I think it's a leap to go from the question: "Do all-male groups have a positive impact on society overall?" to say "women are so opposed to men spending time together." The phrase "all-male groups," particularly in the social context, brings up secret societies, exclusive country clubs, and other bastions of exclusion and power from the past (and, to some degree, in the present.) But I don't think it means that the same women who would see these as problematic would necessarily oppose men spending time together. The fact that men also (to a lesser degree) answer that all-male groups have not had an overall positive impact on society, makes me think people are not exclusively thinking of social outings and male friendships. It would be good to tease these data out some more and make this a bit more fine-grained. Otherwise I fear it will feed the narrative that women are the enemy of male flourishing. (I haven't read the comments yet, but I'll bet a bunch of them are from the regular anti-feminist group.)
When I think of all-male groups, Men's Bible Study is not top of mind. (lol) I think of Boy Scouts, college frats, and gaggles of men in [insert city here] looking for hookers. In any of those situations, I'm concerned for either the boys, young women, or perhaps the men themselves if the location is Colombia. I'm sure a chunk of people were thinking the same way. Similarly, the historic halls of power previously limited to men: a cigar club for business deals, come to mind.
Mentoring spaces like Boy Scouts are sorely needed as are Bible Studies or whatever other positive and encouraging spaces exist but I imagine most women are thinking of spaces in which they or someone they know were either harmed or excluded.
Ole, Tyler and Frank, I actually know only two Young Anglo American men who have been imprinted by podcasts in a negative way. It’s disheartening to me.
Now I know I have steered away from the idea of Young Men and other aged men getting together and I think socializing is a good thing. It’s those Young Men who drift away via podcasts and healthy men’s groups that worry me.
Frank I never intended to mean testosterone was a bad hormone for men. I just think some men like in the Latino Community love to flex their muscles when together and partying at family celebrations. I guess I just got off topic and I apologize. Love Your work here and keep asking questions! Thanks!
As innkeepers for over twenty years, my husband and I have found that a women's weekend is a priority for all ages. Women will gladly leave their partners with kids and activities at home while they escape to gather with friends or even women they don't know yet. Many of these women guests and my friends complain that men won't prioritize a men's weekend and wish they would connect more deeply with other men. Once or twice a year, my husband and I host a gathering of men for biking or hockey at the Inn, and some of the same complaining women offer to "help" in the kitchen or to visit with me while the men play or ride. I impatiently remind them that these weekends are for the fellas and that we should let them engage the way we have hoped they would. The men who attend these weekends play some hockey or take bike rides, but most of their time is spent engaged in varying levels of meaningful conversations about their lives around the fire, over a meal, and by the side of the pond. The age range can be from 20 to 70 years old, and the mentorship that occurs is amazing. It is often assumed that men can't or won't connect deeply, but some women can't help themselves from trying to witness, control, or direct the connection. We have noticed that a weekend with some structure rather than drinking as the main plan for a time to gather, connections happen in ways women may not recognize or appreciate.
I can understand women's concern and answering the survey differently. Boys are taught dysfunctional communication and conditioned to believe that getting too close to a male friend was something to be afraid of. The barrier to men and boy's continued isolation is first and foremost coming from within. We need to create healthy models of socialization and communication so that our boys learn to not be afraid, and male groups don't give women and girls reason to be suspicious.
"It makes me sad to see that so many women are so opposed to men spending time with each other"
The sad truth is that feminist and feminist-leaning women have no concern for the welfare of men. That form of societal cancer has been going on for 50 years.
I guess my fear/concern with men getting together is their testosterone. It seems to me testosterone can get in the way of creating greatness/machismo or getting Your voice heard. It seems as tho late night podcast listening or listening to podcasts while driving puts You in an echo chamber and taints Your vision of reality. I don’t think it can be avoided tho cuz we are in it big time right now! Sons are now turning to their Fathers and having their Fathers listen to radical right podcast thought. It seems as tho parenting isn’t parenting anymore. Parents want to be their children’s friend so manners like kindness and grace are no longer taught or modeled. And I am not sure just how we will return to good parenting now. I guess parenting is just not healthy anymore?
This sounds like sis-science (like bro-science, but for women). Do you have a foundation for this (that boys are radicalizing their fathers), or is it just how you percieve it to be from your perspective?
Have you listened to these late night podcasts? What is your definition of radical right?
That said - what we have is a lack of fathers in our boys lives. The "troubled boys" are "fatherless" to an alarming degree! It's not "gentle parenting" og "friendly parenting" that's the (most pressing) issue. The problem is a lack of fathers in our childrens lives. If you follow Richard Reeves, Will Farrell and others you would understand what an outsized impact fathers have on their sons (and daughters) and not to the detriment of either!
The truth is that testosterone has many benefits for men's health, including male behavior. Turn off the feminist programming long enough to learn the truth about men and male issues.
Sylvia, what makes the podcasts "unhealthy"? They impart Red Pill truths to help men survive in a culture that doesn't care about them. The podcasts give men hope when the Democratic Party has shown scorn and contempt for them..
Men alone listen to podcasts, men in groups talk to each other. I listen to a lot of podcasts but don't include Rogan and the like. They are apparently the ones that seem to speak to men's issues which is attractive to young men that feel on their own. A bit of a chicken and egg situation.
Sylvia, my qualm with this explanation is that you have attributed your fear and concern of men being together to a fundamental aspect of their biology. That takes away mens agency, affirms society's distrust in them, and dismisses very real systemic issues which do create cause for concern.
Fascinating. I suppose women believe that all-men gatherings will result in the types of shenanigans presented in the movie, The Hangover, which may be part of the problem. We aren't telling or sharing uplifting stories about male fellowship outside of war or buddy cop movies. Almost every other narrative presents men as over-stimulated, macho buffoons.
Nah. Young men are only allowed to form all-male groups when they don’t have a choice to refuse and the purpose for their gathering is to die together.
Very helpful, thank you. I completely agree that women need their own time. But I would argue that society is just no longer accepting of men and boys having their own time, whether with friends or in groups. Male-only organizations are disappearing or accepting women, and those changes (e.g., it's now Scouting, not Boy Scouts) will not be reversed. Maybe the best strategy is to accept this reality and instead figure out a way for men to thrive socially with women around.
We definitely have to ensure boys and men's social success with girls and women, but the importance of male groups remains. If these organizations no longer fulfill the niche, we should create new ones. Otherwise the redpill pipeline brings them further away.
False. The polítics have not to ensure the success of any social group. This is a free country. What we need to stop is the hate speach that feminist is. And the lobbies (including Soros and the Democrats) and the money given to feminazis orgs. Thats would suffice.
I don't understand what you're saying. My point is that we have to build community among boys and men, and create alternatives to internet communities which monetize anger and drive men further into isolation. Pointing the finger at one political party or movement is a red herring. These are deeply entrenched societal issues which existed before feminism and are made worse by internet and social media increasing isolation. The republicans and democrats both fail to address the needs of men. In fact, I see a lot of effort from feminist organizations to address the issues faced by men and ignored by everybody else, such as domestic violence against men, discrimination relating to fatherhood and custody disputes, and disparities in mental health treatment and outcomes. How would defunding the organizations working on those issues help men?
To understand the situation you have to understand the reasona. And yes, pointing out the Democrats as the main reason is relevant. Democrats have expressly hurt men. With affirmative action, gender quotas, policies aimed to help women and by giving 1000 millions USD to women lobbies.
How defunding women lobbies will help men? Is this even a serius question????
You have millions of USD to help women to go... To the University!! (Sic!!).
You have a lobby with million of euros in the European Parliament to bolster... Women employment!! (Sic!).
You have women studying every aspect where women are dissdvantaged, fundes with millions of dollars, and lobbies oushing for their legislative agenda.
You have newspapers aplying any stupid statements feminazis say, like "mansplaining" or men being bears.
You have a system that ignores toxicity in women nd refuses to held women accountable for their decissions.
You have the World Bank (with million of dollars) not recognising than women may be better than men (nd they actually are) in e.g. education. They have actually expressly said that they dont care of boys are worst: they are only concerned bout women.
All this promoted by the Democrats. Period.
How can men have good outcomes when they are playing in a so imbalanced playfiled?
Gender is not always a zero sum game. But most of the time is.
So, yes.
Dufund the World Bank.
Defund the WEF.
Defund the women lobbies.
Or give the same money to men. Republican men, men really concerned about men. Not just for their votes. Not Rechard Reeves, a pupet of Soros and the Gates.
No. I refuse to play in a world where polítics decide which gender has to have certain outcomes. I want freedom, and if women are worst, its ok. So it is if men are worst.
Btw, Trump has made more for men in 1 day than Democrats in 100 years. Abolishing DEI. Abolishing the non discrimination act (which wa basically a "discriminate men act").
So you view gender as a zero sum game? You just want to take everything women have and give it to men instead? I think thats unreasonable. We should be bolstering both women and men. I can't agree with the idea that helping boys and men means taking away women's freedom. Everybody should have freedom, and solving mens issues means funding solutions to those issues, not reducing funding for women's issues. Republicans have done very little for working class men and men of color, just like democrats. Anyway why are you on here, if you think Richard Reeves is a puppet?
Have I say anything about taking women freedom? Have you ever read my post?
Gender IS a zero sum game.
Life is competition. You cannot have 70% of women at the Uni and 70% of men at the Uni at the same time. If you want more men at the Uni, you will have less women. Do you do different maths??
I dont want to live in a world where politicians decide who goes to STEM. Or to the UNI. I want freedom!!! For women... And for men!!!
And to be free, you have to treat women and men in the same manner. You have to restore equal rigths for men!!
So, I agree with keeping women funding IF AND ONLY IF men have exactly the same funding. Thats would be in the range of 10,000 million dollars per year.
Republicans have made little for men, but they have not hurt them (Trump have actually help men already. A lot). Democrats have discriminated and hurt men. On purpose. To polarise women and obtain their votes: remember, there are more women than men.
Do Democrats want equality? Do you want to equalize all? Ok:
1. Men have to have 50% of votes. As men are less in society (we live 5 to 7 years less) our votes has to have a higher value. Isnt that equality? We want the same political power than women.
2. Men live less. We need to allocste healthy and investigation funding to men issues with oreference over women helth issues (currently, It exactly the other way around (sic!)). Men have to have preference in allocating health funding in general. Isnt that equality? We want the same Life expectancy than women.
3. Men work more Men have to retire with all benefits 5 years before women. (Nowadays, some countries have the opposite rule) Is that equality? Isnt that equality? We want the same retirement plan than women.
4. Men enroll less at the Uni. We need mens only schools and Universities, without female teachers. Coeducation has to change to single sex education and make education has to be designes by and for males. Men educated by men. Isnt that equality? We want the same education than women.
5. Men are the majority amongst homesless. Men have to have oreference in shelters if there are not enougth (currently, there are more women shelters than men).
6. Men cannot have childs without a women. Single men have to have preference in adoption processes. The Government has to push and funda investigation for artificial wombs.
7. Men have to have the right to men only spaces.
8. We need to recognise toxic feminity. Women discriminate men more than men discriminate women. We need to create a world for "hembrismo" in English (in Spanish, "hembrismo" is the opposite of machismo).
9. Women hypergamy to blame. Women have to marry only poorest guys. (Guess how mant will do this? Almlost Zero).
10. Men in aggregare pay more taxes. The Government has to refund money to men.
11. There are more women in public service. We need to fire women and hire men. A rel DEI programme in the public service should be in favour of men, not against them! (As currently is).
12. Men have had (and still have) less custody. Men to have preference for full custody for men until both groups are equal.
Do you want equality? This is equality. And nothing of the above relates ro "women freedom".
OR you assume that the Government has not the right nor the function to equalize people, and stop funding women (and men).
Btw, Democrats have to recognise that they have tried to create a Matriarchy. Sweden, Norway, Iceland are indeed matriarchies where men are not allowed to bolster men.
Democrats and women are afraid of men. They shall be.
Why are women and girls entitled to single sex spaces and activities AND ALSO entitled to force male only single sex spaces and activities to redefine themselves to include them? Basically, the girls on the playground are entitled to the right to exclude boys from their games, and they’re also entitled to insert herself into the games that boys play and then force them to change the rules of THEIR game to accommodate her? Why? Why is it that only women are girls are entitled to boundaries, while the power over the boundaries of boys is given to girls? Why are males treated like a public commodity whose purpose is to merely facilitate every female whim… And how, given this patently unfair dynamic, is it not recognized as hilariously ironic that the reality of what feminists call “male privilege” is, in fact, tantamount to indentured servitude?
Simple: because of feminism. We shall start recognising that feminist is inverse machismo. Women have behaved as discriminatory as men when they have been provided with power. If you look atbeducation, or single sex spaces or gender age gap, women in power has behaved as bad as men. It is false the claim that feminist has lead to a better world.
With a difference: toxic masculinity was also about protection of women. Women live longer and die less.
New toxic feminity has never been about protection, but hate to men.
Feminist invaded male fraternal organizations, such as the Lion's Clubs and Elks Clubs, back in the early 1970s. That phenomenon is still taking place.
The only thing feminists have left to be angry at men for is the fact that we have run out of distinctly male things for them to steal and gleefully destroy.
The Pew data confirms the view of male and female relationships well described in Joyce Benenson’s Warriors and Worriers: men are more inclusive and tolerant of difference; women like sameness and prefer the familiar.
If you ever find someone trying to do a bucket list, the person will be male. From visiting all 50 states to going to all MLB parks, it is men who do those things.
To be fair to the author of this Substack, if you do a deep dive into his work you’ll find him presenting evidence that it is increasingly women not men who are doing those things. What is less often mentioned, possibly for political and chivalric reasons, is that those women are not smashing glass ceilings they are copying male typical behaviour. What’s disappearing faster than male friendships is authentic female identity.
Non-sense. If one ever took a tour at a national historic site, one would realize that most of the women there are just accompanying their partner while the male partner nerds out.
PLEASE. Try and write a piece that NEVER mentions GIRLS?
You protest that this Topic is not about Women gaining, yet all you seem to do is hold them up for the Impact of just that. I DARE you... write 3 pieces in a row without mentioning "The Fairer Sex"
And if he did that someone would complain that he didn’t mention women. In my experience, the whataboutism is strong when it comes to discussing men’s issues publicly. It’s a no-win situation playing to an audience that doesn’t want to hear it—that’s both the patriarchy and some feminists. Luckily there are plenty of women and feminists with empathy.
From the era where all we could watch was Gunsmoke and High Noon... (however did they ever get a next generation, with no Women?)... to now is a looooong time to know you have something to offer. Perhaps it is just too soon to feel like the Oppressor-- and really? I do not recall much wanting to be like Men. Simply wanting to no longer be invisible.
Thank you for this piece. My husband and I have just decided to sell our house to move closer to his friends. I didn’t really want to move because I felt it was a bit far away. But then it dawned on me that whenever I see my girlfriends we plan weeks in advance, and as such moving further away won’t impact my social life that much. My husband and his friends, on the other hand, are much more spontaneous in their planning. They will literally text each other asking if anyone is up for a beer or a run - usually meaning within the next hour. I hadn’t realized how much our different planning horizons impacted our social lives, and how lonely my husband was starting to feel. I’m not saying this applies to all relationships, but this insight made me appreciate that barriers to connecting can look different for men and women.
I would agree with this. They are far more spontaneous. Our family has been destroyed & fractured over gender ideology. My husband is suffering quietly (my rock) & needs his friends, they are a loyal group. I feel compelled to move physically closer for his sake. Bro time definitely matters. They don’t talk about their problems but their presence speaks volumes
It has always been known that male friendships and get togethers are more likely to inhibit violence than to cause it. Among a group of boys or men there is a lot of Mick taking goes on, including physically stressful pushing and shoving and various attempts at dominance but——these acting outs are happening amongst friends. For young men it teaches them control and older men just how supportive male friends can be of each other. Both women and men need friends and supporters of their own sex, a listening ear, someone who has a good idea of how to navigate their way through the tangled thickets if life in order to make living easier. Face it folks. We all need friends, mentors , exemplars of both sexes and sometimes it’s best if they are of our own kind.
Studies have shown that in societies where masculinity is very much defined by such things as individual resistance to pain and danger and the ability to fight and dominate physically, groupings of men are actually training grounds to develop these traits. We could call our military training techniques examples of this type of grouping. However, most social male get togethers do not exist to teach them stoicism and self preservation, except perhaps in the case of gangs. The male and female single sex socialisation groups are generally formed to help friendships along, to teach management skills or just in order to meet likeminded people. As such, they are of benefit to both men and women in forming friendships and in widening their social circles.
But then way to shootings occur so many times when African-Americans are having birthday parties or BBQs whereas it almost never happens when Korea- or Chinese-Americans have birthday parties or picnics?
So, left policies have destroyed male spaces by converting them in co spaces (like Boys Scouts, or male clubs) but not female spaces (like Girls scouts, all females clubs for empowered women) + you discover that women that you and the left have polirized have more ante male bias than even men tend to have against women... And now, you discover that the left was WRONG by discriminating men.
What about starting with a formal apology? What about recognising that the left have created a Matriarchy? What about recognising that It is imposible to valué masculinity and feminity equality? What about recognising that when male are in charge women are better socialy than men are when women are in charge (high value men take care of low value women, high value women dont accept to take care of low value men)?
What about deleting coed as a starter?
We are not heading to a more equal world. We are heading to a more divided world. A distopy lead by individualist that the left (including the Gates who finance you) has created.
Leave men alone. With the deletion of DEI policies (go Trump go) would be sufficient.
Men seem to have it hardwired within them to care about women.
But, women do not care about men in that way.
Men take care of themselves, and women and children.
Women take care of themselves....and sometimes children (if they decide to have children = sometimes).
This is a general rule that has exceptions, and exceptions prove the general rule.
Is it evolutionary? Is it a mixture of a few things? I really just think it is the way humans are wired (whether one believes in evolution or creation, etc. - it matters not - the observed result seems the same regardless of origin).
The Patriarchy was gynocentric. 75% of the passengers of Titinic were male: 90% of survivors were women. Low classes women were saved at a higher rate than high class men.
Men were wired to be gentlemen. Women have never been wired the same way.
Actually, the left have wired them to be girlbosses (and when they do not reach the director possitions, the left givem the for free power possitions with DEI, gender quotas and affirmative action), and selfisf. For the left, a women taking care of the family is "toxic femininity" (sic!).
A distopy aimed to be an eugenestic experiment for reducing population.
"The good news here is that rates of violence are way down, which means of course male violence."
This is false. Female criminality is on the rise. Surprise.
I think it's a leap to go from the question: "Do all-male groups have a positive impact on society overall?" to say "women are so opposed to men spending time together." The phrase "all-male groups," particularly in the social context, brings up secret societies, exclusive country clubs, and other bastions of exclusion and power from the past (and, to some degree, in the present.) But I don't think it means that the same women who would see these as problematic would necessarily oppose men spending time together. The fact that men also (to a lesser degree) answer that all-male groups have not had an overall positive impact on society, makes me think people are not exclusively thinking of social outings and male friendships. It would be good to tease these data out some more and make this a bit more fine-grained. Otherwise I fear it will feed the narrative that women are the enemy of male flourishing. (I haven't read the comments yet, but I'll bet a bunch of them are from the regular anti-feminist group.)
Completely agree. This nuance is ESSENTIAL.
When I think of all-male groups, Men's Bible Study is not top of mind. (lol) I think of Boy Scouts, college frats, and gaggles of men in [insert city here] looking for hookers. In any of those situations, I'm concerned for either the boys, young women, or perhaps the men themselves if the location is Colombia. I'm sure a chunk of people were thinking the same way. Similarly, the historic halls of power previously limited to men: a cigar club for business deals, come to mind.
Mentoring spaces like Boy Scouts are sorely needed as are Bible Studies or whatever other positive and encouraging spaces exist but I imagine most women are thinking of spaces in which they or someone they know were either harmed or excluded.
Ole, Tyler and Frank, I actually know only two Young Anglo American men who have been imprinted by podcasts in a negative way. It’s disheartening to me.
Now I know I have steered away from the idea of Young Men and other aged men getting together and I think socializing is a good thing. It’s those Young Men who drift away via podcasts and healthy men’s groups that worry me.
Frank I never intended to mean testosterone was a bad hormone for men. I just think some men like in the Latino Community love to flex their muscles when together and partying at family celebrations. I guess I just got off topic and I apologize. Love Your work here and keep asking questions! Thanks!
As innkeepers for over twenty years, my husband and I have found that a women's weekend is a priority for all ages. Women will gladly leave their partners with kids and activities at home while they escape to gather with friends or even women they don't know yet. Many of these women guests and my friends complain that men won't prioritize a men's weekend and wish they would connect more deeply with other men. Once or twice a year, my husband and I host a gathering of men for biking or hockey at the Inn, and some of the same complaining women offer to "help" in the kitchen or to visit with me while the men play or ride. I impatiently remind them that these weekends are for the fellas and that we should let them engage the way we have hoped they would. The men who attend these weekends play some hockey or take bike rides, but most of their time is spent engaged in varying levels of meaningful conversations about their lives around the fire, over a meal, and by the side of the pond. The age range can be from 20 to 70 years old, and the mentorship that occurs is amazing. It is often assumed that men can't or won't connect deeply, but some women can't help themselves from trying to witness, control, or direct the connection. We have noticed that a weekend with some structure rather than drinking as the main plan for a time to gather, connections happen in ways women may not recognize or appreciate.
I can understand women's concern and answering the survey differently. Boys are taught dysfunctional communication and conditioned to believe that getting too close to a male friend was something to be afraid of. The barrier to men and boy's continued isolation is first and foremost coming from within. We need to create healthy models of socialization and communication so that our boys learn to not be afraid, and male groups don't give women and girls reason to be suspicious.
"It makes me sad to see that so many women are so opposed to men spending time with each other"
The sad truth is that feminist and feminist-leaning women have no concern for the welfare of men. That form of societal cancer has been going on for 50 years.
I guess my fear/concern with men getting together is their testosterone. It seems to me testosterone can get in the way of creating greatness/machismo or getting Your voice heard. It seems as tho late night podcast listening or listening to podcasts while driving puts You in an echo chamber and taints Your vision of reality. I don’t think it can be avoided tho cuz we are in it big time right now! Sons are now turning to their Fathers and having their Fathers listen to radical right podcast thought. It seems as tho parenting isn’t parenting anymore. Parents want to be their children’s friend so manners like kindness and grace are no longer taught or modeled. And I am not sure just how we will return to good parenting now. I guess parenting is just not healthy anymore?
This sounds like sis-science (like bro-science, but for women). Do you have a foundation for this (that boys are radicalizing their fathers), or is it just how you percieve it to be from your perspective?
Have you listened to these late night podcasts? What is your definition of radical right?
That said - what we have is a lack of fathers in our boys lives. The "troubled boys" are "fatherless" to an alarming degree! It's not "gentle parenting" og "friendly parenting" that's the (most pressing) issue. The problem is a lack of fathers in our childrens lives. If you follow Richard Reeves, Will Farrell and others you would understand what an outsized impact fathers have on their sons (and daughters) and not to the detriment of either!
The truth is that testosterone has many benefits for men's health, including male behavior. Turn off the feminist programming long enough to learn the truth about men and male issues.
I will take Your word into consideration Frank. I didn’t mean offend. Just trying to figure out what’s going on with Young Men and unhealthy podcasts.
Sylvia, what makes the podcasts "unhealthy"? They impart Red Pill truths to help men survive in a culture that doesn't care about them. The podcasts give men hope when the Democratic Party has shown scorn and contempt for them..
https://www.aol.com/trump-won-because-democrats-keep-120700738.html?guccounter=1
Men alone listen to podcasts, men in groups talk to each other. I listen to a lot of podcasts but don't include Rogan and the like. They are apparently the ones that seem to speak to men's issues which is attractive to young men that feel on their own. A bit of a chicken and egg situation.
Sylvia, my qualm with this explanation is that you have attributed your fear and concern of men being together to a fundamental aspect of their biology. That takes away mens agency, affirms society's distrust in them, and dismisses very real systemic issues which do create cause for concern.
Fascinating. I suppose women believe that all-men gatherings will result in the types of shenanigans presented in the movie, The Hangover, which may be part of the problem. We aren't telling or sharing uplifting stories about male fellowship outside of war or buddy cop movies. Almost every other narrative presents men as over-stimulated, macho buffoons.
Nah. Young men are only allowed to form all-male groups when they don’t have a choice to refuse and the purpose for their gathering is to die together.
Bro time is absolutely essential.
It makes men healthier and happier and more resourced in how they show up with their women.
It also gives us a place to let down our guard and know that we're not going to have anything we share held against us.
A brother can hold me accountable and I welcome it!
And I also know I'm safe.
Very helpful, thank you. I completely agree that women need their own time. But I would argue that society is just no longer accepting of men and boys having their own time, whether with friends or in groups. Male-only organizations are disappearing or accepting women, and those changes (e.g., it's now Scouting, not Boy Scouts) will not be reversed. Maybe the best strategy is to accept this reality and instead figure out a way for men to thrive socially with women around.
We definitely have to ensure boys and men's social success with girls and women, but the importance of male groups remains. If these organizations no longer fulfill the niche, we should create new ones. Otherwise the redpill pipeline brings them further away.
False. The polítics have not to ensure the success of any social group. This is a free country. What we need to stop is the hate speach that feminist is. And the lobbies (including Soros and the Democrats) and the money given to feminazis orgs. Thats would suffice.
I don't understand what you're saying. My point is that we have to build community among boys and men, and create alternatives to internet communities which monetize anger and drive men further into isolation. Pointing the finger at one political party or movement is a red herring. These are deeply entrenched societal issues which existed before feminism and are made worse by internet and social media increasing isolation. The republicans and democrats both fail to address the needs of men. In fact, I see a lot of effort from feminist organizations to address the issues faced by men and ignored by everybody else, such as domestic violence against men, discrimination relating to fatherhood and custody disputes, and disparities in mental health treatment and outcomes. How would defunding the organizations working on those issues help men?
To understand the situation you have to understand the reasona. And yes, pointing out the Democrats as the main reason is relevant. Democrats have expressly hurt men. With affirmative action, gender quotas, policies aimed to help women and by giving 1000 millions USD to women lobbies.
How defunding women lobbies will help men? Is this even a serius question????
You have millions of USD to help women to go... To the University!! (Sic!!).
You have a lobby with million of euros in the European Parliament to bolster... Women employment!! (Sic!).
You have women studying every aspect where women are dissdvantaged, fundes with millions of dollars, and lobbies oushing for their legislative agenda.
You have newspapers aplying any stupid statements feminazis say, like "mansplaining" or men being bears.
You have a system that ignores toxicity in women nd refuses to held women accountable for their decissions.
You have the World Bank (with million of dollars) not recognising than women may be better than men (nd they actually are) in e.g. education. They have actually expressly said that they dont care of boys are worst: they are only concerned bout women.
All this promoted by the Democrats. Period.
How can men have good outcomes when they are playing in a so imbalanced playfiled?
Gender is not always a zero sum game. But most of the time is.
So, yes.
Dufund the World Bank.
Defund the WEF.
Defund the women lobbies.
Or give the same money to men. Republican men, men really concerned about men. Not just for their votes. Not Rechard Reeves, a pupet of Soros and the Gates.
No. I refuse to play in a world where polítics decide which gender has to have certain outcomes. I want freedom, and if women are worst, its ok. So it is if men are worst.
Btw, Trump has made more for men in 1 day than Democrats in 100 years. Abolishing DEI. Abolishing the non discrimination act (which wa basically a "discriminate men act").
So you view gender as a zero sum game? You just want to take everything women have and give it to men instead? I think thats unreasonable. We should be bolstering both women and men. I can't agree with the idea that helping boys and men means taking away women's freedom. Everybody should have freedom, and solving mens issues means funding solutions to those issues, not reducing funding for women's issues. Republicans have done very little for working class men and men of color, just like democrats. Anyway why are you on here, if you think Richard Reeves is a puppet?
Have I say anything about taking women freedom? Have you ever read my post?
Gender IS a zero sum game.
Life is competition. You cannot have 70% of women at the Uni and 70% of men at the Uni at the same time. If you want more men at the Uni, you will have less women. Do you do different maths??
I dont want to live in a world where politicians decide who goes to STEM. Or to the UNI. I want freedom!!! For women... And for men!!!
And to be free, you have to treat women and men in the same manner. You have to restore equal rigths for men!!
So, I agree with keeping women funding IF AND ONLY IF men have exactly the same funding. Thats would be in the range of 10,000 million dollars per year.
Republicans have made little for men, but they have not hurt them (Trump have actually help men already. A lot). Democrats have discriminated and hurt men. On purpose. To polarise women and obtain their votes: remember, there are more women than men.
Do Democrats want equality? Do you want to equalize all? Ok:
1. Men have to have 50% of votes. As men are less in society (we live 5 to 7 years less) our votes has to have a higher value. Isnt that equality? We want the same political power than women.
2. Men live less. We need to allocste healthy and investigation funding to men issues with oreference over women helth issues (currently, It exactly the other way around (sic!)). Men have to have preference in allocating health funding in general. Isnt that equality? We want the same Life expectancy than women.
3. Men work more Men have to retire with all benefits 5 years before women. (Nowadays, some countries have the opposite rule) Is that equality? Isnt that equality? We want the same retirement plan than women.
4. Men enroll less at the Uni. We need mens only schools and Universities, without female teachers. Coeducation has to change to single sex education and make education has to be designes by and for males. Men educated by men. Isnt that equality? We want the same education than women.
5. Men are the majority amongst homesless. Men have to have oreference in shelters if there are not enougth (currently, there are more women shelters than men).
6. Men cannot have childs without a women. Single men have to have preference in adoption processes. The Government has to push and funda investigation for artificial wombs.
7. Men have to have the right to men only spaces.
8. We need to recognise toxic feminity. Women discriminate men more than men discriminate women. We need to create a world for "hembrismo" in English (in Spanish, "hembrismo" is the opposite of machismo).
9. Women hypergamy to blame. Women have to marry only poorest guys. (Guess how mant will do this? Almlost Zero).
10. Men in aggregare pay more taxes. The Government has to refund money to men.
11. There are more women in public service. We need to fire women and hire men. A rel DEI programme in the public service should be in favour of men, not against them! (As currently is).
12. Men have had (and still have) less custody. Men to have preference for full custody for men until both groups are equal.
Do you want equality? This is equality. And nothing of the above relates ro "women freedom".
OR you assume that the Government has not the right nor the function to equalize people, and stop funding women (and men).
Btw, Democrats have to recognise that they have tried to create a Matriarchy. Sweden, Norway, Iceland are indeed matriarchies where men are not allowed to bolster men.
Democrats and women are afraid of men. They shall be.
Why are women and girls entitled to single sex spaces and activities AND ALSO entitled to force male only single sex spaces and activities to redefine themselves to include them? Basically, the girls on the playground are entitled to the right to exclude boys from their games, and they’re also entitled to insert herself into the games that boys play and then force them to change the rules of THEIR game to accommodate her? Why? Why is it that only women are girls are entitled to boundaries, while the power over the boundaries of boys is given to girls? Why are males treated like a public commodity whose purpose is to merely facilitate every female whim… And how, given this patently unfair dynamic, is it not recognized as hilariously ironic that the reality of what feminists call “male privilege” is, in fact, tantamount to indentured servitude?
Simple: because of feminism. We shall start recognising that feminist is inverse machismo. Women have behaved as discriminatory as men when they have been provided with power. If you look atbeducation, or single sex spaces or gender age gap, women in power has behaved as bad as men. It is false the claim that feminist has lead to a better world.
With a difference: toxic masculinity was also about protection of women. Women live longer and die less.
New toxic feminity has never been about protection, but hate to men.
Feminist invaded male fraternal organizations, such as the Lion's Clubs and Elks Clubs, back in the early 1970s. That phenomenon is still taking place.
The only thing feminists have left to be angry at men for is the fact that we have run out of distinctly male things for them to steal and gleefully destroy.
The Pew data confirms the view of male and female relationships well described in Joyce Benenson’s Warriors and Worriers: men are more inclusive and tolerant of difference; women like sameness and prefer the familiar.
If you ever find someone trying to do a bucket list, the person will be male. From visiting all 50 states to going to all MLB parks, it is men who do those things.
To be fair to the author of this Substack, if you do a deep dive into his work you’ll find him presenting evidence that it is increasingly women not men who are doing those things. What is less often mentioned, possibly for political and chivalric reasons, is that those women are not smashing glass ceilings they are copying male typical behaviour. What’s disappearing faster than male friendships is authentic female identity.
Non-sense. If one ever took a tour at a national historic site, one would realize that most of the women there are just accompanying their partner while the male partner nerds out.
PLEASE. Try and write a piece that NEVER mentions GIRLS?
You protest that this Topic is not about Women gaining, yet all you seem to do is hold them up for the Impact of just that. I DARE you... write 3 pieces in a row without mentioning "The Fairer Sex"
And if he did that someone would complain that he didn’t mention women. In my experience, the whataboutism is strong when it comes to discussing men’s issues publicly. It’s a no-win situation playing to an audience that doesn’t want to hear it—that’s both the patriarchy and some feminists. Luckily there are plenty of women and feminists with empathy.
Since there are finite resources of time and money - comparisons must be made.
Do you protest when feminist groups compare women to men?
Why do you get triggered by this?
People compare demographics all the time - by age, gender, race, nation, etc. - is that somehow "wrong"? If so, "why"?
I am howling uselessly into the wind.
From the era where all we could watch was Gunsmoke and High Noon... (however did they ever get a next generation, with no Women?)... to now is a looooong time to know you have something to offer. Perhaps it is just too soon to feel like the Oppressor-- and really? I do not recall much wanting to be like Men. Simply wanting to no longer be invisible.
Thank you for this piece. My husband and I have just decided to sell our house to move closer to his friends. I didn’t really want to move because I felt it was a bit far away. But then it dawned on me that whenever I see my girlfriends we plan weeks in advance, and as such moving further away won’t impact my social life that much. My husband and his friends, on the other hand, are much more spontaneous in their planning. They will literally text each other asking if anyone is up for a beer or a run - usually meaning within the next hour. I hadn’t realized how much our different planning horizons impacted our social lives, and how lonely my husband was starting to feel. I’m not saying this applies to all relationships, but this insight made me appreciate that barriers to connecting can look different for men and women.
I would agree with this. They are far more spontaneous. Our family has been destroyed & fractured over gender ideology. My husband is suffering quietly (my rock) & needs his friends, they are a loyal group. I feel compelled to move physically closer for his sake. Bro time definitely matters. They don’t talk about their problems but their presence speaks volumes
It has always been known that male friendships and get togethers are more likely to inhibit violence than to cause it. Among a group of boys or men there is a lot of Mick taking goes on, including physically stressful pushing and shoving and various attempts at dominance but——these acting outs are happening amongst friends. For young men it teaches them control and older men just how supportive male friends can be of each other. Both women and men need friends and supporters of their own sex, a listening ear, someone who has a good idea of how to navigate their way through the tangled thickets if life in order to make living easier. Face it folks. We all need friends, mentors , exemplars of both sexes and sometimes it’s best if they are of our own kind.
The violence in the African-American community goes against one's hypothesis.
Studies have shown that in societies where masculinity is very much defined by such things as individual resistance to pain and danger and the ability to fight and dominate physically, groupings of men are actually training grounds to develop these traits. We could call our military training techniques examples of this type of grouping. However, most social male get togethers do not exist to teach them stoicism and self preservation, except perhaps in the case of gangs. The male and female single sex socialisation groups are generally formed to help friendships along, to teach management skills or just in order to meet likeminded people. As such, they are of benefit to both men and women in forming friendships and in widening their social circles.
But then way to shootings occur so many times when African-Americans are having birthday parties or BBQs whereas it almost never happens when Korea- or Chinese-Americans have birthday parties or picnics?
So, left policies have destroyed male spaces by converting them in co spaces (like Boys Scouts, or male clubs) but not female spaces (like Girls scouts, all females clubs for empowered women) + you discover that women that you and the left have polirized have more ante male bias than even men tend to have against women... And now, you discover that the left was WRONG by discriminating men.
What about starting with a formal apology? What about recognising that the left have created a Matriarchy? What about recognising that It is imposible to valué masculinity and feminity equality? What about recognising that when male are in charge women are better socialy than men are when women are in charge (high value men take care of low value women, high value women dont accept to take care of low value men)?
What about deleting coed as a starter?
We are not heading to a more equal world. We are heading to a more divided world. A distopy lead by individualist that the left (including the Gates who finance you) has created.
Leave men alone. With the deletion of DEI policies (go Trump go) would be sufficient.
Men seem to have it hardwired within them to care about women.
But, women do not care about men in that way.
Men take care of themselves, and women and children.
Women take care of themselves....and sometimes children (if they decide to have children = sometimes).
This is a general rule that has exceptions, and exceptions prove the general rule.
Is it evolutionary? Is it a mixture of a few things? I really just think it is the way humans are wired (whether one believes in evolution or creation, etc. - it matters not - the observed result seems the same regardless of origin).
The Patriarchy was gynocentric. 75% of the passengers of Titinic were male: 90% of survivors were women. Low classes women were saved at a higher rate than high class men.
Men were wired to be gentlemen. Women have never been wired the same way.
Actually, the left have wired them to be girlbosses (and when they do not reach the director possitions, the left givem the for free power possitions with DEI, gender quotas and affirmative action), and selfisf. For the left, a women taking care of the family is "toxic femininity" (sic!).
A distopy aimed to be an eugenestic experiment for reducing population.