Why Separate Support Groups for Women and Men Can Improve Outcomes for Scam Victims

Gender Polarization in Scam Victims’ Support Groups: Why It Happens, and How Separate or Mixed Spaces Can Still Help

In many relationship-scam victim/survivor communities or support groups, the group quietly divides between women and men.

Women, most of whom were targeted by profiles presenting as men, carry fresh anger, disgust, and distrust. Men, many of whom engaged with profiles presenting as women, carry shame, humiliation, and a spike of defensive anger they struggle to release. Put everyone together, and the air can feel charged. A few talk a lot, a few go silent, and some never come back. That pattern is common, and it has understandable roots in how gender socialization shapes help-seeking, emotion regulation, and group dynamics after betrayal.

Why Mixed Groups Feel Hard

After a relationship scam, people enter support spaces with acute betrayal trauma: injured trust, fractured identity, and a nervous system primed for threat. They scan for safety signals. If the perceived “offender gender” is in the group, safety can feel distant. Anger flares for women who were targeted by a male-coded profile. Shame and anger flare for men who were targeted by a female-coded profile. Those reactions are not character flaws. They are predictable stress responses layered on top of cultural rules about how men and women are “supposed” to express pain.

Men often show the impact of those cultural rules in the group. Decades of research note that masculine role norms discourage overt help-seeking, discourage displays of vulnerability, and encourage problem-solving at speed. That mix pulls some men toward silence, debate, or anger rather than open grief. They may leave early, speak briefly, or push for action when the group is still naming feelings. None of that means men do not need help. It means they were taught not to ask for it, or to ask for it without looking like they are asking.

Women, carrying their own valid anger and exhaustion, may interpret that male quiet or push for action as indifference or defensiveness. In some circles, a second bias appears: the assumption that men are primarily perpetrators, not victims. That bias is well documented in other victimization contexts where male victims report disbelief, minimization, or ridicule when they disclose. If that arrives in a scam-recovery group, even subtly, male participation collapses further. The result is a polarized space where each side confirms its suspicion about the other.

What the Research Says About Help-Seeking, Emotion, and Groups

Three strands of evidence are useful here.

1. 1. First, help-seeking. A foundational review in American Psychologist shows men are less likely to seek formal help for emotional concerns when rigid masculine norms are salient and when self-stigma is high. The barrier is not a lack of distress, it is a learned rule: do not be seen as weak. Those norms make mixed groups harder for men at the outset.
   2. Second, emotion regulation. Practice guidance for working with boys and men highlights socialization messages that constrain emotional expression, overvalue control, and funnel distress into anger or withdrawal. After betrayal, that looks like “anger retention,” short verbal participation, or a quick pivot to solutions. Without structure and skilled facilitation, those patterns clash with the slower, validation-first rhythm many groups adopt.
   3. Third, group dynamics. Classic and contemporary group-therapy literature notes that mixed-membership groups can be powerful when well structured. They provide universality, corrective interpersonal experience, and modeling across differences, which are core curative factors in groups. Gender diversity increases opportunities for perspective-taking, empathy building, and reality testing, but only if the facilitator contains conflict and balances airtime. Otherwise, unstructured discussion amplifies pre-existing social roles.

Why polarization appears so quickly

A relationship scam is an asymmetric intimacy. Someone used the language of care to extract money, time, and identity. The victim’s nervous system learned to associate a particular gender presentation with danger. When that presentation appears in the group, the body says no. Meanwhile, group spaces are built on trust, turn-taking, and reflective listening, yet the immediate need after betrayal is relief and validation. People look for quick signals: who understands me, who does not, who is safe, who is not. If a few early moments go wrong, the brain tags the whole setting as unsafe.

Layer onto that the asymmetries created by socialization. Many men under-report emotional pain and avoid group disclosure. Many women, especially when hurt by men, expect dismissal and prepare to defend themselves. Those two lines cross in a mixed group and create a misread. Quiet can be misread as coldness. Directiveness can be misread as control. Anger can be misread as a threat rather than grief in armor. Without intervention, the group sorts itself by gender and stays that way.

The Case For Mixed Groups, Even When Men Speak Less

It may sound easier to split by gender permanently. In some clinical contexts, single-gender groups are indicated. In scam-recovery communities, however, an all-or-nothing split can harden stereotypes and slow certain kinds of healing. Mixed groups, with the right guardrails, offer benefits that single-gender groups cannot fully reproduce.

• Mixed groups reduce caricature. Hearing the lived experience of someone who looks like the profile that harmed you can soften all-or-nothing beliefs and support a safer re-entry into ordinary social life. That is exposure with empathy, not exposure by force.
• Mixed groups broaden the map. Members learn how different manipulations were used on different people, how vulnerability themes overlap, and which skills generalize. The result is richer pattern recognition, which is a core prevention asset.
• Mixed groups increase modeling. When a man sees a woman name anger skillfully, or a woman hears a man describe shame openly, new options become thinkable. That is interpersonal learning, one of the well-established mechanisms of change in groups.
• Critically, mixed groups can protect against echo chambers. Gender-only spaces risk turning shared pain into shared grievance, which feels good in the moment and stalls growth. Mixed groups nudge members toward nuance, which is uncomfortable at first and protective later.

Even when men speak less, they still benefit from presence, listening, and brief, well-timed contributions. Quiet is not failure if learning is happening. Many men engage in observational learning before verbal risk-taking. Structured turns, consent-based feedback, and micro-skills practice invite participation without forcing disclosure.

Why some women disregard male members, and why that matters

Some women in these spaces have suffered profound harm at the hands of men. Their suspicion is understandable. Yet patterns from adjacent fields show that male victims often face disbelief and dismissal, including from systems that should help them. When that dynamic is imported into scam-recovery groups, even unintentionally, it harms two ways: it silences male victims who already struggle to ask for help, and it deprives women of the corrective experience of seeing men as fellow survivors rather than stand-ins for offenders. The goal is not to equalize suffering, it is to humanize the group.

How to design mixed groups that work

State the purpose clearly. A scam-recovery group exists to stabilize distress, teach practical tools, encourage accountability, and promote independence. Print that purpose in the welcome material and read it early in each meeting. Purpose focuses the group on skill building, not identity battles.

Adopt a structure that shares the air. Use short, timed rounds to ensure everyone speaks once before anyone speaks twice. Use a visible timekeeper. Invite members to choose one of three options at check-in: “information,” “support,” or “skills,” so the group knows what is being asked. Structured flow reduces dominance by habit and rescues quieter members from disappearing.

Normalize consent before advice. Teach a simple line: “Are you open to ideas, or do you want to be heard right now?” Advice follows permission, and it arrives as options, not directives. This protects autonomy and softens the tendency to lecture across gender lines.

Name bias gently, early, and often. A facilitator can say, “Let’s keep in mind that victims are of every gender, and we are here to repair safety, not assign blame to a category of people.” Naming the principle without shaming the person preserves dignity and resets direction.

Teach micro-skills in the group. Two minutes of paced breathing, a five-senses grounding practice, and a one-minute plan-for-tomorrow are quick and repeatable. When members experience relief from skills they can use alone, dependence drops, and cross-gender tension loses fuel.

Use stepped care and referrals. Mixed groups cannot replace therapy, legal advice, or crisis intervention. Have a referral list ready and frame referrals as a sign of respect: “This deserves one-to-one attention with a professional, and we will cheer you on while you work with them.” A clear scope prevents role confusion that often inflames gendered conflict.

Mind the off-platform contact. Private late-night exchanges can spiral, split the group into factions, and amplify gendered assumptions. Set simple boundaries: brief check-ins, no crisis coaching outside meetings, and channel emergencies to appropriate services.

Invest in facilitation. Skilled facilitators protect time, redirect cross-talk, ask clarifying questions, and end with one concretely stated next step per member. They also debrief with supervision to watch for drift. If a meeting keeps becoming a debate about gender rather than a practice space for recovery, reset the frame.

When to use gender-specific sessions within a mixed program

There are moments when a short series of gender-specific sessions can help: immediately after disclosure for stabilization, when specific safety concerns require it, or when processing culturally specific shame that silences participants in mixed groups. The key is not permanence. The aim is to return members to the mixed space with more capacity, not to build parallel worlds that rarely meet.

What advocates and organizers should expect

Expect early polarization in new or newly mixed groups. Expect men to speak less at first. Expect some women to test the group for safety by challenging male members. Expect a few members of all genders to conflate the profile that harmed them with the person across the circle. None of that is a sign the model has failed. It is a sign the work is real. Structure, clarity, consent, and skill-first facilitation keep the group from becoming a social club that vents without change. Over time, mixed groups can reduce prejudice, increase realism, and return members to daily life better equipped to trust wisely.

A note on the experience of male victims

Research in adjacent fields shows that men who disclose victimization often encounter disbelief or ridicule, including in criminal-justice settings. Scam victims tell similar stories privately. Building mixed groups that expect male silence and plan for male inclusion is a practical equity step: support is offered in ways men can accept while they relearn help-seeking that does not cost dignity. As trust grows, participation grows. The target is not equal airtime for its own sake. The target is equal access to healing mechanisms: being heard, learning skills, making plans, and receiving appropriate referrals.

A note on the experience of female victims

Women who were targeted by male-coded profiles have good reasons to be wary. Their caution belongs in the group. The shift is from global suspicion to calibrated caution, which mixed groups can model and reinforce. When women witness men naming shame and rebuilding judgment, the single story of men as only perpetrators loses force. That does not erase anger; it adds range to it. Range is a recovery skill.

When Separate Groups Are Preferable

There are seasons in recovery when gender-specific rooms are not only reasonable but kind. In scam-victim contexts, separate groups can lower threat signals, reduce early drop-off, and let people say what they need to say without bracing for how it will land across gender lines. The aim is not to build parallel worlds. The aim is to create the safest possible on-ramp so members can stabilize, learn core skills, and eventually engage across differences with more capacity.

Why separate groups can help

Early safety and stabilization. Immediately after disclosure, many women carry fear and anger toward male-coded profiles, and many men carry shame and anger they struggle to release in front of women. Single-gender rooms reduce perceived threat, which lowers nervous-system arousal and increases willingness to speak. When bodies feel safer, learning begins faster.

Permission to speak plainly. In single-gender rooms, members often risk more honest language about humiliation, body-based reactions, and cultural messages about gender that would feel exposing in a mixed space. Naming these directly shortens the time to insight.

Less performative pressure. Mixed rooms can invite managing impressions. Some men work to look in control. Some women work to look unshakable. Separate rooms reduce the urge to perform and increase authentic disclosure, which strengthens engagement.

Tailored pacing and skills. Men who arrive with anger retention tend to benefit from brief, action-forward skills that channel and regulate. Women who arrive with hypervigilance tend to benefit from titrated grounding and trust-rebuilding. Separate groups let facilitators match the room’s needs without constant recalibration.

Repairing dignity without debate. Male victims often fear disbelief. Female victims often fear minimization. Single-gender rooms reduce the chance of early misreads and protect dignity while members learn the basics of validation, boundary setting, and stepwise planning.

Lower conflict load for facilitators. Early sessions can focus on stabilization, micro-skills, and accountability without spending disproportionate time containing gendered cross-talk. The result is more time spent on skills and less on referee work.

When to choose separate groups

Use gender-specific sessions when any of the following appear during intake or early meetings:

• • Members drop after one mixed session, citing discomfort with the other gender present.
  • Men speak little or not at all, then disengage between sessions.
  • Women report feeling unsafe or unheard when men are present, even with strong facilitation.
  • The room repeatedly shifts from skill practice to gendered debate despite clear agreements.
  • Crisis messaging spikes between meetings as members seek reassurance they will not risk mixed exposure again so soon.

How to do it well without hardening divides

State the purpose up front. Tell members that separate groups exist to reduce threat and accelerate skill building, not to assign blame to any gender. Say out loud that the long-term goal is healthy participation in mixed life, and that mixed practice will return when the room is ready.

Keep a shared curriculum. Teach the same core skills across groups: paced breathing, five-sense grounding, short plans, consent before advice, and accountability check-ins. A shared skill set makes later integration smoother.

Use matched facilitation standards. Hold the same rules in each group: time limits, rotation, no cross-talk in first rounds, consent before advice, and clear boundaries on off-platform contact. Consistency signals fairness and steadiness.

Build a bridge back. Plan brief mixed practice segments as members stabilize. For example, run a joint skills workshop with structured rounds and a single objective. Start small, debrief privately, and iterate.

Monitor metrics. Track attendance, first-to-second-session retention, average speaking time per member, and reported safety on post-meeting pulses. Let data, not preference, guide when to maintain, merge, or rebalance formats.

Name risks and counter them. Single-gender rooms can drift into grievance, caricature, or “us versus them.” Protect against this with steady reminders of purpose, frequent skills practice, and facilitator prompts that return the focus to personal agency and next steps.

A simple decision tree

• • Is early safety fragile and drop-off high in mixed rooms? Start with separate groups.
  • Are members learning skills and regulating better after a few weeks? Introduce short, tightly structured mixed sessions.
  • Do mixed sessions trigger more heat than growth? Return to separate work, reinforce skills, and retry later.
  • Do members report curiosity and steadier emotion in mixed settings? Increase mixed frequency while keeping optional single-gender check-ins available.

What members should hear

• • Separate rooms exist to reduce fear and shame so learning can start.
  • The goal is independence, not dependence on any room or leader.
  • Skills come first, then support.
  • Consent comes before advice.
  • Everyone here is a victim of fraud. No one is a stand-in for an offender.

What leaders should practice

• • Hold the frame. Keep sessions purposeful, on time, and skill-focused.
  • Model boundaries. Be clear about availability and referrals.
  • Invite reflection. Close with one small, doable step per member.
  • Debrief under supervision. Watch for drift toward grievance or identity battles.
  • Plan the bridge. Set a timeline and criteria for mixed re-entry, then communicate them plainly.

Separate groups for men and women can be the most compassionate format at the start. They lower threat, raise participation, and let people practice skills without the extra load of cross-gender tension. They are a means, not an end. When done with a shared curriculum, consistent rules, and a clear bridge back to mixed practice, they help members move from protective walls to calibrated boundaries, from silence to voice, and from fear of the other to wiser trust in themselves.

Conclusion

Mixed scam-recovery groups are not easy, and they are not neutral. They are deliberate containers where people rehearse the world they hope to rejoin: a world with different genders in the same group, where pain is believed, boundaries are honored, and change is practiced in small, repeatable steps. Gender polarization has causes that are real. So do the benefits of staying together with care. With clear purpose, structure, and skilled leadership, even the member who speaks rarely can leave steadier than they arrived, and the member who speaks often can leave wiser about when to listen.

Glossary

• Accountability Check-In — A brief end-of-meeting share in which each member states one realistic step they will take before the next session to support recovery.
• Anger as Armor — A post-betrayal pattern where anger protects unprocessed grief or shame, often misread as threat rather than pain.
• Anger Retention — The tendency, seen especially in some male victims, to hold anger tightly over time, reducing willingness to disclose or receive validation.
• Boundary Modeling — A facilitator practice of visibly honoring limits on time, topics, and availability so members learn to do the same.
• Calibrated Caution — A recovery stance that replaces global suspicion of a gender with thoughtful, situation-specific safety checks.
• Consent Before Advice — A group norm that invites permission prior to suggestions; often cued by the consent question “Are you open to ideas, or do you want to be heard right now?”.
• Corrective Interpersonal Experience — A group mechanism where members encounter safer, more respectful responses than they expect, reshaping beliefs about others.
• Cross-Gender Tension — The elevated apprehension and reactivity that can arise in mixed rooms when the perceived “offender gender” is present.
• Decision Tree for Format — A simple sequence used by organizers to choose separate versus mixed sessions based on early safety, retention, and skill uptake.
• Exposure With Empathy — A mixed-group benefit where hearing respectful stories from the other gender reduces caricature without forcing contact.
• Facilitator Supervision — Regular debriefs with a senior peer or supervisor to review boundaries, scope, and drift, preventing burnout and bias.
• Five Senses Grounding — A quick skill that orients attention to sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell to lower arousal and increase present-moment safety.
• Gender-Coded Profile — The gender presentation of the scammer’s persona, which victims may later associate with danger in group settings.
• Group Purpose Statement — A clear, repeated description of why the group exists: stabilize distress, teach skills, encourage accountability, and promote independence.
• Help-Seeking Norms — Learned cultural rules about when and how to ask for help; rigid masculine norms often suppress visible help-seeking.
• Hold the Frame — A facilitator cue to protect time, structure, and scope so sessions remain skill-focused rather than debate-driven.
• Hypervigilance — Heightened scanning for threat after betrayal, which can make mixed rooms feel unsafe until regulation improves.
• Identity Performance — Managing how one appears in the room, such as trying to look strong or in control, which can mute authentic disclosure.
• Intake Signals — Early indicators (low male speech time, immediate drop-off, repeated gendered conflict) that inform format and facilitation choices.
• Micro-Skills Practice — Short, teachable tools (paced breathing, grounding, one-minute planning) rehearsed in-session for use outside the room.
• Mixed-Gender Group — A support setting with all genders present, designed to build empathy, realism, and transferable prevention skills.
• Monitoring Metrics — Simple measures (retention, average airtime, safety ratings) used to decide when to keep, split, or re-integrate groups.
• Observational Learning — Quiet participation where members benefit by watching modeled skills before risking their own disclosure.
• Off-Platform Contact — Communication between members outside official meetings; bounded to brief check-ins to avoid enmeshment and factions.
• Polarization (Early) — The rapid sorting of members by gender and stance when structure is weak and arousal is high.
• Protective On-Ramp — A time-limited, single-gender format that lowers threat so members can stabilize and learn core skills before re-entering mixed rooms.
• Referral and Stepped Care — Routing needs beyond scope to professionals (therapy, legal, crisis services) while the group continues skill support.
• Role Confusion — Blurred boundaries where the group or leader drifts into therapy, casework, or crisis management.
• Safety Signals — Cues that a space is trustworthy, such as predictable timing, respectful tone, and fair airtime.
• Separate Groups (Temporary Use) — Single-gender sessions deployed to reduce drop-off, increase voice, and protect dignity, with a planned bridge back to mixed practice.
• Skill-Building Focus — A culture that privileges learning and rehearsal of practical tools over unstructured venting.
• Structured Rounds — Timed, equal turns that ensure everyone speaks once before anyone speaks twice, preventing dominance and disappearance.
• Supervision Debrief — A leader reflection after sessions to examine pressure points, boundary tests, and needed adjustments.
• Timekeeper — A rotating member role that protects fairness and pacing by signaling when shares or exercises should conclude.
• Timed Rounds — Short, set intervals for each voice to speak, used to distribute participation and reduce conflict.
• Universality — A curative group factor where members discover they are not alone, reducing shame and isolation.
• Validation-First Rhythm — A pacing choice that prioritizes hearing and naming feelings before exploring options or action plans.
• Victim Credibility Bias — The tendency to disbelieve or minimize certain victims (often men), which suppresses disclosure and harms group culture.
• Welcome Purpose Script — A brief opening read each meeting that states purpose, rules, and scope to anchor expectations.

Reference

• Barriers to and Facilitators of Help-Seeking Among Men Who are Victims of Domestic Violence: A Mixed-Studies Systematic Review
• Ansara D. L., Hindin M. J. (2010b). Formal and informal help-seeking associated with women’s and men’s experiences of intimate partner violence in Canada. Social Science & Medicine, 70(7), 1011–1018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.12.009
• Help-seeking and men: Addis & Mahalik’s review on masculinity and help-seeking.
• Male victim stigma and system responses: qualitative and policy analyses on men’s experiences as victims. NCBI
• Group mechanisms and mixed-group benefits: curative factors and gender dynamics in groups.
• Romance fraud impact: empirical work on victim harm in online romance fraud. InsightScienceDirect
• Bates E. A., Kaye L. K., Pennington C. R., Hamlin I. (2019a). What about the male victims? Exploring the impact of gender stereotyping on implicit attitudes and behavioural intentions associated with intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 81(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0949-x
• Bates E. A., Klement K. R., Kaye L. K., Pennington C. R. (2019b). The impact of gendered stereotypes on perceptions of violence: A commentary. Sex Roles, 81(1), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01029-9
• Brooks C., Martin S., Broda L., Poudrier J. (2020). “How many silences are there?”: Men’s experience of victimization in intimate partner relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(23–24), 5390–5413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517719905
• Dim E. E., Lysova A. (2022). Male victims’ experiences with and perceptions of the criminal justice response to intimate partner abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(15–16), Np13067–Np13091. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211001476
• Entilli L., Cipolletta S. (2017). When the woman gets violent: The construction of domestic abuse experience from heterosexual men’s perspective. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 26(15–16), 2328–2341. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13500
• Fernandez M., Iwamoto K., Muscat B. (1997). Dependency and severity of abuse: Impact on women’s persistence in utilizing the court system as protection against domestic violence. Women & Criminal Justice, 9(1), 39–63. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v09n01_03
• Gueta K., Shlichove T. (2022). Barriers to and facilitators of help-seeking behavior among Israeli men who experience intimate partner violence: A qualitative study. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 23(2), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000384
• Hine B., Bates E. A., Wallace S. (2022). “I have guys call me and say ‘I can’t be the victim of domestic abuse’”: Exploring the experiences of telephone support providers for male victims of domestic violence and abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(7–8), NP5594–NP5625. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520944551
• Hines D. A., Douglas E. M. (2015). Health problems of partner violence victims: Comparing help-seeking men to a population-based sample. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 48(2), 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2014.08.022
• Hogan K. F. (2022). Working with male victims in therapeutic settings. In Bates, E.A., Taylor, J.C. (Editors). Domestic violence against men and boys (pp. 195–210). Routledge.
• Hogan K. F., Clarke V., Ward T. (2021). Men’s experiences of help-seeking for female-perpetrated intimate partner violence: A qualitative exploration. Counselling & Psychotherapy Research, 21(4), 934–945. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12409
• Huntley A. L., Potter L., Williamson E., Malpass A., Szilassy E., Feder G. (2019). Help-seeking by male victims of domestic violence and abuse (DVA): A systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis. BMJ Open, 9(6), e021960. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021960
• Karakurt G., Silver K. E. (2013). Emotional abuse in intimate relationships: The role of gender and age. Violence and Victims, 28(5), 804–821. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.vv-d-12-00041
• Lachs M. S., Pillemer K. (2004). Elder abuse. The Lancet, 364(9441), 1263–1272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17144-4
• Lysova A., Hanson K., Dixon L., Douglas E. M., Hines D. A., Celi E. M. (2022). Internal and external barriers to help seeking: Voices of men who experienced abuse in the intimate relationships. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 66(5), 538–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624×20919710
• Lysova A., Hanson K., Hines D. A., Dixon L., Douglas E. M., Celi E. M. (2020). A qualitative study of the male victims’ experiences with the criminal justice response to intimate partner abuse in four English-speaking countries [Behavior Disorders & Antisocial Behavior 3230]. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(10), 1264–1281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820927442
• Machado A., Hines D., Douglas E. M. (2020). Male victims of female-perpetrated partner violence: A qualitative analysis of men’s experiences, the impact of violence, and perceptions of their worth. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 21(4), 612–621. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000285