Men on the Move in Europe: Portrayed as Disposable, Forgotten, and Excluded
Men on the move face a complicated experience. They are often the most criminalized in the media and reality, left out of protection schemes, and forgotten about even in positive and humanitarian acts related to people on the move. Leaving out men from the equation is problematic for a number of reasons, a major one being that men make up the majority of people on the move in dangerous routes like the Balkan route and journeys across the Mediterranean. Men deserve no less protection than anyone else, and yet they are not getting it. Instead, they are being scapegoated, dehumanized, and portrayed as violent, which is ineffective to not only them, but the treatment of all people on the move.
Why men?
In many migration contexts, men are the first to leave, not because they are less affected by violence or instability, but because social expectations often leave them with little alternative. In countries affected by conflict, repression, or economic collapse, men are frequently expected to act as providers, protectors, and decision-makers within their families. These expectations, combined with mandatory military service in many contexts, place men under intense pressure during times of unrest and often make staying behind impossible.
As a result, men are more likely to take on the burden and danger of these journeys. They do so knowing the risks, violence, detention, exploitation, and death, but driven by the instability and persecution at home and the absence of safe and legal routes.
While research shows that women face heightened risks of gender-based violence, exploitation, and extortion, particularly along migration routes and in destination countries, this does not mean men are protected from harm. Men, too, experience abuse, coercion, forced labour, and violence, often compounded by expectations that they should be resilient, silent, and able to endure inhumane conditions without support.
Within this deeply gendered system, men are frequently expected to arrive first, secure work and legal status, and later create a pathway for their families, spouses and children, to join them through family reunification. This responsibility is heavy and often isolating, placing enormous emotional, financial, and physical strain on individuals who are already navigating hostile borders and uncertain futures.
In situations of political turmoil and armed conflict, men are also disproportionately targeted for conscription. Many flee to avoid forced recruitment, while facing severe risks if returned, including imprisonment. These overlapping pressures, social, political, and legal, shape migration patterns that are not about opportunity, but about survival and responsibility.
Dehumanized and Criminalized
The mention of men on the move is often loaded with negative connotations, claiming them as violent, criminals, and threats to the culture and values to the arrival country. Representing men as inherently violent diminishes their reason for migrating, because it is assumed they could not possibly be facing persecution or violence and if they were facing that, it is deserved as they too are violent. Simultaneously, this representation justifies violence throughout the migration journey from border police, within detention centres, and any other actors along the way.
The portrayal of men on the move as violent is often weaponized as a means for anti-migration rhetoric in the name of protecting women. Categorizing these men as violent and oppressive to women justifies exclusion as necessary. In arguing that men on the move are a threat to women and girls, detention and deportation are seen as safe. In the United Kingdom, people have been taking to the streets to showcase their concern for having people on the move in their countries, carrying signs saying “protect our girls” and “save our kids”.
Beyond the obvious xenophobic and racist context of this issue, it also undermines the real driving forces in violence against women and girls and normalizes far-right politics. The majority of the violence committed against women and girls is perpetrated by someone the victim knows, and men from all backgrounds have a history of perpetuating violence. With large local populations, especially white women, rallying behind this ideology as a women’s rights issue, it allows anti-migration rhetoric to become a public safety issue and makes it seem more palatable. Men on the move are stereotyped as violent, specifically racialised men from the Global South, and this is weaponised by governments and policy makers to increase control and promote right-wing, exclusionary politics. Using these men as a scapegoat to violence perpetuated against women is an easy way to garner support from local populations.
Exclusion of Men and the “Women and Children” Narrative
In addition to this negative treatment and portrayal of men on the move, there is negligent and forgotten representation that has an impact. This previous summer in Belgium the exclusion of male protection was made evident and criticized by the Dutch Council of State. Single male asylum seekers must register on a waiting list to receive shelter while waiting for asylum, with upwards of 1800 men on the list as families, women, and children are given priority. This mistreatment is evident of a structural problem that risks these men having to live on the streets and not have access to basic needs. The lack of support for men in Belgium undermines EU rules as well which determine that asylum seekers cannot switch from the country they first registered in, or that countries can send them back, on the basis that each country offers the same level of protection.
Belgium is not the only example where men are explicitly excluded from migration related protection. In the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, men are not even explicitly mentioned, whereas women and children are mentioned as having required special protections. The lack of protection under international legislation and access to fundamental rights relating to refugee and asylum status is directly linked to negative discourse around men on the move; rights are justified as not deserved, or to give these men rights would be to take it away from other people who “really need to migrate”.
Another large problem is the emphasis on women and children, both for the support of them and the support of men. Even in instances of support for people on the move, empathy often leans more to women and children and excludes men. Protection is supposed to be granted to all people, but this description is not so gender neutral anymore - men from certain countries, religions, and skin colours are automatically presumed as threats, not people.
The women and children narrative also promotes an idea of vulnerability, infantilizes women, and removes agency. The combined representation of “women and children” stereotypes both as victims and vulnerable, and opposes men as perpetrators. It removes the complexity of relationships and realities people on the move face, and condenses the individual experiences and difficulties faced by both women and children into one category, when they should be viewed as distinct groups.
In response to this deeply ingrained and harmful narrative, Collective Aid deliberately focuses much of its operational work on supporting men, while also continuing to provide assistance to families, women, and children. This focus is not a matter of prioritising one group over another, but of addressing a critical gap created by exclusionary policies, public discourse, and humanitarian practices that systematically overlook men on the move.
Wrap and Call to Action
This representation of combined exclusion of men and the dehumanizing representation of them as violent, undeserving individuals serves as a justification for increased migration control and border fortifications. Excluding and villainizing men in the name of safety and protecting women is a lame scapegoat for real systemic issues. Migration narratives need a more complex, intersectional approach that includes men and separates the so often combined “women and children” and instead tackles individual needs. Gender should not determine one's right to safety and fair treatment. Without fixing how men on the move are received and portrayed, border violence and harsh, exclusive migration policy will continue to erode human rights at the border and in society.
Written by Rachel Hierholzer