latest

Asylum is not gender neutral: the refugee crisis in Europe from a feminist perspective

(black_rad_fem)
What do you guys think about sex-based refugee policy? I recently participated in a panel discussion about violence against women, and one of the panelists mentioned the need for a refugee policy that favors women and children due to them being vulnerable populations.

I think it is also an interesting discussion in the context of the US, because we have many migrants (mainly women and children) who are escaping gang violence in Central America.

Should we prioritize asylum applications based on sex? How can we work as an international community to help women in conflict zones?

(Terfy_McTerf_face)
This is one of the few scenarios in which American men (in my experience) will actually acknowledge that this is a security issue for these women, and that their and their children's safety comes before that of single, able-bodied men. Though I cannot help but wonder if this mentality comes out of racism towards those men rather than a genuine concern for those women.

I 100% support allowing women and children in but not men. Wars are problems created for men, by men, and I have a hard time mustering up any sympathy for them.

(NPerez99)
I see this is marked as controversial, but we should be able to discuss male violence here, surely? I'm not a US native and come from a machismo culture, and that culture is here in the states where my fellow immigrants are but some of it is sanded down a generation later by the impact of US culture on us immigrants. Especially due to the impact (economic) on the women who may be single and working like me. I'm not speaking about traditions, cooking, important cultural or religious festivities because in the US all people are encouraged to keep such traditions, and we do! But that other non-tangible "man" culture (suddenly I can't find words to describe this in English please bear with my rambling), so I understand what you are talking about. Some cultures are more macho violent than others, and if I had a son here in the US today he may be influenced more by my home countries culture than US culture purely due to where I live and the social network we have in this neighbourhood. If some tough gang member types start influencing him as a teen, what can I put against that? Church? I'm personally not religious but my home country and family is very much so, so it would be an easy step to take. But what if the church is where the gang members recruit (don't laugh that has happened) It's something that needs to be addressed but I really don't have an inkling of a solution myself.

(ISLAC)
Hard. Personally, I suggest cultural adoption.

I mean, the culture of my birth country is rotten. There is not much to save, and there are risks in claiming it- like you said. Why bother keeping it?

So I suggest to drop all traditions/ cooking/important cultural and religious activities, and to replace them by those of the new country - changing religions if necessary. They are not much different anyway.

I know it looks like too much to ask, but I believe it is the best choice to make

(womanandchildren1st)
Non-immigrant European women produce violent and/or oppressive males too. I'll wait for the defensive moms of sons to attack this post but I'm probably going to wait forever because apparently it's okay to say stuff like this about brown and black people on this sub

(Administrative_Camel)
Why is it considered acceptable to observe sex-based crime statistics but not race-based ones? Both sex and race are immutable characteristics of birth.

(vulvapeople)
My proposal would be to allow women and children in almost without question (perhaps some screening to make sure we're not admitting cartel lackeys or what-have-you). Once they're settled in, then the women can send for "their" men, which is in direct opposition to how immigration/asylum programs tend to work in practice. Very frequently it's the men who come over first and either send money to their families back home or send for them. In the case of refugees, the way it works in practice strikes me as particularly asinine because women and children are far more vulnerable in war zones and refugee camps than men are. They also run the risk of the door slamming shut after the men arrive and before the men can send for their families, which is happening in Europe as we speak.

Women are incapable of unconditional love for anyone other than their children.

I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost, Than never to have loved at all. ~Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Do you know why a man said that and not a woman? It’s unheard of for a female author to write of a past love who they broke up with. For the same reason why all the great romance poets are men; because women are literally incapable of unconditional love. Even all the “great” romance stories written by women, if the man stopped doing what the woman liked and tipped the scale, the long beautiful love story, spanning over decades, would be over in the blink of an eye. The “love” would be replaced with hate and loathing in a heartbeat; which confirms it wasn’t actual unconditional love in the first place.

Women treat men (and even other women) like tools; something they can use that serves them. And the when the tool stops performing as intended, they flip in a second from really appreciating the tool to hating it and wanting to destroy it because it’s not performing like it did anymore. It’s funny that women will complain that men treat women like objects sometimes. Because men even love objects more than women love men. A car that broke down and almost killed a man at the end yet gave them 20 years of service, even if it was constant costly repairs will still shed a tear when the car goes away and they will look back and speak of how much they loved that car for the rest of their life.

Women do unconditionally love their children though, and it takes the largest biological cocktail known to human science of her entire life to drown her brain for months to force change it from the natural conditionally feeling state. Her husband may lose his job for a time and if the scale is tipped, she’ll divorce him and he’ll instantly become the scum of all the earth, evil, jerk, and not only want him to die, but want him to suffer a horrible pain filled life until the end. However, her children could be serial killers who eat their victims faces off, and she’ll still be like “He’s a great kid, I still love him more than life itself.”

In the ending of a relationship with a man, there is sorrow at the lost, nevertheless, he remembers all the good times, and holds it to be true that it’s better to have love and lost than not to have loved. Because all that time passed at an elevated emotional state. A woman doesn’t feel this way. She’s angry. Bitter. Vindictive. “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” is a idea well known in every single culture around the world as long as they were able to write it down.

Why? It’s just the nature of the woman to be a conditional lover. She’s out of this world nice and sweet with the condition as long as you’re giving her what she wants in the moment. But the second the scales are tipped: watch out. If you’re a woman who has never had a relationship, or an inexperienced man, you probably think, “Oh, this guy is just being vindictive, this isn’t how women operate.” That’s why I want you to go prove this to yourself, by yourself. I want you to find a guy, ANY guy on planet earth, who has just gone through divorce, (there are many) and see if he was not shocked and floored at his ex-wife's total transformation from a nice reasonable rational cordial person, into a super vindictive, evil, lying, conniving, super bitch - at the drop of a hat.

I don’t even need to qualify it, you go find any. single. one. you want and you will find this is 100% true. (I suspect there is something feeding this void seeking behavior in the environment of modern feminism western culture that’s amplifying this core nature in women because the problem is getting worse. Women are allowed more freedom now-a-days to unabashedly be who they really are. That is the modern message they are receiving since childhood.) Even if she cheated on him (women’s thinking: if a man cheats, it’s the man’s fault, if a woman cheats it’s also the man’s fault), even if the divorce was her idea, even if she was a lesbian and tricked him/lied to him to get married because she wanted a more "traditional" life, she will turn on a dime and loath and try to destroy him. This isn't unconditional love.

I don’t think it’s their faults, they are just incapable. Which is why evolutionarily speaking something drastic needed to happen to change their natures when dealing with their own offspring (children are never going to act the way women want them to). Women use people for whatever reasons all women do: money, kids, convenience, handy man, stress reliever, babysitter, use men as a trophy in the competition that women all are apart of until menopause. And they ALL do it, and this is the vast vast majority of all women in all marriages. If she really loved you, there wouldn't be this drop-of-a-hat transformation into ultra-beeotch mode.

Men do genuinely unconditionally love. They are capable and it’s in their natures. Things didn't work out dating? Guys will always have a love for these girls, even if they weren't the right ones, even if they dumped them, even if they got dumped. Many women have received the drunken late night phone call/text from their former boyfriend proclaiming their undying love. Men even have a respect their enemies they fight in war. Yes, they want to kill them before they get killed, but they still have a great and profound respect them. Women have no respect for their enemies. Go prove this for yourself and ask any principal for any school in the country and they will confirm that bullying is a huge problem: and it’s a 99% girl on girl problem. Girls want their (male or female) enemies beyond dead, they want them psychologically destroyed, publicly humiliated and irreversibly damaged and live a lifetime of horror and regret for having bothered/offended/crossed them.

Women understand women, and countless women don’t like women and will only hang out with guys in school; they cite no faux relationships, backstabbing or no drama as to their reasons. And guys are cool with that, and will readily accept them into their groups with loving protective arms. Women will readily agree that this is what adolescence was like, and it carries well over into the dating or corporate world, then it continues into The Mommy Wars. (“daddy wars” is not a thing) Then a battle of whose kids are more successful. Eventually, for most, it starts to fade off with menopause. However there are still small skirmishes with grandma wars in the battle of who has more grandkids for the few who can’t let it go. It’s just their natures.

So my brothers, if you saw a someone with down syndrome freaking out in a store, or even if they hurt you physically, you wouldn’t want to retaliate and hurt him or her back. They are broken, it’s not biologically their fault; so be extra kind to women, be compassionate. This doesn’t mean you have to be in harmony and conjoin yourself to diabolically psychotic behavior. Your kindness isn’t because they deserve it, but because you do, it feels better. It’s who you really are. It’s in your nature to be unconditionally loving and be in that state. It’s not for them, but for you. Because you deserve it.