For instance Men’s Sheds are a local effort with a thousand locations in the UK:
> Men’s Sheds encourage people to come together to make, repair and repurpose, supporting projects in their local communities. Improving wellbeing, reducing loneliness and combatting social isolation.
> Research gathered by the UKMSA Health and Wellbeing Survey, 2023, suggests 96% of Men’s Shed attendees feel less lonely since joining a Shed.
Unfortunately, sometimes you get things like this happening:
> 'We put the pressure on to join Men in Sheds'
> The 74-year-old added: "Eventually they let us in, just one morning, eventually it became all the time, and now it's 50% women, and we absolutely love it."
> When the women were allowed into the workshop, members decided to keep a quiet room with a model railway display in it, just for men.
> "We [the men] escape now and again [to the quiet room] and have a chat and weigh things up."
>Andrew McNerney, 70, admitted there was initially some resistance to becoming a mixed group.
>He said: "There was apprehension, but in all honesty, it's turned out well.
>"We [the men] escape now and again [to the quiet room] and have a chat and weigh things up."
>But he added: "It's a lovely atmosphere, and it's been good."
I know he said that it’s been good, but taken in relation to the rest of the article, I don’t place much weight on it.
The women persistently pressured the men to join, the men were apprehensive, they allowed them in for one morning, one morning turned into all the time, women now comprise 50% of the group, and the men’s area is now relegated to a back room they escape to.
They got one of the men to say it was good, but that’s not the story that the article was telling.
It is though? Reading the article, I'm fully getting a sense that its point is that it was an improvement for everyone (despite the article describing it as being triggered from nagging from the women).
Now you can choose not to believe that, but that _is_ the story the article was telling, or at least it's how I understand it.
Your assumption is that it “turned into all the time” against the wishes of the men but that’s not clear at all. Being apprehensive about change and then quickly discovering it was for the better is something we all experience in life.
Women are attending and graduating college in higher numbers than men in GenZ. Much of the man-o-sphere GenZ rightward turn seems to be resentment at society being sure what the use of men is anymore.
That is, from a very young age girls are told they can do/be whatever they want. Often now, boys are described in terms of what they can't/shouldn't be, or in how their very gender gives them a sort of ancestral debt of shame for wrongs done by the men of previous generations.
You'll hear left wing progressive parents in places like NYC tell stories like "my 8 year old boy came home from school crying because his teacher told hime everything bad that has happened in history was because of men" and stupid stuff that's unthinkable if it was reversed.
Men by and large are still expected by society to be the provider, and shamed if they aren't. Women generally won't "date/marry down" anymore than they ever did. But women are now achieving higher educational attainment than men. It's a setup for future societal disfunction, so I do think we do need to solve the male part of the equation after spending the last 50 years raising women up.
Men who don't go down that path mostly do as well as women, and women who do don't do well either. But the men who don't do well are overrepresented in voting for things that hurt themselves. Defunding education, public transport, healthcare and other public services while having harsher punishments, less rights or wars that affects men.
They don't seem to make the connection between these things. Boys at school are told to sit down and shut up (and take drugs to do so if necessary) so the girls can thrive, and they internalize that. Some people act as though this is reparations for the many years when the reverse was true. But even if they're right about the past, they're not improving the situation by swapping the injustice.
The former is a universal good and the correct way to remedy historical injustice. The latter is punishing people, literally, for the sins of their fathers.
There is of course complexity and some zero sum situations where raising X harms Y, but most of the world is not zero sum and you do not have to start from that default position.
People are bashing their heads on the wall trying to figure out why young white men are moving towards the right in droves...and the best answer they can come up with is misogyny.
He has gone over to the dark side and I am heartbroken. The final straw was he built up a business from scratch, with the laid out plan that if he got it running and was successful he would run it. Once it was all successfully running the promise was broken and he was passed up because he was a white male (this was explicitly the reason. The business was in a high minority area and they felt it would look bad having a non-local white man running things as the product's identity was in part it's location). He dedicated years of his life sacrificing building a career somewhere else getting this off the ground and an explicit promise that was broken purely because of his skin color/gender once his usefulness/startup level effort and dedication had made the business successful enough that they could replace him.
After having to move cross country back home to restart his life purely because he was a white male (and in spite of him having been successful at building the business) he very much sees the world as white males versus the left that hates/betrays him. Remember this kid gave up a year to do city year to help raise disadvantaged minority youth up (and did many, many other things before deciding things were rigged against him).
He is not scapegoating anyone, and that you judge someone's view of the world being a character flaw on their part instantly instead of trying to have any empathy, is fucking gross to be honest. Do you think people with your opinion are being intentionally obtuse out of some sort of racism on their part (they feel uncomfortable with empathy for white males), or because they just lack empathy? My last statement is as valid as your sentence above and as helpful/insightful are yours (which is zero).
This difference in action is why I think that people have a hard time having empathy. These said to be white men are not pushing for bettering themselves by making an equal environment, they are pushing to better themselves by knocking everyone else down. We can't say that others would do the same in their shoes because they didn't.
"Let's say everything you said was true" - iteria (needlessly implying it's a lie/not happening)
"someone is providing an easy scapegoat for their own problems" - tayo42 (implying what they are experience/feeling isn't real/valid. This takes some temporary bullshit that they are feeling and ends up ossifying it into ugliness/a horrible position/a shit worldview, and drives them into horrible online communities designed to take advantage of this all and feeding them into the trash right pipeline).
I'm not justifying it, I hate that I'm losing my boy into it, but I can only push so much without it pushing him harder into 'one side doesn't validate my feelings so I'm going the other way'. I think a little empathy from his peers would have gone a long way. Instead he was ostracized by his peers when he moved back home because he went through a crappy situations that seriously impacted his life and wanted someone to share a little empathy with him, because he was a white male asking for that empathy.
Where are you even coming from with that?
The Op said directly "Once it was all successfully running the promise was broken and he was passed up because he was a white male (this was explicitly the reason"
People can have down/shitty bits without just throwing them away/writing them off as irredeemable. Especially when they are frustrated over a specific event. Frustration that normally we try and help them leave behind. But for some reason in this situation 1. It's not true/didn't happen and 2. My son is trash for caring about it. I'm not around this stuff much, I don't do social media, I don't watch TV, and I live remote, but I'm getting a better sense of how my son went such the wrong direction over this.
Nowhere did I justify anything. I complained I want my son back and I refuse to write him off. Maybe check your lack of compassion, quickness to judge, willingness to write people off, and reading comprehension.
Whenever they do that they get told their problems aren't real, and that they are, in fact, the problem. You're doing it right in this post:
>Let's say everything you said was true.
I've never heard anyone say that happened but I've heard plenty of people say that they heard someone say that happened. I think it goes in the same file as "Litter boxes in classrooms so that furries can poop in front of everyone" and "It's illegal to be Christian in schools now".
When left-wing progressives talk about dismantling...let's just call it the "p-word", dismantling the expectations about what a man should and shouldn't be is very much part of that.
The system victimizes men as much as women, and we should be tearing that system down, not leaning back into it in a misguided attempt of trying to rebalance the scales.
Lol if you don't think it has been already, you never will.
Which man, who ever wants to get laid again, would be stupid enough to give anything short of an absolutely glowing review about that change to a reporter.
And that's how the ratchet works. Go to any subreddit that talks about relationships, and every time there's a man versus woman scenario, unless it's very clear that the woman was in the wrong, nearly all the women will side with the woman. But half the men will also side with the woman, because they don't want to offend the women -- even anonymous women on the Internet who almost certainly will never sleep with them. The other half of the men get downvoted to oblivion, or they learn to keep certain opinions to themselves, and it ends up looking like everyone thinks women are always right.
I'm not sure that's quite true. Men tend to talk and joke in a different way to women, which they then modify around women or be punished. The main difference between an old-school Personnel department and a modern HR department is HR is (self-)tasked with making sure the environment is always suitable for women.
Men have very few places, if any, where they can just be themselves, unmodified. And when those places exist, large shaming campaigns and marketing appear to tell them off and to entice women into them.
The Overton Window moves. It narrows and widens. That isn't the same as being unable to be yourself.
I agree that men should be socially allowed to have spaces where women are excluded and society does sort of tend to look down on that kind of thing, but I also think that in a world where many professional environments are still male dominated some sensitivity to the exclusion of women is warranted.
I mean plenty of jobs out there are still 95% or more occupied by men only.
In term of total gender segreation in the work force, about 15% of men and women work in gender equal profession. The majority, both men and women, work in a job where their gender outnumber the other gender by 2 to 1 or more.
A common finding in studies conduced on this statistics is that gender segregation occurs also within a profession. Teachers is used as the typical example where gender segregation occur on both subject but also on level. It also get worse as people advance in their careers, with each "step" on the ladder being a point where the minority gender decrease.
I see what you mean. To clarify: I meant as a group, rather than as individuals. I appreciate there are smaller-groups that also can't be themselves somehow, but if that's a sin, then perhaps the larger group not being able to be itself is a larger sin.
Imagine how this comment would come across if applied along any other demographic axis.
Extra funny hat women should be excluded so men can talk about feeling lonely and how they wish they had a woman.
Unfortunately, there are many women who react this way, so the cycle continues. I don't necessarily blame women for this, it's more about the social expectations for men, the moment they violate that expectation and are "punished" for it, they follow it to the letter, because they then know what happens if they don't.
But in any case, it's not the traditional role of whatever women happen to be in earshot.
Women want men to be emotionally open as it applies to supporting them. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but let's call a spade a spade.
They also told me I had to verbally ask girls if it was okay to kiss them and if they didn't verbally say yes I was assaulting them.
Intimacy has not been absent from my life, but it has had a very small role.
My experience has taught me trust and safety are important to women. Sometimes a man is not in his best state ready to provide that solid rock feeling. It is generally not a good situation if a woman feels she is bigger or needs to be bigger than the man and can't put herself in his hands safely.
No it isn't! Men need to talk about their feelings just as much as women! There isn't some major difference in how we handle emotions!
We are all human, and humans are emotional creatures.
So many men need to Grow the Fuck Up and realize that being vulnerable is not the same as being weak. You need to be talking to your friends or confidants about your feelings.
>To feel otherwise is not "masculine"
Wrong. If you need to project a constant air of competence and stoicism and power, you are insecure and emotionally stunted.
I blame media honestly. Watch what women protagonists in American media do compared to male protagonists. Watch how male characters just do not talk through their feelings and emotions to other men, except as essentially a crisis point. Watch as women characters are much more likely to talk about how they felt about something.
Meanwhile, outside the US, male characters are allowed to have feelings. The Doctor is an insanely emotional man, full of complicated feelings that he is constantly having to face, and yet is portrayed as a man of immense power and prestige.
What male role model to American men have that portrays emotional development as a good and important thing?
I... I've never heard this before, and it is in stark contrast to decades of my personal experience.
> You need to be talking to your friends or confidants about your feelings.
What do you mean "need to"?
Yes there is. It isn't some societal thing either. It's ingrained deeply in biology. Saying men just need to be like women is asking them to go against their nature.
You are categorically wrong. In fact, you couldn’t be further from the truth.
Men process emotions differently than women do. A real, biological difference. There is a reason why men don’t cry at the end of titanic. And to imply men are somehow emotionally stunted because they don’t emote like a woman does, is not only wrong but is harmful.
> vulnerable is not the same as being weak
Go read a dictionary. Showing vulnerability is the same thing as showing weakness and society shuns and shames weak men. There are reasons for that, and men have every incentive not to show weakness.
If there was inappropriate behavior which wouldn't stop once called out, they would be excluded.
And excluding Jews because they are Jewish is antisemitism plain and simple. Excluding those that deny that Israel actions have become genocidal different, but you won't know who they are unless you talk to them and most importantly they are not necessarily Jewish !
I'm visibly jewish and have been attending pride events and lgbt activist events for ages. I've never even heard of what you describe.
https://19thnews.org/2025/05/dyke-march-2025-new-york-city-z...
political support for the creation and development of a Jewish homeland in Israel https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/Zionism
Historically the majority of jewish people fall into this definition.
So off the bat you creating your own incorrect definition proves it IS hard to understand what a ban on 'Zionists' mean. You've called me a liar for no reason previously so I won't bother responding to you beyond pointing out how flawed your starting premise is.
If the organizers of the event have chosen a different definition than the one that most Jewish (and non-Jewish) attendees would reasonably expect it's a recipe for confusion and exclusion. Dismissing those who use the correct definition as irrelevant is wild. You deny their legitimacy so a political agenda can take center stage. Redefining words, excluding people, it's all super gross and 1984 AF.
You’re still wrong, and your attempt to reframe this only reinforces the article’s point. Redefining terms like Zionism confuses and erases people who actually use them in their accepted sense. Using redefined words to ban/prohibit people is gross. Especially when under it's 'plain reading' the ban is effectively a ban on the majority of Jewish people. Defending it is gross. The burden is on event organizers to communicate effectively, and that burden includes using words common/standard definitions not Orwellian redefinitions done purely to politicize a word.
However, the surrounding Muslim theocratic states have basically zero jews left. The majority of Israelis' are Mizrahi jewish refugees that were pushed out of the surrounding theocratic Muslim states.
Mixed groups on the other hand turn into a soap opera.
What is needed is a strong common interest that binds the group beyond these tendencies to stave off the soap opera entropy. The soap opera entropy will always increase with time though until the group dissolves.
It is still more stable though than the misogynist entropy.
Just not true. Men only groups are rarely misogynist, more often they are homophobic in the sense that everyone is trying to imply that everyone else is secretly gay.
There is also various forms of dick measuring contests - who can grill better, who caught bigger fish and so on. Also for hobbies. And a lot of stories. You have no idea the acts of bravery worthy of medal of honor you will hear.
Bitching about women is minor.
On the other hand being able to overhear what my roommate and her girlfriends (early 20s) talk about - on some evenings they don't pass the Bechdel test in real life. On other evenings it usually evenly split between men, fashion, professional.
> Men only groups are rarely misogynist, more often they are homophobic in the sense that everyone is trying to imply that everyone else is secretly gay.
The rise of red pill sentiments, podcasters, and groups strive on a very misogynistic notion. The second point in that sentence is also the default in those groups.
This is exactly what I do not want to be part of.
And if that man is charismatic or handsome its completely different dynamics and resulting behavior again.
Never thought about it myself but one female friend mentioned this once (how toxic their work environment becomes when there is no man), so started noticing it around.
As a married man I can understand these clubs fully. A man is never so relaxed, open and honest as when with other men, only men. I would expect the same among women, while accepting they always play their little games also just among themselves (which are very tiring for most men in long run and thus those clubs' popularity)
We aren't talking about spouses.
I've yet to see the clam closing up than I did on the day. Sadly it happened way too late for some things.
So yeah, don't be vulnerable around women. That's the warning my wife gave me.
All in all, I am most open to her from whole mankind, but thats also due to the fact she is not same as typical women are in these aspects. It took me some time (and painful breakups with other women) to realize who I am, what and whom I want next to me and then find her.
Still, some topics are simply not built for women, and thats fine, some are not built for men.
Is it really so hard to understand this?
Generally I much prefer mixed gender socialising!
That's not been the the case in my experience, as a man.
Can't bond without insulting women. There's a very important difference.
I feel like men only spaces in the UK are frowned upon (see Garrick club narration). No matter the reason, the only way single sex spaces work here is women only.
The fear will always be that male-only spaces will become centers of power and decision-making that women are excluded from. That’s where the private London clubs sit. Doesn’t seem as likely to happen in a shed, but who knows?
So are women-only gyms not a thing in the UK then? Here in NA they're everywhere, we even have a women-only version of the YMCA (YWCA).
Despite the names, neither the YWCA or YMCA as broad organizations strictly restrict membership by gender (or religion, for that matter.) My understanding with YWCA specifically is that inclusiveness on gender varies considerably by individual local association.
Whether or not the law prohibits or permits such discrimination, differential treatment (definitely including outright exclusion) on the basis of sex is, obviously sex discrimination, that’s just the meaning of the words.
This isn't an x-has-it-worse comment by the way. I think every demographic is entitled to self-segregate without shame, and the ladies definitely face their own struggles in achieving this.
E.g.
Girl Scouts: allowed to be girls only
Boy Scouts: now “Scouting” because girls are allowed
My intramural sports in college had coed and women only teams
(Source: My sister and her friends were the type that would have thrived in boy scouts, but they had to join a "venture crew" run by the same scout leader as our boy scout troop)
The chance to obtain Eagle Scout status is itself more exciting. It difficult to deny that it is one of the best leadership programs for children available. The girl scout equivalent is not even close to producing the leaders the Eagle Scouts do. They also have their own network for eagle scouts to connect. It can be an opportunity to get into a Good ‘ol Boys club (future business & money connections) before moving out of their parent’s house.
If a male or female wants to learn more about extracting money from family/shoppers by selling cases of cookies, or learn about female social empowerment and financial skill, instead of learning leadership through self reliance/accountability skills mixed with teamwork, then why not let them choose the programs they want? -- but they are different. Their Gold Award is nothing like earning Eagle Scout status.
Turns out some are allowed to have special clubs, but others not so much. And we only have societal perception of women to blame; the thing they're relying on for all this "they need their own space to protect them" is demeaning, imo. Besides the fact that the majority of victims of crime are male (and before someone points out that the majority of criminals are also male - did you know that's a sexist statement to make? It's judging an entire sex by the actions of individuals).
I have a bridge to sell you
Did it have anything to do with "Boy Scouts is a sexist organization" narratives?
Also Tiktok means fewer young boys so bored that they set things on fire.
Opening up the organization to young girls as well seems like exactly the right fix for
Rampant sex abuse scandals
That's how I would fix that problem too
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-lets-246-bill...
Centre of the English speaking world here.
My gym has a "mixed" workout area and a "women only" workout area. The pool and sauna have "mixed" sessions and "women only" sessions. Classes are segregated to "women only" or "mixed". Membership fees are the same for all.
That is the impression you would get from online journalism. The reality is basically the opposite. Women's only spaces are celebrated and the narrative is that they're brave and strong and defiant and resisting sexist oppression. 80-90% of men are totally ambivalent about it.
I’m unsure whether there’s a legal issue here (one thing that comes to mind is that I know the UK at least historically had weird laws about what constitutes public sex, so maybe excluding women allows them to legally have darkrooms or something?) or if it’s just cultural.
Which always annoyed me because I've been to a few Soho "gay" bars since and they're just full of straight women/hen dos. Asked for a cocktail..."we don't do cocktails". How the fuck do you call yourself a gay bar anymore then!
I go to a regular meet and one of the places next door is a drag bar, whose entire purpose seems to be to host hen dos. Ugh.
That cycle tends to repeat, and you don't really see it in reverse. Men are mildly curious, at most, about what women do in their own spaces, and generally don't seek to join them. That probably adds to the perception women have that the male-only spaces are more fun.
I think maybe a key aspect is ensuring that all men, particular the ones that are classically unattractive (even repulsive) feel welcome as valued equals. Many women cannot countenance this and will try to shape group membership to be more agreeable; those women are free to leave. The rest are welcome to stay and at that point there shouldn't be any issues.
(Of course it goes without saying that actual harassment isn't tolerated, but being a smelly fat slob with a heart of gold doesn't count.)
> I spoke with some men at the Man Shed in Edinburgh at Christmas and they mentioned that in the cases they had heard about where women had been let in the number of male members dropped.
— https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1k6w3pr/we_p...
Aside from that, just take a look at what happened. When women joined, the men responded by finding a men-only room to “escape” to. It’s hardly a great leap to think that some of those men will escape someplace else instead.
Besides, as is abundantly clear from the program, they "escape" in there to have a "quiet chat" because the band saw in the big room is fucking loud.
Men must be welcome as an absolute, women must conform to your expectations or be excluded.
> absolute
As I said, harassment shouldn't be tolerated. Men who do that should be kicked out.
It's unfortunate, but it happens.
You'd meet up for dinner at a local place that was usually pretty good, with 2-3 other people, mostly tech-adjacent. Dinners were pretty polite, a little awkward, mildly stimulating, but I never made real relationships from it. Seems like the same idea has emerged with https://timeleft.com.
I don't know. It seems like the best way to make friends is to force people to do some other task next to each other a few days per week and let things form organically after they are around each other for a few years.
This IMO is a part of the problem. I don't want more tech friends. Not that there's anything wrong with us, but I want more diversity in my friend groups. And I'm tired of many hangouts eventually devolving into chats about tech-related topics.
And some people need that, or at least claim to need that. Reddit R4R personals that go - "I'm at home, I'm bored, and looking for someone to talk to. About me, I like music, movies, and food."
But I think most of the people who are lonely aren't lonely because they've never had a chance to meet a friend before, but rather because they haven't found someone that clicks with them. And most of these solutions don't put much effort into finding people who match.
You need a “shared struggle” to build tribal bonds. Some kind of us vs it or us vs them narrative. A simple get together where everyone spends money and has a good time is never going to accomplish that.
That is why immigrant groups, religious groups, professional groups, etc are more resilient, and successive generations that experience more independence end up splintering and otherwise loosening the bonds.
See also hazing in militaries/sports teams/“Greek” organizations/etc (not that I condone hazing).
I find that really outgoing people do great with any situation such as e.g. a dinner, but the truth is they do great because they don't need the shared interest. If we were kids and a really outgoing kid showed up they could just hang out with us without having the slightest interest in our games, simply because they were fun to be around.
Personally the kid analogy works quite well to help me understand the dynamics, and sadly what we lose as adults is the ability to walk up to any other person and go "oh is that an abc", and then just joining them AND to be accepted for having done so.
It's not only about one's own identity, but also the other participants.
This is still the norm in some places. When I was cycling through the Balkans, I was surprised how many people sit in public spaces, usually close to a kiosk, and play cards, throw dice, or just chatter
The problem mostly arises in big cities where a lot of young move for work, I'd call those socially sterile places.
My area's solution is we don't have parks, we have public land trusts that are actually private property and can ban people. They're pretty nice for those of us allowed.
I’ve seen a number a theories on why these spaces declined:
1. Social media became more engaging than actual hangouts.
2. Rising levels of cultural and ethnic diversity lead to lower levels of social trust and a subsequent exit from public spaces (see e.g. Robert Putnam).
3. Independent bars and cafes got bought out by chains that favored higher rates of table turnover.
4. Civil Liberties movement made America into an open air insane asylum that normal people avoid venturing into.
5. Wages not keeping pace with inflation leaves less discretionary income available to pay for these spaces.
6. Decline of fraternal orders, friendly societies, and veteran clubhouses which were often the owners of the bars and / or cafes.
7. A loss of a common religious practice creating a space for community, and in the case of evangelical Christianity a shift to a female driven congregation and preaching.
(Which, ultimately, is very sad for the women in the church, too, because a lot of them want to be married to a Christian man, but struggle to find one if only for a purely supply issue)
3. When I was younger we did item 1 above, but at Denny's late at night after everything shut down. The fact it was a chain didn't seem to impact the hang potential.
4. I grew up in Santa Cruz and it was always an insane asylum and had a homeless problem before having a homeless problem was cool, but it was also always a city full of people hanging out (don't know anymore was forced to move away).
Place-based community is key, and can't be fixed with an app, or a service. Not long-term anyway.
Only then can your group start to develop favorite local places to hang around at.
> I bring this up because if you look at places that had lively social activities a few decades or a century ago, they were almost always a specific place.
Which is basically irrelevant, as you can come up with a similar example of pre-covid, during-covid and post-covid changes for how people hang out. People adapt pretty quickly.
> The neighborhood cafe where locals can stop by at any time and see other locals. The bar that everyone stops by after work twice a week.
I'm not sure these places really ever existed with such a stability as you describe outside of _really_ small towns. Like under 5000 pop towns.
These places exist today, in numerous major cities around the world. I live near one.
You can totally pick a convenient cafe or pub and start hanging out there & inviting your existing friends. In time you'll start to recognize the other regulars, and you can make a point of chatting with them regularly (but not overstaying your welcome especially early on!), find out what they're interested in, offer & request small favors, crack jokes, eventually a bit of friendly competition, casual debate about mutual interests while intentionally trusting them enough to let them change your mind a little, etc -- all the things you'd normally do to build a social connection with another man. The upside and downside of a location-based approach is that it's a very weak filter. The other regulars may be people whom it's a real stretch to learn to connect with.
Location-agnostic social activities are typically focused on an activity or interest, e.g. people who want to hike, watch a movie, play a game or sport, do political activism, do community service, etc. So the social group comes with a filter attached that ensures you will have an easier time connecting with them. This is great! There are some downsides, too, but nothing serious.
Obviously, that's not an absolute; clearly people yearn for human contact. But as you point out, there was a time when people participated in social activities and public life with a much higher degree of physical presence than they do now, and the popularity of apps which sidestep this indicate to me that people also desire not to engage with others so proximately.
If you want to have relationships with people, go to where people actually are, buckle your belt, set aside your dread of rejection or indifference, and introduce yourself.
People still talk about it years later.
It's not hard to do if you have the space.
But you have to have the space.
pokemon go was a notable example that got people out of the house (and sometimes into adventure..)
The interesting thing though is how the solution is always location-agnostic. By that I mean it’s never really about a specific cafe or restaurant or soccer field, it’s always an app or service that organizes people to show up in various places.
I bring this up because if you look at places that had lively social activities a few decades or a century ago, they were almost always a specific place.
The neighborhood cafe where locals can stop by at any time and see other locals. The bar that everyone stops by after work twice a week. These are stationary physical locations that don’t require pre-planning, schedules, apps, or anything else.