>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.
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.
