Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many boys in Muslim countries are raised to expect girls and women to behave in a certain fashion. When they come to Western countries and see how girls and women behave there, they are (1) thrilled because it's much easier to look at girls, and to approach and spend time with girls, but (2) they may also be inclined to have no respect for those girls because they do not conform to what they were raised to believe is the proper way for women to behave.
From what I understand, the veil for women in Muslim societies is meant to protect them from the 'male gaze' as exposed female skin would trigger sexual attraction in men who may then do indecent things. By consciously not wearing the veil, Western women thus choose to make themselves 'available' to that kind of male attention. In other words, someone used to the way of Muslim societies may interpret the lack of veil (and revealing clothing as well) as a sign that said woman is making herself sexually available. If you couple that perception then with a lack of scruples and aggression otherwise, you get guys who may think they have carte blanche to rape.
That is of course not unique to Islamic societies. I think historically that type of mentality existed almost anywhere in the world. It's the classic misogynistic playbook of rape - "Women are sluts, so if they reject me I take it personally and take what they owe me." There's men who think like that in any culture and of any background. But it's really helping no-one if we deny that it's far more common in men from very traditionalist societies which place a lot of emphasis on maintaining traditional religious customs even as the world modernizes in terms of technology. Islamic countries are not just very notable in that regard - they have also been exporting a lot of young male migrants to the West. It's naive to expect such young men to throw out their entire toolkit of values and beliefs and adopt ours because they move to Hamburg, Brussels or Birmingham.
But surely any cultural group relocating to a part of the world with a significantly different culture would understand, that in their new home, people do things differently, and it doesn't mean the same thing it does back home. And surely they would know that their new home has laws and police to enforce the laws of the land, that are tailored to the country's norms.
Who goes into someone else's country hoping to be accepted as citizens, and rampages around, causing mayhem (barring a colonial situation or war)?
What's interesting is, that the US has been taking in refugees from some of the same countries, and yet there aren't these rampant problems. Why is that? Well, for one thing, those who come to the US often find a pre-existing community of people if not from their country, from their region and religious tradition. They find community organizations of people from their culture or similar cultures, that help them find employment, and that help them settle in and adjust. They find neighborhood mosques. Once they're employed, even if underemployed in some cases, they feel like at least they're contributing, and are on their way to becoming self-supporting.
This is in marked contrast to how Scandinavia handles their immigrant communities, and I don't have the whole picture on Germany, but probably some of what I mentioned is relevant there, too. Though granted, Germany got unexpectedly inundated by large numbers of immigrants, while the US (and Canada) were at least able to screen the people they accepted.
But surely any cultural group relocating to a part of the world with a significantly different culture would understand, that in their new home, people do things differently, and it doesn't mean the same thing it does back home. And surely they would know that their new home has laws and police to enforce the laws of the land, that are tailored to the country's norms.
Who goes into someone else's country hoping to be accepted as citizens, and rampages around, causing mayhem (barring a colonial situation or war)?
What's interesting is, that the US has been taking in refugees from some of the same countries, and yet there aren't these rampant problems. Why is that? Well, for one thing, those who come to the US often find a pre-existing community of people if not from their country, from their region and religious tradition. They find community organizations of people from their culture or similar cultures, that help them find employment, and that help them settle in and adjust. They find neighborhood mosques. Once they're employed, even if underemployed in some cases, they feel like at least they're contributing, and are on their way to becoming self-supporting.
This is in marked contrast to how Scandinavia handles their immigrant communities, and I don't have the whole picture on Germany, but probably some of what I mentioned is relevant there, too. Though granted, Germany got unexpectedly inundated by large numbers of immigrants, while the US (and Canada) were at least able to screen the people they accepted.
Sounds like you're somewhat excusing their behavior.
They know what they're doing is wrong. They also know there will be few repercussions for it.
Sounds like you're somewhat excusing their behavior.
I've been trying to figure out, since a few years ago when we started getting posts about this issue, why there's such a night-and-day difference between what goes on in some of the European nations that receive these groups, and the US. I used to live in a community full of Muslims from the Near East and North Africa. They clustered there, because there was a mosque. No issues whatsoever. So I started to reflect on why that might be, after the threads began here.
A few contrasts were clear: in Scandinavia, the immigrants are warehoused in apartment complexes in separate neighborhoods from the mainstream society. They receive monetary assistance for their support. In the US, they live wherever they can find a place to live, and find community organizations of people like them, who are already established in jobs. They learn enough English to at least be able to be taxi drivers (it's a start) or to work in photocopy centers owned or managed by others who have preceded them, or may find work in a restaurant run by their countrymen. Already, it gives them a small stake in the society. They don't feel useless, though their situation still may be far from ideal. They can put together a plan to get ahead, somehow, over time.
That's all I've got. Well, plus the fact that the US has the advantage of being able to screen the people it accepts. This doesn't always work out; there have been problems with crime from East European immigrants, for example. It's easy to bribe police back home to provide a clean record for the US Embassy interview.
Who goes into someone else's country hoping to be accepted as citizens, and rampages around, causing mayhem (barring a colonial situation or war)?
Right there, you've hit upon the issue. Migrants desperately fleeing an oppressive country are likely to be grateful to those who give them shelter. Invaders, on the other hand, tend to rape the women of the countries they're invading. Europe is not facing a "migrant crisis"; they're facing an invasion. And they're so blinded by political correctness that not only are they not resisting it, they're actively welcoming it.
^^^^^^ Ah yes. The echoes of Germany circa 1932.... that's how it starts.
The moral blindness in you is, well, blinding. If you had the slightest inkling of history, you would know that the situation between 1932 and today is diametrically opposite. In 1932, the minority group (Jews) wanted nothing more than to live at peace and contribute to the larger society. Yet, the government devised more and more ways to oppress them. Today, on the other hand, the minority group (migrants) wants to cause mayhem and strife, assaulting the men and raping the women and pillaging the societies that have welcomed them. And the governments are bending over backward to appease them and reward them.
The real problem is that the people with the two-colon vowel and their friends from France are trying to islamize the whole of europe when they dictate their policies through the so called sinking project "Eu".
I've been trying to figure out, since a few years ago when we started getting posts about this issue, why there's such a night-and-day difference between what goes on in some of the European nations that receive these groups, and the US. I used to live in a community full of Muslims from the Near East and North Africa. They clustered there, because there was a mosque. No issues whatsoever. So I started to reflect on why that might be, after the threads began here.
A few contrasts were clear: in Scandinavia, the immigrants are warehoused in apartment complexes in separate neighborhoods from the mainstream society. They receive monetary assistance for their support. In the US, they live wherever they can find a place to live, and find community organizations of people like them, who are already established in jobs. They learn enough English to at least be able to be taxi drivers (it's a start) or to work in photocopy centers owned or managed by others who have preceded them, or may find work in a restaurant run by their countrymen. Already, it gives them a small stake in the society. They don't feel useless, though their situation still may be far from ideal. They can put together a plan to get ahead, somehow, over time.
That's all I've got. Well, plus the fact that the US has the advantage of being able to screen the people it accepts. This doesn't always work out; there have been problems with crime from East European immigrants, for example. It's easy to bribe police back home to provide a clean record for the US Embassy interview.
Thanks for your answer. I appreciate the thought that went into it.
I wonder why Scandinavia has allowed into their countries a large group of people that are immediately separated from the mainstream host society, financially supported, and ... then what? Ignored? Left to do nothing? Why would Scandinavia do this? It seems rather cruel.
Although the U.S. doesn't have the same massive scale of problems endured by Europe from Middle Eastern and African immigrants/migrants/refugees, issues do exist. From what I've read (from a variety of sources -- no Breitbart or Fox), Minnesota in particular has experienced sharply increased crime and welfare costs due to Somali immigration.
I note also that Europe and the U.S. don't experience an exorbitant amount of crime from Buddhists and Hindus who come to their countries.
Among the many countries I've traveled to over the last several decades, I received sexual harassment in literally every North African, Middle Eastern, and Central Asian country, but almost none in Nepal and Southeast Asia (except for parts of Malaysia and Indonesia), and Pacific islands. I also, paradoxically, received a great deal of hospitality and warmth in the places where I had the most hassles.
I don't think it is unreasonable at all to expect them to accept that in their new home it is not permissible to gang rape 15 year old girls.
I agree that it's more than reasonable to expect them to accept that. But it's rather tricky when even the slightest criticism or even the attempt to raise awareness of the issue is quickly met with a "it's 1932 in Germany again!" from a lot of people.
Rotherham could happen because police and social workers did not want to risk being viewed as insensitive to minority communities or even racist by poking around and investigating. Rotherham was of course not the only situation like that. I am sure many more still exist today all over Europe. And there is very little political appetite to confront those issues, again, because it's a taboo subject in the mainstream political sphere and media.
Ideologically for many it's been predetermined who the villain and who the victim in every story needs to be. Stories that don't fit that neat world view must surely be exaggerated or fabricated, and talking about them just makes you complicit in..you know where this is going..Germany in 1932.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
