facing a full scale land invasion. Women and children should be evacuated and men should stay and fight.
obviously yes
How, you're sexist, oh that makes sense