Hacker News Reader

> 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.