Rebuttal of a rebuttal

I came across this article which tries to answer why the 'refugees' heading in Europe's direction are mostly men. What an absolutely terrible article, even from a left wing point of view, and I say this as a former leftwing Marxist,

• '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.'

In other words, the men, like the women and children, have already been granted refugee status in neighbouring countries. Whether neighbouring countries is good enough for them is another matter.  They should stay with their women, rather than come to Europe.  This means that there is a gender imbalance of those 'refugees' who come to Europe and these are men who come from a culture where women are seen as inferior.  There is evidence already of sexual assaults of women who try to make this journey.  Also women in Germany are asked to cover up in order not to provoke these male refugees into commiting rape.  In that case, why let these males in in the first place?

• 'Another reason is that a lot of women and children die on their way to Europe.'

Why can't these men do more to protect women on these voyages?

• '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.'

This completely destroys the argument about people fleeing war and persecution. If men are fleeing war and persecution, when why should women and children be forced to stay and continue facing this war and persecution, regardless of whether they have the 'energy' or not.

• 'don’t have enough energy for everyone to continue or decide to stay in the first place where they feel safe'.

 The authour already mentioned that the women and children have found refuge in neighbouring countries.  So why aren't neighbouring countries good enough for the men?

• '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.'

If women and children fleeing war are at risk of sexual abuse, what about women and children in Europe who are now at greater risk of sexual abuse due to the arrival of men who do not respect women's boundaries?

A complete nonsense of an article.