You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Why Are 'Refugees' Mostly Young Men?

in #qanon6 years ago (edited)

Actually, no, I found 4 pretty good reasons by just googling that headline of yours:

Young men can handle a dangerous and risky trip like the one refugees are taking better than women and children. Women and children are often left in the refugee camps in neighboring countries while the men decide to leave the camps in order to take the risky and often deadly trip to Europe by boat. According to statistics, the split between men and women in refugee camps is almost fifty/fifty. The number of Syrian refugees is currently approaching 4 million, with UN data showing women and children make up over three-quarters of that total. In Lebanon, the majority in the refugee’s camps are actually women and children. The families then stay behind and wait until the men have made the trip to Europe, applied for asylum and then are able to have the rest of their families follow in a much safer way.

Another reason is that a lot of women and children die on their way to Europe. The majority of those who have died in the Mediterranean waves are women and children. Men are usually physically stronger and will live longer in the water than women and children. This theory can be supported by the gender division of the survivors during the disaster in Estonia. A study of 18 catastrophes over the past 300 years was carried out by Swedish researchers Mikael Elinder and Oscar Erixon and shows that captains and their crew (men) are 18.7 per cent more likely to survive a shipwreck than their passengers. The research also showed that out of 15,000 people who died in 18 sinkings, only 17.8 per cent of woman survived compared with 34.5 per cent of men.

Families that travel together in a big group have a harder time with the logistics, simply because it’s hard to look after multiple people. Often the groups get stuck in countries on the way, don’t have enough energy for everyone to continue or decide to stay in the first place where they feel safe. It’s also easier for men travelling by themselves to get past border patrol or military than it would be if a whole family was travelling along.

Last but not least: No one would send their daughter to do this trip by herself. No one. The risks for a girl travelling by herself on a dangerous route such as from Syria to Europe, are too high. Along the coastline, criminal gangs are reportedly charging Syrian families tens of thousands of dollars to transport them to Greece. According to the UN, women and children are at an extremely high risk of sexual abuse, violence and exploitation on the route from a war zone to a safe zone. Much more so than men. Sending your young daughter instead of son is basically guaranteeing exploitation and abuse. No sane parent would do that.

https://www.globalcitizen.org/de/content/five-explanations-to-why-the-majority-of-refugees/

Sort:  

Denial much?

You didn't google the Coudenhove Kalergi plan by any change did you? Might learn more than copying arguments from a Soros aligned website.

There is a small amount of truth in each of these reasons but they are also true of many other refugee crises over the decades and yet only this one has such a huge gender imbalance. There is also a real question of why you would leave your women and children behind in a war zone.