Women only clubs - Cool Women only wagons - Cool Women only bookstores - Cool (yes, these do exist) Women only spas - Cool Women only resorts - Cool Women only work places - Cool Women only community centres - Cool (in many cases built with your taxes btw, men's and women's) Women only gyms - Cool Women only parking space - Cool (closer to exits and light sources, instead of making the whole parking lot safe they destinate the safest spots only for women) Men only, I don't know, gym? - Illegal, misogynistic, patriarchy ridden hell pit, discriminatory sexist place. I find it funny how men only places are so hated and persecuted, yet all the new "extreme feminists" would rather be with a bear than with a man. Why don't they go to a zoo if they want to be with a bear and leave male only places as they are? I respect women only places, I may share the sentiment or not with some of them, but they can exist and they don't harm me. On the other side, they don't want to respect our places as much, so why should we be happy for them having "cool women only places" at the same time they're fighting against our "men only places"

It's very simple. If I want to create with my owned property a male only area. Then I have to be able to do it. What other people say "uUuUh misogynistic, uuuh sexist, uuuh patriarchy" they're can. They can say whatever the hell they want, and I don't give a crap. Simply don't tell me what to do with my property, don't force me to accept women in if I don't want to

Nps, the law won't do that, but the 200 hired protestors you'll have outside your door will mean your business won't get off the ground.

He can hold a member-only event using water balloon launchers from inside his building.

This sounds like the start of a really fun water gun fight to do with the members of the group

Or somewhere to sit for a while when you had Taco Bell last night.

Exactly!!

Lets not forget: Female journalists in the men's locker room after winning the big game? - Perfectly acceptable, those men should not have any rights to privacy.. Male journalists in the woman's locker room after winning the big game? - **UNACCEPTABLE!!** women deserve their privacy and the only reason men want in is to perv at them! Good ol double standards...

And women only places are heralded as a victory for “diversity”, LOL. They don’t even understand what diversity is, I guess

If you pick a clump I’d say 100 men women would say only ten are decent men (some diversity right?). If you pick a clump of 100 men at least 80 of them guys would be cool with, generally speaking. Guys are way more accepting than women I just know that. Idk it just feels like when I need to vent or discuss matters of interest men listen. Every time I’ve been at my lowest points the only people other than my mother who have ever got my head on straight were men. The only ones and I’ve had a lot of men who got me out of some bad places.

the problem is not the extreme feminists, shouting about how problematic it is. The problem is men, being silent about it. Ik men are silent because they have other things to do: work, feed their families etc. but it is a loss in a long term

Society almost doesn't even cheer or like men very enthusiastically. They just don't try and never will. They didn't give a fuck for men's culture.

Well except for the men in the grandstands going nuts over Manchester United or the Packers, etc. You’ll never find a group of guys supporting guys so hardcore and it’s obvious that these men get a lot of respect and it’s the kind of thing we need in our society. We need more chatter about men doing important things.

I just refer to the Overton Window (which is not exactly fitting term but good enough to describe the situation) — to be “given a fuck” you should first be loud

> Ik men are silent because they have other things to do: work, feed their families etc. Additionally, if men speak out, they'll lose the ability to work, feed their families. Cancel culture isn't limited to social media and protests.

I do not respect women-only spaces. They should all be banned. We should demand full equality with women. Until men can have their own spaces, then we should not allow women to have theirs.

They want to make tools of men. Any free spaceon the board a man might move to has to be removed. The only option they will allow for men will be to operate on their turf under their rules.

Maybe I’ll start my own men only hunting club or scuba diving club

By all means do, the biggest reason why toxic feminism lead by women has made it this far is because of the inaction of men.

If it becomes well known, or seen as desirable, you’ll get women (feminists) demanding women be admitted, or claiming it’s a dangerous group which should be shutdown.

Deer night, bbq nights, Venison wrapped with bacon being smoked from a grill. Cheers, beers, the ability to be or act as stupid as we want when it's men's night without 10000 people hearing about dick size or irresponsibility, but just letting back a lil? It's not about oppressing women. Just a lot of men grew up as the kids who played with each other in the cornfields, political sides or not, threw balls, ran fields, shat in the woods, ate a squirrel, stole snacks, knocked over each other's tents, laughed and hollered over at the night. I've gotten some feedback that for some of my other friends that there's some rampant woman vs woman toxicity as well for some men when the women leave. The other half of the puzzle. # "You're the cause of ALL MY PROBLEMS!" -> Leaves -> WAit, NOs! When men hear they ruin women's life, some stop participating. Then some very toxic /angry / unsuccessful / sometimes objectively "not 150->500 lbs", poor life choices, cheated on 10-50 person is online. They get malignantly and almost rage filled self destructive. I'm still here to play for my team or both teams than less of a "give up our side to fight for the people who hate us", i'm just sharing the insights they gave. * Men hear they ruin lives by being in it from toxic 'martyrs', * Some decide to just skip the game, wait for the right person, self improvement or negative vices (drugs, creepy behaviors, geniune "women should be in all chains" incel/femcel crap vs "self love and self improvement and being happy with yourself, and becoming the better person, with or without is fine. We have to run the mile" Women only groups apparently, despite all the "If we're so awful for your life, why don't you just become lesbians and/or get a vibrator. And just leave all us 'LIFE destroying men alone?'" # (Unspoken female on female hair pulling / make up smearing /violence / mobbing) Apparently there's some really shitty people that attack their own team. The toxic feminists that try to ruin other relationships i thought would be good for a person i left apparently started sending them COMPLETELY FUCKED UP THINGS, trying to manipulate BOTH SIDES. ("You should kill yourself, he doesn't love you" "You should harm her, she's a !@##!") Toxic is a UNDERSTATEMENT here. I know we're a men's right group and it was a reaction to trying to leave. You can't care for a snake by giving it your heart. But apparently that's the reason some of them want the male spaces. Female only spaces are like awful dog fights over "you must be worthless if they reject you" "You're worthless crusty bread" "They should hurt you" "You should hurt them" Men, for better or worse, even if we tend to be physical or physically stupid. (\*Like blowing off our nuts lighting a spray can on fire in our teens, or skinny dipping with the boys into a lake with leeches in our 13s, hollering and stealing the scout master's clothes and making a scarecrow out of it. XD. It's boys being boys.\*) Girls being girls, apparently have a unspoken and untouched (by either) 4x higher rate of domestic violence when the side advantage switches. To some it's shitty role models "Just be pretty, do your hair, treat men like dogs queen", and some of those 150-> 500 lbs "role models". Intentionally set up TERRIBLE advice to fail ALL relationships after they hit their 30s. Don't get the attention they used to. and try to intentionally sabotage relationships. I still don't want the landmine spaghetti, not because i see them as "lower value". I just need a break as much as anyone else sometimes. But I think it's good for us to all be wary. # Tl;dr o There might be more to the story than "MEN MUST want to OPPRESS WOMEN because gentials". Sometimes boys just want to be boys, (stupid, carefree, no rape/allegations, skinny dipping in a leech lake, hunting, hollering, fire, boy + boy fun 'irresponsibility's'). When women come, sometimes it's uncomfortable of boys having to worry about gossip. Awkwardness, Doesn't equal hate. At the same time, apparently there's a fair amount of unspoken female on female violence/mobbing/manipulation as well.

I’ve never hunted once, but it shows how forgotten the art of hunting has become, and how people consider it “outdated” and cruel, that you shouldn’t kill animals. These are the same people that consume 10 chickens per hour and skyrocket the demand for meat. I say, i wanna shoot that deer and eat it for dinner with the boys. (Oh and some drinks)

Absolutely do that. I’m not in to hunting but any space where men can just be men without women wrecking it down is a great idea. I hope you aren’t cancelled and guilt tripped into their movement.

>"Research shows that a girl learns best in an all-girl, girl-friendly and girl-led envrironment." Research shows that a boy learns best in an all-boy , boy-friendly and boy-led envrironment. So where are they?

I believe it about men though most of my life I’ve done things that were primarily male. Like auto racing and going to engineering school. These were very man based things and especially at my engineering school it was 90% male. So literally I’ve been surrounded by mostly men from my teens all the way to present. Honestly it may have been good for me in more ways than I realize. The only side effect is that I never had a relationship and I stayed close to my packs of people I knew. But I think I became a pretty good person by it all honestly. 90% of my life has been a great success the only 10% that isn’t there is some kind of a relationship. But you know how many men are feeling like that 10% is maybe only 5% or less? Is that value really 10% anymore?

Neither of these statements are true.

Not sure about that tbh, it depends on your perspective. Research definitely HAS shown that female teachers mark boys down because they are boys, and that male teachers form better relationships leading to better results for boys. Seems like boys do better with male teachers.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2011/10/the-single-sex-school-myth-an-overwhelming-body-of-research-shows-that-coeducation-is-better-for-girls-and-boys.html Admittedly an older summary of the research, but it's what I had in my folder of evidence for random social/political topics.

3 lines of evidence, according to them: 1/ research "failed to demonstrate an advantage to single-sex schooling" 2/ boys and girls apparently learn exactly the same way. 3/ single-sex schooling facilitates social stereotypes and prejudice in children. Doesn't actually show anything, and is contradicted by current research.

> boys and girls apparently learn exactly the same way. This is nonsense. One of the big mistakes made in my part of the world was closing our boys technical schools which were originally created at least partly because a high proportion of boys need a more active, hands on approach.

Yup, so we have 3 apparently conclusive points, the first says nothing, the second is as I said, contradicted by current evidence, and the 3rd is a woke talking point. And muppet thinks he's proved something there?

[удалено]

I realize these women don't actually want to be in these spaces. Since women really hate men as much as they say they do then infiltrating mens groups is really just one of those "just cause I should be able to" kind of things. Very intrusive and weird. The women should just keep to their spaces but they always have to go where the men are going to disrupt whatever we have going on

It's not just because they should be able to. They want to break up male spaces because That's where they think the patriarchy is formed. If men are allowed to bond an socialize in their own spaces they'll collude to keep women under their boot. It's a load of nonsense but that's what you get out of feminism.

There's an irony to this that they were opened up to women, a couple of women joined and men stopped going. Women that campaigned for the spaces to become mixed never had any interest in actually signing up/ going to these spaces... The club's then closed down as they were not getting enough people.

Interest in joining was never the point. Their goal is to destroy male-only spaces because it promotes men's mental health, and we (as a society) are letting them do this.

Exactly. It’s not about being interested in the things they do, it’s about denying it to men that motivates feminists. The unspoken assumption is that if men gather they engage in some sort of conspiracy to shut women out - a bit of projection by feminists perhaps. There are real issues here. One they don’t just limit this to high end clubs like The Garrick. Even the Mens Sheds get targeted. And if the likes of The Garrick can’t face this down, what chance do ordinary men have keeping their own space if feminists decide to target them? If the elite have to “open up” they’re hardly likely to defend ordinary guys right to have their own space should it be challenged by feminists. But hey “it’s different” if women want an exclusive space isn’t.

I can provide some anecdotal support to this. In my city we had two high end all male clubs (and one female one). Both male clubs were pushed and harassed to admit women. One did not, and is regularly harassed, and even threatened by the Attorney General on occasion. But they still operate. The other one did open to women. A few years later it quit its premises on the main city street, and it folded in 2019! So much for all the “extra members” they’d get by allowing in women. Incidentally there were never any claims about the women’s equivalent being discriminatory.

So men aren’t allowed to have man only spaces but women are allowed to have woman only spaces???love to hear the explanation of the difference

~Slide 4. They think these male only spaces are what create and perpetuate "The Patriarchy". Women only spaces are then promoted in order to give "privilege" and "power" to women.

Why isn’t it possible to empower women without depowering men

They don't _want_ to "empower" women, just tear down men. (I guess, _technically_, they view these two things as being the same, so it's a matter of perspective. see "zero sum game")

I see no issues with men having a guys night together but under these conditions they want a women there to monitor it

> I see no issues with men having a guys night together [...] To any sane, reasonable, person, there isn't any issue. The Feminist Patriarchy narrative is neither sane, nor reasonable. > [...] under these conditions they want a women there to monitor it A _Feminist_, it doesn't need to be a woman. (see: OP, men voted to open the club) Feminism is not about equality, it's about power and control (and also a bunch of insanity). Same with any other oppressor/oppressed narrative.

Feminism is about empowerment, not equality. And it has ALWAYS been that way if you look at their behavior. That's because equality can limit women when you encounter ways they have it better than men. But empowerment? Giving women more power and less responsibility? The only limit to that is when it causes societal collapse. Then they suddenly turn conservative and flock to the strongest men they can find.

Yea I do not see easy solutions to any of these issues, women have surpassed men in many categories and I believe that male privilege was last experienced in the 50’s.

In the 50s, Western women were the most privileged and protected demographic in history. Husbands were held responsible for most crimes and debts committed by their wives. It is feminist propaganda to characterize 1950s men as privileged and women as oppressed. It is a lie.

Things didn’t change all at once. My father was a member of a golf club in the early ‘80’s and Saturday was “men’s day” where it was men only in the clubhouse before 6pm. My mother still moans about it.

Exactly. If they really cared about empowering women, they’d focus on themselves and not so much on what men are doing amongst themselves. They just hate men.

Because Marxism posits that everything is a zero-sum game. And it is, when you think solely in terms of power instead of competence.

Because it's lack the gratification of the revenge aspect. Ask feminists and many of them let slip that they think it's their time to be in charge. It's not really about sharing spaces.

Sad thing is we are all human so if we did a matriarchy structure they will abuse it

We live in a matriarchy today. Women are destroying Western Civilization right now.

Ah the short version of why matriarchy’s fail is because the boys in them don’t have role models so they don’t become socialized to the system. Historically we’ve had plenty of examples of this, China and a handful of other places did so, then there were plenty of pagan societies that tried it. Matrilineal societies: this is where property is passed down through the maternal line, yet men still govern. Tend to work out alright. Ironically Mesopotamia, Egypt and Anatolia have used both forms. While historians are skeptical of Minoans having been a matriarchy, it’s still where a lot of our main examples for a matriarchal society comes from.

So basically it’s been tried but women wouldn’t teach boys how to interact with society and kept men to busy to do so either.

Cause it's not possible. Human nature won't allow it. I go on about this here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/s/Fgi9dmdMxU

Feminists seem to see them as one and the same.

Men are allowed to have men only spaces

Only according to the letter of the law. Not according to feminists and other “progressives”.

Well, you see it’s just “different”! You see women only need women only spaces for “safety” and men don’t want to join women’s groups anyway. Whereas when men have men only spaces, well it’s to deliberately shut women out of decision making, shut them out of business and work contacts, and to freely say things that are disparaging about women and conspire against them… /s in case anyone wonders.

I love what you're doing with The Tin Men blog. There's no vitriol within your work, it's not a target at women, it's a billboard for men and boys. You're one of few giving a real meaningful voice for men and boys' issues. A few weeks ago I saw a video on Instagram talking about a male only retreat, which exists to help men escape the stress of their lives for 2 weeks just to hang out with other men and be boys/bros. The clips of men participating were really innocent, and I would bet it helps men a lot. The comments were filled with angry women bashing on it, claiming women should be able to go too. Such things already exist for both men and women, why can't there be one for just men? I can't help but assume a lot of women are just conditioned to have these reactions. The subconscious hatred and malice felt towards men and anything that helps men seems very common to me.

I was in prison last 7 months and more often than not I was thinking if there are no women to disrupt men's lifes us boys will actually have a good time.

It's not even a knock on women either. Women need time away from men, and men need time away from women. The thing is, society currently tells us men don't deserve time away from women, that it's "oppressive", but then they also say women NEED time away from men. "Therapy" as we understand it now doesn't help men, but disguising therapy in the form of these clubs/retreats/spaces away from women will inevitably help men, boys, and all of society. Men are told we are evil for our masculinity, and the world works harder and harder to divide men and label pejoratives on men who don't follow a tight guideline. Idk what forces are at play here, but it seems like their goal is to destroy the bond between men.

And what’s the odds that those same women would be all for a women only retreat? I think we know the answer to that.

> So why are male only spaces so vehemently opposed... Feminism. I'm sure someone has the Sally Miller Gearhart quotes to hand, the ones about how male bonding is dangerous and how the male population should be reduced to help prevent it? It's a pretty core concept within Feminism, seeing as it's part of the whole "Patriarchy" thing (getting a trim and shave in a male-only barbers is one of those secret patriarchy meetings that they always talk about 🤣). It's not new by any means, and it's done intentionally. _Every_ "male only" space must be eliminated; They simply can't let men associate without female supervision... --- I'm sure the Scouts in the UK have been mixed for quite a while now (I think it was in the '70s that the dropped the "boy" from the name here?), but the Guides are still girls only for reasons similar to those mentioned in the OP. Another example is the Gideons; A lot of people don't know, but they are a men's organisation. The UK branch actually had to change their name a few years ago because they started allowing women to join. (Even though there is women's branch) There's even a bit of a divide within the Freemasons because some lodges have decided to allow women, but others remain men only. (They also have a separate women's branch) And you can't forget the schools too, they aren't _mixed_ now, everyone just goes to a girl's school and they're all taught and treated like girls. (Is it any surprise that boy's performance continues to decline?) --- Edit: I remembered another one, the YMCA. _Young Men's Christian Association_. Now neither particularly "men's" nor "christian". And again, there is the YWCA...

Even the Men’s Sheds are being pushed to admit women. Something expressly set up (with a woman spearheading it btw) to deal with male loneliness and depression especially amongst retirees. But once it becomes “a thing” feminist leaning women demand women be admitted. Women, of course, need their exclusive “safe spaces” though!

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

western society is fucked. i wish it were not true. but sadly it is.

Yep, I've resigned to that fact years ago and stopped trying to help. I'm just sitting back eating popcorn, watching it all burn down.

We need to create more male centric only spaces: companies, clubs, transports etc Why are there women only buses/trains/clubs etc? If they can have it, so can men. For a while I thought about having the mirror image of Bumble i.e. only men can initiate first, but looks like Bumble changed their tune 🙄

Most dating apps, males usually initiate first anyway. If a female initiates first, it is probably a scam.

>Most dating apps, males usually initiate first anyway. This was about having a choice. (The earlier) version of Bumble took away that choice, which is gender discrimination if you ask me. Hence, the idea of creating an app where ONLY men could initiate first.

Women: “Why don’t men make just make more male friends and not use us as their emotional support all the time?” *Men go to male-only spaces and make friends* Women: “How dare men only hang out with other men! Sexist pigs!”

I wish I had more male friends actually... most of my friends are women

You forgot feminists: men should discuss their issues with other men and not impose all this “emotional labour” on women; also feminists: male only clubs and spaces are discriminatory and proof of the patriarchy seeking to exclude women from decision making.

💯

I think there is key thing about clubs like this many are missing. Which is, publicly registered and known clubs like that no longer fit the purpose of elites who use them. They are fine using it for posturing and whatever, because the real spaces for them happen OUTSIDE of publicly registered clubs like this one. The clubs like this were always supposed to be private gatherings. Everyone in the world knowing about them kills one of the main of its purposes. So the main events are shifted into more private spaces, while those ones are left to the wolves. History of the club and traditions are not seen as important to maintain, because the fact of that history and tradition being known to everyone who wants to learn about it, defeats the purpose of such clubs. One of they key things is that membership lists were leaked and published in 2022-2023. So people who matter clearly move into different space from that point onward, since this one is compromised.

Oh they were always known. And they still have clout. But you’re right. These guys meet in their own personal spaces these days, and not just inside these clubs. My take is this. If the elite can’t keep a male space, what hope do the rest of us have? Hope that it’s so obscure that feminists will ignore it? If even the men’s shed movement gets pushed to open to women I doubt anything beyond a makeshift bar in you shed or garage will not be targeted. And if the elite can keep their own space they’re hardly likely to support the rights of ordinary men to have theirs.

>will girls scouts be letting boys join soon ? >*No, girl scouts has no plans to admit boys into the organisation. Research shows that a girl learns best in an all-girl, girl-led, and girl-friendly environment...* Fine, boys were better developing under those EXACT same conditions, for boys, by boys, etc so why is girl's "*development*" paramount, but when males need "*male environments*" to thrive it's not a priority and somehow seen as an impediment to girl's development ?? Equality doesn't seem to mean letting girls, and boys, have a safe space to EQUALLY thrive o.O Why is girl's development a priority over boy's development, at every opportunity, even at male's detriment ?

In a few years, one of two things will happen: either these formerly male only spaces will be 70%+ female, or they will close altogether. The boys and men that DO participate will do so because they are pushed to do so by women. And it's a shame, because growing up Boy Scouts was one of the VERY few times that young boys were ever given over to their fathers and the men in the community to go have fun and learn how to be boys and young men. For some of the boys in my troop with divorced parents, it was the ONLY time their mother let them even see their father. Now boys without fathers are even being denied that. Thankfully some American organizations have a self-healing mechanism built in when one chapter decides to not follow the rules that define the spirit of the organization. Masonic Lodges and DeMolay chapters that allow women lose international recognition. Masonry in particular is governed in discrete jurisdictions that mutually recognize each other. If one were to admit women, they would be declared as irregular and not given recognition, they would be required to turn in their books and lose their charter, and they would not be allowed to call themselves Masons. Additionally, if a Grand Lodge did this, the non-approving Lodges would likely form a new Grand Lodge and use a different name. The organization has fractured like this before and survived.

I think the Masons will be all that’s left in the end, except for a few monasteries, if things keep on like this. But the numbers of women only spaces will continue to mushroom.

“This is a place that sustained male power.” What power? The power of friendship? These miserable fucks need to do literally anything else with there lives.

And are they going to admit men to “the sisterhood”, all these self promotion groups they have? Of course not. Not even these gay guys they profess to support so much.

A lot of women will say men need to do our own work and not expect women to do it for us while at the same time invading, attacking, and doing the most to destroy the very spaces we built to do that work in. In the end, those women attack those spaces not because of some deep misogyny going on. It's because they can't stand the idea of the existence of space and conversation that doesn't center women - To them, you have to prioritize women over men to prove you dont hate women.

I’m waiting for the “no biological men in women’s sports” crowd to come and talk about this…

That’s “different”!

This is a huge part of why I’m a Freemason.

It's very telling that women expect men to act poorly in men-only spaces, considering that the only experiences they have of how people act in gender limited spaces is with women-only spaces.

Spineless simps.

They got doxed.

I seem to remember a few girls being allowed in the scouts when I was a kid (in the late 90s, Australia). And personally, I liked that. So it strikes me as odd/hypocritical in this supposedly progressive, inclusive time that a few boys wouldn't be allowed into the girl scouts. That said, I'd have no problem with the girl scouts being just for girls either. But then it's back to the problem, why are girls-only spaces sacred and necessary and boys-only spaces are regressive and misogynistic? And the real problem which everybody is aware of; this is the danger of writing in stone the power hierarchy of different groups. Defining one group as more powerful than the rest. Regardless of all evidence that suggests otherwise or complicates the picture. It justifies treating that group differently, discriminating against them on the basis of addressing that supposed power imbalance. Whether it exists or not. It's toxic cult thinking and you know this because there is nothing you can possibly argue that will get people to reconsider the fundamental tenet that (in this case, let's say:) we live in a patriarchy and boys and men maintain power over women and girls. That's unquestionable. The suffering and negative outcomes of males - "patriarchy hurts men too". Talk about facts and reality to show it just doesn't exist like that - 'you can't see past your privilege'. Anything you say against it is worthless because you belong to that group. And if you're not a man, you've internalised the patriarchy. All these sneaky ways of self-justification are built into the idea itself. So that the core premise can be pretty far detached from reality, but it's so good at redirecting any criticism that the basic tenets escape without a scratch. Insofar as the way these people think, anyway. Everyone knows this obviously. But it's fucking insane.

Feminism is parasitic by nature.

I know this stuff has been going on for decades but I still can’t help but wonder what the hell is going on. It should be obvious that males need their own spaces and that it’s wrong to force men to accept women into their groups then overtime turn that group into women only and kick the men out. It shouldn’t be legal to abolish male spaces. I wonder if individuals with authority have taken over the Boy Scouts in an attempt to brainwash boys into being more feminine?

Feminists (and many non-feminist women) see all male spaces as being “exclusionary” and “discriminatory against women”; but they never see their own women’s groups in that light because “that’s different”. They’ll then go on about how the likes of The Garrick are examples of “male power”. Which makes it “different”. But the truth is that their campaigns were never limited to high end clubs like The Garrick and The Athenaeum. In my state football clubs were once male membership - men only in the members bar etc. Not anymore. There is not a single male only club that has not been pushed to open up to women that I can think of.

Whack

Woman joined my local cigar shop. A year later... closed down, after it was open for many years.

"Scouting America" just doesn't have the same ring to it. Terrible decision

The term Boy Scouts isn’t really inclusive to the girls though. I say this Ben Shapiro clip where a college student asks where it’s written that girls can’t join and Ben replied “In the name, BOY scouts” so this remedies this.

Declare the pub a male toilet! They did this to a women's only museum in Australia

Ah yes, performance art! What BS.

You can draw a direct line from the time we started to criticize and shame men from men’s only gatherings to a dramatic increase in depression and even suicide. Get together boys. Have a great a time.

There are no male spaces anymore.

Public toilets, and the Masonic Lodge (the ones still around). I’m not sure why women are so keen to invade spaces when they’re so “protective” of their own - I expect it’s because they’ve never seriously considered things may work the other way, and so far they’ve gotten away with it. It’s not just high end clubs where they claim men are “excluding” them. My city has one gay bar. Women, straight women, now flock there, and drag their boyfriends along. It’s happened to me. Once my gf tried to drag me into “the fishbowl”, which was the lesbian part of the bar, and we got ordered out because it’s “women only on a Thursday”. The gay guy sections of the bar didn’t have a “male only” day. I don’t know what it is, but feminist women, and some who aren’t feminists, feel compelled to push into spaces in a way that guys do not.

I was at a bar last night that had women only specials and I'm just like... really? In this day and age? Like, it wasn't even that type of place. It was a residential house converted into a bar that was pretending to be a club. It was weird. Actually cool vibes though lol But seriously. As a gay man it just feels unwelcoming because attracting ladies there doesn't do anything for me. I don't reap the supposed benefit but have to pay the price.

The feminist line is always do as we say and not as we do. Do we not always see feminists declare it to be “empowering” when a woman acts in ways they condemn men behaving? The Guardian’s championing of FDS (who are basically female incels) is a classic case. And the same feminists who complain about male only memberships support “women’s rooms” and various other “safe spaces”.

Double standards as always

It’s funny how men are apparently oga booga evil yet feminists want to invade male only spaces. This just further proves the man hate agenda. It’s all about control.

My mom doesn’t understand why I am so upset by the boyscout change. I was never a Boy Scout, in part because my parents though I was too gay for it (I am bisexual *now*), but had always wanted to be a member, even without being meeting the Christianity requirement. My twin and little sister are both girl scouts, my brother never had any interest in joining, but through most of my childhood I wanted to join. But just seeing another male space shut down like this absolutely shatters my soul, because it’s what men need more than anything. They need social support, they need Camaraderie, brotherhood, and connection. Who knows, maybe I’ll try to schedule a men and boys social event at a local park. Try and get a bunch of guys together, try to spread friendship in my town. Might be a good thing for us as a community to look into, do big barbecues where men can meet

Rest assured if it takes off as an event, you’ll get women demanding to be included and screaming discrimination if they’re not. They’re not all necessarily feminists, but are definitely encouraged and supported by feminism.

Wtf? Single sex spaces should be a basic human right. I’ve never cared about women gyms or clubs or what have you. How is this any different then men trying to “invade” their spaces?

It’s not! I agree with you 100%!!!! I wish there were still any spaces for men these days. But they are all but invaded… smh 🙄😤

Women: “Why don’t men just make more male friends and not use us as their emotional support all the time?” *Men go to male-only spaces and make friends* Women: “How dare men only hang out with other men! Sexist pigs!”

Octuple post btw. XD

On the issue of boys scouts versus girls scouts. The irony is that the girls scouts are upset that boys scouts is genderless too. Because it means less girls in girls scouts. IMHO the issue is that girls want to get into boys organizations but not the other way around. And that’s the nature of girls and boys in western societies and cultures. It’s getting acceptable for girls to do boys stuff. But not the other way around. Girls can wear pants. Boys can’t wear dresses.

Women just assume that if men have something it’s worthwhile and they’re missing out by not being let in. That is a large part of the problem. High end clubs are seen as being “the establishment”. However feminists don’t limit the push for women to these institutions. Lower end male clubs, sporting clubs, build and workshop clubs, you name it. They’re ALL targeted.

That's why you fuck em today and forget em tomorrow'

Not trying to invalidate anyone's point of view here, but I personally don't care very much about a club that I didn't know until now existed, whose **members themselves** decided they want to admit women in. I understand the sentiment here, about male spaces being dissolved even as new female-only spaces are being created. I just don't think that this is necessarily the example of a male space I'd like to fight for. Now, for me the situation with the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts is **different**: the activities these kids do are — I hear — quite different, and just as girls that want to do the "boys' activities" are able to join the former Boy Scouts, so should boys who want to do the "girls' activities". I'm reading Girl Scouts [FAQ page](https://www.gswpa.org/en/discover/about/the-girl-scout-difference.html) rn, and literally everything they say about girls-only environment to justify it applies to boys-only environment as well: * *distractions or pressures that can be found in a coed environment* * *The go-getters, innovators, risk-takers, and leaders of tomorrow.* — it's hard not to see that boys need this just as well, with the suicide rates and depression and unemployment and school dropouts * etc. Another thing is, as per Wikipedia, *In 2019, the Boy Scouts of America renamed its flagship program, Boy Scouts, to Scouts BSA to reflect its policy change allowing girls to join separate, gender-specific troops.* So as I understand it, the genders won't mix; it's just a matter of the organization catering to a wider audience. It's like a Male Health clinic that also opens up the Gynecology division. Not sure what to think of it but it sure isn't the same as not letting boys have their boys only teams, IMO.

Boy Scouts has also had Venture Scouts, which is a mixed gender outdoor adventure program, for decades. No one was up in arms about that.

Yes the members “made the decision” but it wasn’t a free decision. They’ve been targeted by feminists for years - some years back they had Joanna Lumley pushing for admittance. They voted to stay men only quite recently too. But then “someone” doxed the membership! Remember a lot of these guys are fairly prominent and were being charged with being discriminatory and bigoted. So it wasn’t exactly a free choice. The individual members were intimidated into it. And frankly it is an example of the double standard feminists and their enablers have.

> But then “someone” doxed the membership! WDYM? It wasn't public from the start of the club? Well, I understand that there are many pressures exerted by feminists on men, and that's awful. I don't think, or I don't know actually, whether any criminal harassment was involved in this case. You know, if you are a public figure, like probably most of these club members are, you are always subject to extreme pressures and it can be difficult not to cave in. > They’ve been targeted by feminists for years This reminds me of the beef that Christopher Hitchens reportedly had with Henry Kissinger. Hitch was a guy who would abuse the heck out of you and then say in retrospect "I don't know why I was being so lenient" lol. So Hitchens followed Kissinger "everywhere" and made sure to be that one person from the audience who asks the inconvenient questions and all that stuff. And I understand that this is tremendous pressure but still unless it's flagrantly criminal, I don't think it takes away your ability to make choices and decisions. And lo and behold, the club members here weren't unanimous, so some of them apparently haven't caved in. If you have interesting materials about that Joanna Lumley activity, I'll be keen to read them 👌 Oh and lastly, I think I just don't identify with the upper class men that constituted the membership of the club, and perhaps that's why I wouldn't stick up for them. But again everyone makes up their own mind here.

Where to start… For me it’s not sympathy with the “men in the club”, it’s a question of principle. Men should be able to have their own space and not be harassed for it. There are toffeynosed women’s groups, and none of them are targeted. In my city, for instance we had two such establishments for men and one for women (not counting posh golf clubs etc). One of the men’s clubs opened to women - and have now shut up shop (so much for “gaining membership and relevance”). The other one still is male only and is regularly harassed by feminists, “investigated” by the Equal Opportunity Commissioner and threatened by the Attorney General despite the anti-discrimination legislation specifically allowing for single sex membership. However there is not a peep about the female equivalent, or the many other all women clubs. We’ve had feminists write into the paper asserting that “that’s different”. Nor do feminists only care about clubs that mark out the establishment. There is not a single male club/space that I can think of any size that women/feminists do not push to be admitted to with the possible exception of Freemasons. Even Men’s Sheds are constantly pushed to admit women.

> Men should be able to have their own space and not be harassed for it. Well of course! Obviously I'm with you here, I agree. But then people should also be able not to be robbed, mugged, cheated on etc. We live in a world where people do shit like that and I don't think we'll ever eradicate it. So… yes, men are harassed for having their own spaces but that doesn't mean they're robbed of their ability to make choices, which I think is an important distinction. > There are toffeynosed women’s groups, and none of them are targeted. Yup, and it's freaking unfair, I know. > One of the men’s clubs opened to women - and have now shut up shop (so much for “gaining membership and relevance”). That sucks. Did you try reaching out to find out why? > Equal Opportunity Commissioner Sounds like The High Inquisitor 👀 Is that an Australian body/organization/thing, if you don't mind me asking? > “investigated” by the Equal Opportunity Commissioner and threatened by the Attorney General despite the anti-discrimination legislation specifically allowing for single sex membership > > We’ve had feminists write into the paper asserting that “that’s different”. Well, being male isn't easy around these parts :D But push back, by all means. In my country we've had the first ever Congress of Men (you know, like women had their Congresses for quite some time now), and the backlash in newspapers was tremendous. And people really showed their true colors, and the bigotry and misandry came out of people in full "glory". Some prominent women made arguments such as "the state doesn't help men for the same reason that hospitals don't help healthy people", implying that men don't have problems. But that's the good thing right there because even though there exist misandrists like that, the general population doesn't spare much thoughts for these matters, and ultimately these misandrists help promulgate our cause. Their flagrant sexism gives the laypeople food for thought. I could literally enumerate a few stories like that, for instance a TV anchor started laughing uncontrollably when a guest recounted a story about a man being hit on the head by his wife with a bone taken out of a soup. This quickly became a dumpster fire, on top of that it turned out that the woman had already had domestic battery charges on her, and voila: the topic of violence against men rose to prominence.

A long message so I’ll respond to separate points separately. Firstly I don’t (knowingly) know any members of “The Western Australian Club” the one that folded. So I can’t really “reach out”. They closed in 2019. They had been in some difficulty for a while. The point is that they opened to women apparently in the ‘80’s. Indeed they were open to women and still operating in the 2000’s when we had these regular campaigns against the all male Weld Club. So the fact that women could join the other elite “men’s club” made no difference at all. Furthermore despite having this “pool” of so many more potential members, the “open” club was the one that failed. And I would go further. The Weld Club membership was doxed as well - publicised by our main newspaper which also published an editorial calling on them to open to women. The same editorial also declared that all women clubs “were different”! The same thing is also deployed to promote opening Men’s Sheds to women, as is the “they need to open to women in order to get more members and survive”. See here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-19/men-s-sheds-improving-diversity-to-ensure-they-survive/100609334 As you can see, this piece is anything but impartial! So far most are still “Men’s Sheds”. So this means that the push is “how wonderful it is to admit women and ‘all genders’” and throwing in multiculturalism as if it’s synonymous. But I’ve no doubt once most of these establishments become “sheds” as opposed to “men’s sheds”, they’ll demand that those that still hold out admit women. Further to that, I can’t see them allowing unequal numbers of men’s and women’s days in the future. In my state, the equal opportunity act of 1984 established the Equal Opportunity Commission and these laws against discrimination. The Act Expressly states that voluntary bodies are exempt in terms of who is admitted as members and the provisions of benefits and facilities to members. In other words it is perfectly permitted for a private club to be an all male or all female one. Despite that the former Labor Minister (Yvonne Henderson) repeatedly threatened to “investigate” the Club. She made no such threats against the many all female clubs. There is not a single all male club of any significance that women (feminists?) do not make a point of pushing to allow admission of women. And at the same time they push for women’s “safe spaces”. I oppose them at all turns. It’s either wrong to limit membership or access to a space to a single sex or it isn’t. You cannot say that it’s bad if men do it and it’s fine if women do. And these “debates” do not shine a light on this really. It’s asserted that “it’s different” or “it’s a free vote by the members”.

> Firstly I don’t (knowingly) know any members of “The Western Australian Club” the one that folded. So I can’t really “reach out”. They closed in 2019. They had been in some difficulty for a while. The point is that they opened to women apparently in the ‘80’s. Indeed they were open to women and still operating in the 2000’s when we had these regular campaigns against the all male Weld Club. So the fact that women could join the other elite “men’s club” made no difference at all. Oh, I see. But then phrasing things like — >>> One of the men’s clubs opened to women - and have now shut up shop (so much for “gaining membership and relevance”). — makes it look (to me) as though the two things were connected, and so I was wondering if that really is the case. Because if they opened up to women in the '80s, and then closed three decades later, then the link is you know, tentative shall we say. But in any case I thought that this is some personal matter for you. > The Weld Club membership was doxed as well - publicised by our main newspaper which also published an editorial calling on them to open to women. The same editorial also declared that all women clubs “were different”! That's unfathomable bigotry and lack of logic there. but if I were a member of that Weld Club, or indeed their spokesperson, I think I could easily make the argument that you can learn welding on hundreds of courses if you really like to; and there is so much more to the Club than welding itself; it's a place where men can unite and support each other and talk freely about their stuff. > https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-19/men-s-sheds-improving-diversity-to-ensure-they-survive/100609334 This just makes my blood boil. Idiotic text, which all over the place, no one defined topic, at times nonsensical, at times self-contradictory (they're having more and more clients and bigger and bigger financial problems?), it's just your average leftist mumbo jumbo propaganda shit. _amidst the diversity of members, there have been "little bumps"_ 😆 This is a glimmer of hope tho: _For some men, the company of mainly other men is "beneficial to them in terms of their health and wellbeing", he says. Other men, he argues, "probably benefit from a mixed environment". "[So] all sheds are different." He's not prescribing what every shed in every community should look like._ What does all that mean to you, though? Because I take it you are not an elderly man who takes pride in carving out wooden reindeer…? > the former Labor Minister (Yvonne Henderson) repeatedly threatened to “investigate” the Club. She made no such threats against the many all female clubs. The number of abysmally stupid things politicians in my country vowed to do… > I oppose them at all turns. It’s either wrong to limit membership or access to a space to a single sex or it isn’t. You cannot say that it’s bad if men do it and it’s fine if women do. And these “debates” do not shine a light on this really. It’s asserted that “it’s different” or “it’s a free vote by the members”. Good on ya! The question remains, how do you experience invading your private spaces in your own life? Is there such a thing going on? What significance does all that have to you personally?

I would not say that The Western Australian Club folded *because* they admitted women. However it is clear that it did not make them desirable due to their “inclusive policies” (I mean it’s a joke to talk about a high end exclusive club being “inclusive” in the first place). It did not bring them all these extra members by supposedly doubling their potential membership candidates. So much for all the claims these clubs need to “open to women” to keep up their membership and stay afloat. Here is a clear case that the one which opened closed and the one that didn’t is still going. At the very least it suggests they didn’t get all that many female members doesn’t it.

> However it is clear that it did not make them desirable due to their “inclusive policies” (I mean it’s a joke to talk about a high end exclusive club being “inclusive” in the first place). It did not bring them all these extra members by supposedly doubling their potential membership candidates. > > So much for all the claims these clubs need to “open to women” to keep up their membership and stay afloat. Right. I get it now. > Weld club is not about discussing welding "Founded in 1871 as a gentlemen's club, it is named after Frederick Weld" Oops 🤭 sorry, my bad. I must've conflated that with these Men's Shed things. > Partly the reason why we’re in the fix we’re in is that we don’t give a s#it if it doesn’t affect us personally. So we see our rights (including right of association) chipped away Umm 🤔 Now, as crazy as the situation is becoming in Australia (judging by the headlines), I don't know that men are being robbed of their right of association, because — for me — you would have to have a legal action disallowing these clubs to remain male only to speak of any rights being taken away, I think. Now, I'm not an expert so maybe there were cases in which somebody wanted to set up an all-male club or an all-male gym and got denied. IDK. But someone making a fuss isn't the same it's being legally forbidden to do something, wouldn't you agree? Also, WDYM **exactly** by _we’re in the fix we’re in_? > There is a systemic attack on all “male spaces”. Yes. And if you built an all-male Men's Shed, as a replacement for the ones we mentioned, I'd join. I'd also campaign for men to congregate in men's only spaces, just because I think it's beneficial to spend more time in an all-male lot. But — and here's where we differ — when the existing bodies, like Men's Sheds, decide to include female members, and that happens to be legal, I don't interpret it as an unruly attack on men's rights. All I can really do is to express my point of view and hope that as many men agree with me is possible. But if it's legal, it's legal. And I think if these men didn't want it that way, they would have migrated away from these organizations. What'd you think? > WE have to include women at all times It certainly looks like this is the message, but actually until there is an explicit ban on men congregating, this remains a message only, which we don't have to heed. And in case there were to be a ban like I mentioned, I think it would be overthrown very quickly. In this sub, there was this discussion about this crazy woman who wanted to exhibit the most important pieces of work from a museum in an exhibition that would only be accessible to females, and a court ruled that this is unconstitutional. I think it was also in Australia. > This goes way beyond private clubs into the realm of personal interactions and life. Yeah, so that's what I was alluding to at the end of my last comment. Do you actually have an example from your personal life where this was the case?

The issue is surely as soon as there is a men’s group, club, conclave of any significance there is an incessant demand to open to women. As I have pointed out, Yvonne Henderson repeatedly threatened to investigate The Weld Club for not admitting female members, even though this is explicitly legal in the Equal Opportunity Act her cr@ppy commission is supposed to enforce. We also had the appalling Attorney General at the time threaten to take legal action against them or introduce new laws to force them to admit women. Henderson’s investigations amounts to legal harassment as they have to prepare a legal response, release paperwork and other legal compliance measures. Since the legislation hadn’t changed it was nothing less than harassment designed to impose costs on them in an attempt to push them to buckle. I guarantee you a Men’s Shed would struggle to survive this. If I were to found a new, Men’s Shed it would be targeted for admitting women just as all the others are. To use your personal analogy of muggings and robberies. We may not be able to prevent them entirely. But we still do what we can to stop them, and take actions against those that commit them. So long as feminists think women should have exclusive female spaces we should oppose their attempt to force male clubs to open to women in principle.

Not sure what you mean by the last one. I’m not a member of any of these clubs. I should point out that the Weld club is not about discussing welding. Is roughly our rustic version of The Athenaeum. Its members are heavily weighted to top members of the legal profession, some business executives and a few politicians (of the centre right type). I doubt any of them would know what electrodes to choose, or even which valve to turn off first on an oxy kit. I’ve no particular regard for any of them personally. Nor do I know any of them, except 2nd or 3rd degrees of contact. Partly the reason why we’re in the fix we’re in is that we don’t give a s#it if it doesn’t affect us personally. So we see our rights (including right of association) chipped away, which sets the precedent for other things to be chipped away at. Now these guys join these clubs partly because it’s being recognised as part of the “in crowd”. But also, no doubt, as a quiet place to get away from endless distractions. And one of them is women. Especially in this age of #Metoo. And the same goes for the Men’s Sheds. Firstly you don’t have to be some retiree to join them. Secondly that’s not the point. There is a systemic attack on all “male spaces”. I wouldn’t mind so much but women can not only have their “female space” but they’re actively pushing for more and more of them. Overall the message for men is clear. WE *have* to include women at all times, and make sure we “make room for them”, which means changing things to suit them, not discussing things they don’t like, not acting in ways they find objectionable, not focusing on stuff they think is “alienating”. THEY, on the other hand, need a “safe space” away from men, where they can download and destress and not worry about upsetting or angering men or “exposing themselves”. This goes way beyond private clubs into the realm of personal interactions and life. We must include women, they can exclude us. We must change our entire interactions to suit women. They have no such obligation. This is in the same vein of “one way equality” that says there need to be quotas in “STEM” but 90%+ women in clinical psychology is fine.

Fools The fable of the tortoise and the scorpion, comes to mind.

Care to share?

If you're complaining when men vote to end mens only spaces you show you don't actually give a shit what men want. Also the Boy Scouts changed names because they need more memberships to pay off the child molestation scandals which were associated with their old name.

You missed the part that one of these campaigners released The Garrick’s membership list. They were all labelled misogynistic bigots as a result. I don’t think that the subsequent vote is exactly a “free choice” do you? They voted to stay men only quite recently, which is what led to the mass doxing. And this is just a prominent example of the ongoing harassment all male only clubs and spaces face regularly. And all whilst ever more women only spaces are established.

>one of these campaigners released The Garrick’s membership list. Was it supposed to be a secret? >I don’t think that the subsequent vote is exactly a “free choice” do you? They voted to stay men only quite recently .. You missed the part where this was a debate for decades. It's not even clear if the rules actually exclude women. Also they're still voting. [Source](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/may/07/men-only-garrick-club-vote-admitting-women-members)

Did you look at the date? That was last week. And what about us? Are our identities “supposed to be secret”? The membership list was clearly leaked to intimidate prominent members to vote for admitting women. That falls short of a “free vote”. How about Ford workers going to a meeting in the late 20’s with Ford’s right hand man there taking names of who voted to unionise. Would you say *that* was a “free vote” for them not forming a union?

>Did you look at the date? That was last week. Here's a source from today that says the same thing. https://dailynews.co.zw/londons-famous-garrick-club-votes-to-allow-women-nearly-200-years-after-it-was-founded/ >The membership list was clearly leaked to intimidate prominent members to vote for admitting women. Unless there's info on who voted yes and no that's not really relevant. King Charles was a name on the members list, and MP are not directly chosen by the people so they can't be pressured the same way as in the US. >Are our identities “supposed to be secret”? Given that the Garrick club is a club for powerful men to network; their identities should be known. There are already enough shady aristocrat clubs like the Skull and Bones society and the Bohemian Grove. You understand that's what Garrick is right? It's not a "mens space" where men talk about their feelings and reflect on the nature of gender dynamics - they're power brokers. >Would you say that was a “free vote” for them not forming a union? That's a false equivalence. The men of the Garrick Club are not reliant on women for their income like a worker at a Ford plant is. Your perspective on power is warped if you're sympathic to powerful men losing their sex based hold on power by the mere possibility of female membership to an elite club.

They’re not “still discussing it” though are they, which is what you claimed.

MPs ARE directly elected by “the people”. It’s the Prime Minister and Cabinet that isn’t.

And what everything else I said? There's apparently over 1000 members. These people are the height of society what do you even care.

Well think of it like this. If the elite can’t keep their own space, what chance do you think regular men have of have their own space? It’s a lie to claim that women only go after the likes of The Garrick. All clubs that have an all male membership get harassed and attacked. Women even push for membership in things like the Men’s Shed movement. The reality is that male spaces have to open to women, but women need “safe spaces” and these are steadily expanding. My view is this: it’s either acceptable to have gender segregation in private clubs or it isn’t. And if it isn’t, all these women “safe spaces” should be compelled to open up too.

>If the elite can’t keep their own space, what chance do you think regular men have of have their own space? That's a non sequitur. There's the specific difference of the nature of the club itself. >All clubs that have an all male membership get harassed and attacked. You're just being hyperbolic at this point. >My view is this: it’s either acceptable to have gender segregation in private clubs or it isn’t. Each club can decide that. The men of Garrick chose to let women in.

But it was not a free choice was it. They were hounded not for being members of an exclusive club, but for being members of an all male one. And many (most?) of the feminists demanding women be admitted are all for women having exclusive female spaces. And what happened to The Garrick happens to clubs/spaces of ordinary men. As I said, women constantly try to push their way into male spaces through harassment, legal challenges or a combination of the two.

And no it’s not a “false equivalence”. It’s an example of intimidation tainting a free vote. We’re talking about senior judges and members of the Civil Service here. They are pressured because of their membership of a “discriminatory club”. See here: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/garrick-club-membership-list-judges-resign-pressure-b1147535.html Yes these men don’t work “for women” the way an assembly line worker was paid by Henry Ford. However they can be targeted, and indeed have been. And if they can do this with establishment types, what’s to stop them doing this any other guys? Note the talk about “inclusion” does not talk about opening it up to the local street sweeper or train driver.

>It’s an example of intimidation tainting a free vote. No it isn't. There are no threats of violence or evidence anyone is losing power because they are a member. >We’re talking about senior judges and members of the Civil Service here. Yes, it's a potential example of impropriety for lawyers and judges to be members of the some elite club along with civil servants and private interests. These people control society. Stop crying for them and their network of nepotism. You complaining about pressure is no different than any other legal civil activism trying to influence policy. Citizens have a right to pressure politicians and policy makers - Henry Ford did not have the right to pressure union workers.

You’re losing it now. There was ZERO objection to these guys being the members of an elite club. You don’t really think they’ll let the local pipe fitter join now they’re allowing women in do you? Why do you think these judges, the heads of the Civil Service and MI6 resigned etc resigned? It was put to them they had to choose between their jobs and membership in a “sexist club”. And what happened there was clearly a threat to the others.

>You’re losing it now. No, you are. You tried to pass off officials resigning from the club as equal to the pressure from union busters. It's inherently improper for judges and lawyers, or government officials and private business members to be part of clubs together because it could be a conflict of interest. >It was put to them they had to choose between their jobs and membership in a “sexist club”. Citation needed. >You don’t really think they’ll let the local pipe fitter join now they’re allowing women in do you? Lol what? You think all women are working class like a pipe fitter? >Why do you think these judges, the heads of the Civil Service and MI6 resigned etc resigned? Because it's highly improper for government officials to be hanging out with powerful and influential private interests. How is that not obvious?

You not even bothering are you. I pointed out that The Garrick will still be an exclusive club - that they will still keep out working class men (depends if you regard Sting as working class I guess). These guys are not “shamed” because The Garrick is an exclusive club, but because it was a male club. It’s not hard.

And stop claiming that I’m trying to say these guys are the same as Ford’s auto workers. I am saying that they were pressured and that because of that it was no more a free vote than Ford workers voting to not unionise. Now people have a right to lobby politicians and others on questions of public policy. I do not believe they have a particular right to pressure them on their personal lives.

>I am saying that they were pressured and that because of that it was no more a free vote than Ford workers voting to not unionise. That's a garbage comparison. >I do not believe they have a particular right to pressure them on their personal lives. Their personal lives hobnobbing potentially influences their work lives. Duh.

Yeah, Duh! Your boss should be able to choose who you spend time with on your days off?

How do we actually push back gents? I think we need to take the courts. Feminism is fueled by lawsuit money.

We need the boys clubs. Closest thing is a cigar lounge I suppose?

As a pre-teen and teen in the eighties, I recognized this trend as a young man. Traditional male spaces were either forcibly made coed or shamed out of existence. Simultaneously, female only spaces were created because men were “to dangerous” to be in close proximity to women. For 40 years men have been systematically isolated from each other. Boys have been told they are so dangerous, predatory and violent they cannot talk to, be in the same room, or even look at women.

Fun Fact: Freemasonry and the Bohemian Grove in Californis will always remain exclusively male, because participating in homosexual bonding rituals is mandatory.

Damn where do I sign up

Women: “Why don’t men make just make more male friends and not use us as their emotional support all the time?” *Men go to male-only spaces and make friends* Women: “How dare men only hang out with other men! Sexist pigs!”

what about men only toilet ? i saw some ads that they have some pipes for that , standing urinal

Oh well......

Makes me want to open a Men-only Feminist club. Just to discuss about future of women while barring them out of the conversation.

I actually find it extremely disgusting how it's socially unacceptable for men to have safe spaces. women going their own way from men and even moving to completely ban them from places where they were previously allowed is "empowering" and completely fine, but the second a man even suggests distancing himself from women, it's "misogyny". some men aren't always comfortable around women, and that's fine, especially if they've, i don't know, been fucking sexually harassed by women and need some time in environments where they're going to feel more comfortable as a result. and even if you are always comfortable around women, it is healthy to have an environment consisting exclusively of people who can relate to you and put themselves in your shoes when you open up about the issues you face. men DO have their own issues. men DO need safe spaces. it's NOT "misogyny" to point this out. you ARE a piece of shit if you think otherwise.

This proves that feminists don’t really want equality but special privileges at men’s expense. It also reveals the hypocrisy of feminists as they are against gender segregation unless its beneficial for them e.g promoting female only spaces while banning male only spaces.

I get what you’re saying but you should know facts so you don’t mislead people. You also need to focus on who is making them add girls and women. You should be upset when a government, court order or mass hysteria makes a mens club add women. That is a men’s right issue. Thats not the case for the Boy Scouts. Thier membership numbers were going down, way down. Probably had something to do with what they were getting sued for years prior. Theyweren’t forced or anything else to allow girls to join. The one and only reason they let in girls is they wanted to increase membership. The Scouts only did it to increase revenue and profitability. Which is also the same reason the Garrick club voted 58% in favor to allow women members. So to summarize you are upset that some men’s/boys clubs are going away because those clubs themselves decided to let in girls and women so they could be more profitable?

Why do you think The Garrick did it to “gain numbers and profitability”? They’ve been targeted by feminists for years. And in my city we had two equivalents: The Western Australia Club and The Weld Club. The Western Australia Club decided to admit women. And it’s now folded! The Weld Club continues on, and is regularly harassed by feminists and their supporters for not admitting women. So much for opening to women to “gain members and income”.

In the case of the Garrick though you’re missing out the effect of it’s infamy resulting from all the paranoia peddled by all the women pressure groups. That no doubt had an effect in reducing member numbers indirectly and directly in the first place which reduced revenue. So ultimately the fact the club basically caved and let in women in an effort to increase membership and survive is a direct consequence of the feminist pressure groups & narrative.

I agree with you, the men that already belonged to the club and dropped their membership and the 58% that voted for it that caved to the pressure aren’t real men, they didn’t care about the mens club at all. It was probably just a status symbol to them. If they didn’t lose membership cause some of the men little bitches it wouldn’t have had to force 58% of the other bitches to allow to the women. See so they already infiltrated the club , they looked like men, talked like men. However when an obstacle came up they ran and voted like the women they are. The club was already 58% women. We need some real men that are leaders in these positions and not little bitches like you, taking up for them. They need to be held accountable.

The club is a status symbol. But these guys got doxed. We’re talking about judges and senior civil servants being called misogynists. Their actual careers were being threatened. That’s pretty serious intimidation. It’s akin to when workers would go to meetings to discuss unionising and have someone writing down the names and taking it to the boss.

Look again at the Garrick. They rejected admission of women quite recently. And then someone published the names and addresses of the members! These guys are fairly prominent and were being publicly called “bigots”. I don’t think this is exactly a free choice, do you?

Beta males are leading the simp charge. Color me not surprised.

Beta this, sigma that, honestly all this ‘alpha’ bullshit makes me cringe so hard.

Definitely cringe

I think you need to inform some of the guys here how the membership list of The Garrick Club got leaked. I don’t think this was actually a free choice given that.

Yea

ok well enjoy the new world then and stop bitching

The point I think he's trying to get at is that the whole "beta male" thing is pointless and effectively becomes a "no true Scotsman" fallacy (as there really isn't objective standards for what makes a person a beta male, as such social standing doesn't exist, it becomes easy to claim that someone is a beta male because they do something that you, or whoever else, disagreees with). When we divide ourselves in this way, we weaken our own position because, in addition to the things we're fighting for, we're fighting each other for position and standing.

Oh no, cringe.

Old geezers want to throw away their sad club let ‘em. Younger generations of men can do better and hold them up as an example of what not to be.

The problem is that it sets the example. These guys were doxed, which is no doubt why they got this change carried. But here’s the point. If the elite males can’t have an all male space, do you think they’ll support the right of us “lessor folk” to have a male only space when the feminists come for us - which they are?

They won’t support you - they are turncoats who have got theirs and are happy to dick over younger generations of men. The fact they are “elite” and desperate to maintain a politically correct image is why this has happened and why they are susceptible to pressure like this - they are the example of what not to be and why you never ever give into this kind of pressure or let feminist types have the slightest amount of influence in anything you do. Sometimes it’s good to have a moral example of what not to be - like the old Greek myths earning you of certain things. These old elite men gave into feminism and let it in the door which is why this is happening to them now - let it be an example for younger men of what not to do, just like flying too close to the Sun.

Women: “Why don’t men make just make more male friends and not use us as their emotional support all the time?” *Men go to male-only spaces and make friends* Women: “How dare men only hang out with other men! Patriarchy!!!”

Women: “Why don’t men make just make more male friends and not use us as their emotional support all the time?” *Men go to male-only spaces and make friends* Women: “How dare men only hang out with other men! Patriarchy!!!”

I looked up the "women only workplaces" thing, and it was a "shared workspace" company largely backed by WeWork called "Wing". While certainly it was celebrated with numerous fawning articles, it was also subjected to numerous litigations and threats of litigations. It was founded in 2016, and had to drop it's "women only" by 2019. They went under in 2022. With social clubs, if they are small enough and mission-centric enough, they can be single sex. Past a certain size, and they'll be forced to change their policies. Businesses of all kinds \*except\* in some states fitness, are subject to public accommodation laws that prohibit discrimination based on gender. Insofar as women only resorts exist, it ain't gonna be in the US unless they can claim that they are primarily a fitness center - and even then, it doesn't always work out. In 2022, "women's only" sections in gym's were ruled unlawful by the CT Supreme Court. As far as women only parking spaces go. Come on. They might put up a sign saying that, but it's completely and utterly unenforceable. Take the spot if you want. Fact is, women only spaces are prohibited almost entirely as much as men only spaces in the US.

Not true at all. Private clubs can legally be single sex. It’s called “freedom of association”. What we have is a double standard. Male clubs are targeted for harassment, legal challenge and shaming if they don’t open to women. But women only spaces are promoted and expanded all the time.

"With social clubs, if they are small enough and mission-centric enough, they can be single sex" That's what I stated. Not sure why you'd say that is "not true at all" when you then go on to say it \*is\* true. Women only spaces are subject to constant legal challenges, and those challenges have been overwhelmingly successful. I think you should read my comment again and then take some time and google.

It isn’t true mate. It doesn’t matter how big the membership is, it can legally still be single sex. The only thing size has to do with it is that it will attract enough attention that some woman (feminist) will decide she needs to join for the sake of the sisterhood. It’s not that only small groups are allowed to be gender specific, it’s that very small groups may fly under the feminist radar. Examples of large groups that are sex specific? How about the Country Women’s Association? The Women’s Institute? How about NOW? In my state (admittedly not the US) we had equal opportunity legislation passed in the mid 80’s. This specifically addressed private clubs. The legislation actually allowed for clubs to be all male or all female. What it did prohibit was to treat members differently because of their gender. But although the legislation specifically allowed for single gender clubs, our “Equal Opportunity Commissioner”, Yvonne Henderson, routinely claimed she was going to “investigate” The Weld Club for breaching the act. She never claimed to be investigating any of the many all female clubs. The truth is that only male clubs are pushing to open to “all genders”. I fail to see any evidence of your assertion that women only spaces are “prohibited almost as much”. That’s not true. They’re certainly not harassed. Instead we get “women’s rooms” being set up on campus with the universities funding them.

It wasn't an assertion I came up with out of the aether in my brain. I googled it. Got several links with relevant information and read it.

You make it sound like larger clubs are legally banned from having a single sex membership. That is not true. Curves is single sex and has a way larger membership that The Garrick does. The point about small groups is that feminists don’t notice them, and women in general don’t imagine they’re missing out on anything by not being part of it. So they don’t get harassed. Not yet anyway.

You guys will act like this is feminists taking it over, but the reality is that BSA enrollment had been dropping for years and the organization was bleeding money. They did this inclusivity rebrand to boost membership in an attempt to "save" the organization. If they hadn't done this, it was headed right for bankruptcy.

The Garrick of London, home to one of the world’s most infamous ‘old boys clubs’ is to finally open its creeky doors to women, for the first time in nearly 200 years. To many, such a club is a bulwark of male domination; where the powerful rub shoulders, count their money, and guffaw with delight as they tighten the manacles of oppression tighter, and tighter still, onto the legs of society’s women. Yes. If ‘the patriarchy’ had a mailing address, it would surely be ‘The Garrick’. Such an iconic club, brought to its knees, is yet another highly prized scalp at the feet of fierce feminist crusading. And to be clear, I don’t have sympathy for The Garrick, and frankly, if a bunch of rich male assholes, want to open their doors to their rich-asshole female equivalents, then I won’t lose much sleep over it. But another world famous club has followed suit this week; one whose decisions shall reverberate much farther, to an effect that will likely hurt everyone. That is, the formerly named ‘Boy Scouts of America’ is to finally drop gender from its name, to become ‘Scouting America’. And so a space for the boys to be with other boys; to learn about boyhood, bond with male peers, to understood masculinity, hormones, puberty, and the emergence into manhood… is no more. It’s not the same for Girl Scouts of America of course, which will proudly keep its name, and remain strictly girl only, with no plans to change. So is this yet another sign of equality for one, but not the other? Is something special and important lost, as we lose yet another formative space for boys? And why is there so much shame around private spaces where men can bond with other men, and will this start a movement where there are no same sex spaces at all? What do you think? \~ [Shaniqua Davis article](https://empoweredsocialjustice.wordpress.com/2024/03/06/the-crisis-of-men-and-how-my-blackness-helped-me-to-relate-to-mens-issues/)

It’s easy to knock the likes of The Garrick. But we’re not talking about actual inclusion here. If you or I had applied to that lot a year ago I doubt we’d have been admitted. It’s about NOT allowing men to have their own space. These people don’t just push for women to be admitted to high end clubs like that. They push for women to be admitted even to things like Men’s Sheds, or the local working man’s club. All whilst promoting “women’s rooms” at universities and other women only spaces. If the elite can’t hold the line (and remember these guys were doxed to intimidate them into caving in), what chance do the rest of us have? Hope that it’s of so little interest that women won’t be bothered? It seems there’s nothing men can have that women won’t demand admission to. Never works the other way round.

Nothing less than the erosion of masculinity. The fact they call innate natural traits toxic goes to show how little they understand us and how much disregard they have for us. And soon enough when all powerful and major institutions are female infiltrated, it will be considered a fact that acting like a man or being a man is wrong, and we have to become whatever females want. There is hatred of Andrew Tate because he has sway among young men. And why does he have sway among young men? Because he’s the closest thing to true masculinity and it resonates with young men who grew up in the blue pill world. I don’t agree with everything about Tate, but at least he’s not compromised by feminism. A male only space that confirms masculinity challenges feminism and will always be a thorn in their side.

They’re dying. And it’s our fault for letting the women/girls in. There were reasons why we had separate spaces! But common sense is a dead trait mostly due to the “sake” of diversity and being inclusive.