No formalized exclusively male spaces can be permitted to exist. The military, gyms, fraternal societies, Boy Scouts, military academies, private clubs, one by one they have all fallen. Now they're coming for fraternities, essentially the last bastion of male organization. Even informal groups are under suspicion. My father used to get together with a group that called itself the Old Fart's Club, which was just some old guys from the neighborhood who'd meet for breakfast once a week at the local diner. One of the guys got the stink-eye from his wife because it was only men in the group. She felt personally threatened by the thought that her husband was meeting with other men without female supervision. Disrupting male societies is always expressed in terms of either women's safety or equality, both of which are absurd and dishonest. Women are positively encouraged to maintain exclusive female spaces, so "equality" is obvious bullshit. What they mean by "equality" in this case is that women have to be allowed to participate in male spaces, because implicitly it is only those spaces in which things actually get done. Women-only spaces are encouraged for "safety", implying that mixed spaces are unsafe ... And of course having women in those formerly male spaces then necessities managerial intervention, for "safety". In this case we see the very existence of frats being framed as sexually threatening. The actual intent of course is social disruption. The social dynamics in all-female, mixed, and all-male environments are profoundly different. Male societies are understood to be threatening to the managerial order, and therefore they cannot be permitted to exist. Men can only be allowed to associate with one another when monitored by females, who will ensure that the men remain well behaved - that their words and actions remain within socially acceptable boundaries, as defined by the managerial class via the propaganda apparatus that women are especially vulnerable to. An all-male group might privately begin to dissent from managerial narratives. It might start debating the issues of the day, questioning certain assumptions, testing them against evidence, mocking them with rude jokes. Male groups are highly tolerant of dissent. Women in general are intolerant of dissent from tribal norms, and ruthlessly enforce orthodoxy without worrying at all about truth, logic, or evidence. Consensus is all that matters to them. Men instinctively understand this, and self-police in mixed groups, as they don't want to lose sexual access due to a pointless disagreement. It was always understood that you don't swear, make lewd jokes, or discuss politics or religion in mixed company. It just makes the foids angry or, worse, bored. By forcing every social context to be mixed, men are easily prevented from even discussing a wide range of topics with one another. This then establishes preference falsification. All the men you know are well behaved golden retrievers, so you keep your head down too. Dissent doesn't just mean annoying a couple of silly girls, it means getting cast out of the group entirely. Another factor is simple efficacy. Female groups don't tend to actually do much. Mixed groups are largely for mating (of which there is very little at the moment, despite what should be abundant opportunity). Male groups naturally tend to become object and mission-oriented. Disrupting male spaces therefore renders men collectively powerless, thus preventing them from becoming a threat to the managerial system. This is obvious if you think about it: women's spaces are encouraged partly in order to "empower" women, so how else are we to interpret the prohibition of male spaces?