I understand men want their issues to be taken as seriously as women's but trying to make their issues comparable to women's 1 to 1 seems like a short sighted strategy that detracts from the problem. Men complain their issues aren't taken seriously but half the time when they're making an argument they're comparing what they commonly go through to what women commonly go through. I don't think that's wrong but I think a lot of the time the comparisons aren't well thought out.

3 examples:

- Man 1 argues "men have a harder time finding partners than women, so women have no dating issues"

- Man 2 argues "women choosing abusive partners is the same as men struggling to get partners"

- Man 3 argues "men have more severe reactions to not get chosen than women do when experiencing dating problems so men have more dating issues"

You want to tell people that your problems as a man are just as bad as the common problems of women. So you're going to tell people to sympathise for you by telling them that their problems are either non existent or comparable to yours. And I'm not saying you're wrong or right I'm just saying you're going to be fighting an unnecessary uphill battle. The equivalent of a female domestic violence victim, to me, is a male domestic violence victim. The equivalent of a female rape victim is a male rape victim. For most people in the real world, a female abuse victim is not equivalent to a male loneliness victim, you're comparing two different victims. It just feels unnecessary to argue your point like that because you're going to have hundreds of people disapproving your perspective depending on where they come from. And where I'm from, nobody who's getting bashed in the head is the same as someone who's struggling to get a date. I don't understand the point of doing this because I don't recall any other group having to draw sympathy to their own needs while minimising other groups. Black people address their issues without referencing the LGBTQ group. The LGBTQ group addresses their issues without referencing the Jews and vice versa. But men want to tell you that because you're getting 100 likes on Tinder and have a 2% chance of being raped you have no dating issues. But what if one argues the consequences of rape are worse than the consequences of being lonely even if it affects less people, so who's right and who's wrong? Men who are lonely retaliate in more violent ways than women so they're struggling more. Are women not committing school shootings an indication of a lack of struggle? Are molested, raped, beaten and abused women not valid unless they're shooting people? Men go through these things too. Then why not focus on the molested, raped and abused men as those women's direct equivalents and not the lonely tinder man?

Centering your argument around saying who has it worse between an abuse victim and a lonely man seems like a quick way for people to lose focus of your original argument. Especially when you try to frame abuse victims as imperfect victims. An idiot who forgets to lock their door and gets robbed is still a victim of crime. Victims who are imperfect are still victims. People who get rejected are experiencing the right to consent. Someone exercising their consent against you is not a crime. It's a right we all have, because we all want the right to consent. It makes you more unfortunate than a victim.

Not every type of pain is the same and not every type of discrimination is equal and that's okay. I don't think these comparisons men are making make their situations any more sympathetic, if anything, they probably make one look antagonistic or ignorant. I don't think they're spreading awareness or garnering sympathy in the most effective way.