Refusing to address the issue is the catch phrase of the far rights view about immigration. It is a poor argument for hate speech regardless if it target someon

Refusing to address the issue is the catch phrase of the far rights view about immigration. It is a poor argument for hate speech regardless if it target someone based on gender or race. And no, status quo is not served by active addressing the issue rather than mud slinging. It is a well established fact that immigrants has a higher rate of crime and sexual assault. To take Swedish numbers, a Muslim immigrant is 1000% more likely to commit rape than a christian born Sweden. Refusing to debase the discussing by focusing on race and religious demographics does not mean Sweden ignore rape, nor that it is pretending that the problem does not exist (which the far right constantly accuse the government of). Instead the government create policy that address segregation, low income and other factors that plays into crime regardless of skin color or religious faith. A far cry from refusing to address the issue and serving the status quo. We know how to take the high road in regard to racism, and as a bonus it actually work. Feminist critique when used as an excuse for hate speech does neither. "Toxic masculinity" is misandry, plain and simple, and by continuing with such language all we get is more hate rather than effective policies that address the problems at hand. That is the disagreement I have with you.