I'm starting a social club to solve the male loneliness epidemic
Perceived causes of (male) loneliness
- Loss of “third places”: decline of churches, fraternal orders, working men’s clubs, neighborhood pubs/cafés and walkable town centers; rise of car-centric suburbs and anonymous big-city culture.
- Social media confuses “being informed” with “being connected”; people feel up to date on others’ lives, so they don’t actually talk, leading to shallow, “facade” relationships.
- Remote work and screen-based hobbies reduce incidental contact; headphones and phones signal “do not disturb.”
- Life-stage/time pressure: full‑time jobs, commuting, kids, and car-centric living leave little bandwidth to maintain friendships beyond family.
- Some add biological/cultural notes (testosterone trends, schools “geared towards women”), others dismiss these as excuses versus lack of effort and fear of leaving comfort zones.
Disagreement on the “male loneliness epidemic”
- Some see a clear crisis supported by survey data (shrinking male friend circles, high self-reported loneliness).
- Others say it’s overblown “pop-sci” or a broader human/urban atomization problem, not male-specific.
- A minority take a fatalistic or even evolutionary view: loneliness as an adaptation filter rather than something to “solve.”
Male-only vs mixed spaces
- Many argue men need male-only rooms to relax, be candid, and escape romantic/sexual dynamics; they say mixed groups change behavior and norms.
- Others say they rely heavily on female friends and find male-only culture performative, macho, or emotionally stunted.
- Concern that male-only spaces can shade into exclusion or bigotry; counterpoint that women-only spaces are widely accepted, so men’s spaces should also be legitimate.
- Examples cited: Men’s Sheds, gentlemen’s clubs, country clubs, gyms, churches, VFW/Legion, Freemasons, etc., many now aging or struggling.
Reactions to the proposed social club
- Supportive of the intention: structured, recurring events for men post‑college, outside Big Social platforms, are seen as genuinely needed.
- Critiques:
- Application/filtering feels like “auditioning” or a grown-up fraternity/country club; adverse selection risk of a “lonely guys club.”
- Branding (whiskey, poker, stock-photo vibe, young white professionals) reads as narrow, “performatively male,” and potentially pricey.
- Launch cities (NYC, Boston, SF) already have rich social options; some suggest smaller, less-vibrant cities would benefit more.
- Suggestions: focus on simple, frequent, same‑time/same‑place events; let friendships form organically; consider a physical clubhouse long-term.
Other proposed solutions and anecdotes
- Join activity-based groups: BJJ, bouldering, running and cycling clubs, pick‑up sports, combat sports, tabletop/RPG, book clubs, hackerspaces, volunteering, amateur radio/astronomy, dads’ groups, church small groups.
- Emphasis on “shared experience” and “shared struggle” over shared interests alone; repetition and effort are critical.
- Several detailed stories show men rebuilding rich social lives by deliberately stacking in‑person hobbies and service roles.
- Underneath, many comments converge on a hard requirement: someone has to take initiative, show up consistently, and risk vulnerability—no app can fully replace that.