Men View Their Ex-Partners More Favorably Than Women Do: Study
journals.sagepub.com
journals.sagepub.com
This feels like the important bit to me. People view their ex’s less favorably if they blame them for the breakup; and women blame men more than men blame women. Women also reported receiving less support from their partners than men. Reading between the lines, men in average like the women more because the women put in more effort to the relationship.
This is exactly what men are told.
One good example where the difference can be demonstrated clearly is forums devoted to dating questions. A lot of people come there to whine and they get very different responses depending on gender. Guys almost always get something along the lines of "be more confident, go to gym, be more interesting, etc", while girls gets reassured that they are totally fine, just not lucky yet
Anyway I found this quote telling:
> there may be gender differences in the perceived causes of breakups. Women blame their male partners more often for breakups than men blame their female partners (Choo et al., 1996). In addition, women more frequently report problematic partner behaviors as the reason for a breakup, such as infidelity, substance abuse, and mental or physical abuse (Amato & Previti, 2003; Morris, Reiber, & Roman, 2015). Men, in contrast, are more likely to claim that they do not know what caused their past breakups (Amato & Previti, 2003).
Curious how this is relevant to the study?
Roughly 0.001% of women are killed by a male partner each year in the US and - while terrible in of itself - I can't see it affecting the results of this study in any significant way.
EDIT: Removed bad pre-coffee math. See replies below for better math.
I hope this helps you see why such a consideration could be considered relevant to the study.
You're high by a factor of 100.
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Hom...
No - you're off by two orders of magnitude. Much closer to ~1500 women/year.
That's still ~1500 too many, no question. But is it likely to impact this study in any meaningful way? Seems unlikely to me (to put it mildly).
> Among US women, fear/wariness-of and preparedness-for attempts at bodily harm and abusive behavior by men appears to be near-universal.
That sounds like a reasonable assumption and not one I'd argue against (as someone with no real insight here).
But the question was explicitly regarding murder. Not more general violence/abuse.
I welcome the well-meaning comment and think your contribution was valuable in its own right, but please don't move the goalposts.
Rates of violence between partners show men instigating and abusing more often. A couple of different UN and US sources here are showing that a little over one in five women experiences abuse during her lifetime, compared to a bit under one in ten men: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_the_Uni...
But I was specifically asking the OP about murder because it isn't obviously a significant factor in this study (and I was interested to hear why they thought otherwise).
I'm confused as to what point you're trying to make.
I don't know about this. These days, I've seen and met many women who have numerous male friends. Sure, ultra-conservative and religious women don't, but lots of women aren't conservative any more.
This premise and your thoughts on polygamy can coexist with my suggestion about women being selective. If you can have only a handful of pregnancies in your lifetime each of them carrying the very real risk of death for both yourself and the baby, as well as the burden of taking care of any children that survive, then you really need to make sure that your shots count and you're choosing the best mates from the tribe. Men don't have the same burden of pregnancy and childcare - additional partners only increase their chances of passing along their genes, so as a result they become far less selective.
To put it bluntly, the colloquial prevalence of "thinking with your [genitals]" certainly indicates that people's higher social brain function tends to be clouded more often (reverting to base instinct) when sex is involved.
(Obviously, good relationships are based on friendship as well, but by definition the relationships in this study were not successful ones.)
I've been with my girl for 5 years now and there's no other girl for me. If we're apart for more than a day it feels like I've lost a limb or half of my soul.
> time that removes any negative view?
I was taught in college psychology that most people start to forget the negative aspects of relationships and cling to the good aspects.
A quick Google search suggests I was misinformed, though: https://www.google.com/search?q=humans+forget+negative+thing...
Now I understand that it was always my immaturity and selfishness that was causing it.
I still have a lot of Love for all those women who put up with me while I was growing (and continue to).
Some will never speak to me again though ...
The instinctual influence over men to have sex with multiple partners, I believe influences their desire to still "feel good" about prior partners.
...whereas a woman's instinctual desire to find a man to protect her offspring influences her desire to "feel bad" about prior partners who didn't stick around.
Of course, we're above these instincts cognitively, but it's folly to think they have no influence on our emotional association to past partners.
Can you explain what you mean by this?
> the experience of being in a relationship is generally better for men
Seems wildly speculative.
You might be referring to emotional work which is related notion involving effort put in to manage one's emotions in a relationship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_work
Your theory would also predict that men would desire and pursue relationships more than women, and I'm not entirely sure that's true.
When we have a internalized, skeptical view on something, we have a tendency to seek confirmation of it and ignore clues that can open our minds.
There are other, more accepted perspectives we can use to understand relationships. I hope this can be helpful to people!
Attachment Theory: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1d36/ac75d7081fcd86d467f6d2..., http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/attachment/online/inge_orig...
Schema Therapy: https://www.guilford.com/excerpts/young.pdf
Also I recently found some nice study notes relationships:
http://fiupsychology.com/ch.6.htm, http://fiupsychology.com/ch.7.htm, http://fiupsychology.com/ch.8.htm
Not just in relationships but even among co-workers I notice there is a lot more gossip between the biological females and they tend to bring up things like, "Do you remember when so and so did [Insert minor issue from 2 months ago]?"
To repeat this is just my observations from 20 years of office work and a half dozen or so relationships I had before settling down with the current love of my life.
The point of all of this, I feel is that to many people, the epiphany the article is making was quite obvious, although it is neat to see this quantified.
There's often a negative interpretation of a woman having more relationships or ending one that isn't really a factor with men. IMO, this creates a bias to justify ending a relationship for cause.
With a man, there's no threshold where your next girlfriend will lead to you being categorized negatively. If anything, you get more respect in some circles.
The reaction: "Lol. She was quite the party girl." Not the reaction that you'd get re: a dude.
Weirdly that runs contrary to what the study found actually. They mention that during polling, people expected, on average, to find no difference between how heterosexual men and women would feel about their ex-partners.
>Two studies revealed that men are more likely than women to evaluate their former romantic partners more favorably. A third, larger study replicated this finding. All three studies yielded medium effect sizes (Cohen, 1988). A fourth study indicated that these findings are not intuitively obvious to most laypersons since only one in four laypeople (24%) anticipated these findings (and with most people predicting no gender difference).
>In closing, the present research documents a new phenomenon that seems far from obvious to most people. Women tend to have more negative attitudes toward their former romantic partners than men do. While our studies document this stable gender difference, we do not know its specific origins. Even though both evolutionary and gender role theories provide some valuable insights, additional research is needed to pin down the key origins. The use of longitudinal studies in which individuals are followed across time and relationships to determine how and why ex-partner views develop will be particularly helpful in this regard.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/19485506198766...
Your point: >>The point of all of this, I feel is that to many people, the epiphany the article is making was quite obvious, although it is neat to see this quantified.
Their Point: >> A fourth study indicated that these findings are not intuitively obvious to most laypersons since only one in four laypeople (24%) anticipated these findings (and with most people predicting no gender difference).
Your point and their point are in conflict. You say "many people think this finding is quite obvious". I guess 24% is technically "many" people, but it's a clear minority. I wouldn't describe something that only 1:4 people expected as being something "many people" expected. Maybe "some" or "a minority of people".
To me I find that anyone thinking that there are no differences between the sexes:
>Of the 487 participants, 62% (n = 302) indicated that they did not believe in the gender difference.
Are the ignorant majority and would rather focus on those who were smart enough to perceive a difference and then which way those people were leaning.
I am probably falling into my own bias doing it this way, I am no statistician and just wanted to explain my reasoning on this.
I do agree with you that 24% out of the entirety of the study is a clear minority.
I guess I should have phrased it better, "The point of all of this, I feel is that to many people who are not ignorant to the differences in sex, the epiphany of this article was something quite obvious" or something like that.
That women potentially harbor worse feelings of their ex partners on average than men is one of the most interesting but useless things I’ve heard. The confounding explanations for this type of research are mind boggling. Does this research hold cross-culturally, are there any other psychological variables that explain this phenomena? Is it possible that the current nature of modern relationships is a confounding variable and sex has little to do with it? These are the more interesting questions to answer than whatever question this dubious result is trying to answer.
E.g. "Honey, I'm sorry - but it's not really my fault, it's just my genetic make-up .."
Ultimately, while we may be descended from lizards, rationalising behaviours based on our physiological origins might not be that useful.
Especially when such sweeping statements are made about a _vast_ group of people who—when looked at in terms of their other attributes—vary enormously.
Any truly effective therapy needs to be based on the individual.
Generalisations can be lazy - and in a pragmatic sense, only really seem useful in very specific circumstances.
Yet, the effects might appear in contexts involving many individuals.
It's perfectly okay science to simply observe a phenomenon. If they did try to provide causal explanations as you say, they'd then be open to being lambasted for overreaching based on shaky social science research.
What does that mean? That the correct conclusion to draw is very narrow:
Men View Their Ex-Partners More Favorably Than Women Do [in Graz, Austria, in the year 2019]
Fixed that for you. It's even more narrow in scope.
At the individual level.
You can still know that you have statistically applicable results to the whole population, without having to sample everybody -- just enough to be representative of all kinds.
If you do a random enough pick, then if some people fall outside your sample ("you didn't test for people that don't like water, and the casual explanation requires being OK with water to work, so excludes them from showing the same results") they'll still be outliers statistically.
I can easily imagine someone reading the headline and interpreting it as either proof of women being less reasonable, or proof of men being worse ex-partners, depending on which side of the sexist coin they land.
Yes! This is very true, your questions are good questions to ask of any study of genders & attitudes. It’s even more important to ask of studies that try to factor out cultural issues, because confounding explanations are extremely difficult to remove.
> Social Psychology has one of the worst reproducibility problems in all of academia.
This is true, but it’s not scientifically fair to imply this study isn’t reproducible just because others weren’t.
> Simple scientific inquiry into this claim leads me to the question, “Okay, but why?
Science doesn’t necessarily answer why. Physics has one of the better reproducibility rates, and we’d love to know why, but we don’t truly know why yet. We don’t know why gravity exists, we know it’s a force that’s there, and we can predict what it’ll do, we know it happens in proportion to mass and inverse squared distance, but why? Science hasn’t answered that.
This isn't much of a mystery. It is simply easier to control for external factors in physics, making it easier to isolate the causal links of interest. In the social sciences, you have layers upon layers of biological, psychological and then cultural complexities. Secondly, physicists have higher IQ as greater economic incentives attract brighter people. Lastly, physics cannot be abused politically as easily.
Physics has not "one of the better reproducibility rates" but 100%; per the Scientific Method any valid theory must:
- be reproducible (verifiable empirically)
- have predictive power
- not negate existing theories
This constitutes 'acceptable proof'.
It yields a 'compound effect' to theoretical research: for instance, Newton's Laws were never wrong, just narrower in scope than Einstein's. No future valid theory will ever prove any of these two wrong, it can only generalize more, because we know these two to be true. True is true forever, barring a fundamental change in this universe itself. So we keep the theoretical foundations forever, they're solid.
Their interpretation, however, may change as we widen the scope, and that is the 'human' part in science, the art of it, to produce valid representations linking the math with the experience of reality. That changes a lot, in time, and even from person to person.
The 'why' things are is another matter entirely and not a concern for physics nor science in general; we search for the root causes to explain 'how' things work the way they do. We stop there in theory for beyond is mere interpretation, opinion, belief.
Now this would exclude all social sciences and biology and countless others from the realm of 'science' and that's not fair; these fields yield very usable results despite the nigh impossible search for pure theory. I like the 19-20th century view that 'empirical sciences' gain value when we try to the best of our ability to apply the Scientific Method and mathematical tools to account for fuzziness.
Deep learning is certainly a formidable upgrade to the tooling of empirical sciences, brute-forcing 'how' things work for lack of a better truth than retrospective.
Just don't compare it to e.g. physics, don't ask for predictability (as you wouldn't ask a fish to fly), it's pointless and only serves to undermine the value of empirical sciences, while overemphasizing that of theory.
Because you know, in theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they're not... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'd ask if you ever taken a good look at cosmology, but your username would suggest that you have. Which makes it all the more surprising to me that you make a claim like this.
As for the scientific theory it was taught to me even in History class, it's just a set of principles.
Astrophysics, as far as I know, do not contradict existing theory? However it very much shows the limits thereof — but what's beyond this limit is not part of our undertanding of physics, of our theory, yet or ever. Maybe you can solve gravitation at the quantum level, maybe not, either way our accepted current theory work and keep being confirmed afaik.
Genuinely curious to know why the downvotes to GP.
Everything you said applies to social sciences too. Per the scientific method any valid theory must be reproducible and predictive. It’s an unfortunate fact of life that the academic research and publication process allows results that turn out to be untrue, both in social sciences and hard sciences.
Maybe have a gander at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_scien...
It is my understanding that margins of error in reproducible rates are on-par with our limits in engineering capabilities to 'test' experimentally. The validation becomes statistic because the real world is too chaotic/complex/whatever external cause, but the sum of evidence must tend to show (mean, SD, etc) that the theory applies to the real world, and predicts "a range of possible within some margin of error", which in practice results from our imprecisions. E.g. how we continuously prove Einstein's GR.
Quantum uncertainty is a whole other paradigm which I don't think can be discussed in the same terms; a lot of our 'logic' does not apply and thus I'd rather refrain from using classical frameworks of thinking to even characterize it.
But the fact stands that you should always be able to verify experimentally a valid theory; our failure in practice, sometimes, has nothing to do with theory.
Social sciences look at category of problems considered "hard" by any scientific metric because of their complexity. It's like meteorology and indeed astrophysics, we lack the processing power (both our brains and computers, for now) to go all-in on theory. I was however surprised, in my studies, that the more down-to-earth approach of anthropology (naive, dare I say seeking first principles) seemed to yield observation 'closer' to theory than its modern sister sociology, whose subtopic —the modern world, as opposed to very specific cultures for a quite narrow spacetime— is vastly too multi-factorial to even begin to modelize, let alone theorize.
Well, the "why" is relevant to whether the statement is true. So it's not like you need to answer the "why" to be able to see if something is the case or not.
>That women potentially harbor worse feelings of their ex partners on average than men is one of the most interesting but useless things I’ve heard.
Useless because you can't think of a specific utility?
Not all discoveries have some immediate utility -- but they can pile up, and lead to useful discoveries. Baby steps and all...
But even this information alone, could be useful for social workers, con-men, marriage counselors, advertisers, and other categories, even without a why attached...
Not to be defending social psychology in any way, but I have to point out this assessment is seriously misled. Social psychology gets bad impression on reproducibility, because there are tons of research on the reproducibility of social psychology studies. The statement makes it sound like there are reproducibility examinations across all fields in academia. In reality, it is rare. Most fields in academia do not get this kind of examination at all.
Also, reproducibility examinations mostly are focused on experimental research. However, this study is observational research, which is a totally different kind of social science study.
The recruits were found via email in an Austrian University so I don't think the authors would make any cross-cultural claims.
Since they tell me about their dating experience, I got more insight of how other men behave to women, then when I lived monogamous.
What I wanted to say is, after what I heared from my partners about men they dated, I totally understand these results.
Ex-partners are not exactly a reliable source of "the whole truth" even before we consider the content of the article.
Edit: current partners are probably not the best source either, ask your local marriage counselor if you don't believe me.
Thing is, they already talk about these men before they are exes.
I get the whole story, from first meeting to breakup.
But for the last 5-10 years I also got the side of my female partners.
Sometimes even both sides in parallel, because my partners would date my friends.
Of course there was a particularly public reproduction crisis, but the problem is endemic to academia as a whole, if perhaps in lower numbers (this remains to be seen).
The word you're looking for is "sex." There's no such thing as a "biological gender."
Don't try to rewrite grammar to fit trends.
[For instance, someone could overhear it out of context and think you're being inappropriate. That may not amount to anything in isolation, but then they might start selectively watching for problematic things you say or do based on their initial mistaken impression, and if you look for something hard enough you're likely to find it.]
Also, I've noticed even when I use the word sex in that context, I'm immediately on guard against making any kind of sexual reference or anything that might have double meaning, and that's just exhausting. I'd rather use gender and save myself the trouble.
GP quoted the wrong definition, but the right definition is there too, also from Merriam-Webster:
2a: SEX sense 1a the feminine gender
If you're needing to use the word sex, it means you're talking about the difference in shape of a person's private parts. The word is exactly as socially acceptable as it seems to be.
If you're trying to compare a bunch of people in a room, like to say you should divide up teams by ___, you probably want gender, not sex. It's medical professionals who usually have cause to care about the sex of a person they know. Unless you're dating someone, and then it is sex sex you're talking about...
Now people are taking "gender identity" and shortening it to be gender and taking exception to people using the synonym as we always have.
Webster's 1913 does appear to regard "gender" as exclusively a grammatical quality, so far as definitions related to this topic go. So the modern usage may not be quite that old.
[EDIT] huh, whaddaya know, Garner's Modern English Usage puts the move to "gender" in places where "sex" would previously have been used (to refer to all or to any part of the whole deal, not just the biological bits) as right around when I first encountered it, at least outside an initially-narrow set of academic disciplines. Go figure. It is newer than I thought, by a long shot. I figured it dated to the 60s or so in academia, mainstream by the 80s and I just hadn't encountered anyone who cared to make the distinction until later.
I kinda halfway try to follow this stuff, and honestly, I'd have trouble defining most of the terms involved in a way that didn't step on someone's toes—and I'd be trying not to! No wonder people are put off by it.
That's 99.9% of it, right there.
So just be honest and try to be polite, that's the best you can ever do. Whether or not you claim that gender is "entirely social" should depend on what you believe, not what you think the safe answer is.
Sex is not a bad word. If someone misinterprets your use of a word, that's their problem.
Language is fluid, or we would all be speaking some variant of old German on this forum (try reading Beowulf in the original).
It's not grammar, it's semantics.
Words are social. When one person tries to rewrite the meaning of a word, unless they have significant social clout they are just going to be misunderstood. When many people rewrite the meaning of a word, they change the meaning of that word.
But using the phrase “biological gender” isn't using them in the old way: the way in which they were synonymous is in reference to a idea which conflated sex, gender identity, and socially ascribed gender. If one wants to refer to that meaning, there's really no reason to prefer one or the other, though either will be unclear to many modern audiences without additional explanation referencing the outmoded concept being invoked, because the concept being referred to has lost currency.
But if one is discussing the separated concepts, then one cannot honestly use “sex” for the sociological or psychological components or “gender” for the biological component and say it is the “old way”, as the old way doesn't recognize the there being separate components.
You just contradicted yourself. If the term 'gender' conflates several ideas, and adding the term 'biological' distinguishes them, then the previous poster hasn't changed the meaning of the word 'gender'. He's incorporated the new understanding but adapted the older language. Either way, the mere fact that nearly every person reading this understood his meaning shows that his expression was adequate to express his meaning.
It doesn't. It, when used in the old sense for which sex was equivalently used, refers to one idea which does not recognize the physical, psychological, and social elements as distinct. It does not conflate different ideas, it predates the idea of a distinction; the idea of the distinction is concurrent with the terminology which incorporates it.
“Biological gender” is neither the new common usage (which labels the biological element “sex") nor the old usage (which refers to an indivisible trait.)
Also, motherhood and fatherhood are biologically gender-linked roles. They are measurable biological phenomena that tie strongly into your definition of gender.
This is not an extremely recent development in the slightest, the distinction was being made almost 60 years ago in modern dictionaries.
> The exclusion of sex from gender is an extremely recent development that isn’t widely accepted yet.
What are you talking about? The use of gender as a sex “role” was coined in 1955, over 60 years ago. Before that “gender” referred to grammatical gender, not to people. So if you use “gender” relating to people, that form of the word has always meant the social aspects of sex, not the biological aspects. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender
There was never a time when “gender” meant the same thing as “sex”.
> Also, motherhood and fatherhood are biologically gender-linked roles.
You’re confusing yourself. Being a mother & father are sex based facts. Fatherhood and motherhood as words that can mean that someone is factually a mother or father, or it can in context be referring to the gender roles of motherhood and fatherhood. The stereotype of a father playing catch with a son is a gender role, not biology. You’re choosing words which have both meanings, which doesn’t help you understand what sex and gender actually mean.
1. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23273798.2018.1...
That's... that's the point. I'll refer to you however you want to be referred (inb4 helicopter joke). There's nothing more to it. Just accept other people's preference and move on with your day. It's that simple.
For instance - it was once considered perfectly masculine behavior for men to wear pantyhose, high heels and makeup, and to kiss each another on the mouth. Now, those traits would likely be considered feminine (or at least, not masculine.)
Does that mean men were formerly somehow more biologically female, because they expressed what we would consider feminine traits? Obviously not. Was their gender female, then? Not in the context of their own culture, they were men being what men were considered to be.
It does mean the constructs of "masculinity" and "femininity" are not innately biological, and that the correlation between sex and gender is mostly a manifestation of cultural norms, not biological imperative.
All of the confusion in your comment seems to stem from the assumption that sex and gender are a priori the same. You may find Wikipedia's article on gender to be useful[0].
Visible light is a spectrum, yet we still use labels for distinct colors, despite "color" being arbitrary (a "social construct".) Labels can still be useful for communicating concepts and establishing a common ground, even if they're imprecise, or if different cultures don't even agree on the difference between "blue" and "green."
>Do a Ctrl+F of the linked article for "Gender" and "Sex" and then tell me that the research isn't also confused because everyone is confused all of the time, especially people who are "confused".
Everyone isn't confused all the time. People do disagree, though, and society is still working out just what gender means in the modern day.
If you believe that a persons gender identity is put onto them by the expectation of society, might as well forcibly decide which identities are valuable and supress all the rest. It would have no downside.
Sexes are biological: chromosomes, hormones, body morphology.
Genders are social: baby boys and girls have definite sexes, but their gender identifies are not the same as of grown-up straight men and women, to say nothing of genderqueer people, etc
My hope is that the biological aspects are still in the realm of science.
Phew. A bastion of sense in this crazy w--
>Genetic women with Turner syndrome have only one X chromosome; they often display less-developed female sexual characteristics than other women. And people with a genetic mosaic possess XX chromosomes in some cells and XY in others. So how do we determine if they're male or female? Hint: Don't say that it depends on the chromosomal makeup of the majority of their cells, since women with more than 90 per cent XY genetic material have given birth. [0]
I--
>Sex can be much more complicated than it at first seems. According to the simple scenario, the presence or absence of a Y chromosome is what counts: with it, you are male, and without it, you are female. But doctors have long known that some people straddle the boundary—their sex chromosomes say one thing, but their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy say another. Parents of children with these kinds of conditions—known as intersex conditions, or differences or disorders of sex development (DSDs)—often face difficult decisions about whether to bring up their child as a boy or a girl. Some researchers now say that as many as 1 person in 100 has some form of DSD. [1]
>When genetics is taken into consideration, the boundary between the sexes becomes even blurrier. Scientists have identified many of the genes involved in the main forms of DSD, and have uncovered variations in these genes that have subtle effects on a person's anatomical or physiological sex. What's more, new technologies in DNA sequencing and cell biology are revealing that almost everyone is, to varying degrees, a patchwork of genetically distinct cells, some with a sex that might not match that of the rest of their body. Some studies even suggest that the sex of each cell drives its behaviour, through a complicated network of molecular interactions. “I think there's much greater diversity within male or female, and there is certainly an area of overlap where some people can't easily define themselves within the binary structure,” says John Achermann, who studies sex development and endocrinology at University College London's Institute of Child Health. [1]
>These discoveries do not sit well in a world in which sex is still defined in binary terms. Few legal systems allow for any ambiguity in biological sex, and a person's legal rights and social status can be heavily influenced by whether their birth certificate says male or female. [1]
... ¦´C
0: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/opinion/think-gender-com...
1: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the...
You can't study that these days. The orthodoxy insists that any differences in outcomes are solely due to environment, power structures, implicit and explicit biases.
Please. Take this nonsense elsewhere.
Second, you should probably also know that sex is also not binary even on a cellular level and is much more complicated than most laypeople understand[3].
Those things said: differences between biological sexes are not at all controversial except for maybe a few fringe-y people on Twitter or reddit. You really shouldn't assume that the loud, anonymous people on the internet represent any larger group.
The actual argument from social liberals (in the US, where I live) is that there are biological differences on average, but that does not allow you to draw conclusions about a specific person based on their sexual organs.
There is also a long history of extremely flawed gender research in the social sciences, partly because it's very easy to design and conduct a biased social experiment that no one will ever reproduce.
1. https://www.who.int/gender-equity-rights/understanding/gende...
2. https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.003...
3. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/sex-gender-and-sexuality-it...
There's no such thing as a man -- "man" an abstract concept that needs definition before any useful statement can be made about people in that category.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/19485506198766...
Also Hackernews: Why would you expect this article's title to explain what it's about?!
My point: Unclear title is unclear and misleading, and striving for clarity of language isn't a bad thing. If you're going to talk about science, be more clear or expect to be called out on your bad titles.
And it's worth noting that the study only focus on heterosexual people, so a more accurate title would be "Heterosexual men hold more positive attitudes towards ex-partners than heterosexual women do"
At some point you're just going to have to read the paper if you want full accuracy.
This specific article was based off a study conducted in Austria with mean ages of men/women involved in their 20s. IDK what this says about world cultures as a whole, or even the culture of Austria as a whole. I would assume that the possibility of people late stages of life might have different feelings on the matter exists and they don't mention it as a variable they accounted for. Never mind all the other variables that one could suggest might affect this matter that aren't specifically mentioned in the abstract. And, in fact, they mention that this paper they're presenting is the first to really delve into the subject of ex-partner feelings, so their results might be completely disproved as more people look into the matter.
Personally, I think grouping all men together isn't constructive a lot of the time.
Sexuality and gender attributes aren't binary. Most attributes can be defined on a scale. I think this was the nub of the OP's argument.
See life expectancy of married vs unmarried men and the same for women.
When a breakup happens women loses more as she committed more.
It's a strange disparity in the data, I wonder if it's due to sampling or if people genuinely think their own experiences are atypical.
Edit: I'd be interested in finding out what's so offensive about this observation. I'll gladly take 100 more downvotes and flags, but please tell me what caused so much consternation.
Edit: Before you dismiss my comment, feel free to look at the details. There have been countless studies that confirm this. https://www.thehotline.org/resources/statistics/
Moreover, you original question suggets that you didn't read the published article.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_against_me...