Apparently, the conditions of wherever those particular people came from were so unendurable that only women, children, and old people were strong enough to actually endure them.
To anyone who didn't know your position already, I'm glad you spelled it out.
To anyone else wanting to know why most of the
European refugees are more often male, but on the whole the break is actually 55/45, there's a few reasons.
1) Migrating to Europe as a refugee, as opposed to say Turkey, is
extremely dangerous. Most families that do ultimately leave Syria intact, make the decision to have the women and children remain in a friendly nation awaiting the husband's legal recognition of refugee status - at which time, they can legally buy a plane ticket and immigrate rather than crossing illegally.
2) Syrian men are more able to leave;
obviously. Syrian men are less likely to have families at the same age as Syrian women.
3) Most families have migrated to other nations that are closer and more open to refugees and have no intent on migrating to Europe.
Europe has received less than 10% of the total refugee population, and is not representative of the crisis on the whole.
4) Entire families are financing these migrations with everything they have - which might not be much. They might only be able to afford to send one person.
5) Syrian men running from ISIS, rather than Assad, have
substantially more to fear. Shiite men are, on a general case, singled-out and murdered in mass executions by a continual practice of ethnic cleansing. Shiite males have little chance of survival if their towns are taken by ISIS.
It's really a facile argument to suggest these people have left their home nations, after generations of living there, en masse, to live in refugee camps on the hope of getting better social programs (which they won't).
Such an argument demonstrates a keen ignorance of Syria, it's people, and the crisis that's unfolding.