I think this is wrong. Both genders are dying from dehydration; just one is dying of thirst in the desert and the other is in the ocean. The person in the desert might envy the person in the ocean but that doesn't change the fact that neither have drinkable water.
Having an oversupply of (even mediocre) potential partners is way better than a chronic shortage of potential partners.
Would you also tell the chronically unemployed person that you being flooded with job offers all day you can't keep track of, means you're dying just like him, but in water instead of sand?
No, you're not dying, you're just overwhelmed with supply, which is still better than having zero supply.
That's the exact problem this article discusses for women -- being surrounded by "un-dateable" men. It's why moderation tools are mentioned repeatedly in the article.
It's more accurate that women on dating apps are far too picky and have far higher standards online (it's been well documented by percentile of sipes) and therefore in their eyes see most men as undatable even if that's not the case (someone might not have the most exciting or handsome profile but he could still be a fun date or a great dad and yet never get any dates).
But women being too picky online is a completely different issue to not being any datable men out there, which can't be true, and the fact still stands that they have the oversupply which lets them be choosy, which is still better than men having an undersupply issue which is the life of men online dating.
So the more accurate "water analogy" would be that online dating women are surrounded by loads of drinkable water but they refuse to drink it because most of it is average tap water which they see as undrinkable, as they all go online looking for the VOSS/Evian water which is indeed in short supply not just online but also IRL, except IRL they're more aware of it and mostly go online looking to find what they don't have IRL.
Not only that but I guess many of them are there for ego boosting pusposes and such rather than dating.
I think you also misunderstand. If given the choice, I'd rather die of dehydration in the ocean than in the desert. They both suck but that one seems better (having spent significant time in both regions). You'll get sunburned in both but in the desert there's nothing to cool you off. You'll be much more likely to survive longer in the ocean than desert, even if we ignore food availability.
So you're giving a really unfair interpretation because no one is saying they're equally bad. They're (I'm) just saying that you're going to die in both situations
As with anything in language, remember that your job is to figure out what the person means, not what they say. The words they use are a signal but it's compressed and fuzzy (especially on the Internet where we have many cultures -- big and small -- interacting with many different expected commission and decompression expectations).
It's always possible to gravely misinterpret anything anyone says, no matter how carefully they say it.
> So you're giving a really unfair interpretation because no one is saying they're equally bad. They're (I'm) just saying that you're going to die in both situations
It is also possible for a person to simply contradict themselves.
What you are saying is they are equally bad outcomes.
You're also simultaneously implying that one is objectively worse than the other in every possible way.
As a clear example, in both these cases the outcome is "death" right? I think we all know we'd rather go out in our sleep that have our intestines ripped out. Both these have equal outcomes but I'd call you a liar if you didn't have a strong preference.
You might say these don't compare. I'd say that they do. If we come to that conclusion, one of us must be misinterpreting the other.
That the paths may seem less or more preferable isn't actually the point of your analogy, it's that either way in the end: You die.
You also made this analogy as a counterpoint to the claim that women are the big winners on dating apps by far.
It's like if someone said smokers and non-smokers are both going to die anyways.
While that's certainly true, the implication (that it doesn't matter whether or not you smoke), is wrong.
Likewise, the implication of your analogy is wrong in my opinion.
One is clearly far worse and you have already acknowledged this.
Getting 0 matches and being inundated with matches that don't work out are in no way comparably bad outcomes on a dating app. Especially because these are -matches-, and that's the key metric of success on virtually every dating app.
No, the analogy means both genders are not achieving their intended and goal.
Apples and oranges are both round fruit, but we still use this as an idiom because the distinction are important. In fact, the idiom itself is about things that have surface level similarities but that details matter.
Which you're right to point out that the details matter. I'm not disagreeing with your thesis. I'm disagreeing with your interpretation. If a doctor says you should eat more fruit, they don't care if you eat apples or oranges. Basically, context. You put too much information into what was intended to be conveyed. This has been explained to you. So now if you don't understand that's on you.
And I need to reiterate. Language is imperfect. You'll always be about to find reasons to disagree or misinterpret. This whole conversation is an illustration of the imperfection.
> and [dates are] the key metric of success on virtually every dating app.
Metrics are the downfall of meritocracies. Maybe this is why you're misunderstanding. No, dates are not the goal. Dates are a step along the path to the goal. The goal is to find a partner. Not for everyone, but that's definitely the goal in the context of this thread.
Your argument is that women are not the big winners on dating apps because the outcomes for both men and women are equally bad.
That is false.
Language is imperfect but that's not the problem right now, it's that you are playing fast and loose with words and blaming it on language.
I also very intentionally said "matches" and not "dates" because again, this entire thread is based on who the big winners of dating apps are.
The goal of dating apps is to get matches. Someone else has even pointed out that these apps might more appropriately be called "matching apps", and I don't think anyone including you would disagree. (But in case you do, note that these apps have no concept of "dates"... Only matches)
I'm not misunderstanding that this is a major failing of dating apps, I'm stating that as they are currently structured, based on the current rules: women are winning in dating apps.
That is and was the topic of conversation.
It wasn't stated that women are the big winners of romance and dating in general, and that's not what this thread is about. But you are attempting to make it about that in order to get away from your original point, which is still wrong, no matter how far we depart from it.
Going to put a pin in this though.
The analogy would be one person not getting any job offers while the other is only getting job offers with compenation that are too low to support their family.
I'm not sure why these are being treated as equally bad. To be one is clearly worse than the other, though both tremendously suck. You'd at least survive longer in the ocean, even if we ignored the higher availability of food.
That doesn't accurately reflect the reality though. You can adjust your standards to find a mate if you have options, if you have no options, there is literally nothing you can do. I would think "death" or "game over" is having zero moves left. Not having few favorable moves and a high chance of making an unfavorable one.
It also implies women exclusively suffer from quality issues when dating.
There are for sure just as many bad actors on the female side of dating apps as there are on the male side.
If you're going to focus in on details and the generalizations that are clearly for convenience and not actual, make sure you don't do this too. Because we both know that the type and number of bad actors that men and women face aren't the same. But I'm not going to hound you for it because that'd be in bad faith. It'd be a willful misinterpreting of what you meant.
Your entire presence here is in response to the statement "Women are the big winners of dating apps"
You disagree with this and your analogy was your way of explaining your disagreement.
You could have used another analogy and I would still disagree if your conclusion was different from the person you were responding to.
> Because we both know that the type and number of bad actors that men and women face aren't the same. But I'm not going to hound you for it because that'd be in bad faith. It'd be a willful misinterpreting of what you meant.
We don't both know that (in regards to number). Bad actors is a very broad term. I have pretty explicitly stated multiple times in this thread (in response to you, IIRC), that I believe the quality of interactions men and women face on dating apps is roughly the same. (To clarify this, I mean the ratio of good vs bad interactions on the app in a binary ranking system is roughly the same for men vs. women)
Yes, that includes all of the bad things you are thinking of, and including some I'm sure you have never thought of if you have never lived in a rough place.
> You're reading way too much into an analogy
You do realize that analogy was pretty much your entire original comment, right? I am directly responding to your entire point, not harping on semantics or nuance.
> I'm not sure why these are being treated as equally bad.
I'm supposed to respond to that without mentioning your analogy..? Because the analogy is why these things are being treated as equally bad. It's literally the entire point of your analogy.
That said, even by this analogy, that would imply the 1% of the time the first person gets an interview, it is also likely a scam or a non-start 99% of the time.
So the second person is still 100x as likely to find a job as the first person. The market just happens to suck for everyone.
There seems to be this mentality of women towards men of, "the odds are good but the goods are odd", but personally it seems to be like 'quality' of men and women seems to be roughly similar in the general population, if you think in terms of attractiveness, intelligence, personality, career prospects, etc.
I've only ever heard that said in the Bay Area, and I think I would agree...
It’s ridiculous and due to our super woke culture. HN is full of typical shitlib wokeist mainstream nonsense because that’s how most of SV is. It’s also great for capital because it distracts from the real issues.
It gets really odious around here when women are discussed.
HN is very very far from whatever spectre the right currently is labeling "woke"
I think often we don't realize how different our experiences are in dating. There are definitely core shared similarities but there are lots of differences and create different strategies that make us often envy the other. For example, many men will just "swipe right" on everyone and then select after a match because being choosy in the first round may be emotionally draining (as a tiny part gets invested in the "potential" matches that never come). But this strategy is much more uncommon in women.
But dating has always been an asymmetric game. The risk/reward structure is very different for the two players. (E.g. getting date raped as a man is so unlikely that it's rarely heard of. But for a woman it's still unlikely but common enough that there's probably a woman you know that has had it happen -- even if you don't know it has).
You actually made the same implication again just now:
> Men typically have a hard time matching, making it hard for them to find the person they want but also making them feel desperate. On the other hand women don't have a hard time getting a match, but the quality of their matches is low.
This again implies men are not also experiencing low quality matches at similar rates. They are.
That's the point that seems to be being glossed over repeatedly in this thread.
Was this studied?
That's why bringing quality up in a conversation about quantity ratio disparities in the dating market is meaningless.
Quantity is objectively demonstrable. Quality is not (in this case at least). Your quality complaints about a partner are the things someone else would praise about them.
That's why every single response I've made in this thread is towards comments on quality as the equalizer/silencer to quantity complaints. You are proving my point by asking this question, not sure if you realize.
It's just a red herring meant to prevent the conversation from moving in a meaningful direction, meaningful as in it helps both sexes (for example, enforcing M:F ratios in dating apps). Mostly because the meaningful direction probably doesn't benefit (or rather, have as much perceived benefit for) most women as much as a one sided approach.
That's also why the implication that "women are the big winners of dating apps" is important.
Most women don't actually want them to change in favor of both sexes, they only want their own problems addressed. Not realizing that addressing the problem for both sexes would benefit both sexes probably much much more. Yes, I'm implying people mentioning "quality" want a relative gain in value, not a net.
And that's just human nature (see the trickle down economics reference next), if men were the big winners of dating apps, it would be the same.
By focusing on quality (a problem mostly only women experience because you need quantity/volume to have quality issues in the first place), all of the benefit goes to women, and the expectation from there I guess is that the perks "trickle down" to the losing side... Right.
Does this situation sound familiar? Also this has historically proven not to be true and in reality it is not true; I feel quite comfortable saying there are far more men who feel completely disenfranchised from dating than women. Femcels exist, but I'm pretty sure there are way more incels.
Dating apps should improve upon reality... Not exacerbate the existing disparities.
Interestingly enough, the example of a meaningful solution I mentioned before (enforced M:F ratios) would directly impact quality... Imagine an app where you sign up and have to wait for your account to be activated until the ratio of males and females in your area is made even by your acceptance..
That implies that when bad actors are removed their spot is filled... By someone who is presumably not a bad actor (or this repeats until someone who isn't a POS gets in and stays). You would probably also think twice about cat fishing or sending obscene messages to people.
Hair: Young women have great hair. 25% of young men are experiencing moderate-to-extensive male-pattern baldness.
Physique: a woman has a great physique if she is thin ( which they usually are at 18 without additional effort) -- a man who doesn't lift weights has a boy's physique which is usually a demerit -- to get an impressive physique as a man takes real gym time.
Wealth: there's no expectation for a woman to have money. Men without success or prospects of success (eg. grad school) is a demerit.
Its massively imbalanced.
Make-up: makes women look even better if done right, men can't pull off make-up.
Facial hair: sometimes makes men look better, often makes them look worse
Other hair: men grow hair every possible place (eg back-hair) because of testostrone I'm told.
Age: women seem to age better, something about the growth of the male jaw-line. Do young women even find Leonardo Dicaprio attractive anymore? idk.
Thin: women are more dialed into how important being thin is than men, it matters more for them, but at the same time they do a better job with it.
I left one out b/c I'm prudish.
It's reminiscent of how clubs will let women in for free, because without them the spendy men, willing to impress the ladies with bottomless overpriced champagne, will not bother coming inc, and the club ends up making no money.
They've won some convenience, sure. But I doubt it has improved their chances in what they, on average, value far more: Finding a lifelong partner to raise a family with.
The entire article is written from the perspective of the app companies and how they're trying to gain market share with women. The article says "Significant gender skew means it is harder for men to find matches..." Therefore, increasing the number of women who use the app would make it easier for men to find matches.
From all sides, it's a shame that the behavior of some men have caused women to shy away or leave these apps. It creates a negative cycle that impacts sincere daters of all genders. Throwing stones at women for not wanting to be harassed, stalked, etc. isn't going to solve the problem.
I skimmed the article: it's not interesting, basically whining about dick pics or something.
> From all sides, it's a shale that the behavior of some len
Yeah yeah, men bad, women amazing, we know the song.
Most of these systems have to approached in a calculated way. Walking away is always the best technique. Men get boosted briefly when they pay. You attempt to match 8-10, and wait no more than a week then cancel the sub. If no luck, wait 4-6 weeks and wash, rinse, repeat.
Most dudes are dumb. They match everyone and have no plan. Women look at the first few, then compulsively swipe for snarky entertainment. It works out to be a compulsive behavior most of the time.
I’ve had success 3/3 times with doing this, including my late wife of 20 years. Probably spent less than 5 hours working the app each time.
it is interesting to note that, despite being the "clear winners", dating apps have a hard time attracting and retaining straight female users.
For men,
risk: not get laid, deal with rejection. reward: get laid, possibly meet soul mate
For women,
risk: person you matched with rapes and murders you. reward: get laid, possibly meet soul mate
And before anyone tries to rebut this with the tired argument of "sometimes women commit murder" yeah that's true but exceedingly rare. The overwhelming number of violent crimes are committed by men.
Could it be because for centuries we ran the world and told women they were inferior, didn't let them vote, didn't let them drive, didn't let them have financial autonomy, etc.?
Could it be that, generally, men have things pretty good today and in many ways women still have not caught up?
Could it be that you need to tread a pretty fine line if you want to make humor by poking fun at half the population who were systematically oppressed for the last I-don't-know-how-many years?
One wonders.
The Jews have been systematically oppressed for millennia. Now the single Jewish state is currently fighting against at least six overtly hostile enemies who have sworn genocide against the Jews. They recently infiltrated the Jewish state, burning babies to death, raping women, wing it entire families, I could describe horrors you would not believe if they didn't film it themselves. There are still over one hundred hostages in tunnels, including elderly people and including babies. There are still tens of thousands of people displaced. Is world attention turned to the horrors that the Jewish state is facing? No. World attention is turned to slandering the Jewish state with lies, directly accusing us of the very horrors committed against us. Nobody cares that we were oppressed for millennia.
So no, that line of reasoning is wrong. You can not try to excuse double standards with historical baggage for some groups but not for others.
Lots of people care, but both sides of the Israel-Palestine situation have done some pretty reprehensible shit going back decades.
>So no, that line of reasoning is wrong. You can not try to excuse double standards with historical baggage for some groups but not for others.
This is irrelevant to dating apps and I'm not interested in discussing this further with you.
Short-term validation, but have uncommitted relationships, which arguably harms women most.
Also if you're a fat woman your dating chances suuuuuck.
Welcome to being a man.
Indeed that's the case. And so here we get to the root of the issue; excess males in our society with no other viable means to live a meaningful life.
Despite women being clear winners and most men clear losers of dating apps, notice how the title of the article is only about women supposed suffering. In a way it's a good metaphor of the dating market: women always demanding more and men just have to suffer and shut the fuck up.