Anonymous #1 21h

Is that being said here?

3

Anonymous strawberry_hair 21h

Can you say that they are hard for men specifically

1

Anonymous OP 21h

Are you not saying women need to acknowledge that there’s a difficulty and if they don’t it’s unempathetic? Are you not asking for validation?

-1

Anonymous #1 21h

Replace “need” with the word “want”. And yes if you cant see the difficulty of dating from men’s perspective then that’s unempathetic.

4

Anonymous #1 21h

Need vs want in my post not yours

6

Anonymous OP 21h

Laugh out loud bro

-1

Anonymous #1 20h

What the fuck do you want, bro?

3

Anonymous OP 20h

Yeah men have challenges in relationships. So do women? I don’t see what you mean.

5

Anonymous strawberry_hair 20h

I just asked you to acknowledge men have difficulty

1

Anonymous OP 20h

Yes they do. I don’t know why you are trying to make it a big deal? Like I said, everyone has difficulties

4

Anonymous strawberry_hair 20h

You’d be surprised on how many people don’t think that men have difficulties in dating

1

Anonymous OP 20h

Well that’s ridiculous. Of course men can have difficulties in dating. I’ve been on this sub for years at this point helping guys. Doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s amazing different situation for women.

1

Anonymous #3 20h

Little to no acknowledgment. And I’m not saying that men can’t experience these types of things either, just that it happens far more often to women. That why people often get mad when men say “men have it hard in relationships” because while you do have difficulties, it’s hard when women’s difficulties are surrounding our safety.

15

Anonymous #3 20h

I understand the safety problem, but when you talk about effort, I’m actually confused there. I don’t know many heterosexual relationships that started because the woman was asking the guy on dates and paying for dates. Now the safety thing is understandable, and I do understand that acknowledging men’s hardship in dating can definitely undermine the violence perpetrated against women. So with that, we are not in disagreement.

-1

Anonymous OP 19h

Take childcare for example or housework. How often is that pushed off on the woman, regardless of if they work or not? These are some gender roles many try and uphold today. I understand that men often ask out the woman and pay for dates, however I’m talking about physical and emotional labor within the house. Women are often treated like therapists as well, having to help their partner through struggle but not receiving the same. It’s not an always situation, but a more often than not

6

Anonymous #1 19h

No they don’t, but if they’re going to have men in their lives then they should treat men as human. That whole treat people as you wish to be treated goes both ways.

1

Anonymous #3 19h

Not every woman has children, nor are they responsible for the entirety of their own housework, nor do they lack the ability to tell their partner to pick up some of the housework and childcare, nor do all couples live together. As far as treating your partner like a therapist, I think the same can be said for men. A lot of men are treated like a therapist… someone to vent to after work, someone to talk through problems with.

-1

Anonymous OP 19h

this is why you can’t get dates, you have internalized misogyny you need to figure out.

1

Anonymous OP 19h

“How Unpaid Care and Household Labor Reinforces Women’s Inequality” by the gender equity policy institute has some great stats for you about inequalities in relationships when it comes to children and household chores.

4

Anonymous #3 19h

I never said that there weren’t in equities…. I said that not everybody has kids and not all couples live together.

-1

Anonymous OP 19h

“Moms Carry 71% of the Mental Load” from neuroscience news is a good source as well when it comes to mental load

2

Anonymous #3 19h

I never said that there were not inequities. I said that not everybody has children and not all couples live together.

-1

Anonymous #5 19h

The misogyny being me saying that not everybody has kids and not all couples live together?

-1

Anonymous OP 19h

I mean cool? You’re right. As I’ve said multiple times now, it’s not an always situation, even statistically. I’m talking in terms of who does it more often than not and that would in fact be women

2

Anonymous OP 19h

Please, tell me where I said its everyone. Me saying “it’s not an always situation” means I’m accounting for people who don’t fit in these statistics.

5

Anonymous #3 19h

And I’m saying that statistic doesn’t work here because I’m not talking about people that have kids for couples that live together…. I’m talking about dating

-1

Anonymous OP 19h

Right because people who are dating never live together 💀

5

Anonymous #3 19h

I’m talking about dating ….your accounting for people that don’t matter for what I’m trying to say

-1

Anonymous #3 19h

I never said that either

-1

Anonymous OP 19h

Think of it this way, it’s another layer for us to have to weed out of men. Is the guy I’m dating going to 180 when we live together? Is he going to shove all the housework on me once we get serious?

4

Anonymous #3 19h

So the hardship here is open communication on household responsibilities?

0

Anonymous OP 19h

No the hardship is weeding out men who claim they’ll help, but are actually lying because they think they can get away with pushing it on the woman due to typical gender norms. It’s not like they come out and say “oh yeah you’ll do all the housework” lmao💀

6

Anonymous OP 19h

Again, this coupled with our safety, which is the biggest concern

4

Anonymous #3 19h

Forgive me if I don’t see the difficulty here

0

Anonymous OP 19h

Shocker. Please enlighten me on the hardships of male dating then.

4

Anonymous OP 19h

The hardship in dating besides finding someone who won’t physically attack us or assault us, is being treated like a human being. Someone who has thoughts and opinions, goals and aspirations.

4

Anonymous #3 19h

For a lot of men, getting a date, avoiding ghosting, and approaching women already wary of violence from people who look like them are hardships. Men also have to weed out women….those who aren’t reciprocal, those with internalized misogyny trying to force a gender role, and those trying to set you up so that you could end in getting robbed.

-1

Anonymous OP 19h

Any sources for the stats on that?

3

Anonymous strawberry_hair 19h

I do think that violence in safety are definitely relevant hardships in dating here …. But in addition to that, while its not my area of expertise, so forgive me for my ignorance here…how difficult is it actually to find a man who cares about your thoughts, opinions, goals, and aspirations? I personally think it’s probably difficult to find someone you’re attracted to who also cares about those things, but again, that’s my opinion, and I could definitely be wrong there.

0

Anonymous #3 19h

Which part

0

Anonymous OP 19h

Literally any of it

1

Anonymous #3 19h

Pick one I’ll start with that

1

Anonymous #1 19h

We found who OP is talking about

1

Anonymous OP 18h

Let’s go with the robbery stats for this specific scenario

1

Anonymous #3 18h

We will start off with this even though it’s just an article about 2 specific situations, but I will give more hold on. This is just the first one …https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/investigations/online-dating-setup-armed-robbery-st-louis/63-f6e4445b-2c5c-4ff7-9c86-0ebb96b90c13

1

Anonymous #3 18h

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/02/love-stinks-when-scammer-involved

1

Anonymous #3 18h

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/03/heres-how-to-avoid-romance-scams-which-cost-consumers-1point14-billion-last-year.html

1

Anonymous OP 18h

Just say the name and who published it, I can’t copy links off here

1

Anonymous #3 18h

OK, the CNBC article … the title is Romance scams cost consumers $1.14 billion last year. It’s a ‘more insidious’ fraud, expert says

1

Anonymous #3 17h

The ksdk article title is ….2 men showed up for online dates; one was robbed, one was carjacked

0

Anonymous OP 17h

Idk about the case study one as I’m asking you for statistics

1

Anonymous OP 17h

And this is just discussing percentages once you get scammed, what are the stats about first date robberies, how often, etc, because romance scams include a lot that aren’t first date robberies

1

Anonymous #3 17h

I know in the CNBC article the survey they mentioned found that men were 70% + of the victims based on a pool of 5000 people… that is only one data point… so obviously we’ll have to take that with a grain of salt, but I would not disregard because there’s no Meta analysis on it.. and that’s all we have to go on as far as that the source for CNBC is concerned

0

Anonymous #3 17h

Well, I wasn’t only talking about first date robberies.. and scams are robberies

0

Anonymous OP 17h

Again, I’m asking you for what percentage of the overall population that this happens to. I understand it happens and that it happens to men more than women, but what is the percentage compared to the whole population

1

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #3 17h

There's no meta analysis to conclude .what the percentage is compared to the global population... all we can go off of is random sampling.... Which shouldn't be disregarded solely on the basis of the fact that it's not a Meta analysis

0

I’m not disregarding the study completely, I understand what it’s saying. What I am asking you for is how common it is in the real world. What exactly am I disregarding here when I’m specifically asking you for the stats compared to the over all population?

1

Anonymous #3 17h

I can’t give you that compared to the entire population of the world… I can tell you that 1.4 billion in one year is a lot of money and if roughly 70% of those people were men… then clearly there’s a lot of people being affected by it… and a lot of those people were men

0

Anonymous #3 17h

So the answer to your question is that it’s common enough for $1.4 billion to be made in one year

0

Anonymous OP 17h

Do you want to pick a different topic where you can provide the appropriate stats to answer my questions?

1

Anonymous #3 17h

We could pick a different topic. But don't disregard the sources I gave you just because there hasn't been a worldwide survey, or a meta-analysis pulling together a bunch of surveys, on how many people were affected by this thing. The sources I gave were appropriate given the statement I made. Still, sure, pick another one.

1

Anonymous OP 17h

I understand what the source is saying, it doesn’t change the fact is still doesn’t answer my question. The overall number spent could be skewed by heavy spenders, etc, and I don’t believe the average number claimed is the actual amount each person is spending. “Barclays Scams Bulletin: Men more likely to fall victim to romance scams, while women lose more money” this also skews it because how do we know all that money was spent by men? Women tend to spend more even though men are more likely to

1

Anonymous #3 17h

Fall for said scam, so how much of that money was spent by women compared to men? There’s a billion things that could effect these numbers that wouldnt be connected to the actual number of men worldwide scammed. Thats why I think the actual percentage of men scammed is necessary in this specific case.

1

Anonymous #3 17h

I am not claiming this is definitive. I am claiming this is corroborated circumstantial evidence. The survey gives me the who, and the financial data gives me the how much. Until someone provides contradictory data, this is the best empirical picture we have, and it is objectively not baseless…. however, potentially skewed it maybe

0

Anonymous OP 17h

Sure if you’d like to talk about ghosting, from what I’ve seen stats wise the numbers of female ghosted over male ghosters seems to be pretty even all things considered. Men get ghosted at a slight higher rate, but I believe the different is around 5%, 72% of women begging ghosted with about 77% of men

1

Anonymous OP 17h

It might be the best evidence you have but it can make no claim to how many men are affected, which is my question.

1

Anonymous #3 17h

It is the best empirical example of the topic that supports my statement. It is therefore supported by empirical data….. so while that data may not completely account for every single one of your questions… roughly 70% of the people affected are men…. If you think that 30 or more percent of women are spending more on the scams then support it

1

Anonymous #3 17h

It actually can support a claim on how many men are affected because they did the survey on how many ppl were affected. And men turned out in the majority . It can’t be the only thing that assesses how many men were affected, but it’s the best thing that we have to assess how many men were affected

0

Anonymous OP 17h

The words in quotes are a source that discusses how much women vs men spend. And yes, as I’ve said, I agree men are more likely to fall for said scams, I’m not disputing that. I’m asking what percentage of the population this is actually happening to because I believe it’s a minority compared to population.

1

Anonymous OP 17h

Then you do not have the stats I’m asking you for.

1

Anonymous #3 17h

OK, then support it with a source

1

Anonymous OP 17h

“Study Reveals Cities Where Ghosting is Most Common” it also discusses which cities have more ghosting, why people tend to ghost, etc

1

Anonymous #3 17h

$1.4 billion is being made. That’s a lot of people, it’s not a minority. The source you have doesn’t support the claim that 30% or more of the people affected (women) are spending more than the majority of the people affected (men). All it supports is that they may spend more on average than men, not that they’re spending more than a majority of them collectively….

1

Anonymous #3 17h

$1.4 billion is a lot of money ….. There are a lot of people being affected to the point where their victimization allows it’s to get to that much money in one year

1

Anonymous OP 17h

The same way your source cannot make a claim for overall population, that’s the point here. There’s plenty of other variables that are needed to draw this conclusion, the fact that women tend to spend more is just one.

1

Anonymous OP 17h

But we actually have no idea how many, yes?

1

Anonymous #3 17h

My claim is supported. No, I don’t have stats about the entire world. But I do know a lot of money is being spent, and the majority of the people that money is coming from are men, even if, on average, individual women being victimized spend a lot more Individually then individual men on average… the idea that collectively they’re out spending the other 70% of victims, men, involved in the statistic. Is unfounded.

0

Anonymous #3 17h

Your criticisms of the source do not make what the study found and stated wrong…. Empirically we can say significantly more men are affected by this than women.. that’s all that matters here

1

Anonymous OP 17h

Literally all I’m saying is your source doesn’t have the correct evidence to back a claim about how many men are affected worldwide. Thats it. Which is true, just saying “well it’s so much money so it must be a lot of guys” is not how we read statistics. It might be how you would like to, but there’s a reason the source doesn’t draw that conclusion.

1

Anonymous OP 17h

I’m not saying the study is wrong at all, I’m saying you’re drawing a conclusion from this data that cannot be correctly drawn due to the amount of variables missing. You can make this claim, but you are still missing the correct stats to back it.

1

Anonymous OP 17h

Do you have a different source you would like to point to?

1

Anonymous #3 17h

The survey is a random sample of 5,000 …that is statistically valid for identifying relative difference between groups. If one group in a valid random sample shows higher impact, that is precisely how we infer real-world disparity. That is literally what random sampling is designed to do.

0

Anonymous #3 17h

Like is aid earlier … the survey is a random sample of 5,000…that is statistically valid for identifying relative difference between groups. If one group in a valid random sample shows higher impact, that is precisely how we infer real-world disparity. That is literally what random sampling is designed to do.

1

Anonymous #3 17h

No, you're right that it's roughly a 5% difference across most studies. But I still think that matters. Even if the gap isn't significant in any single study, the fact that men slightly edge out women across so many of them says something on its own.

1

Anonymous OP 17h

What percentage of that 5000 were affected vs unaffected? Because that number would give enough insight to how it compares to the overall population. The stats included are enough to say “more men on average are affected compared to women”, but without knowing the affected vs unaffected, we do not know how this compares to the overall population

1

Anonymous OP 17h

What does it say?

1

Anonymous #3 17h

This was in response to you, talking about the 5% difference in ghosting

1

Anonymous OP 17h

Without any evidence to point to what causes these differences, it could just as well be women experience more harassment leading to more ghosting than them just ghosting for no reason

1

Anonymous OP 17h

“Says something on its own” what does it say? You’re implying something here and I’m asking you what that is exactly

1

Anonymous #3 17h

I do not know what percentage of the 5000 were people that were affected versus unaffected… I do however, know that that same study concluded that 27 million people were affected in one year

1

Anonymous #3 17h

There is a level of consistency amongst surveys that show that men are ghosted more…. The thing that it says is that it’s very likely that men are ghosted more.

1

Anonymous OP 17h

If that number is true, that’s .3% of people worldwide that are affected

1

Anonymous #3 16h

Well, we'll just have to accept not knowing the causes until another study comes out. But for now, what's empirically supported (with caution about how it's supported) is that it's consistent across multiple studies that men get ghosted more than women.

0

Anonymous OP 16h

That’s just the conclusion literally everyone should draw from these stats. However, the raw number doesn’t include the why. Sure men are ghosted slightly more, but I don’t think enough more to consider it a hardship only faced by men or a hardship mostly faced by men. It’s a pretty even split so while yes, ghosting is a hardship for men, but it’s a near identical hardship for women

1

Anonymous #3 16h

What makes you think that that number doesn’t grow bigger worldwide?

1

Anonymous OP 16h

What would make me think so?

1

Anonymous #3 16h

I never said it was a hardship only men face. I said it was a relevant hardship that men face which makes dating difficult for them… which is supported by the fact that they have a consistent slight majority, in being ghosted

1

Anonymous OP 16h

Sure I’ll admit to it being a hardship shared across genders with men experiencing a slight increase

1

Anonymous #3 16h

27 million people is 8% of America. To think it wouldn’t grow if assessed globally is odd. Add to that, I’m pretty sure we both live in America, so these statistics on how it affects Americans are the most relevant here in America, because we are Americans experiencing this American thing

0

Anonymous #3 16h

Ok

1

Anonymous OP 16h

Oh you should of said in America then, yes the stat is 8% for the US specifically, it might rise or it might fall when compared to the world, we do not actually know the answer.

1

Anonymous #3 16h

To think that number would not grow if we assessed this problem on a global stage, even though it’s already affecting 8% of Americans, is unfounded. The point of a global assessment is that the pool of people it’s concerned with grows, which means the numbers associated with it also grow, so that 8% number could very easily turn into 8% of the world.

1

Anonymous OP 16h

If the 27 million number was for all people who get scammed, the number drops to 5.7% of US men that are scammed each year as well

1

Anonymous OP 16h

I’m not saying it wouldn’t or would, I’m saying we do not possess enough data from these sources to draw a conclusion

1

Anonymous #3 16h

Is that not a large amount of people?

1

Anonymous OP 16h

Depends on what you’re comparing it to. When compared to something like a genetic disorder it might be large, when compared to things like violence stats, no

1

Anonymous #3 16h

But we do possess enough data to say that it affects 8% of the country we live in, which is a lot of people. So it’s already relevant on the fact that we live in America and we are experiencing this American problem. And we have more reason to say that it would grow, because more people are involved in something that’s already affecting 8% of a single country.

1

Anonymous OP 16h

This all goes to prove my overall point here, a point I might add here that I don’t think you disagree with. Yes, men have their own hardships, yes certain things do affect men slightly more than women, yes they get scammed more than women, but these minor differences or these issues experienced by 5.7% of US men really doesn’t compare to the violence women have to be aware of/experience

1

Anonymous OP 16h

I really don’t think you understand what evidence is needed to draw these conclusions

1

Anonymous #3 16h

Men aged 20 to 30 make up roughly 6.5 to 7% of the total US population

1

Anonymous #3 16h

I don’t disagree. With this.

1

Anonymous OP 16h

Great. Like I said.

1

Anonymous #3 16h

To draw a conclusion that it could be affecting 8% of the world the only evidence I need is the fact its affecting 8% of third largest country in the world

1

Anonymous OP 16h

Not a proper conclusion that you could publish. Please let me know when you publish or find a source that makes this claim.

1

Anonymous #3 16h

Ok cool

1

Anonymous #3 16h

I have more evidence to conclude it than you do to conclude the opposite

1

Anonymous OP 16h

I’m not making a conclusion, that’s the point oml. All I’m saying is there is not enough data to make any formal conclusion AT ALL

1

Anonymous #3 16h

There’s enough data to conclude that it’s affecting 8% of the third largest country in the world, which is already relevant enough for the conversation we’re currently having, because we’re talking about Americans. So, while I can’t formally conclude that 8% of the world is experiencing this. I have more leeway to say that it might be 8% of the world experiencing this than you do to say the opposite. which is not nothing but it’s definitely more than what you have to say differently.

1

Anonymous OP 16h

I have nothing to say differently because there isn’t enough here to draw a formal conclusion. That is my point here, idc about what you personally think, I care about what we can formally conclude.

1

Anonymous #3 16h

OK and what we can conclude is that it is affecting 8% of Americans

1

Anonymous OP 16h

Again, a point I already agreed with, anything else?

1

Anonymous #3 16h

Nope

1