It’s not always location-agnostic, but you’re more likely to hear about location-agnostic efforts because they have further reach.
For instance Men’s Sheds are a local effort with a thousand locations in the UK:
> Men’s Sheds encourage people to come together to make, repair and repurpose, supporting projects in their local communities. Improving wellbeing, reducing loneliness and combatting social isolation.
> Research gathered by the UKMSA Health and Wellbeing Survey, 2023, suggests 96% of Men’s Shed attendees feel less lonely since joining a Shed.
Unfortunately, sometimes you get things like this happening:
> 'We put the pressure on to join Men in Sheds'
> The 74-year-old added: "Eventually they let us in, just one morning, eventually it became all the time, and now it's 50% women, and we absolutely love it."
> When the women were allowed into the workshop, members decided to keep a quiet room with a model railway display in it, just for men.
> "We [the men] escape now and again [to the quiet room] and have a chat and weigh things up."
You have selectively quoted that article. Note the last four paragraphs are:
>Andrew McNerney, 70, admitted there was initially some resistance to becoming a mixed group.
>He said: "There was apprehension, but in all honesty, it's turned out well.
>"We [the men] escape now and again [to the quiet room] and have a chat and weigh things up."
>But he added: "It's a lovely atmosphere, and it's been good."
Yes. I selectively pulled out the bits that I thought were relevant instead of quoting the whole thing.
I know he said that it’s been good, but taken in relation to the rest of the article, I don’t place much weight on it.
The women persistently pressured the men to join, the men were apprehensive, they allowed them in for one morning, one morning turned into all the time, women now comprise 50% of the group, and the men’s area is now relegated to a back room they escape to.
They got one of the men to say it was good, but that’s not the story that the article was telling.
> that’s not the story that the article was telling.
It is though? Reading the article, I'm fully getting a sense that its point is that it was an improvement for everyone (despite the article describing it as being triggered from nagging from the women).
Now you can choose not to believe that, but that _is_ the story the article was telling, or at least it's how I understand it.
> the men were apprehensive, they allowed them in for one morning, one morning turned into all the time
Your assumption is that it “turned into all the time” against the wishes of the men but that’s not clear at all. Being apprehensive about change and then quickly discovering it was for the better is something we all experience in life.
I agree with the post, if the genders were reversed, people wouldn't generally feel this open about it.
That's because the genders aren't valued equally by society, so they don't permute. Once gender equality is established they could switched and the statements would be equivalent.
I dunno, generationally we may be correcting a problem that will soon no longer exist, or even invert.
Women are attending and graduating college in higher numbers than men in GenZ. Much of the man-o-sphere GenZ rightward turn seems to be resentment at society being sure what the use of men is anymore.
That is, from a very young age girls are told they can do/be whatever they want. Often now, boys are described in terms of what they can't/shouldn't be, or in how their very gender gives them a sort of ancestral debt of shame for wrongs done by the men of previous generations.
You'll hear left wing progressive parents in places like NYC tell stories like "my 8 year old boy came home from school crying because his teacher told hime everything bad that has happened in history was because of men" and stupid stuff that's unthinkable if it was reversed.
Men by and large are still expected by society to be the provider, and shamed if they aren't. Women generally won't "date/marry down" anymore than they ever did. But women are now achieving higher educational attainment than men. It's a setup for future societal disfunction, so I do think we do need to solve the male part of the equation after spending the last 50 years raising women up.
Yes, I know parents who wonder why the boys at school seem to have no ambition, and don't apply for scholarships and get involved in things as much as they used to. The same parents also notice that all the literature at school now has female protagonists--not half of it, but nearly all of it.
They don't seem to make the connection between these things. Boys at school are told to sit down and shut up (and take drugs to do so if necessary) so the girls can thrive, and they internalize that. Some people act as though this is reparations for the many years when the reverse was true. But even if they're right about the past, they're not improving the situation by swapping the injustice.
People have a hard time reconciling the difference between “raise group X up” and “knock group Y down”.
The former is a universal good and the correct way to remedy historical injustice. The latter is punishing people, literally, for the sins of their fathers.
There is of course complexity and some zero sum situations where raising X harms Y, but most of the world is not zero sum and you do not have to start from that default position.
True. I suppose the problem is that knocking down Y is often easier than raising up X. And group revenge can feel good.
Indeed, it is a dysfunction of our political system that the most politically engaged & active on each side .. rarely touches grass.
>You'll hear left wing progressive parents in places like NYC tell stories like "my 8 year old boy came home from school crying because his teacher told hime everything bad that has happened in history was because of men" and stupid stuff that's unthinkable if it was reversed.
People are bashing their heads on the wall trying to figure out why young white men are moving towards the right in droves...and the best answer they can come up with is misogyny.
You don't think it could be becasue life is just hard and someone is providing an easy scapegoat for their own problems?
My son was the gentlest soul. He did city year to help inner city youth with their schooling. He has a very liberal sexuality. He loves and accepts everyone.
He has gone over to the dark side and I am heartbroken. The final straw was he built up a business from scratch, with the laid out plan that if he got it running and was successful he would run it. Once it was all successfully running the promise was broken and he was passed up because he was a white male (this was explicitly the reason. The business was in a high minority area and they felt it would look bad having a non-local white man running things as the product's identity was in part it's location). He dedicated years of his life sacrificing building a career somewhere else getting this off the ground and an explicit promise that was broken purely because of his skin color/gender once his usefulness/startup level effort and dedication had made the business successful enough that they could replace him.
After having to move cross country back home to restart his life purely because he was a white male (and in spite of him having been successful at building the business) he very much sees the world as white males versus the left that hates/betrays him. Remember this kid gave up a year to do city year to help raise disadvantaged minority youth up (and did many, many other things before deciding things were rigged against him).
He is not scapegoating anyone, and that you judge someone's view of the world being a character flaw on their part instantly instead of trying to have any empathy, is fucking gross to be honest. Do you think people with your opinion are being intentionally obtuse out of some sort of racism on their part (they feel uncomfortable with empathy for white males), or because they just lack empathy? My last statement is as valid as your sentence above and as helpful/insightful are yours (which is zero).
Okay. Let's say everything you said was true. Why is it acceptable for white men to say, "hey, I'm being discriminated against, I would like to oppress everyone else so I can feel better" instead of what historically oppressed minorities do which is advocate for the better of their demographic even in the face of opposition.
This difference in action is why I think that people have a hard time having empathy. These said to be white men are not pushing for bettering themselves by making an equal environment, they are pushing to better themselves by knocking everyone else down. We can't say that others would do the same in their shoes because they didn't.
Because the response they are receiving when they 'advocate for the better of their demographic (and the type of response that is turning them sour/disillusioned) is:
"Let's say everything you said was true" - iteria (needlessly implying it's a lie/not happening)
"someone is providing an easy scapegoat for their own problems" - tayo42 (implying what they are experience/feeling isn't real/valid. This takes some temporary bullshit that they are feeling and ends up ossifying it into ugliness/a horrible position/a shit worldview, and drives them into horrible online communities designed to take advantage of this all and feeding them into the trash right pipeline).
I'm not justifying it, I hate that I'm losing my boy into it, but I can only push so much without it pushing him harder into 'one side doesn't validate my feelings so I'm going the other way'. I think a little empathy from his peers would have gone a long way. Instead he was ostracized by his peers when he moved back home because he went through a crappy situations that seriously impacted his life and wanted someone to share a little empathy with him, because he was a white male asking for that empathy.
I can have a lot of empathy for someone who had explicit promises broken but apart from this sounding like a completely made up story it has no bearing on his skin color or sex. People are taken advantage of all the time and promises, even contracts are broken all the time. Your 'son' has taken the route of victimization rather than taking the high road. Getting screwed over is one thing, turning that in to bigotry is quite another. Like even if you were screwed over BY bigots its not a reason to become one.
Wow, glad you can tell I'm a liar based on absolutely nothing.
People can have down/shitty bits without just throwing them away/writing them off as irredeemable. Especially when they are frustrated over a specific event. Frustration that normally we try and help them leave behind. But for some reason in this situation 1. It's not true/didn't happen and 2. My son is trash for caring about it. I'm not around this stuff much, I don't do social media, I don't watch TV, and I live remote, but I'm getting a better sense of how my son went such the wrong direction over this.
Nowhere did I justify anything. I complained I want my son back and I refuse to write him off. Maybe check your lack of compassion, quickness to judge, willingness to write people off, and reading comprehension.
You first say "sounds like a made up story" and then you go on to assert that "it has no bearing on his skin color or sex"
Where are you even coming from with that?
The Op said directly "Once it was all successfully running the promise was broken and he was passed up because he was a white male (this was explicitly the reason"
Believe all men.
> advocate for the better of their demographic even in the face of opposition
Whenever they do that they get told their problems aren't real, and that they are, in fact, the problem. You're doing it right in this post:
>Let's say everything you said was true.
> I do think we do need to solve the male part of the equation after spending the last 50 years raising women up.
When left-wing progressives talk about dismantling...let's just call it the "p-word", dismantling the expectations about what a man should and shouldn't be is very much part of that.
The system victimizes men as much as women, and we should be tearing that system down, not leaning back into it in a misguided attempt of trying to rebalance the scales.
>You'll hear left wing progressive parents in places like NYC tell stories like "my 8 year old boy came home from school crying because his teacher told hime everything bad that has happened in history was because of men"
I've never heard anyone say that happened but I've heard plenty of people say that they heard someone say that happened. I think it goes in the same file as "Litter boxes in classrooms so that furries can poop in front of everyone" and "It's illegal to be Christian in schools now".
>Once gender equality is established
Lol if you don't think it has been already, you never will.
> > But he added: "It's a lovely atmosphere, and it's been good."
Which man, who ever wants to get laid again, would be stupid enough to give anything short of an absolutely glowing review about that change to a reporter.
Yeah, you can imagine the headline they'd put on that one.
And that's how the ratchet works. Go to any subreddit that talks about relationships, and every time there's a man versus woman scenario, unless it's very clear that the woman was in the wrong, nearly all the women will side with the woman. But half the men will also side with the woman, because they don't want to offend the women -- even anonymous women on the Internet who almost certainly will never sleep with them. The other half of the men get downvoted to oblivion, or they learn to keep certain opinions to themselves, and it ends up looking like everyone thinks women are always right.
The men are there to meet each other, not to avoid women. Gender segregation isn't the point - it's about building relationships.
> The men are there to meet each other, not to avoid women. Gender segregation isn't the point - it's about building relationships.
I'm not sure that's quite true. Men tend to talk and joke in a different way to women, which they then modify around women or be punished. The main difference between an old-school Personnel department and a modern HR department is HR is (self-)tasked with making sure the environment is always suitable for women.
Men have very few places, if any, where they can just be themselves, unmodified. And when those places exist, large shaming campaigns and marketing appear to tell them off and to entice women into them.
No one is ever themselves, unmodified, when around other people. There are jokes and attitudes that are unacceptable in stereotypical masculine social situations too (having a feminine interest, for example, or simply speaking in the wrong way).
The Overton Window moves. It narrows and widens. That isn't the same as being unable to be yourself.
I agree that men should be socially allowed to have spaces where women are excluded and society does sort of tend to look down on that kind of thing, but I also think that in a world where many professional environments are still male dominated some sensitivity to the exclusion of women is warranted.
I mean plenty of jobs out there are still 95% or more occupied by men only.
Sweden has a government department for statistics and one data point they collect and publish is work statistics. The most gender segregated work places are dominated by women, with a few being around 99%. The only male dominated profession in top 5, last time I checked, was stonelayer, which was around 95%.
In term of total gender segreation in the work force, about 15% of men and women work in gender equal profession. The majority, both men and women, work in a job where their gender outnumber the other gender by 2 to 1 or more.
A common finding in studies conduced on this statistics is that gender segregation occurs also within a profession. Teachers is used as the typical example where gender segregation occur on both subject but also on level. It also get worse as people advance in their careers, with each "step" on the ladder being a point where the minority gender decrease.
> No one is ever themselves, unmodified, when around other people
I see what you mean. To clarify: I meant as a group, rather than as individuals. I appreciate there are smaller-groups that also can't be themselves somehow, but if that's a sin, then perhaps the larger group not being able to be itself is a larger sin.
Don't disagree, but some hard things don't get said when the other gender is around, especially with men of a certain age. It takes a lot for many men to even out loud say the word "lonely" or "sad" or "worthless". A lot of male conversation is silent. The whole spiel is to project and feel capable of dealing with the world, to feel useful, to be a Man. To feel otherwise is not "masculine". To admit this to mixed company is a couple of bridges too far for most of us.
Funny, because the traditional role of a women is exactly to be the one who hears all these hard things and helps the man overcome them.
Extra funny hat women should be excluded so men can talk about feeling lonely and how they wish they had a woman.
It only takes one time: a woman who sees a man as less than for admitting his weakness makes him never talk about that stuff around women again.
Unfortunately, there are many women who react this way, so the cycle continues. I don't necessarily blame women for this, it's more about the social expectations for men, the moment they violate that expectation and are "punished" for it, they follow it to the letter, because they then know what happens if they don't.
find different women. Obviously many woman would have similar social expectations due to the way things have shook out.
Phew, I have very rarely heard something so wrong. Women are absolutely not traditionally an emotional support for men. In fact, being vulnerable in that way as a man is just about the surest way to make most women suddenly quite uninterested. Every woman has a story where some important man cries in front of her for the only time. In his entire life.
Women want men to be emotionally open as it applies to supporting them. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but let's call a spade a spade.
Wish they'd taught me this when I was young. They told me being open and vulnerable was attractive.
They also told me I had to verbally ask girls if it was okay to kiss them and if they didn't verbally say yes I was assaulting them.
Intimacy has not been absent from my life, but it has had a very small role.
That may be the traditional role of a wife, though even in marriage a man who dumps all his fears and worries on his wife will soon find himself without one. Women want a man to open up and share his feelings, but in practice a little of that goes a long way.
But in any case, it's not the traditional role of whatever women happen to be in earshot.
It’s not complicated. Men need women. But men need men, too. The needs are distinct and not interchangeable.
Fine, but why do you list two needs with enormous female gendered baggage in that case?
>A lot of male conversation is silent.
No it isn't! Men need to talk about their feelings just as much as women! There isn't some major difference in how we handle emotions!
We are all human, and humans are emotional creatures.
So many men need to Grow the Fuck Up and realize that being vulnerable is not the same as being weak. You need to be talking to your friends or confidants about your feelings.
>To feel otherwise is not "masculine"
Wrong. If you need to project a constant air of competence and stoicism and power, you are insecure and emotionally stunted.
I blame media honestly. Watch what women protagonists in American media do compared to male protagonists. Watch how male characters just do not talk through their feelings and emotions to other men, except as essentially a crisis point. Watch as women characters are much more likely to talk about how they felt about something.
Meanwhile, outside the US, male characters are allowed to have feelings. The Doctor is an insanely emotional man, full of complicated feelings that he is constantly having to face, and yet is portrayed as a man of immense power and prestige.
What male role model to American men have that portrays emotional development as a good and important thing?
> Men need to talk about their feelings just as much as women! There isn't some major difference in how we handle emotions!
You are categorically wrong. In fact, you couldn’t be further from the truth.
Men process emotions differently than women do. A real, biological difference. There is a reason why men don’t cry at the end of titanic. And to imply men are somehow emotionally stunted because they don’t emote like a woman does, is not only wrong but is harmful.
> vulnerable is not the same as being weak
Go read a dictionary. Showing vulnerability is the same thing as showing weakness and society shuns and shames weak men. There are reasons for that, and men have every incentive not to show weakness.
> No it isn't! Men need to talk about their feelings just as much as women! There isn't some major difference in how we handle emotions!
Yes there is. It isn't some societal thing either. It's ingrained deeply in biology. Saying men just need to be like women is asking them to go against their nature.
> Men need to talk about their feelings just as much as women! There isn't some major difference in how we handle emotions!
I... I've never heard this before, and it is in stark contrast to decades of my personal experience.
> You need to be talking to your friends or confidants about your feelings.
What do you mean "need to"?
They had to be persistently pressured into letting women in, and when that happened they set aside a men-only room to escape to. Gender segregation may not be the point but it seems like it’s important to them.
Then why women segregate themselves in groups? I'm not saying I'm pro gender segregation but if women can have their own gender segregated groups, why men should be treated differently?
Both genders segregate themselves into groups on occasion, as the quotes explicitly highlight.
What I find a bit remarkable is how they lost control of their club dynamics so severely. I've been a regular attendee of a few hacker spaces that were open to the public but never had the problem they describe.
I think maybe a key aspect is ensuring that all men, particular the ones that are classically unattractive (even repulsive) feel welcome as valued equals. Many women cannot countenance this and will try to shape group membership to be more agreeable; those women are free to leave. The rest are welcome to stay and at that point there shouldn't be any issues.
(Of course it goes without saying that actual harassment isn't tolerated, but being a smelly fat slob with a heart of gold doesn't count.)
This is a hilarious take.
Men must be welcome as an absolute, women must conform to your expectations or be excluded.
If a woman cannot tolerate the presence of unattractive men in a club meant for socially excluded men, then she doesn't belong in that club.
> absolute
As I said, harassment shouldn't be tolerated. Men who do that should be kicked out.
Uh, they don't describe any problem though? The piece is about how everyone agrees the change is for the better, its only people in this thread that describe women and men woodworking together as a problem.
Obviously the remaining members think it’s better but as an adverse selection problem you can’t ask the ones that left
The notion that any members left is your own invention.
From a Reddit discussion about the same article:
> I spoke with some men at the Man Shed in Edinburgh at Christmas and they mentioned that in the cases they had heard about where women had been let in the number of male members dropped.
— https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1k6w3pr/we_p...
Aside from that, just take a look at what happened. When women joined, the men responded by finding a men-only room to “escape” to. It’s hardly a great leap to think that some of those men will escape someplace else instead.
Oh, rumours from a completely different place are to be taken as facts for this group? Very level headed analysis you got there.
Besides, as is abundantly clear from the program, they "escape" in there to have a "quiet chat" because the band saw in the big room is fucking loud.
Why didn't they start Women's Sheds?
Women do have their own spaces, at least here in the Midwest US. But women tend to think the men are having more fun over in their male-only spaces, so they want into them, and then those spaces become co-ed, and pretty soon the men are looking around for a new male-only space. Not because they don't enjoy spending time with women, but because there's something about a male-only space that lets a man relax and recharge in a different way.
That cycle tends to repeat, and you don't really see it in reverse. Men are mildly curious, at most, about what women do in their own spaces, and generally don't seek to join them. That probably adds to the perception women have that the male-only spaces are more fun.
It’s because women fight vigorously and scream loudly to keep men out. They call them creeps and that’s almost always effective
Oh, but why if they're having a functional clubs already?
I feel like men only spaces in the UK are frowned upon (see Garrick club narration). No matter the reason, the only way single sex spaces work here is women only.
In UK law, it is generally considered sex discrimination to exclude someone on the basis of their sex, unless that exclusion is a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”. It’s fairly well understood that women have sex-based needs that justify this aim, but very rarely recognized that men might have such needs too. Maybe this is one of them.
The fear will always be that male-only spaces will become centers of power and decision-making that women are excluded from. That’s where the private London clubs sit. Doesn’t seem as likely to happen in a shed, but who knows?
Generally speaking women are more than welcome at Mens Sheds (In Australia, at least). The ratio of men to women that enjoy sanding wood and tinkering with lawnmowers usually leans more heavily to men, but I've seen the girls around the traps too.
>it is generally considered sex discrimination to exclude someone on the basis of their sex
So are women-only gyms not a thing in the UK then? Here in NA they're everywhere, we even have a women-only version of the YMCA (YWCA).
> Here in NA they're everywhere, we even have a women-only version of the YMCA (YWCA).
Despite the names, neither the YWCA or YMCA as broad organizations strictly restrict membership by gender (or religion, for that matter.) My understanding with YWCA specifically is that inclusiveness on gender varies considerably by individual local association.
> In UK law, it is generally considered sex discrimination to exclude someone on the basis of their sex
Whether or not the law prohibits or permits such discrimination, differential treatment (definitely including outright exclusion) on the basis of sex is, obviously sex discrimination, that’s just the meaning of the words.
So there’s at least one type of men’s only space in the UK; some gay club nights are men-only, and enforce this with registration/membership. Was a bit of a culture shock visiting from Ireland, where, as far as I know, this is not a thing (even the most male-oriented club nights _allow_ women, and there’ll usually be one or two; I’ve never known anyone to have a problem with this).
I’m unsure whether there’s a legal issue here (one thing that comes to mind is that I know the UK at least historically had weird laws about what constitutes public sex, so maybe excluding women allows them to legally have darkrooms or something?) or if it’s just cultural.
That's because gay clubs/bars have ended up chock full of straight women. People claim it's because it's "safer from all the gross men in other places", which may be partially true. But also I believe it's because gay clubs can just be nicer overall, plenty of interesting drinks like cocktails available rather than just beer, more variety in music, etc. I think they may disallow women because for the bi/pan men in the crowd - their behaviour changes when women are present, they get more aggressive, domineering, chest beating. I notice it all the time in queer but non-gay friends constantly.
Which always annoyed me because I've been to a few Soho "gay" bars since and they're just full of straight women/hen dos. Asked for a cocktail..."we don't do cocktails". How the fuck do you call yourself a gay bar anymore then!
I go to a regular meet and one of the places next door is a drag bar, whose entire purpose seems to be to host hen dos. Ugh.
Anecdotally I heard this was because straight-women would prefer these clubs due to less pressure and more fun, which caused straight-men to try get into the clubs just to hit on them.
I'm under the impression that women's only spaces are very much frowned upon in the English speaking world, whether it be in sports, book awards, knitting circles, toilets, or prisons.
This isn't an x-has-it-worse comment by the way. I think every demographic is entitled to self-segregate without shame, and the ladies definitely face their own struggles in achieving this.
> I'm under the impression that women's only spaces are very much frowned upon
Centre of the English speaking world here.
My gym has a "mixed" workout area and a "women only" workout area. The pool and sauna have "mixed" sessions and "women only" sessions. Classes are segregated to "women only" or "mixed". Membership fees are the same for all.
Your impression is mistaken.
E.g.
Girl Scouts: allowed to be girls only
Boy Scouts: now “Scouting” because girls are allowed
My intramural sports in college had coed and women only teams
Those two scouts programs aren't even remotely comparable, both in substance and prestige. Many girl scout troops barely did any camping/outdoor activity, whereas boys got to earn the prestige of "eagle scout" and go on various outdoor adventures (multi-day treks through the mountains, building igloos and camping inside them, camping on an island only accessible by a canoe, etc). It was a tragedy that girls didn't have the opportunities available to boys.
(Source: My sister and her friends were the type that would have thrived in boy scouts, but they had to join a "venture crew" run by the same scout leader as our boy scout troop)
Whether a boyscout group sits around and does lame crafts or goes into the woods to start fires and hit each other with sticks is entirely down to the leadership (boys and adults) in that troop. So to is it with girlscouts. There is nothing intrinsic about boyscouts that makes it more exciting, except that it was lead by guys.
> There is nothing intrinsic about boyscouts that makes it more exciting
The chance to obtain Eagle Scout status is itself more exciting. It difficult to deny that it is one of the best leadership programs for children available. The girl scout equivalent is not even close to producing the leaders the Eagle Scouts do. They also have their own network for eagle scouts to connect. It can be an opportunity to get into a Good ‘ol Boys club (future business & money connections) before moving out of their parent’s house.
If a male or female wants to learn more about extracting money from family/shoppers by selling cases of cookies, or learn about female social empowerment and financial skill, instead of learning leadership through self reliance/accountability skills mixed with teamwork, then why not let them choose the programs they want? -- but they are different. Their Gold Award is nothing like earning Eagle Scout status.
The credentials and awards is definitely the least important aspect of boyscouts. As for leadership learning opportunities, there is no reason the girl scouts couldn't have this too.
Flip your own framing around - aren't there likely boys who would have preferred the Girl Scouts coded activities, and being disallowed from membership is therefore also an unfair dis-opportunity?
Yup exactly. Same as all the "feminist" groups campaigning to disallow trans women from such groups, usually using the excuse that they'll get assaulted by the "really just men" trans women a la "won't somebody please think of the children!" when the incidences of this happening is almost 0 comparatively.
Turns out some are allowed to have special clubs, but others not so much. And we only have societal perception of women to blame; the thing they're relying on for all this "they need their own space to protect them" is demeaning, imo. Besides the fact that the majority of victims of crime are male (and before someone points out that the majority of criminals are also male - did you know that's a sexist statement to make? It's judging an entire sex by the actions of individuals).
BSA made the decision to allow girls on their own and it's been fantastic for the program.
You actually think this organization made this decision on their own with no outside pressure, or internal pressure from women?
I have a bridge to sell you
The "external pressure" was largely just the pressure of declining membership.
What pressure led to declining membership?
Did it have anything to do with "Boy Scouts is a sexist organization" narratives?
Uh, no, I'm sorry you had to find out this way, but the primary reason was because the boy scouts have rampant sex abuse scandals like the catholic priesthood.
Also Tiktok means fewer young boys so bored that they set things on fire.
Ah yes
Opening up the organization to young girls as well seems like exactly the right fix for
Rampant sex abuse scandals
That's how I would fix that problem too
I mean if we are talking about BSA declining membership, one pretty large reason could be...
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-lets-246-bill...
Nah these decisions actually resulted in membership declines because they lost the Mormon population and with them a huge chunk of the patrons
I'm pretty sure you have the order reversed. They were already losing the mormons.
The Women's Institute is going strong in the UK. There are far more girls' schools than boys' schools. I don't think female only spaces are frowned on at all, at least here.
>I'm under the impression that women's only spaces are very much frowned upon in the English speaking world
That is the impression you would get from online journalism. The reality is basically the opposite. Women's only spaces are celebrated and the narrative is that they're brave and strong and defiant and resisting sexist oppression. 80-90% of men are totally ambivalent about it.
Yes, unfortunately sometimes social events are wildly successful and even more people want to join, and the existing members let them, and everyone has a great time together.
It's unfortunate, but it happens.
Why does the presence of women cause men to not have male friends?
Women tend to behave very differently in all-female group compared to when even a single man is present.
And if that man is charismatic or handsome its completely different dynamics and resulting behavior again.
Never thought about it myself but one female friend mentioned this once (how toxic their work environment becomes when there is no man), so started noticing it around.
As a married man I can understand these clubs fully. A man is never so relaxed, open and honest as when with other men, only men. I would expect the same among women, while accepting they always play their little games also just among themselves (which are very tiring for most men in long run and thus those clubs' popularity)
In my experience (as a man) men tend to behave quite differently when there’s no women present too.
Generally I much prefer mixed gender socialising!
All sorts of weird hazing and one up manship happened when I was a young man in these groups. That’s how you get these crazy Dubai guy videos of people skiing in sandals on a highway or driving on 2 tires.
> A man is never so relaxed, open and honest as when with other men, only men.
That's not been the the case in my experience, as a man.
You're more open and honest with any man than with your wife?
I'm more open with many men than my wife, who famously laughed reminiscing on one of her exes who opened up to her and cried.
I've yet to see the clam closing up than I did on the day. Sadly it happened way too late for some things.
So yeah, don't be vulnerable around women. That's the warning my wife gave me.
In some topics yes (not just any man, male close friends), but not in some others.
All in all, I am most open to her from whole mankind, but thats also due to the fact she is not same as typical women are in these aspects. It took me some time (and painful breakups with other women) to realize who I am, what and whom I want next to me and then find her.
Still, some topics are simply not built for women, and thats fine, some are not built for men.
Is it really so hard to understand this?
I am very different around my wife than random women.
We aren't talking about spouses.
The group dynamic changes the moment it is not single sex anymore.
Yes, it basically changes to men complaining about women. The people with a good sex life end up becoming therapists for the group.
Mixed groups on the other hand turn into a soap opera.
What is needed is a strong common interest that binds the group beyond these tendencies to stave off the soap opera entropy. The soap opera entropy will always increase with time though until the group dissolves.
It is still more stable though than the misogynist entropy.
>Yes, it basically changes to men complaining about women. The people with a good sex life end up becoming therapists for the group.
Just not true. Men only groups are rarely misogynist, more often they are homophobic in the sense that everyone is trying to imply that everyone else is secretly gay.
There is also various forms of dick measuring contests - who can grill better, who caught bigger fish and so on. Also for hobbies. And a lot of stories. You have no idea the acts of bravery worthy of medal of honor you will hear.
Bitching about women is minor.
On the other hand being able to overhear what my roommate and her girlfriends (early 20s) talk about - on some evenings they don't pass the Bechdel test in real life. On other evenings it usually evenly split between men, fashion, professional.
> There is also various forms of dick measuring contests - who can grill better, who caught bigger fish and so on. Also for hobbies. And a lot of stories. You have no idea the acts of bravery worthy of medal of honor you will hear.
This is exactly what I do not want to be part of.