The discussion is of course wild. There's the "Men's Group? That sounds like the old boy's network repackaged, and/or a swipe at Women's Groups etc" side and the "Men's Groups could have legitimate uses/ it's UNFAIIIIIIR for women to have a group and men to not, you're so MEAAANNNNNNNNN and SEXIST if you disapprove in any way" side.
Annoyingly, I find myself interrogating my first response. I still think such a group needs to be considered in the context of wider society and of male-dominated industries BUT I can see possible beneficial uses people laid out BUT I am still very doubtful that those uses were either the impetus or the current practice.
Here's a comment from a commenter I had liked until now. I'm turning it over in my mind. There's a lot I disagree with, not least the "reaction against men having support" bit, but some of it does make sense to me. Is that due to past patriarchy or future potential?
Dinwar* April 11, 2022 at 8:43 am I disagree with Alison on #1.
First, let’s be precise in language: If you’re going to have groups based on race, sex, sexual orientation, and the like, it is discrimination to tell a group “Oh, but not you. You don’t get one.” The fact that many people are perfectly fine with such discrimination is one reason why some men feel the need to form such a group.
Second, there’s a lot of good this group could do. It’s pretty widely reported that there’s a mental health crisis among men, for example. White men account for more than 60% of all suicides, for another. There are also serious health issues that relate to men that are very under-discussed in our culture (there are a number of ways to get a lump on your testicles, for example, but the only one anyone who hasn’t gone through the experience knows of is cancer). It’s pretty widely known that we have no idea how often men suffer domestic abuse–about the only thing the data says is that it’s so under-reported that the data tell us nothing. There are also work-related issues that men face that deserve help, such as trying to find a work/life balance, dealing with toxic peers (“man up” is the only advice most of us have ever gotten), and the like.
I’m not saying men have it worse. What I am saying is that there are clear, well-documented, objective reasons for cis men to have a support group. The knee-jerk reaction against men having support is one of the causes of these issues, in fact. (Somewhat ironically, groups that are toxic offer very little in terms of actual support, causing far more damage to the men not at the top of the social ladder.)
To see an example of such an organization that’s not toxic, check out the website “Art of Manliness”. It’s more general-purpose than work-related, but it demonstrates that “group for men” and “toxic” are not synonyms. (I can’t whole-heartedly recommend it, as it leans pretty heavily Christian in ways I find obnoxious, but on the whole the good outweighs the bad.)
All that said, if this specific group is toxic, it’s toxic and that’s an issue.
Contemplations and a Comment
Annoyingly, I find myself interrogating my first response. I still think such a group needs to be considered in the context of wider society and of male-dominated industries BUT I can see possible beneficial uses people laid out BUT I am still very doubtful that those uses were either the impetus or the current practice.
Here's a comment from a commenter I had liked until now. I'm turning it over in my mind. There's a lot I disagree with, not least the "reaction against men having support" bit, but some of it does make sense to me. Is that due to past patriarchy or future potential?
Dinwar*
April 11, 2022 at 8:43 am
I disagree with Alison on #1.
First, let’s be precise in language: If you’re going to have groups based on race, sex, sexual orientation, and the like, it is discrimination to tell a group “Oh, but not you. You don’t get one.” The fact that many people are perfectly fine with such discrimination is one reason why some men feel the need to form such a group.
Second, there’s a lot of good this group could do. It’s pretty widely reported that there’s a mental health crisis among men, for example. White men account for more than 60% of all suicides, for another. There are also serious health issues that relate to men that are very under-discussed in our culture (there are a number of ways to get a lump on your testicles, for example, but the only one anyone who hasn’t gone through the experience knows of is cancer). It’s pretty widely known that we have no idea how often men suffer domestic abuse–about the only thing the data says is that it’s so under-reported that the data tell us nothing. There are also work-related issues that men face that deserve help, such as trying to find a work/life balance, dealing with toxic peers (“man up” is the only advice most of us have ever gotten), and the like.
I’m not saying men have it worse. What I am saying is that there are clear, well-documented, objective reasons for cis men to have a support group. The knee-jerk reaction against men having support is one of the causes of these issues, in fact. (Somewhat ironically, groups that are toxic offer very little in terms of actual support, causing far more damage to the men not at the top of the social ladder.)
To see an example of such an organization that’s not toxic, check out the website “Art of Manliness”. It’s more general-purpose than work-related, but it demonstrates that “group for men” and “toxic” are not synonyms. (I can’t whole-heartedly recommend it, as it leans pretty heavily Christian in ways I find obnoxious, but on the whole the good outweighs the bad.)
All that said, if this specific group is toxic, it’s toxic and that’s an issue.