There is a strange double standard in our society which posits that it is totally reasonable for women, people of color, people of different sexual orientations, etc. to all deserve their own 'safe spaces' to be around people of their intersectional group only; but the moment that males want this, or white people, or straight people, it's exclusionary and offensive. Nobody can defend this effectively without resorting to rhetoric that essentially just attacks people in the latter groups for things that are not their fault individually, and the entire mechanism that works to prevent them from having their own spaces seems fundamentally vengeful.

There is very much a need for boys to have a space to be boys: where they can let their boisterousness out, where they can act a little crazy, or just act closer to their true selves etc. without having to worry about how they're perceived by the girls. As soon as puberty kicks in, all co-ed events are affected by sexual dynamics; it's been a standard in every human society to provide plenty of contexts for boys where that is removed from the mix as much as possible in order to get better / different behaviour from the young cadre.

> There is very much a need for boys to have a space to be boys: where they can let their boisterousness out, where they can act a little crazy, or just act closer to their true selves etc. without having to worry about how they're perceived by the girls.

As the father of several boys, I agree. For anyone interested more in this concept, I recommend "Boys Adrift" by Leonard Sax (a psychologist) and "Boys Should Be Boys" by Dr. Meg Meeker (a pediatrician). Both books are very enlightening about some of the problems our boys face in America.

Somebody commented and then deleted their comment, but I do want to throw this out there: "Boys Adrift" was focused on psychological theories and what institutions can do, and it was more clinical in style. "Boys Should Be Boys" was more focused on what parents can do, and it was super upbeat and positive while keeping it real. Dr. Meeker (author of "Boys Should Be Boys") also has a podcast if you want to try out her style before buying [1].

[1] https://www.meekerparenting.com/podcast

Also a father of boys. They all tried Boy Scouts and none really took to it but all were involved in sports. Teams were ostensibly co-ed when they were younger but by middle school age they were all-male. Having that outlet to "be boys" and work out their energy and agressive impulses is important to growing into a well-balanced adult man.

Of course. This is obvious to anyone who has had kids of both genders. Boys and girls care about different things, play differently, react to different kinds of encouragement. And we need our boys to be the best they can be at whatever they genuinely care about, in the way they care about it, just as much as we need the same for our girls. We are in for deep, deep trouble as a society if we loose the masculine drive.

IDK I'd lean more towards mixing everyone as much as possible. All people should learn to handle being around diverse groups of people early and learn to handle themselves and respect others.

I actually think we need both. Boys need a place to be boys by themselves and girls need the same. Nothing wrong with mixing it up, but you also need the opposite.

One argument is these spaces exist, have existed for a long time, and are completely accessible to those who would want to join them. If you're a man, men's clubs and men only events still exist. Maybe they don't exist explicitly in tech? Are implicit spaces not enough? Seems easy enough to have a meetup and simply not invite any women, POC or LGBTQ people, especially in tech.

There is also a different between "explicit" and "implicit" safe spaces for different groups. Its just that they are only ever "marked" with a demographic identifier if they are for a non-dominant group. I.e., "Comic Book Shops" are geared towards (historically, typically) white boys, but "Black comic book shops" and "Girl comic book shops" also exist. We notice these, because they are marked as such, because they run counter the norm. What we don't always notice is that the unmarked "Comic Book Shop" is already geared towards a particular demographic—white men.

Basically, different safe spaces exist for different demographics, but are only marked for certain groups.

Take Boy Scouts. It used to be exactly the sort of group that GP describes. Now that's been destroyed; the boys have been told that no, you can't have a boys-only group or event.

Just FWIW, the Scout Association in the UK was renamed from "Boy Scouts Association" 1967 and began to admit girls in 1976.

Scout groups are mixed all over the world, it really doesn't make much difference - the only thing I noticed moving from a mixed one to an older all-boys one is that the boys one was much much more violent but that was mostly due to the leaders not stopping it.

I got out just before the change and am hearing some pretty dopey stuff from buddies still in the program. Like they can't go pee behind a tree any more, can't swim with shirts off. Trust me, dynamics change when girls are around. There was a mixed program already, btw, called Venturing.

I'll add that one of the best things about Boy Scouts was that we could do stuff that was dangerous, but not too dangerous. We didn't have any moms come along either, and I think that helped. Dads would stop us from doing something truly stupid (like permanent injury type stupid), but not something dumb that would bruise us and teach us a lesson. It also allowed us to do lots more fun stuff.

These days, tree forts are a no-no, apparently. Some guys from my old troop were building one at a mixed event recently. Some girls from another troop came over and said it wasn't safe, then got some karen from their troop to come yell at the boys. Oh, and and apparently it's no longer okay to climb above chest height these days, because it's "not safe". I'm way too young to be saying, "Back when I was young, we did $UNSAFE_THING all the time! We liked it, and never got hurt." Or at least, I thought I was.

I cannot relate to anything you've said and I spent I think 10 years in a mixed one

That's because males naturally use aggression/assertiveness to establish social hierarchy. That's the reason for having all-boys groups for youth, it gives them a space to work that out in a controlled way and learn how to channel their energy and aggression in positive directions.