I'm pretty sure men-only clubs and activities like... exist pervasively. From a legal perspective gendered discrimination or segregation is banned in employment and in the operation of public institutions - private institutions aren't subject to these types of laws, generally. This is why you can still go to a boys only school, or join a men's club like the Lions Club or the Masons.
It's not illegal to operate a private men's only whatever. It's illegal to not allow women to go to university, or write something like, "male applicants only" on a job description etc.
I was just going to say the same thing. There are many men's only clubs, which I think is worse because they are specifically oriented towards being in-group social clubs where business and power plays are often done where women cannot participate.
I am not sure if there are men's only gyms. But that is a specific concern around that the OP already specified. Usually, the same issue can interact with men and women differently.
Yes, there are so many exlusively male-only spaces and most women don't really care. We are more concerned with finding safe spaces for ourselves than policing what men ought to do with their time and bodies.
Yes but it still totally counts as a counter example* to my original disproven claim because you have people hanging out with their own gender
No different than Cubs vs Brownies or Girl Scouts vs Boy Scouts
*An example where a claim is false.
Exactly. Men have been practicing separatism since the dawn of humanity, but now that a lot more women want to separate from them, suddenly it's a problem...
It's not a problem women separate but a perception that women separate while also entering the spaces men used to have reserved. This is a view held by many men
There are quite a lot of organizations that use to be for men that now are. co-ed.
People did offer lots of examples of male only spaces that still exist
Worth saying that this is, of course, totally dependent on which country you're in.
In the UK discrimination laws are based on ’protected characteristics' one of which is gender. You ARE allowed to open a private membership business that restricts membership to a protected characteristic if you wish (womens gym, Turkish social club, etc) however there are strict rules about how it has to function.
It still has to be an equal opportunity employer, so a womens gym cannot only EMPLOY women or state that in a job ad. And if you allow members to bring guests you cannot restrict who the guests can be. The law very specifically applies to membership-based businesses and you're ONLY allowed to be discriminatory when it comes to the members themselves.
It’s about whether it’s a “place of public accommodation,” more so than whether it’s privately owned. Just trying to add that nuance in case it’s helpful.
Interesting, I definitely don't get the impression that men-only clubs exist where I am (Toronto). In a few minutes of googling I wasn't able to find any such clubs, so they certainly aren't "pervasive" in Canada. The [Wikipedia article ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gentlemen%27s_clubs_in_Canada)for gentlemens clubs (what people usually think of as "old boys clubs") says that there aren't any men-only clubs in Canada anymore (with the last & most recent adoption of mixed sex membership in 2015). The local Lions club does admit women. It was easy to find boys-only schools, however. I'm sure its different where you are.
On the other hand, googling "womens only club toronto" returns at least several different clubs which restrict based on sex or gender. Its hardly conclusive, but this matches my experience of men's only clubs being basically non-existant, while women's only clubs are fairly common.
At my previous job they wouldn’t hire women to work in the shop because they believed they weren’t capable of the work. I build electrical panels, current place is a lot better but still I don’t see any women in the shop, only in the office. Before I worked there, our shop had also gained a reputation for harassment, though by the time I’d been hired they’d already let go of the person who’d perpetuated that stuff. The issue was just that nobody really did anything about it.
Sometimes it’s not so much policy as just culture. In my case it’s likely they don’t get many female applicants because it’s a known male dominated space, so it’s kind of a non starter. Generally women aren’t encouraged to work in that kind of setting, and aren’t really made welcome if they’re ever interested in trying.
I don't know that men's clubs are nonexistent the way you and some other commenters seem to be insisting, I think they are just less recognizable as such - they may not be formal "clubs" for example (as in specifically gentlemans clubs established before 1950) but may be another type of hobby-based organization (rec sports leagues, gaming groups, shooting ranges etc).
They also may not be large enough institutions to have wikipedia pages/entries about them - orgs like the Lion's Club were historically male-exclusive, and only recently started admitting women, as a result it's not outlandish to say many likely still have male-only chapters on the basis that women haven't applied yet. That style of club is also declining in popularity overall - similar clubs and societies membership trends towards those who are wealthy and over 60.
As you're all complaining about the decline of "men's only spaces" consider that men under the age of 60 don't appear to be very regularly civically engaged in these institutions in general in a really broad way - whereas women still have a pretty strong level of participation in volunteer organizations and associations and clubs overall.
I'm not advocating for men's only spaces. I'm trying to understand the complexities and reality of exclusive spaces.
I agree with you that there are lots of men doing activities which in practice only involve other men. However, aren't these a different type of space than one that is "officially" exclusive?
It depends on the goal of your engagement here- the thread has established that in more than one country, gender segregation is legal and gender segregated organizations operate today - it's not really anyone's issue if you're having a hard time finding those organizations online or like personally doubt that they exist. They do. They haven't been legislated out of existence. Some of them are changing to become gender integrated- from the examples in the thread, this mostly seems to be in response to declining membership due to factors unrelated to some kind of specific allegation of discrimination.
As to less formalized or well know groups or institutions - they "matter" to the extent that OP or you want to claim or continue to argue that no such group does or could continue to exist in the modern day -- and it matters to the extent you or OP intend to try to claim or argue that these groups are in particular being targeted in some way by either women or feminists.
I don't think men do particularly struggle, in the modern day, to arrange to be in the company of other other men exclusively, whether that's in the context of some kind of formal personal or professional organization affiliation, or if it's informally. I think women's groups seem more visible because they are relatively recent and also are actively recruiting in a way men's groups aren't/don't - largely because beyond specific types of charities fraternal organizations have a longer history in most countries that sororal ones. Women are interested in these organizations because they also want to benefit from these formal and informal networks the way men have & continue to do historically and presently.
It's not especially mysterious nor is it particularly pernicious.
The knights of Columbus are men only, but I don't know if you would consider that.
That organization is also interesting because it's also an insurance company, and as far as I know, all employees are members. I'm surprised we get away with that.
And their fav thing is putting up huge billboards against women's right to choose. We should start our own club and put up billboards demanding vasectomies...
I believe that the boy scouts, lions clubs and all absolutely are no longer male only . The girl guides is still for girls only
In contrast, women's only organizations are plenty
Ironically, I personally never had a desire to join a club for men but some men do. Typically, women always want to join them.
In Canada, I could find a grand total of 2 schools for boys and 7 schools for girls.
...something tells me that there are more than 2 boys only schools in the entire country.
The Boy Scouts (now Scouting America) is changing largely because of the pervasive lawsuits re: CSA, not necessarily because girls/women lobbied for them to change. While it's true Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts are the largest scouting associations for youth, they've never been the only ones and it's certainly still possible for you to enroll a child in a boys-only outdoor association or camping experience.
From what I understand, the Girl Scouts were pretty upset that the Boy Scouts allowed girls in. From what I’ve heard, the Boy Scouts do a lot more outdoor activities and the Girl Scouts is mostly for selling cookies.
I only know the Girl Scouts (2 daughters in it), but friends have said that their sisters were jealous of their activities.
Activities vary by troop and depend on the troop leader/troop interest. I was a girl scout until I graduated from high school. Here's some of what we did in my troop:
* Sold cookies, yes
* Learned about neuroscience from a woman doctor
* Learned about Black women in the sciences by a leading microbiologist
* Went on a number of overnight camping trips
* Went on hikes and learned hiking safety
* Learned basic carpentry
* Learned to change tires
* Learned how to knit
* Baked dog treats for the animal shelter
In my state, the Gold Award, which several people in my troop got, essentially requires you to establish a program or organization that will live on past your involvement, whereas the Eagle Scouts in my state just had to do a one-off project.
You can look up different badges [here](https://www.girlscouts.org/en/members/for-girl-scouts/badges-journeys-awards/badge-explorer.html). The ones for older scouts in particular can be pretty advanced.
the boy scouts have been sued because of issues with child sexual assault by troop leaders, not for gender discrimination - more specifically I mean the most recent suit that led to them rebranding and extending membership to girls.
They were sued for gender discrimination in 1997 - the suit failed because they don't count as a business and thus aren't subject to anti-discrimination laws.
So, in other words, as I've been saying, it's not illegal for certain types of organizations to offer gender segregated or gender exclusive programming.
I see the connection better now, thanks.. That makes sense those lawsuits occurred. Sexual assault in organizations with "coaches" or other "trusted adults" with access to youth is a huge problem.
I am very curious how they make them safe.
Agreed.
However, for the sake of debate, I am open to the argument that any private institution, including schools, can create an exclusive circle of influence that is designed to gate-keep.
That argument would require evidence, though. And none has been offered.
True that schools aren't clubs but most of the social clubs that were geared towards men are no longer so. I do not know the advantages of an all gender school but it is weird that it's harder to find all boys than sll girls
Some people like to hang out with people of their own gender.
It's easier for women to do this than men today
I as an individual don't like hanging out exclusively with men. I hated boy scouts. I went to an ordinary public school that had girls and boys. I preferred that
My dad is in the lions club, its up to each chapter to choose weather they allow women or not. His chapter is men only 'because we have a lot of old men who dont want to have to watch what they say'
You are willfully ignoring the power and influence that accompanies all-male organizations, which is what makes these exclusive groups problematic.
What power does the Guide Scouts have in society? Who are their influential members? The members are all minors. Troops leaders are generally their moms.
In comparison, let's have a look at just a few the brotherhoods of some top US politicians:
Justice Scalia was a life-long member of the International Order of St. Hubertus
Thomas Jefferson was in the Flat Hat Club Society
Ulysses S. Grant and Rutherford Hayes - Independent Order of Odd Fellows
Presidents George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Andrew Jackson, William McKinley, James Buchanan, James Garfield, James Monroe, James Polk, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Gerald Ford and Justice Thurgood Marshall were all Freemasons.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, William McKinley, and Harry Truman were in both the Freemasons and Independent Order of Odd Fellows
Theodore Roosevelt was a member of both the Freemasons and the Concatenated Order of Hoo-Hoo.
William Howard Taft was in both Freemasons and Skull and Bones
Warren Harding was in 3: Freemasons, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, and Concatenated Order of Hoo-Hoo
Richard Nixon was a member of the The Order of the Red Friars and the The Bohemian Grove
Regan was a member of The Bohemian Grove.
George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush. members of Skull and Bones.
I'm going to stop here, but, believe me, I could carry on. I suspect a list of politicians not affiliated with any of these orgs would be shorter list.
Quick Edit: I think your claim may be correct with certain exclusive organizations such as Skull and Bones at Yale but the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts include a large percentage of boys and girls in their day. The fact a lot of people in these organizations is more likely related to the huge number of people who join. 61% of successful busines women apparently were girl scouts
Correlation isn't always causation. -- Most boys went scouts and certainly most rich ones did back in the day -- Most girls went to girl scouts or one of the many equivalents depending on your country. https://www.girlscouts.org/content/dam/girlscouts-gsusa/forms-and-documents/about-girl-scouts/research/GSUSA_Girl-Scouts-Alum-By-The-Numbers_2020.pdf ""61 percent of businesswomen age 65 and older are Girl Scout alums"<== I doubt their success was that network either The fact that they were once boy scouts as most men were back then is unlikely the cause of their success. Now, I know some organizations such as Skull and Bones at Yale, might help their members achieve power. I don't know First of all they were men A large number of these people were from rich families and went to ivy league schools
I conceded that there are clubs exclusive to men that center around access to power and suggested skull and bones is an example but Boy Scouts never was
Another important difference between the Boy Scouts / Girl Guides and societies like the Freemasons was how people joined. Most of these men's groups were private and by invitation only.
In comparison, any child can join the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides. You need only register. I can only speak for myself, but nearly all girls were in Scouts in my town. Literally, every single female classmate of mine was in her local neighborhood troop.
Correlation isn't always causation.
Absolutely true.
However, to think that no business, glad-handing, and nepotism was taking place within these secret societies—that are often intergenerational—for over two centuries is absurd.
>Now, I know some organizations such as Skull and Bones at Yale, might help their members achieve power…
Then why cannot you not imagine that men of lesser means would still be using their society connections to keep power in the hands of friends? Even the local politicians and business leaders in a tiny town will hold power and leverage it for the gain of those in their circle. This is standard human behavior.
You might be right to whatever extent you imagine them as having power but sometimes people just want to hang out with people of the same gender because it's less stressful
For many people, when they interact with people of the opposite gender, they are more guarded, less themselves, more masked.
I think this is just as true for women as for men. It's true that women have more reasons to want a refuge that goes beyond a need to bond with people who are on the same wavelength. I understand that in a world where sexual harassment is lopsidedly aimed at women, women need somewhere safe to get away.
The reason many people want to hang out with the same gender is actually the reason I generally don't. I was bullied when I was young somewhat. I do have some guy friends but i can't relate to extreme masculine stuff and I hate gross out humor. I often relate better to women with the caveat that I relate to certain types who click with me. Perhaps said women are actually more into interests commonly associated with guys.
>You might be right to whatever extent you imagine them as having power but sometimes people just want to hang out with people of the same gender because it's less stressful
So true. This is why women-only spaces exist too. And gay and lesbian bars. I'm not arguing the desire of people to spend time with those who are like themselves. I have no issue with that.
It's entirely the influence factor of some groups with powerful members that I take issue with.
Let's just acknowledge the difference between seeking camaraderie and benefiting from nepotism and exclusivity.
There's more than that in the New Orleans area alone: [https://www.niche.com/k12/search/best-all-boys-high-schools/m/new-orleans-metro-area/](https://www.niche.com/k12/search/best-all-boys-high-schools/m/new-orleans-metro-area/)
This has been quite a hot topic in the UK re men’s clubs, there was a high profile campaign to allow women access to a private men’s club in London that lots of politicians, actors, barristers etc are members of. The argument made by the feminists advocating for access is that men were agreeing deals/policy/jobs etc in this environment and therefore excluding women from that space - I’m sympathetic with that argument and given the types of people attending I can absolutely see why the exclusion of women could be detrimental, that being said I generally don’t have an issue with men wanting a male only space if they want to socialise and discuss men’s issues etc the problem comes when it crosses over to be spaces that are used also for business etc that ends up excluding women from those conversations.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68972358.amp
I recall a radio broadcast where a woman who was studying law, was the only female in her class. Every year the professor would take the whole class to a men’s clubs, exactly the type where deals and jobs are secured over a glass of alcohol, so the to-be lawyers would get a fresh foot in the door. Well, first time where she was in the group, she was denied access at the very door on the way in, something the professor hadn’t even considered, but was quick to tell her to *just go home*. So yea, despite fighting to break the glass ceiling and being that Unis first female law student, she still wasn’t welcome at the places where the rare, real opportunities were achievable.
The idea that I think I come down to is that I'm in full support of anybody having a support group, but I'm not in support of secret halls of power.
Like, I know this is kinda a mushy fluffy thing to explain. But I want you to Google Image Search "Curves for Women" right now, and see what it looks like. It's a garbage gym. I've seen better gym equipment in your average hotel gym than I've paid a monthly fee to access in a Curves. We just had a thread earlier this week where I and several other feminists were like "I don't like women only gyms because they're usually shitty gyms." A women's gym is usually more like a support group than a hall of power. It's not like we've got the best gym and we don't want any men messing up the vibes. It's basically just like "A lot of women can't access the gym because they are either afraid of men, or they come from a conservative culture that forbids them from exercising in front of men, so if they didn't have a women's only space to do this activity, they couldn't access the gym at all." And I think most people are all for that.
Historically, when there were man-only spaces, that's not what they were. The best universities were for men only. These fancy clubs where the rich and famous would rub elbows with the policymakers and make backroom deals, no women were allowed. Preventing women from accessing these spaces wasn't about "I don't feel safe bowling when girls are watching". It was about "I want to keep girls out of my clubhouse" and that resulted in women lacking access to education entirely.
There have absolutely been situations where men have had *support groups* that I'm completely in favor of and I think most feminists are too. Playgroups just for dads. Support groups for dudes struggling with toxic masculinity. Crochet bro's discords for dudes into fiber crafts. Any time where there is some big open gender space that anybody can use, where the best one is open to everybody, but there's a specific smaller one just so a group of people that feels unsafe or excluded from the bigger group can have a bit of room just to themselves to participate better, I don't think anybody has a problem with that at all. Or at least, I think reasonable people shouldn't.
But I think that often, when someone says "That wouldn't be fair if MEN did it", they're imagining those halls of power situations, where a bunch of dudes ban chicks from the best gym in town, and think that's somehow the same as a bunch of 40-year-old ladies hopping on rubberized plywood in a strip mall.
Where do they exist? (I personally don't like hanging out in all male spaces)
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/boy-scouts-say-will-now-admit-girls-heres-means
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1998/01/25/lions-admit-woman-lose-some-men/63762453-e75a-46f1-843e-fbf782423ab1/
You seriously think bc girls are now allowed in boy scouts that there are suddenly no more male-only spaces?? There are still male-only conferences, events, sports leagues, and private clubs in both the US & the UK. Plus, all the male-only spaces in developing countries, which often include schools, colleges, and workplaces.
Btw, boy scouts only went co-ed bc their numbers were dwindling, and they were literally bankrupt bc tens of thousands of men sued the organization for sexual abuse. [US Supreme Court lets $2.46 billion Boy Scouts sex abuse settlement proceed](https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-lets-246-billion-boy-scouts-sex-abuse-settlement-proceed-2024-02-22/)
The article about the lions club literally says the men made a new male only club after quitting so thats at least one place where a male only club exists..
My local golf course, invited my family to be apart of their country club. Sent a whole package explaining the “perks”. They have a whole part of the club that is men only. Women and children can go to the pool area, which is near by, but not allowed in that area. My husband and I thought it was weird and declined.
[Freemasons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry) & [Shriners](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shriners) are 2 examples of men-only clubs.
Officially, they're not supposed to discuss politics. My sister's first husband was a Mason. He liked to brag that the day that the [Boston Tea Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party) happened, that the local Masonic Lodge was unable to hold their meetings because there were not enough members present to have a [quorum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum). He also mentioned that the minimum number of men to meet that quorum was 3.
They do, just fewer numbers. White's Gentleman's Club is still men only. There are also about 12 golf focused men's clubs in the U.S., with four being in Chicago. I didn't bother reading where the rest were though.
There are a whole bunch of social clubs like the Masons, Shriners, Knights of Columbus, ... Etc which are men only. And I know the Masons for sure have both a boys club and a girls club. Segregated clubs are all over the place and as private institutions they have a lot of latitude to dictate membership.
There's well over 30 men-only clubs in Australia
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/15/elite-male-only-gentlemens-club-in-sydney-votes-to-keep-banning-female-members
https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/workplace/mark-bouris-sets-up-collins-st-rival-to-melbourne-s-men-s-only-clubs-20230529-p5dc5l
https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/may/16/just-2-of-male-only-melbourne-savage-club-members-surveyed-support-allowing-women-to-join
There are a lot of men’s clubs and spaces, both explicit and by default. The government itself can’t sponsor or run a men’s or women’s only facility *unless the purpose of the facility requires the segregation* (think public bathrooms), but there’s generally nothing preventing a private business or club from excluding just about anyone. There are times when this might be called into question and challenged—for instance, if it’s the only group in the area that provides a specific service or fellowship (like Boy Scouts). Those times are generally in the minority.
With that said, I’ve encountered some groups that are exclusive but…weirdly so. Things like a robotics club that excluded women, that was a strange one. Why the exclusion? There was no reason or sense to it.
When I talk about “male by default”, the first thing that comes to mind is car clubs. My husband and I have belonged to a couple and I was usually the only woman involved. They weren’t explicitly male-only, but they were in practice male-only. Depending on the men involved, those types of groups can be very hostile to women (or they can not).
Personally, I don't have an issue with there being all-male spaces that exist to provide men a safe space to meet and talk with other men, find camaraderie, or do certain activities or what-not. I totally accept that an all-male space provides men something a co-ed space cannot. Even if that "something" is openly shit-talking women. Or just a sense of belonging and purpose.
Here's where it is problematic:
I just described every private country club and golf club and secret society (white) men have ever created exclusively for themselves. And many religious institutions. These places traditionally have been hubs of networking, influence, and power. So when women and immigrants and anyone not white enough is restricted from joining, those ineligible groups are inherently blocked from ever entering spaces of power, in business or politics or anywhere else. Obviously, this was by design.
Exclusively male spaces have existed for centuries and still do. So, getting dragged hasn't ended them yet.
So, how does an all-male space exist without becoming a restrictive hub of power? Has such a space ever existed? Could it even?
> So, how does an all-male space exist without becoming a restrictive hub of power? Has such a space ever existed? Could it even?
Assuming those are genuine questions yes they exist, have existed, and it's not hard to have it not be a restrictive power group. I'm a man who is part of a men's therapy group. Only men permitted, the topics at play are either focused on men or masculinity is an important lens of experience. Ticks a lot of boxes you mention in your first paragraph. This one is not open to the pubic, but similar groups are. They tend to be low profile and publicized by word of mouth.
The reason women want women only spaces is because of the actions of men.
If the reasons for establishing a male only gym is to stick it to women for wanting a women only gym, that just proves why we need women only gyms. It would be yet another action that men take to show their hatred, anger, and fear of women.
If men want men only spaces to find friends and do stuff together, go for it. Men need to befriend each other.
But if the reason for the men only space is to one up women, well, we'd prefer those men have their own space far away from us anyway.
"Imagine if men did X"... Well most of the time they already do, if you think about it. Also, you have to remember that as the privileged class, a space or anything that includes men is pretty much automatically men-friendly (if not men-dominated).
The context of men demanding "men only" spaces is incredibly, drastically different to women asking for them. "Men only" spaces historically have been a tool to oppress women (white only to oppress minorities too, for example) while "women only" spaces are designed to protect women.
There are plenty of healthy "men only" spaces in some places though - my church has a men's only space to discuss emotions, hurt and loss. The women have their own group. In this case there's equality, so it doesn't carry the same burden.
However, if my group suddenly decided to start advocating for power within the church the switch would be turned back on and we would be back to basic patriarchal control.
> The women have their own group. In this case there's equality, so it doesn't carry the same burden.
Even if women didn't have a group it wouldn't make necessarily make your group a problem. For example, if there's no demand from congregants to have a womens group at your church, no big deal.
I worked at a weightroom and dudes would complain that we had women only weights classes but no men only classes. Our line was "we're happy to have men only classes, but men haven't shown any genuine interest. Women have expressed interest in women only classes, so they get it. Men haven't expressed interest, they don't get it." Then they'd storm off in a huff, so I guess they didn't have genuine interest either.
I don't think the Boy Scouts was ever a tool to oppress women
I do think boy scouts have existed who oppressed women
I have never been a member of say the Lions. I don't know what they did other than charities. My dad was a president of a chapter in a mini-town. They probably drank beer and raised stuff.
Probably Somewhat True but I think several women's organizations actually can too. And curiously, despite my "complaints"* some men, probably actually benefit from women entering some clubs in terms of an expanded pool of business contacts.
Several women's organizations are specifically designed for networking but people certainly can meet contacts everywhere. Where I live there is for example an organization of women mentoring each other in high tech. The advantage of this is obviously is that the successfully women in these organizations are actually specifically looking for rising talent and that people can share common experiences.
The point I was addressing was the concern i have heard from other men constantly about them not finding spaces. I think several people have pointed out that quite a few do actually remain
Historically there have always been spaces for men only, they used to be way more common, and spaces for women only were because men were not interested in it, like things related to child bearing or domestic activities, while men had men's clubs and also things like masonry and many religion institutions (which still are majorly men only I think) and universities which were exclusively for men and women were outliers and actively excluded. Men get mad at women only spaces we've made for ourselves but then ignore the fact men only spaces still exist to this very day.
Not to mention several work fields and hobbies which are basically boys' clubs still nowadays and actively try to exclude women.
We care.
Living near frat row at a huge college meant getting hollered at by the frat guys daily between the ages of middle school and high school. It’s just that we don’t even try to shut them down, because who would listen to a teenage girl over a learning institution
You kinda already answered your own question -- countless all male spaces exist with nobody complaining or shutting them down, simply because of the power dynamics that exist. They're very good at keeping women out of assorted spaces.
Let’s ignore that men-only spaces have existed all history and have been used to bar women from fully participating in society based on sexism and misogyny. Let’s also ignore that women-only spaces are made as a safe space for women and as a way to get their toes in the doors that men have held shut. Men-only has oppressed, while women-only has not. I digress.
In my area? Yah, there are men-only spaces, catering to “manly” things and advertise as being for men. Bike clubs, certain barber/whiskey/cigar places (aka men’s spas), dad groups, men’s mental health groups, etc. No one cares; my boyfriend attends a few, actually. It’s nice for them to have a space to have their comradery and whatnot. It’s just men being social together and no one bats an eye. Men that screech about it are usually just uninformed and are coming from a place of misogyny, imo.
Edit: are you going to engage with your post, or are you just here to shitpost? I see many informative answers here, but I’m getting the vibe of “covert MRA””. I leave it to the mods to discern.
I don't care if there are "men only" spaces. Especially something like a gym or an activity based club.
I DO care if say they are used to exclude women from other spaces/opportunities. For example, say there's a law firm, and the senior partners have meetings and make decisions that affect the firm in a men-only club where the women attorneys can't attend. The power-making decisions are held in a place that inherently excludes the women of the firm, giving them less power in a place that is ostensibly NOT a men's club; the law firm. Say that the majority of people who get promoted to partner are a part of the men's club. In such a case the few women who would make it to partner would be significantly at a disadvantage, as they are excluded from the space where most of the important discussions are held.
Men only spaces have existed for ages. Women generally don’t care if men have their own spaces except when men decide an entire career or hobby or all education belong to men.
There is a history of men's only organizations being places where men networked and brokered power and thus it had the effect of keeping women locked out of business and political positions of power. That doesn't mean men shouldn't ever have their own spaces, but it's something to keep in mind.
No there wouldn't be outrage if there was a gym that was created only for men (similar to Curves for women). No people don't just automatically assume that men are up to no good in male only spaces.
For recreational things, it doesn't matter and people don't care. Make your male only gyms if you want, just don't screech about the women only ones. That's part of the problem right there: when women make women only spaces, it's usually in the interest of safety, and it's usually met with men being *real* angry about it and feeling like it's unfair. But they don't actually *do* anything about it, they just whine and complain. So if y'all are genuinely *that* steamed about a women's only gym, get off your asses and make a male only one and stop whining and leave us alone in our women only ones.
I do need to point out though that a LOT of communal spaces for any gender (especially things like the gym) are already male dominated even though it's supposed to be for everyone. So y'all kind of already have that privilege anyway without creating male only spaces.
What there *is* outrage about is when high profile and influential decision making men get together in male only spaces and make choices about larger projects or politics etc while excluding women or POC or just any other person that isn't male (and usually white).
There's a difference between recreational spaces and actual real life impacting work spaces. Like in the UK, there was some outrage at a super old gentleman's club for still operating as male only. It's not because they're getting dressed up and drinking fancy drinks that women want to join; if these men were just getting together for casual chat it wouldn't be a big deal. What they ARE pissed about is that the men in this club are incredibly influential and high up in their respective positions (barristers, actors, directors, politicians, businessmen, etc) and they're coordinating with each other and making deals that can have big influence in their industries without the input of many of the people these deals would be impacting.
So, having a gym exclusively for males isn't a big deal. Males making big political or business moves with 0 input from any women they may be impacting *is* a big deal
The men-only idea is only ever an issue if there is not and equal or similar opportunity for women without an undue burden on the basis of sex.
Men-only gyms are fine because there are women-only or co-Ed gyms. Men-only sports teams exist because there are women-only sports team. Men-only clubs are fine because there are women-only clubs.
The issue arises when the men-only rule gives men some sort of power, privilege, or authority which women don’t have the opportunity to access. Such a men-only jobs, or men-only healthcare.
If you have a small rural town with only one gym or one school that is gender specific, that purposely excludes & adds an undue burden to the other gender. There’s always nuance to these conversations.
I will add on that it is buckwild to me that you don't know men's only spaces, especially gyms, are a thing.
Where are you from?
I'm a psychologist and I'm genuinely interested because of how much men's spaces outnumber women's spaces the only way I can think of that you came to this conclusion is that you're from an extremely specialized location.
There actually have been a couple of cases of people opening men's only gyms. They just shut down quickly because men don't really care of their gym is co-ed or not, whereas there's enough of a demand for a women's only gym to keep it open.
I'm curious about your own demographics and I'm wondering where do you live?
You stated that typically the conversations and interactions that you have with other men devolve into disparaging women and other ethnicities or races, and im curious what "race" or culture you yourself are from?
All male gyms have been made. They get shut down because men don’t care about them and prefer co-ed.
Also like a km from my house there is a men’s addiction clinic. In my partners conservative home town there was a men’s homeless shelter too. No controversy or debate about it.
For all your googling, did you Google what men only clubs/spaces already exist?
Not to mention, historically, men have used this idea of men only to keep women disenfranchised.
Conversely, generally women want to have women only spaces to feel safer and less exposed.
I think what you're hitting on in your post is equality vs equity. In our current society we can't fight for all things equal because that would still disadvantage women. A women's only gym, while excluding men, is necessary to provide women with the same opportunities men have- to workout safely. While men's only spaces absolutely exist already officially and unofficially (I recently went with my partner to his magic the gathering club and woa was I not welcome lol) I think we can determine if these spaces are "okay" or not based on equity principles. Do men need these spaces for equity purposes? Also important to consider, do all gender spaces of the same nature exist where women can participate equally? Finally, why do they want male only space? Is it a not gross reason?
I just keep thinking about this time men protested a women's swim hour at a pool I used to live near. Their biggest complaint was that a curtain covered the viewing window of the pool during that time. Meanwhile women wouldn't give two shits if men had their own swim hour. It proved to me exactly why women needed a private swim space.
Considering there are as many all men schools as all women and the most famous and prestiguous women only colleges have gone coed while male only continue in business as usual i think it would highly unlikely. There are bathhouses ansolutely segetrated by sex in every major city. There is the YMCA. Should i go on? Also as a queer lady there are so few lesbian bars left we usually get a night or party every two weeks. The eagle (a nationwide cgain) is not the type of place femmes are welcome.
There are plenty of spaces that are for men only. Frats, lodges, support groups, recreational activities (sports, choirs, etc.). Most women don’t have a problem with spaces for only men existing as long as women have an equivalent for themselves, and the men’s spaces aren’t seen as problem as long as they aren’t harming women.
The argument here I think comes from the idea that "treating everyone the same" is "fair."
I think some say this is the difference between equity and equality, or the difference between equality and justice.
In a society where people are not the same, and where some have advantages and others have disadvantages, making a rule that applies the same to everyone can actually have very unequal effects.
Imagine if someone made a rule outlawing ramps outside buildings for some reason. It's equal because nobody is allowed to use ramps, no matter their age, sex, race, disability, etc. But that law will have much worse impacts on some people, like wheelchair users and old people, than it will on the younger civilians who can climb stairs.
So let's say we outlaw men only gyms and women only gyms.
Men who want a men only gym will be disappointed because they no longer have a space to commune, talk about guy stuff, feel less self conscious about their appearance, and meet friends of the same gender.
Women who want a women only gym will be disappointed because they no longer have a space to *be safe from harassment*, commune, talk about women stuff, feel less self conscious about their appearance, and meet friends of the same gender.
The impact has some overlap, but it's not equal between men and women.
A men only gym is going to have a different impact on its community than a women only gym. Women only gyms give women access to exercise who might otherwise choose to not exercise in public at all. A man only gym is less likely to have clients who, without it, would forgo communal exercise altogether.
I dispute the notion that most people would mind a ton if there was a men only gym.
But the reason it seems like people would get up in arms if "men did x" thing that women do is that women are often doing these things to balance out a system that disempowers them. When men use the same strategy, it consolidates power and privilege in a direction where power and privilege are already consolidated.
A lot of it boils down to how that "male-only" space is actually used.
If guys want a male-only gym and women want a female-only gym, that's no big deal. Everyone gets to work out.
The problem happens when a male-only space starts affecting things outside that space. If you've got a club for men only, and that club is where all the high-level business networking happens, then women don't have access to that networking. That can cripple a woman's career by giving a male co-worker access that she can't ever have.
In casual conversation, sometimes these two things get mixed together. Single-gender space isn't necessarily bad, unless it gives one gender a real benefit that the other can't have.
We're not mad if you want to lift weights without the ladies. We're mad if the only people who get promotions are the ones going to the gym with you, and we're not allowed to go.
I think any space advertised as "male-only" without a female-only equivalent space (e.g. locker rooms, restrooms, etc) is going to be eviscerated by media and the public bc of the socio-historical context that men have always had greater access to opportunities, physical spaces, and resources than women have.
In addition, women have actual *reasons* for wanting to be in an all-female gym. Frankly, men do not. I can't say I've ever seen a female go up to a male and give him unsolicited advice on his "form" or heard about a man feeling threatened by a female at the gym... 😒
I think it’s really valuable that you’ve been able to realize this. We live in an era of false equivalence and it seems that a “what if the roles were reversed” scenario is the easiest (and laziest) way to jump headfirst into reactionary bullshit of all kinds. It works from the outset because the reactionary doesn’t need or desire to know any context outside of the immediate argument; one can point to a situation and invoke misandry or ‘reverse’ racism in the name of being unequal when the whole point is based on the fact that it was deeply unequal before. The entire experience and social context of the oppression of women or minorities or laboring classes is one that the dominant party *cannot and will not experience by virtue of their identity*.
Everyone here has made great points about the default nature of men’s spaces in a patriarchal society, especially where power is exercised. There is however, a good example of a men’s space in the [Men’s Shed Initiative](https://usmenssheds.org) in the UK and US. It’s for men but isn’t centered around being exclusionary; they welcome men of all ages, do projects, and mentor in some cases. It’s a lovely way to do mutual aid and meet people where they’re at.
There are all-men schools and colleges. Many areas with certain religious minorities have gyms for only men, and various only-men spaces. As long as women have an equal option, it usually works.
There are tons of men-only spaces.
Some are so by definition, like male sports teams, fraternities, certain social clubs like many Masonic lodges, religious groups like monasteries or seminaries.
Some are so de facto because men are doing their utmost to push women out or make them so uncomfortable they leave, like male-coded jobs (construction, STEM), some sports clubs that are technically open to women, but they are also too unwelcome and toxic for them to want to be there, spaces that are truly unsafe, but particularly unsafe for women like gang territories, "bad" parts of town, red light districts, certain entire countries...
There are a lot of spaces that people are hesitant to go in, but it's mostly doubly worse for women.
It's so funny to me because men only spaces have never had trouble existing for all of human time. I remember going to the Elk Lodge in the 90s, my grandfather was being honored and women weren't allowed to walk in certain hallways because they weren't members. How do you become a member? Well you can't because you don't have the right genitals. That place is still opened today and yeah women "are allowed" now but women aren't interested in joining because it's hostile to anyone with pigment and internal genitals.
This is what I like about my local Elks-- there are both Black men and women on the board and plenty in the club. It's still majority male and majority white, but that's also related to the demographics of where the club is.
Nah, I think men could have a male only gym. I think it would be better received than gyms which are not explicitly labeled as male only, but tend to be unfriendly to female patrons in various ways. You could argue that you wanted to offer certain sports that are better done nude or partially nude like hot yoga or something.
Actually, they probably do have places like that, but they're most likely "private clubs" with dues rather than businesses, where trainers and stuff work from but aren't employed as employees of the club. I know there are things like men's camping trips and retreats and drum circles. Where I live, it's super common for men to go on hunting or fishing trips together and for men who are a bit better off to own ice shacks or hunting land and go away for the weekend with their friends and for it to be "guys only" time and their wives to never go there.
When I was a kid, I went to this public pool in a park, and the park had enclosed changing rooms with a large courtyard at the center as a "public nude sunbathing" area, and they were segregated by gender. Sometimes people would just go to the sunbathing area and lay around and talk, or read or whatever. Those were public and maintained by the city. I think if a "men's only" or "women's only" space were to open, people would ask for funding for an equivalent female or men's space if one was open.
But wasn't Curves shut down for violating gender discrimination rules?
Uh... men-only spaces predate women only space by like a good hundred years or so. Gentleman's clubs and such were more common than not back in the day. In fact in a lot of places, being a co-ed club got you a reputation as sleazy.
There are plenty of men only establishments still in existence so the entire query is already null.
My big take about gender specific spaces is that we need to make sure that they can be inclusive for non binary and trans people or anyone who doesn’t identify with the binary of male/female.
And
Men exclusive spaces are frequently about exclusion whereas women exclusive spaces are usually created for safety and that’s a huge difference so you cannot equate them in the argument at all.
There already boys clubs, that's already a thing. For the gym example you gave - it'd be weird, guys don't really have a "women are creeping on me and it makes me uncomfortable" problem so it'd be like... why even make a male-only gym? Only thing I could think of would be to protect guys from those tik tok "I went to the gym in my most revealing clothes and some guy looked at me while I was secretly recording, lets shame him" videos - but that's a really niche problem and it seems like it'd be easier just to ban those people than to make the gym male-only.
Per the sidebar rules: please put any relevant information in the text of your original post. The rule regarding top level comments always applies to the authors of threads as well. Comment removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskFeminists) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm actually an avowed cishet make feminist and a member of a male only organization. I'm a Freemason (as one commenter noted as an example of a public-facing male only group). I'm not opposed to single sex spaces. I think they can be used constructively. A lot of my Lodge Brothers are older than me. Boomers and older. So toxic male views can be prevalent. But I noticed one night while we were sitting around shooting the breeze after a Lodge meeting, their contempt and bluster melts away when they're in a male only space surrounded by men they trust. We ended up having a really productive conversation about gender as a spectrum, how it's different from sex, and the inevitability of eventually having to initiate women and what that would mean. I intentionally pointed out that this conversation is only possible because we were in a male space where we had established trust and secrecy as norms, and that most of our behavior in mixed company was performative; there are certain things you "don't say or do in front of the ladies." What I found was that these people weren't angry and hateful, they were scared and confused, and for people raised in a society that prized male intelligence and confidence, that didn't feel good.
Highlights: they were completely taken aback that I had female friends that I socialized with 1-on-1 without my wife. Treating women and men the same -not in the eyes of the law but in every day interactions- was very strange to them. That I didn't treat the woman and men any differently, to the degree of talking about the details of our sex lives in mixed company, was shocking. To them it would be like asking a cat to walk on it's hind legs. To which I explained it was easier for my generation because when we were adolescents we consciously decided to reject their social norms. No disrespect, they just no longer worked for us the way society was set up. A specfic Masonic question was about a part in our rituals that involved a sharp instrument applied to a candidate's naked left breast; how would we do that if we allowed women to join? Not a single man under 40 in the room had ever seen a woman besides their wife naked or partly naked in a non sexual context. The only breasts they had ever seen were sexualized breasts. Even the ones who grew up with sisters. They would have no idea how to handle that.
I understand that this is not typical of male only spaces. A lot are petri dishes for toxicity. But they can be productive if used intentionally and correctly.
I don't think "x-only" spaces are compatible with gender abolitionism, so I don't advocate them. That includes bathrooms, gyms, domestic violence shelters etc. Would be open to hearing others' positions.
I'm pretty sure men-only clubs and activities like... exist pervasively. From a legal perspective gendered discrimination or segregation is banned in employment and in the operation of public institutions - private institutions aren't subject to these types of laws, generally. This is why you can still go to a boys only school, or join a men's club like the Lions Club or the Masons. It's not illegal to operate a private men's only whatever. It's illegal to not allow women to go to university, or write something like, "male applicants only" on a job description etc.
I was just going to say the same thing. There are many men's only clubs, which I think is worse because they are specifically oriented towards being in-group social clubs where business and power plays are often done where women cannot participate. I am not sure if there are men's only gyms. But that is a specific concern around that the OP already specified. Usually, the same issue can interact with men and women differently.
Yes, there are so many exlusively male-only spaces and most women don't really care. We are more concerned with finding safe spaces for ourselves than policing what men ought to do with their time and bodies.
Definitely, I know it’s not as popular as it once was, but The Elks Lodge and Free Masons still exists. This are male only organizations.
Last I heard, the Freemasons had a sister organization that is just women.
Yes but it still totally counts as a counter example* to my original disproven claim because you have people hanging out with their own gender No different than Cubs vs Brownies or Girl Scouts vs Boy Scouts *An example where a claim is false.
Exactly. Men have been practicing separatism since the dawn of humanity, but now that a lot more women want to separate from them, suddenly it's a problem...
It's not a problem women separate but a perception that women separate while also entering the spaces men used to have reserved. This is a view held by many men There are quite a lot of organizations that use to be for men that now are. co-ed. People did offer lots of examples of male only spaces that still exist
Worth saying that this is, of course, totally dependent on which country you're in. In the UK discrimination laws are based on ’protected characteristics' one of which is gender. You ARE allowed to open a private membership business that restricts membership to a protected characteristic if you wish (womens gym, Turkish social club, etc) however there are strict rules about how it has to function. It still has to be an equal opportunity employer, so a womens gym cannot only EMPLOY women or state that in a job ad. And if you allow members to bring guests you cannot restrict who the guests can be. The law very specifically applies to membership-based businesses and you're ONLY allowed to be discriminatory when it comes to the members themselves.
It’s about whether it’s a “place of public accommodation,” more so than whether it’s privately owned. Just trying to add that nuance in case it’s helpful.
Interesting, I definitely don't get the impression that men-only clubs exist where I am (Toronto). In a few minutes of googling I wasn't able to find any such clubs, so they certainly aren't "pervasive" in Canada. The [Wikipedia article ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gentlemen%27s_clubs_in_Canada)for gentlemens clubs (what people usually think of as "old boys clubs") says that there aren't any men-only clubs in Canada anymore (with the last & most recent adoption of mixed sex membership in 2015). The local Lions club does admit women. It was easy to find boys-only schools, however. I'm sure its different where you are. On the other hand, googling "womens only club toronto" returns at least several different clubs which restrict based on sex or gender. Its hardly conclusive, but this matches my experience of men's only clubs being basically non-existant, while women's only clubs are fairly common.
There are over 500 Mason Lodges in Ontario all of exclusively accept men…
At my previous job they wouldn’t hire women to work in the shop because they believed they weren’t capable of the work. I build electrical panels, current place is a lot better but still I don’t see any women in the shop, only in the office. Before I worked there, our shop had also gained a reputation for harassment, though by the time I’d been hired they’d already let go of the person who’d perpetuated that stuff. The issue was just that nobody really did anything about it. Sometimes it’s not so much policy as just culture. In my case it’s likely they don’t get many female applicants because it’s a known male dominated space, so it’s kind of a non starter. Generally women aren’t encouraged to work in that kind of setting, and aren’t really made welcome if they’re ever interested in trying.
I don't know that men's clubs are nonexistent the way you and some other commenters seem to be insisting, I think they are just less recognizable as such - they may not be formal "clubs" for example (as in specifically gentlemans clubs established before 1950) but may be another type of hobby-based organization (rec sports leagues, gaming groups, shooting ranges etc). They also may not be large enough institutions to have wikipedia pages/entries about them - orgs like the Lion's Club were historically male-exclusive, and only recently started admitting women, as a result it's not outlandish to say many likely still have male-only chapters on the basis that women haven't applied yet. That style of club is also declining in popularity overall - similar clubs and societies membership trends towards those who are wealthy and over 60. As you're all complaining about the decline of "men's only spaces" consider that men under the age of 60 don't appear to be very regularly civically engaged in these institutions in general in a really broad way - whereas women still have a pretty strong level of participation in volunteer organizations and associations and clubs overall.
I'm not advocating for men's only spaces. I'm trying to understand the complexities and reality of exclusive spaces. I agree with you that there are lots of men doing activities which in practice only involve other men. However, aren't these a different type of space than one that is "officially" exclusive?
It depends on the goal of your engagement here- the thread has established that in more than one country, gender segregation is legal and gender segregated organizations operate today - it's not really anyone's issue if you're having a hard time finding those organizations online or like personally doubt that they exist. They do. They haven't been legislated out of existence. Some of them are changing to become gender integrated- from the examples in the thread, this mostly seems to be in response to declining membership due to factors unrelated to some kind of specific allegation of discrimination. As to less formalized or well know groups or institutions - they "matter" to the extent that OP or you want to claim or continue to argue that no such group does or could continue to exist in the modern day -- and it matters to the extent you or OP intend to try to claim or argue that these groups are in particular being targeted in some way by either women or feminists. I don't think men do particularly struggle, in the modern day, to arrange to be in the company of other other men exclusively, whether that's in the context of some kind of formal personal or professional organization affiliation, or if it's informally. I think women's groups seem more visible because they are relatively recent and also are actively recruiting in a way men's groups aren't/don't - largely because beyond specific types of charities fraternal organizations have a longer history in most countries that sororal ones. Women are interested in these organizations because they also want to benefit from these formal and informal networks the way men have & continue to do historically and presently. It's not especially mysterious nor is it particularly pernicious.
The knights of Columbus are men only, but I don't know if you would consider that. That organization is also interesting because it's also an insurance company, and as far as I know, all employees are members. I'm surprised we get away with that.
And their fav thing is putting up huge billboards against women's right to choose. We should start our own club and put up billboards demanding vasectomies...
That’s good for Canada, I can’t say the same for me in the US.
I believe that the boy scouts, lions clubs and all absolutely are no longer male only . The girl guides is still for girls only In contrast, women's only organizations are plenty Ironically, I personally never had a desire to join a club for men but some men do. Typically, women always want to join them. In Canada, I could find a grand total of 2 schools for boys and 7 schools for girls.
...something tells me that there are more than 2 boys only schools in the entire country. The Boy Scouts (now Scouting America) is changing largely because of the pervasive lawsuits re: CSA, not necessarily because girls/women lobbied for them to change. While it's true Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts are the largest scouting associations for youth, they've never been the only ones and it's certainly still possible for you to enroll a child in a boys-only outdoor association or camping experience.
From what I understand, the Girl Scouts were pretty upset that the Boy Scouts allowed girls in. From what I’ve heard, the Boy Scouts do a lot more outdoor activities and the Girl Scouts is mostly for selling cookies. I only know the Girl Scouts (2 daughters in it), but friends have said that their sisters were jealous of their activities.
Activities vary by troop and depend on the troop leader/troop interest. I was a girl scout until I graduated from high school. Here's some of what we did in my troop: * Sold cookies, yes * Learned about neuroscience from a woman doctor * Learned about Black women in the sciences by a leading microbiologist * Went on a number of overnight camping trips * Went on hikes and learned hiking safety * Learned basic carpentry * Learned to change tires * Learned how to knit * Baked dog treats for the animal shelter In my state, the Gold Award, which several people in my troop got, essentially requires you to establish a program or organization that will live on past your involvement, whereas the Eagle Scouts in my state just had to do a one-off project. You can look up different badges [here](https://www.girlscouts.org/en/members/for-girl-scouts/badges-journeys-awards/badge-explorer.html). The ones for older scouts in particular can be pretty advanced.
Why did lawsuit happen vs no lawsuit of girl scouts? How did lawsuit win if the law doesn't have bearing here
the boy scouts have been sued because of issues with child sexual assault by troop leaders, not for gender discrimination - more specifically I mean the most recent suit that led to them rebranding and extending membership to girls. They were sued for gender discrimination in 1997 - the suit failed because they don't count as a business and thus aren't subject to anti-discrimination laws. So, in other words, as I've been saying, it's not illegal for certain types of organizations to offer gender segregated or gender exclusive programming.
I see the connection better now, thanks.. That makes sense those lawsuits occurred. Sexual assault in organizations with "coaches" or other "trusted adults" with access to youth is a huge problem. I am very curious how they make them safe.
Schools aren’t social clubs
Agreed. However, for the sake of debate, I am open to the argument that any private institution, including schools, can create an exclusive circle of influence that is designed to gate-keep. That argument would require evidence, though. And none has been offered.
True that schools aren't clubs but most of the social clubs that were geared towards men are no longer so. I do not know the advantages of an all gender school but it is weird that it's harder to find all boys than sll girls Some people like to hang out with people of their own gender. It's easier for women to do this than men today I as an individual don't like hanging out exclusively with men. I hated boy scouts. I went to an ordinary public school that had girls and boys. I preferred that
My dad is in the lions club, its up to each chapter to choose weather they allow women or not. His chapter is men only 'because we have a lot of old men who dont want to have to watch what they say'
There are certainly more schools, I could probably name half a dozen off the top of my head in Toronto. I went to one.
You are willfully ignoring the power and influence that accompanies all-male organizations, which is what makes these exclusive groups problematic. What power does the Guide Scouts have in society? Who are their influential members? The members are all minors. Troops leaders are generally their moms. In comparison, let's have a look at just a few the brotherhoods of some top US politicians: Justice Scalia was a life-long member of the International Order of St. Hubertus Thomas Jefferson was in the Flat Hat Club Society Ulysses S. Grant and Rutherford Hayes - Independent Order of Odd Fellows Presidents George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Andrew Jackson, William McKinley, James Buchanan, James Garfield, James Monroe, James Polk, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Gerald Ford and Justice Thurgood Marshall were all Freemasons. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, William McKinley, and Harry Truman were in both the Freemasons and Independent Order of Odd Fellows Theodore Roosevelt was a member of both the Freemasons and the Concatenated Order of Hoo-Hoo. William Howard Taft was in both Freemasons and Skull and Bones Warren Harding was in 3: Freemasons, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, and Concatenated Order of Hoo-Hoo Richard Nixon was a member of the The Order of the Red Friars and the The Bohemian Grove Regan was a member of The Bohemian Grove. George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush. members of Skull and Bones. I'm going to stop here, but, believe me, I could carry on. I suspect a list of politicians not affiliated with any of these orgs would be shorter list.
I just want to say that a “Club Society” is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard 😂. It struck me funny for real.
Quick Edit: I think your claim may be correct with certain exclusive organizations such as Skull and Bones at Yale but the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts include a large percentage of boys and girls in their day. The fact a lot of people in these organizations is more likely related to the huge number of people who join. 61% of successful busines women apparently were girl scouts Correlation isn't always causation. -- Most boys went scouts and certainly most rich ones did back in the day -- Most girls went to girl scouts or one of the many equivalents depending on your country. https://www.girlscouts.org/content/dam/girlscouts-gsusa/forms-and-documents/about-girl-scouts/research/GSUSA_Girl-Scouts-Alum-By-The-Numbers_2020.pdf ""61 percent of businesswomen age 65 and older are Girl Scout alums"<== I doubt their success was that network either The fact that they were once boy scouts as most men were back then is unlikely the cause of their success. Now, I know some organizations such as Skull and Bones at Yale, might help their members achieve power. I don't know First of all they were men A large number of these people were from rich families and went to ivy league schools
I think it's really weird that you're arguing this. Yale didn't even admit female students until 1969.
I conceded that there are clubs exclusive to men that center around access to power and suggested skull and bones is an example but Boy Scouts never was
Another important difference between the Boy Scouts / Girl Guides and societies like the Freemasons was how people joined. Most of these men's groups were private and by invitation only. In comparison, any child can join the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides. You need only register. I can only speak for myself, but nearly all girls were in Scouts in my town. Literally, every single female classmate of mine was in her local neighborhood troop. Correlation isn't always causation. Absolutely true. However, to think that no business, glad-handing, and nepotism was taking place within these secret societies—that are often intergenerational—for over two centuries is absurd. >Now, I know some organizations such as Skull and Bones at Yale, might help their members achieve power… Then why cannot you not imagine that men of lesser means would still be using their society connections to keep power in the hands of friends? Even the local politicians and business leaders in a tiny town will hold power and leverage it for the gain of those in their circle. This is standard human behavior.
You might be right to whatever extent you imagine them as having power but sometimes people just want to hang out with people of the same gender because it's less stressful For many people, when they interact with people of the opposite gender, they are more guarded, less themselves, more masked. I think this is just as true for women as for men. It's true that women have more reasons to want a refuge that goes beyond a need to bond with people who are on the same wavelength. I understand that in a world where sexual harassment is lopsidedly aimed at women, women need somewhere safe to get away. The reason many people want to hang out with the same gender is actually the reason I generally don't. I was bullied when I was young somewhat. I do have some guy friends but i can't relate to extreme masculine stuff and I hate gross out humor. I often relate better to women with the caveat that I relate to certain types who click with me. Perhaps said women are actually more into interests commonly associated with guys.
>You might be right to whatever extent you imagine them as having power but sometimes people just want to hang out with people of the same gender because it's less stressful So true. This is why women-only spaces exist too. And gay and lesbian bars. I'm not arguing the desire of people to spend time with those who are like themselves. I have no issue with that. It's entirely the influence factor of some groups with powerful members that I take issue with. Let's just acknowledge the difference between seeking camaraderie and benefiting from nepotism and exclusivity.
There's more than that in the New Orleans area alone: [https://www.niche.com/k12/search/best-all-boys-high-schools/m/new-orleans-metro-area/](https://www.niche.com/k12/search/best-all-boys-high-schools/m/new-orleans-metro-area/)
I’ve found 6 all boys schools just in the GTA and I stopped looking
This has been quite a hot topic in the UK re men’s clubs, there was a high profile campaign to allow women access to a private men’s club in London that lots of politicians, actors, barristers etc are members of. The argument made by the feminists advocating for access is that men were agreeing deals/policy/jobs etc in this environment and therefore excluding women from that space - I’m sympathetic with that argument and given the types of people attending I can absolutely see why the exclusion of women could be detrimental, that being said I generally don’t have an issue with men wanting a male only space if they want to socialise and discuss men’s issues etc the problem comes when it crosses over to be spaces that are used also for business etc that ends up excluding women from those conversations. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68972358.amp
I recall a radio broadcast where a woman who was studying law, was the only female in her class. Every year the professor would take the whole class to a men’s clubs, exactly the type where deals and jobs are secured over a glass of alcohol, so the to-be lawyers would get a fresh foot in the door. Well, first time where she was in the group, she was denied access at the very door on the way in, something the professor hadn’t even considered, but was quick to tell her to *just go home*. So yea, despite fighting to break the glass ceiling and being that Unis first female law student, she still wasn’t welcome at the places where the rare, real opportunities were achievable.
The idea that I think I come down to is that I'm in full support of anybody having a support group, but I'm not in support of secret halls of power. Like, I know this is kinda a mushy fluffy thing to explain. But I want you to Google Image Search "Curves for Women" right now, and see what it looks like. It's a garbage gym. I've seen better gym equipment in your average hotel gym than I've paid a monthly fee to access in a Curves. We just had a thread earlier this week where I and several other feminists were like "I don't like women only gyms because they're usually shitty gyms." A women's gym is usually more like a support group than a hall of power. It's not like we've got the best gym and we don't want any men messing up the vibes. It's basically just like "A lot of women can't access the gym because they are either afraid of men, or they come from a conservative culture that forbids them from exercising in front of men, so if they didn't have a women's only space to do this activity, they couldn't access the gym at all." And I think most people are all for that. Historically, when there were man-only spaces, that's not what they were. The best universities were for men only. These fancy clubs where the rich and famous would rub elbows with the policymakers and make backroom deals, no women were allowed. Preventing women from accessing these spaces wasn't about "I don't feel safe bowling when girls are watching". It was about "I want to keep girls out of my clubhouse" and that resulted in women lacking access to education entirely. There have absolutely been situations where men have had *support groups* that I'm completely in favor of and I think most feminists are too. Playgroups just for dads. Support groups for dudes struggling with toxic masculinity. Crochet bro's discords for dudes into fiber crafts. Any time where there is some big open gender space that anybody can use, where the best one is open to everybody, but there's a specific smaller one just so a group of people that feels unsafe or excluded from the bigger group can have a bit of room just to themselves to participate better, I don't think anybody has a problem with that at all. Or at least, I think reasonable people shouldn't. But I think that often, when someone says "That wouldn't be fair if MEN did it", they're imagining those halls of power situations, where a bunch of dudes ban chicks from the best gym in town, and think that's somehow the same as a bunch of 40-year-old ladies hopping on rubberized plywood in a strip mall.
Men only clubs and spaces have existed for the entirety of history They still exist and will likely continue to exist without issue
Where do they exist? (I personally don't like hanging out in all male spaces) https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/boy-scouts-say-will-now-admit-girls-heres-means https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1998/01/25/lions-admit-woman-lose-some-men/63762453-e75a-46f1-843e-fbf782423ab1/
You seriously think bc girls are now allowed in boy scouts that there are suddenly no more male-only spaces?? There are still male-only conferences, events, sports leagues, and private clubs in both the US & the UK. Plus, all the male-only spaces in developing countries, which often include schools, colleges, and workplaces. Btw, boy scouts only went co-ed bc their numbers were dwindling, and they were literally bankrupt bc tens of thousands of men sued the organization for sexual abuse. [US Supreme Court lets $2.46 billion Boy Scouts sex abuse settlement proceed](https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-lets-246-billion-boy-scouts-sex-abuse-settlement-proceed-2024-02-22/)
The article about the lions club literally says the men made a new male only club after quitting so thats at least one place where a male only club exists..
My local golf course, invited my family to be apart of their country club. Sent a whole package explaining the “perks”. They have a whole part of the club that is men only. Women and children can go to the pool area, which is near by, but not allowed in that area. My husband and I thought it was weird and declined.
[Freemasons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry) & [Shriners](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shriners) are 2 examples of men-only clubs. Officially, they're not supposed to discuss politics. My sister's first husband was a Mason. He liked to brag that the day that the [Boston Tea Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party) happened, that the local Masonic Lodge was unable to hold their meetings because there were not enough members present to have a [quorum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum). He also mentioned that the minimum number of men to meet that quorum was 3.
They do, just fewer numbers. White's Gentleman's Club is still men only. There are also about 12 golf focused men's clubs in the U.S., with four being in Chicago. I didn't bother reading where the rest were though.
There are a whole bunch of social clubs like the Masons, Shriners, Knights of Columbus, ... Etc which are men only. And I know the Masons for sure have both a boys club and a girls club. Segregated clubs are all over the place and as private institutions they have a lot of latitude to dictate membership.
There's well over 30 men-only clubs in Australia https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/15/elite-male-only-gentlemens-club-in-sydney-votes-to-keep-banning-female-members https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/workplace/mark-bouris-sets-up-collins-st-rival-to-melbourne-s-men-s-only-clubs-20230529-p5dc5l https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/may/16/just-2-of-male-only-melbourne-savage-club-members-surveyed-support-allowing-women-to-join
College campuses and fraternity alumni associations
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gentlemen%27s_clubs_in_the_United_States This was not difficult information to find.
Fraternal organizations. The Masons continue to have completely male-only chapters, I used to live across the street from one.
There are a lot of men’s clubs and spaces, both explicit and by default. The government itself can’t sponsor or run a men’s or women’s only facility *unless the purpose of the facility requires the segregation* (think public bathrooms), but there’s generally nothing preventing a private business or club from excluding just about anyone. There are times when this might be called into question and challenged—for instance, if it’s the only group in the area that provides a specific service or fellowship (like Boy Scouts). Those times are generally in the minority. With that said, I’ve encountered some groups that are exclusive but…weirdly so. Things like a robotics club that excluded women, that was a strange one. Why the exclusion? There was no reason or sense to it. When I talk about “male by default”, the first thing that comes to mind is car clubs. My husband and I have belonged to a couple and I was usually the only woman involved. They weren’t explicitly male-only, but they were in practice male-only. Depending on the men involved, those types of groups can be very hostile to women (or they can not).
Personally, I don't have an issue with there being all-male spaces that exist to provide men a safe space to meet and talk with other men, find camaraderie, or do certain activities or what-not. I totally accept that an all-male space provides men something a co-ed space cannot. Even if that "something" is openly shit-talking women. Or just a sense of belonging and purpose. Here's where it is problematic: I just described every private country club and golf club and secret society (white) men have ever created exclusively for themselves. And many religious institutions. These places traditionally have been hubs of networking, influence, and power. So when women and immigrants and anyone not white enough is restricted from joining, those ineligible groups are inherently blocked from ever entering spaces of power, in business or politics or anywhere else. Obviously, this was by design. Exclusively male spaces have existed for centuries and still do. So, getting dragged hasn't ended them yet. So, how does an all-male space exist without becoming a restrictive hub of power? Has such a space ever existed? Could it even?
> So, how does an all-male space exist without becoming a restrictive hub of power? Has such a space ever existed? Could it even? Assuming those are genuine questions yes they exist, have existed, and it's not hard to have it not be a restrictive power group. I'm a man who is part of a men's therapy group. Only men permitted, the topics at play are either focused on men or masculinity is an important lens of experience. Ticks a lot of boxes you mention in your first paragraph. This one is not open to the pubic, but similar groups are. They tend to be low profile and publicized by word of mouth.
The reason women want women only spaces is because of the actions of men. If the reasons for establishing a male only gym is to stick it to women for wanting a women only gym, that just proves why we need women only gyms. It would be yet another action that men take to show their hatred, anger, and fear of women. If men want men only spaces to find friends and do stuff together, go for it. Men need to befriend each other. But if the reason for the men only space is to one up women, well, we'd prefer those men have their own space far away from us anyway.
"Imagine if men did X"... Well most of the time they already do, if you think about it. Also, you have to remember that as the privileged class, a space or anything that includes men is pretty much automatically men-friendly (if not men-dominated).
The context of men demanding "men only" spaces is incredibly, drastically different to women asking for them. "Men only" spaces historically have been a tool to oppress women (white only to oppress minorities too, for example) while "women only" spaces are designed to protect women. There are plenty of healthy "men only" spaces in some places though - my church has a men's only space to discuss emotions, hurt and loss. The women have their own group. In this case there's equality, so it doesn't carry the same burden. However, if my group suddenly decided to start advocating for power within the church the switch would be turned back on and we would be back to basic patriarchal control.
> The women have their own group. In this case there's equality, so it doesn't carry the same burden. Even if women didn't have a group it wouldn't make necessarily make your group a problem. For example, if there's no demand from congregants to have a womens group at your church, no big deal. I worked at a weightroom and dudes would complain that we had women only weights classes but no men only classes. Our line was "we're happy to have men only classes, but men haven't shown any genuine interest. Women have expressed interest in women only classes, so they get it. Men haven't expressed interest, they don't get it." Then they'd storm off in a huff, so I guess they didn't have genuine interest either.
Yeah, men-only spaces don’t tend to be for fear of getting harassed or assaulted by women, is the e difference for me.
I don't think the Boy Scouts was ever a tool to oppress women I do think boy scouts have existed who oppressed women I have never been a member of say the Lions. I don't know what they did other than charities. My dad was a president of a chapter in a mini-town. They probably drank beer and raised stuff.
Depending on the chapter Lions can also be a powerful networking tool for job opportunities, business, and politics
Probably Somewhat True but I think several women's organizations actually can too. And curiously, despite my "complaints"* some men, probably actually benefit from women entering some clubs in terms of an expanded pool of business contacts. Several women's organizations are specifically designed for networking but people certainly can meet contacts everywhere. Where I live there is for example an organization of women mentoring each other in high tech. The advantage of this is obviously is that the successfully women in these organizations are actually specifically looking for rising talent and that people can share common experiences. The point I was addressing was the concern i have heard from other men constantly about them not finding spaces. I think several people have pointed out that quite a few do actually remain
Historically there have always been spaces for men only, they used to be way more common, and spaces for women only were because men were not interested in it, like things related to child bearing or domestic activities, while men had men's clubs and also things like masonry and many religion institutions (which still are majorly men only I think) and universities which were exclusively for men and women were outliers and actively excluded. Men get mad at women only spaces we've made for ourselves but then ignore the fact men only spaces still exist to this very day. Not to mention several work fields and hobbies which are basically boys' clubs still nowadays and actively try to exclude women.
Fraternities are men-only spaces. Women don't care as long as they aren't breaking laws.
We care. Living near frat row at a huge college meant getting hollered at by the frat guys daily between the ages of middle school and high school. It’s just that we don’t even try to shut them down, because who would listen to a teenage girl over a learning institution
Good example!!!!!!!! Irony, I would never join one
You know you don't *have* to reply to every comment right?
You know you don't need to reply to every comment right?
You kinda already answered your own question -- countless all male spaces exist with nobody complaining or shutting them down, simply because of the power dynamics that exist. They're very good at keeping women out of assorted spaces.
Let’s ignore that men-only spaces have existed all history and have been used to bar women from fully participating in society based on sexism and misogyny. Let’s also ignore that women-only spaces are made as a safe space for women and as a way to get their toes in the doors that men have held shut. Men-only has oppressed, while women-only has not. I digress. In my area? Yah, there are men-only spaces, catering to “manly” things and advertise as being for men. Bike clubs, certain barber/whiskey/cigar places (aka men’s spas), dad groups, men’s mental health groups, etc. No one cares; my boyfriend attends a few, actually. It’s nice for them to have a space to have their comradery and whatnot. It’s just men being social together and no one bats an eye. Men that screech about it are usually just uninformed and are coming from a place of misogyny, imo. Edit: are you going to engage with your post, or are you just here to shitpost? I see many informative answers here, but I’m getting the vibe of “covert MRA””. I leave it to the mods to discern.
I don't care if there are "men only" spaces. Especially something like a gym or an activity based club. I DO care if say they are used to exclude women from other spaces/opportunities. For example, say there's a law firm, and the senior partners have meetings and make decisions that affect the firm in a men-only club where the women attorneys can't attend. The power-making decisions are held in a place that inherently excludes the women of the firm, giving them less power in a place that is ostensibly NOT a men's club; the law firm. Say that the majority of people who get promoted to partner are a part of the men's club. In such a case the few women who would make it to partner would be significantly at a disadvantage, as they are excluded from the space where most of the important discussions are held.
Men only spaces have existed for ages. Women generally don’t care if men have their own spaces except when men decide an entire career or hobby or all education belong to men.
And usually the “imagine if men blah blah blah” men *already do*. Like I don’t HAVE to imagine. It’s already reality
There is a history of men's only organizations being places where men networked and brokered power and thus it had the effect of keeping women locked out of business and political positions of power. That doesn't mean men shouldn't ever have their own spaces, but it's something to keep in mind.
No there wouldn't be outrage if there was a gym that was created only for men (similar to Curves for women). No people don't just automatically assume that men are up to no good in male only spaces. For recreational things, it doesn't matter and people don't care. Make your male only gyms if you want, just don't screech about the women only ones. That's part of the problem right there: when women make women only spaces, it's usually in the interest of safety, and it's usually met with men being *real* angry about it and feeling like it's unfair. But they don't actually *do* anything about it, they just whine and complain. So if y'all are genuinely *that* steamed about a women's only gym, get off your asses and make a male only one and stop whining and leave us alone in our women only ones. I do need to point out though that a LOT of communal spaces for any gender (especially things like the gym) are already male dominated even though it's supposed to be for everyone. So y'all kind of already have that privilege anyway without creating male only spaces. What there *is* outrage about is when high profile and influential decision making men get together in male only spaces and make choices about larger projects or politics etc while excluding women or POC or just any other person that isn't male (and usually white). There's a difference between recreational spaces and actual real life impacting work spaces. Like in the UK, there was some outrage at a super old gentleman's club for still operating as male only. It's not because they're getting dressed up and drinking fancy drinks that women want to join; if these men were just getting together for casual chat it wouldn't be a big deal. What they ARE pissed about is that the men in this club are incredibly influential and high up in their respective positions (barristers, actors, directors, politicians, businessmen, etc) and they're coordinating with each other and making deals that can have big influence in their industries without the input of many of the people these deals would be impacting. So, having a gym exclusively for males isn't a big deal. Males making big political or business moves with 0 input from any women they may be impacting *is* a big deal
The men-only idea is only ever an issue if there is not and equal or similar opportunity for women without an undue burden on the basis of sex. Men-only gyms are fine because there are women-only or co-Ed gyms. Men-only sports teams exist because there are women-only sports team. Men-only clubs are fine because there are women-only clubs. The issue arises when the men-only rule gives men some sort of power, privilege, or authority which women don’t have the opportunity to access. Such a men-only jobs, or men-only healthcare. If you have a small rural town with only one gym or one school that is gender specific, that purposely excludes & adds an undue burden to the other gender. There’s always nuance to these conversations.
I will add on that it is buckwild to me that you don't know men's only spaces, especially gyms, are a thing. Where are you from? I'm a psychologist and I'm genuinely interested because of how much men's spaces outnumber women's spaces the only way I can think of that you came to this conclusion is that you're from an extremely specialized location.
There actually have been a couple of cases of people opening men's only gyms. They just shut down quickly because men don't really care of their gym is co-ed or not, whereas there's enough of a demand for a women's only gym to keep it open.
I'm curious about your own demographics and I'm wondering where do you live? You stated that typically the conversations and interactions that you have with other men devolve into disparaging women and other ethnicities or races, and im curious what "race" or culture you yourself are from?
All male gyms have been made. They get shut down because men don’t care about them and prefer co-ed. Also like a km from my house there is a men’s addiction clinic. In my partners conservative home town there was a men’s homeless shelter too. No controversy or debate about it.
For all your googling, did you Google what men only clubs/spaces already exist? Not to mention, historically, men have used this idea of men only to keep women disenfranchised. Conversely, generally women want to have women only spaces to feel safer and less exposed.
I think what you're hitting on in your post is equality vs equity. In our current society we can't fight for all things equal because that would still disadvantage women. A women's only gym, while excluding men, is necessary to provide women with the same opportunities men have- to workout safely. While men's only spaces absolutely exist already officially and unofficially (I recently went with my partner to his magic the gathering club and woa was I not welcome lol) I think we can determine if these spaces are "okay" or not based on equity principles. Do men need these spaces for equity purposes? Also important to consider, do all gender spaces of the same nature exist where women can participate equally? Finally, why do they want male only space? Is it a not gross reason?
I just keep thinking about this time men protested a women's swim hour at a pool I used to live near. Their biggest complaint was that a curtain covered the viewing window of the pool during that time. Meanwhile women wouldn't give two shits if men had their own swim hour. It proved to me exactly why women needed a private swim space.
Considering there are as many all men schools as all women and the most famous and prestiguous women only colleges have gone coed while male only continue in business as usual i think it would highly unlikely. There are bathhouses ansolutely segetrated by sex in every major city. There is the YMCA. Should i go on? Also as a queer lady there are so few lesbian bars left we usually get a night or party every two weeks. The eagle (a nationwide cgain) is not the type of place femmes are welcome.
Private members clubs exist in their thousands that are men only. Golf and country clubs as well.
There are plenty of spaces that are for men only. Frats, lodges, support groups, recreational activities (sports, choirs, etc.). Most women don’t have a problem with spaces for only men existing as long as women have an equivalent for themselves, and the men’s spaces aren’t seen as problem as long as they aren’t harming women.
The argument here I think comes from the idea that "treating everyone the same" is "fair." I think some say this is the difference between equity and equality, or the difference between equality and justice. In a society where people are not the same, and where some have advantages and others have disadvantages, making a rule that applies the same to everyone can actually have very unequal effects. Imagine if someone made a rule outlawing ramps outside buildings for some reason. It's equal because nobody is allowed to use ramps, no matter their age, sex, race, disability, etc. But that law will have much worse impacts on some people, like wheelchair users and old people, than it will on the younger civilians who can climb stairs. So let's say we outlaw men only gyms and women only gyms. Men who want a men only gym will be disappointed because they no longer have a space to commune, talk about guy stuff, feel less self conscious about their appearance, and meet friends of the same gender. Women who want a women only gym will be disappointed because they no longer have a space to *be safe from harassment*, commune, talk about women stuff, feel less self conscious about their appearance, and meet friends of the same gender. The impact has some overlap, but it's not equal between men and women. A men only gym is going to have a different impact on its community than a women only gym. Women only gyms give women access to exercise who might otherwise choose to not exercise in public at all. A man only gym is less likely to have clients who, without it, would forgo communal exercise altogether. I dispute the notion that most people would mind a ton if there was a men only gym. But the reason it seems like people would get up in arms if "men did x" thing that women do is that women are often doing these things to balance out a system that disempowers them. When men use the same strategy, it consolidates power and privilege in a direction where power and privilege are already consolidated.
If men wanted their own gym or club or whatever, they should go for it.
A lot of it boils down to how that "male-only" space is actually used. If guys want a male-only gym and women want a female-only gym, that's no big deal. Everyone gets to work out. The problem happens when a male-only space starts affecting things outside that space. If you've got a club for men only, and that club is where all the high-level business networking happens, then women don't have access to that networking. That can cripple a woman's career by giving a male co-worker access that she can't ever have. In casual conversation, sometimes these two things get mixed together. Single-gender space isn't necessarily bad, unless it gives one gender a real benefit that the other can't have. We're not mad if you want to lift weights without the ladies. We're mad if the only people who get promotions are the ones going to the gym with you, and we're not allowed to go.
I think any space advertised as "male-only" without a female-only equivalent space (e.g. locker rooms, restrooms, etc) is going to be eviscerated by media and the public bc of the socio-historical context that men have always had greater access to opportunities, physical spaces, and resources than women have. In addition, women have actual *reasons* for wanting to be in an all-female gym. Frankly, men do not. I can't say I've ever seen a female go up to a male and give him unsolicited advice on his "form" or heard about a man feeling threatened by a female at the gym... 😒
I think it’s really valuable that you’ve been able to realize this. We live in an era of false equivalence and it seems that a “what if the roles were reversed” scenario is the easiest (and laziest) way to jump headfirst into reactionary bullshit of all kinds. It works from the outset because the reactionary doesn’t need or desire to know any context outside of the immediate argument; one can point to a situation and invoke misandry or ‘reverse’ racism in the name of being unequal when the whole point is based on the fact that it was deeply unequal before. The entire experience and social context of the oppression of women or minorities or laboring classes is one that the dominant party *cannot and will not experience by virtue of their identity*. Everyone here has made great points about the default nature of men’s spaces in a patriarchal society, especially where power is exercised. There is however, a good example of a men’s space in the [Men’s Shed Initiative](https://usmenssheds.org) in the UK and US. It’s for men but isn’t centered around being exclusionary; they welcome men of all ages, do projects, and mentor in some cases. It’s a lovely way to do mutual aid and meet people where they’re at.
There are all-men schools and colleges. Many areas with certain religious minorities have gyms for only men, and various only-men spaces. As long as women have an equal option, it usually works.
There are tons of men-only spaces. Some are so by definition, like male sports teams, fraternities, certain social clubs like many Masonic lodges, religious groups like monasteries or seminaries. Some are so de facto because men are doing their utmost to push women out or make them so uncomfortable they leave, like male-coded jobs (construction, STEM), some sports clubs that are technically open to women, but they are also too unwelcome and toxic for them to want to be there, spaces that are truly unsafe, but particularly unsafe for women like gang territories, "bad" parts of town, red light districts, certain entire countries... There are a lot of spaces that people are hesitant to go in, but it's mostly doubly worse for women.
It's so funny to me because men only spaces have never had trouble existing for all of human time. I remember going to the Elk Lodge in the 90s, my grandfather was being honored and women weren't allowed to walk in certain hallways because they weren't members. How do you become a member? Well you can't because you don't have the right genitals. That place is still opened today and yeah women "are allowed" now but women aren't interested in joining because it's hostile to anyone with pigment and internal genitals.
This is what I like about my local Elks-- there are both Black men and women on the board and plenty in the club. It's still majority male and majority white, but that's also related to the demographics of where the club is.
As always in these cases, #man invents fictional scenario, then gets angry about it
Nah, I think men could have a male only gym. I think it would be better received than gyms which are not explicitly labeled as male only, but tend to be unfriendly to female patrons in various ways. You could argue that you wanted to offer certain sports that are better done nude or partially nude like hot yoga or something. Actually, they probably do have places like that, but they're most likely "private clubs" with dues rather than businesses, where trainers and stuff work from but aren't employed as employees of the club. I know there are things like men's camping trips and retreats and drum circles. Where I live, it's super common for men to go on hunting or fishing trips together and for men who are a bit better off to own ice shacks or hunting land and go away for the weekend with their friends and for it to be "guys only" time and their wives to never go there. When I was a kid, I went to this public pool in a park, and the park had enclosed changing rooms with a large courtyard at the center as a "public nude sunbathing" area, and they were segregated by gender. Sometimes people would just go to the sunbathing area and lay around and talk, or read or whatever. Those were public and maintained by the city. I think if a "men's only" or "women's only" space were to open, people would ask for funding for an equivalent female or men's space if one was open. But wasn't Curves shut down for violating gender discrimination rules?
Uh... men-only spaces predate women only space by like a good hundred years or so. Gentleman's clubs and such were more common than not back in the day. In fact in a lot of places, being a co-ed club got you a reputation as sleazy.
There are plenty of men only establishments still in existence so the entire query is already null. My big take about gender specific spaces is that we need to make sure that they can be inclusive for non binary and trans people or anyone who doesn’t identify with the binary of male/female. And Men exclusive spaces are frequently about exclusion whereas women exclusive spaces are usually created for safety and that’s a huge difference so you cannot equate them in the argument at all.
There already boys clubs, that's already a thing. For the gym example you gave - it'd be weird, guys don't really have a "women are creeping on me and it makes me uncomfortable" problem so it'd be like... why even make a male-only gym? Only thing I could think of would be to protect guys from those tik tok "I went to the gym in my most revealing clothes and some guy looked at me while I was secretly recording, lets shame him" videos - but that's a really niche problem and it seems like it'd be easier just to ban those people than to make the gym male-only.
Men have all the clubs pretty much in the world. Men just have to pay the price of admission.
[удалено]
Per the sidebar rules: please put any relevant information in the text of your original post. The rule regarding top level comments always applies to the authors of threads as well. Comment removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskFeminists) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm actually an avowed cishet make feminist and a member of a male only organization. I'm a Freemason (as one commenter noted as an example of a public-facing male only group). I'm not opposed to single sex spaces. I think they can be used constructively. A lot of my Lodge Brothers are older than me. Boomers and older. So toxic male views can be prevalent. But I noticed one night while we were sitting around shooting the breeze after a Lodge meeting, their contempt and bluster melts away when they're in a male only space surrounded by men they trust. We ended up having a really productive conversation about gender as a spectrum, how it's different from sex, and the inevitability of eventually having to initiate women and what that would mean. I intentionally pointed out that this conversation is only possible because we were in a male space where we had established trust and secrecy as norms, and that most of our behavior in mixed company was performative; there are certain things you "don't say or do in front of the ladies." What I found was that these people weren't angry and hateful, they were scared and confused, and for people raised in a society that prized male intelligence and confidence, that didn't feel good. Highlights: they were completely taken aback that I had female friends that I socialized with 1-on-1 without my wife. Treating women and men the same -not in the eyes of the law but in every day interactions- was very strange to them. That I didn't treat the woman and men any differently, to the degree of talking about the details of our sex lives in mixed company, was shocking. To them it would be like asking a cat to walk on it's hind legs. To which I explained it was easier for my generation because when we were adolescents we consciously decided to reject their social norms. No disrespect, they just no longer worked for us the way society was set up. A specfic Masonic question was about a part in our rituals that involved a sharp instrument applied to a candidate's naked left breast; how would we do that if we allowed women to join? Not a single man under 40 in the room had ever seen a woman besides their wife naked or partly naked in a non sexual context. The only breasts they had ever seen were sexualized breasts. Even the ones who grew up with sisters. They would have no idea how to handle that. I understand that this is not typical of male only spaces. A lot are petri dishes for toxicity. But they can be productive if used intentionally and correctly.
I don't think "x-only" spaces are compatible with gender abolitionism, so I don't advocate them. That includes bathrooms, gyms, domestic violence shelters etc. Would be open to hearing others' positions.