That's funny. My first thought was that the narrative being fed here was "men are victims of the patriarchy", and my second thought that maybe The Times would now on be considered "a platform for the man's rights movement's narratives".
Once upon a time under the patriarchy, men’s social clubs were a common phenomena, but then it became unacceptable for such places to exist because of “power structures” yada yada yada. It’s not a coincidence that loneliness for men rose as spaces for men declined.
> It’s not a coincidence that loneliness for men rose as spaces for men declined.
This assumes that men can only congregate in "spaces" which exclude women, which is obviously untrue. I also assumes that men primarily socialized in such spaces to begin with, despite them also typically discriminating by class and race, as well as gender.
That such spaces have declined should have no effect on the ability of men to congregate and form relationships with one another. Gaming as a culture, which is primarily (albeit not exclusively) male-oriented, wouldn't exist otherwise, as one example.
>>>This assumes that men can only congregate in "spaces" which exclude women, which is obviously untrue.
While male-exclusive bonding isn't men's ONLY option/method, it most definitely yields different results than any gender-integrated environment. Anyone who has spent time in an all-male combat arms unit can attest to this.
>>>That such spaces have declined should have no effect on the ability of men to congregate and form relationships with one another.
Should we eliminate female-only spaces as well? If not, why? A subsection of feminists have fought to keep bathrooms exclusive to biological females. Why does the Girl Scouts still exist if the Boy Scouts has been gender-integrated? Women must be deriving some sort of bonding utility out female-exclusive zones. Why shouldn't men also have such options?
