Should refugees be women and children only?

[mojorising]

I think there are several benefits to a women and children only policy for refugees.

One benefit is that there is some incentive for the male population to resolve its problems within the country if they are not able to leave and if they have the cost of doing without their women until they resolve their problems.

Another benefit is that there is also an incentive for the women and children to go back to their homeland once the conflict is resolved in order to re-unite their family so that will relieve the long term economic strain on the refugee host countries.

Some people will say it is cruel to break up families but the same thing happened in the world wars in the 20th century when men went off to fight and sort out the problems of the world and then came home to see children whom they had not seen for several years and it was considered normal. I know times have changed since WWII but time moves at different rates in different parts of the world.

It also solves the problem of imported cultural aggression which is primarily brought to the west by the adult males of the refugee population.

It might be possible to make an exception to the 'no males' policy where a particular male is an enemy of the state or suchlike but in situations where an entire population is just trying to relocate out of a war zone I think it makes sense if it is women and children only, at least in the first instance.

 

[Terrell]

No. No person gets to choose their gender, or their ethnicity. This sounds like punishment for all males whether they individually have, or want, anything to do with the conflict. People should be judged by their individual merit, not inborn characteristics over which they have no control. Some of these men may feel that the country they're fleeing for isn't worth fighting for. Why should these men be required to fight for something they don't believe in? Now if you were talking about those specific people who voluntarily are engaging in the conflict, I could see keeping them out.

 

[mojorising]

If you are a man then you are a man. Choice is irrelevant.

Men are evolved as warriors and they should stay and do the warring where it is required.

Men are also more sexually predatory by nature and don't make such civilised or pleasant house-guests as women - witness the NYE nonsense in Cologne.

Islam does not mix well with secular western society and it is primarily adult males who bring the problems.

A women and children only policy would kill several birds with one stone.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I love all the various ways people come up with to try and couch their racism in expressions of how they're the good guys who are thinking of others by being racist.

 

[Terrell]

If you are a man then you are a man. Choice is irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant? You've decided people should be excluded on the basis of who they are, as opposed to what they've done. People have choice over what they do, they don't have choice over who they are. Why should you be subject to violence for something you have no choice over?

Men are evolved as warriors and they should stay and do the warring where it is required.

Not all men are suitable to be warriors, or are interested in being warriors. Why should you get to decide that they must participate in fighting when they have no interest in it, when those specific men didn't cause the conflict in the first place?

Men are also more sexually predatory by nature and don't make such civilised or pleasant house-guests as women - witness the NYE nonsense in Cologne.

Some of them are, but why should the ones who aren't be penalized? Those men did nothing wrong. Some women have also engaged in sexual predation, are the women who don't partially responsible? If not, why different standards? Even if you had evidence that the majority of men were sexual predators, I still think it's morally wrong to punish those who aren't.

Islam does not mix well with secular western society and it is primarily adult males who bring the problems.

Doesn't that depend on how the person practices said religion? If they are willing to live within the laws, how exactly are they incompatible with Western society? Why should men who have done nothing wrong have to answer for the men who have? Are you willing to hold women to the same standard that you demand of men?

A women and children only policy would kill several birds with one stone.

So those men who choose nonviolence as a way of life should be barred from leaving a warzone, because they're men? Why should I personally be responsible for the actions of other men, when I have no say in what they do?

The problem I have with your position is that you are arguing that an entire demographic should be penalized because of the actions of some of them. IMO those men who had nothing to do with the start, or continuation, of this conflict are no less innocent than the women & children who had nothing to do with it.

 

[ronburgundy]

Bad idea for reasons other have given, plus that it punishes children with dead mothers.

A more defensible policy would be limiting refugees to only children and their parents or guardian. Basically, no childless adults of either gender. All societies are filled with special protections for minors, so it would be perfectly in step with that, and allowing their parents or guardian is justified by needing adults to provide and care for the minors who are admitted.

There may be problems with this too, but in principle, it is far more in step with modern ethical principles that are common in our policies.

 

[Bomb#20]

I love all the various ways people come up with to try and couch their racism in expressions of how they're the good guys who are thinking of others by being racist.

I love all the various ways people come up with to turn every disagreement into an opportunity to accuse others of racism. Once upon a time people were racist against races; but then they were racist against Muslims, now they're racist against adult males, and apparently soon they're going to be racist against Manchester United fans. You're being racist against the White Star Line.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I love all the various ways people come up with to try and couch their racism in expressions of how they're the good guys who are thinking of others by being racist.

I love all the various ways people come up with to turn every disagreement into an opportunity to accuse others of racism. Once upon a time people were racist against races; but then they were racist against Muslims, now they're racist against adult males, and apparently soon they're going to be racist against Manchester United fans. You're being racist against the White Star Line.

Well, that's just because the people who run the White Star Line are genetically predisposed to be criminals. It's their fault I'm racist against them, not mine.

 

[arkirk]

This suggestion is ridiculous. The U. S. has not dealt fairly with refugees for years. A refugee is a person who cannot go "home." They come in all ages and sexes.

 

[barbos]

Not all men are warriors. I remember reading a study where they identified "warrior" gene. Only 30% of white people have it, but 60% of Africans have it. I know I don't have it.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I'm sure the right will say that after San Bernardino, where a woman who had a recent baby became a terrorist, that nobody is immune to radicalization and thus nobody should be let in.

 

[Bomb#20]

No. No person gets to choose their gender, or their ethnicity. This sounds like punishment for all males whether they individually have, or want, anything to do with the conflict.

Bad idea for reasons other have given, plus that it punishes children with dead mothers.

Why do you guys call mojorising's proposal punishment? Not taking a refugee into your country doesn't harm him; it doesn't take anything from him; it doesn't infringe on his rights. You're simply directing your charity elsewhere. I gave my used car to Habitat For Humanity. I could have given it to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, but I didn't. Does that mean I was punishing people for having the misfortune, through no fault of their own, to suffer from leukemia instead of homelessness?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Bad idea for reasons other have given, plus that it punishes children with dead mothers.

Why do you guys call mojorising's proposal punishment? Not taking a refugee into your country doesn't harm him; it doesn't take anything from him; it doesn't infringe on his rights. You're simply directing your charity elsewhere. I gave my used car to Habitat For Humanity. I could have given it to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, but I didn't. Does that mean I was punishing people for having the misfortune, through no fault of their own, to suffer from leukemia instead of homelessness?

Well, denying refugees because of their gender would be more analogous to a company not hiring people because of their gender. If they don't give women jobs, they haven't taken anything away from them (they're still exactly as unemployed as they were before you rejected them) and they're simply directing their employment resources elsewhere towards men.

If you personally don't want to let men or women into your house, that's your business and you can do it for whatever reasons you want. If you want to give away your personal stuff to one group and not another group, that's your business and you can do it for whatever reasons you want. There are different standards for organizations like governments and corporations, however, and discrimination by them is a more serious issue.

 

[Terrell]

Bad idea for reasons other have given, plus that it punishes children with dead mothers.

Why do you guys call mojorising's proposal punishment? Not taking a refugee into your country doesn't harm him; it doesn't take anything from him; it doesn't infringe on his rights. You're simply directing your charity elsewhere. I gave my used car to Habitat For Humanity. I could have given it to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, but I didn't. Does that mean I was punishing people for having the misfortune, through no fault of their own, to suffer from leukemia instead of homelessness?

I see it as punitive because he seems to be deciding to allow people to flee from danger on the basis of who he perceives as being responsible for that danger. I see it as immoral because he's assigning responsibility based on who a person is, as opposed to what they've done.

 

[ronburgundy]

Bad idea for reasons other have given, plus that it punishes children with dead mothers.

Why do you guys call mojorising's proposal punishment? Not taking a refugee into your country doesn't harm him; it doesn't take anything from him; it doesn't infringe on his rights. You're simply directing your charity elsewhere. I gave my used car to Habitat For Humanity. I could have given it to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, but I didn't. Does that mean I was punishing people for having the misfortune, through no fault of their own, to suffer from leukemia instead of homelessness?

A distinction without an ethical difference. The reality is that many of the people refused will die as a consequence of being refused. Whether the refusal itself is a "punishment" or ignoring a plea for help is irrelevant. Refusing people for organ transplants is similar not a "punishment" in a technical sense. Yet, the immorality of refusing people due solely to the gender is obvious, and it applies equally to refusing a plea for help. It's gender discrimination and goes against modern ethics.

 

[J842P]

Not all men are warriors. I remember reading a study where they identified "warrior" gene. Only 30% of white people have it, but 60% of Africans have it. I know I don't have it.

The 'warrior gene' doesn't make for good warriors. Warriors requires the ability to work as a team, discipline, strength (especially in the past) and cunning. The warrior gene affords none of these traits.

 

[barbos]

Not all men are warriors. I remember reading a study where they identified "warrior" gene. Only 30% of white people have it, but 60% of Africans have it. I know I don't have it.

The 'warrior gene' doesn't make for good warriors. Warriors requires the ability to work as a team, discipline, strength (especially in the past) and cunning. The warrior gene affords none of these traits.

I did not say it makes you a good warrior.
It does make you more aggressive, which is part of being a warrior, at least in in more primitive way.

 

[mojorising]

These men from Syria cause major social problems for the host country and are centuries off the pace in terms of being able to fit into a progressive society that respects women.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35326090

They should have been kept in Syria to fight for their country. The women do not cause problems and the children are children so deserve protection.

Canada already enacted a ban on single men. Single women are OK. This is sensible policy for a real world not a fantasy world.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/23/canada-syrian-refugee-resettlement-plan-no-single-men

It is OK to treat men and women differently in some situations because men and women are different.

Some scary figures from the UNHCR on total migrant arrivals in Europe since 1st January 2015

http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php

31% children 19% women and.... 49% men!

 

[bigfield]

At what age does a male child become a man, according to these programs?

In various refuge (not refugee) shelters in Australia, male adolescents are turned away at ages starting anywhere between 13 and 18, which means that society hasn't agreed on the age when teenage boys turn from vulnerable innocents into dangerous predators and disposable drones.

I for one can't remember exactly when I started raping, killing and beating my girlfriend--I think it was seventeen but I'm a late bloomer.

 

[Bomb#20]

I see it as punitive because he seems to be deciding to allow people to flee from danger on the basis of who he perceives as being responsible for that danger. I see it as immoral because he's assigning responsibility based on who a person is, as opposed to what they've done.

I'm not seeing where he said the men are responsible for the danger. He said the policy would incentivize people to do what he wants; he said it's in line with traditional sex roles; he said it would be safer for the host countries. But he didn't blame male refugees for turning Syria into a hellhole.