No place for men
The erosion of male spaces and the need for renewal
This September, while on a tour of Cambridge University with my family, our tour guide regaled us about the “dark past” of Magdalene (pronounced MAWD-lin) College. In 1988, Magdalene College was the last all-male college at Cambridge. When it was forced to integrate women that year, male members wore black armbands and flew the college flag at half-mast in protest. He hailed the integration of women as “progress in equality” and lamented the behavior of the protesters.
When my father enquired as to whether the all-women colleges had also been forced to allow men, the tour guide admitted that they were not. However, due to the unjust treatment of women at the University, women deserve to have their own colleges, while men do not. Prior to 1948, women could not obtain degrees from Cambridge, although they could attend. And getting to even that point had taken over 50 years. Apparently, equality alone was not enough to rectify this wrong.
The truth is that by 1988, there was no need to integrate women into Magdalene College on the grounds of fairness; they had already achieved parity with men at the university, and could attend and obtain degrees just the same as men. Women were admitted to 30 of the 31 colleges at Cambridge, including two all-women colleges, Newnham College and Murray Edwards College. The forced integration of the last all-male college was not about justice, equality, or fairness; it was about retribution. It was about showing men that, as a penance for their past wrongs of other men, they will not be allowed to have a place for themselves. Although men and women are viewed ostensibly as “equal”, apparently, women are more deserving of fair treatment than men.
This double standard has been the prevailing sentiment in Western culture for decades, eroding male-only institutions under the guise of equality. The Boy Scouts of America, once a cornerstone institution in the development of young boys, faced numerous lawsuits and public shaming until it admitted girls in 2019. Or take Augusta National Golf Club, the prestigious venue for the Masters Tournament, which held out against admitting women until 2012 amid boycotts and media campaigns. Yet women’s golf clubs and networks, such as the Ladies Professional Golf Association, face no equivalent backlash.
In my college experience, the co-ed nature of everything at first seemed exciting, but quickly became annoying. Eventually, I moved out of the dorms into a house with four other men, and we all quickly bonded. I experienced the discussion and camaraderie that is quintessential to male spaces, as well as the unique rules, activities, and traditions that seem to spontaneously develop among men. Everything else on campus, dorms, student orgs, and clubs was co-ed, with the exception of fraternities and sororities, making my apartment one of the few spaces where I experienced male community.
What proponents of forced integration don’t understand—or refuse to understand—is that there is a qualitative difference between a space that is male-only and one that is mixed. Introduce a woman, and the focal point of the group tends to shift from whatever ideas and ideals the group focused on, to now the woman being the center of attention. This isn’t a bad thing per se; there is a time and place for mixed company. But it becomes a problem when you are given no other options.
The same is true for women as well. It is important that they have their spaces, places, and associations. And while these things have fared better in our cultural and legal environment, if we continue this path of forced integration for men, eventually the same arguments will be used against women’s spaces as well. You can already begin to see how transgenderism, with its forced integration of biological men pretending to be women, is precipitating this. This topic deserves a whole article to itself.
Returning to the plight of young men today, men will frequently default to isolation or turn to online groups for a simulacrum of real community when faced with limited options for male community. The data reflects men becoming increasingly isolated. A 2021 survey by the American Perspectives Survey found that 15% of men under 30 report having no close friends—a figure that has tripled since 1990. This is a shame, as fraternal spaces have not only given me life-long friendships; they have helped me mature into a man, develop socially, and grow in virtue.
Beyond these individual benefits, throughout history, organized groups of men have played a major role in social change. The Founding Fathers participated in numerous male-only societies, whether by charter or de facto: Freemasonry, The American Philosophical Society, and The Society of the Cincinnati, to name a few. The urban society of eighteenth-century America was replete with gentlemen’s social clubs. While I cannot calculate with precision the impact this had on the building of our Nation, certainly the role that societies such as the Sons of Liberty played is self-evident.
If we want to bring about change, it will involve organizing men. That is why fraternal organizations are so important. That is why when I started building a community in my city, I started with a men’s philosophy group and have expanded from there. In my experience, the need exists for private, male associations and the community they provide. If your city already has something like this, join it. If not, create it. Now is a time to build.
