In my previous post asking if it was possible to defend a male space without making it explicitly hostile to women, Dragnet asked if there had been actual examples of a private organization that had been forced to accept women instead of private organizations just caving to cultural pressure. The problem with that question is that “cultural pressure” could also include government pressure. For example, in the past the government had threatened the MPAA with more regulation if it didn’t create its own film rating system. The MPAA film rating system is “voluntary”, but it’s “voluntary” in the same way that people/businesses who have to pay off the mob for “protection” is voluntary.
Beyond that, there are examples of the government explicitly forcing purely private organizations to admit women. It’s happened to a lot of charitable/service organizations. The Boys and Girls Clubs used to be the Boys Clubs until the government ordered them to admit females. The same thing happened to the Jaycees, the Kiwanis, and the Rotary Club. When this issue came before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court decided that these organizations were really “public accommodations” instead of the purely private organizations they actually were because their membership was “too inclusive” to be a private organization. The Supreme Court also used reasoning that since these organizations could be used for business/career networking, anti-discrimination laws for employment also applied here to a degree. What this means is that three guys having an ad hoc hunting club without women (for example) isn’t going to have to worry about the Supreme Court forcing them to admit women. If it was a hunting clubs with thousands of members (or more), then the Supreme Court can and would order them to admit women.
The Supreme Court’s argument about business/career networking is particularly dangerous because business/career networking can happen anywhere where there is two or more people. That reasoning gives the government carte blanche to order any organization regardless of size or its nature to admit women. (For that matter, this reasoning gives the government an excuse to order any private organization to do what it wants.)
The Supreme Court also has not defined where the line between a truly private organization and a “public” one is. At any time the government can come in and declare a private organization to be a “public accommodation”. In theory it could define the three guys with an ad hoc hunting club to be a public accommodation. That doesn’t happen because it isn’t worth the time of the government to do that. The line between private organization and “public accommodation” is whenever the government wants to get involved with how a private organization runs things.
This tells us a lot about some of the problems that any mens rights organization will face in the future. Consider a mens rights organization, which by definition is a private organization, that decides to exclude women. That would make sense as we have seen women derail things as simple as blogs, and women disrupting the workings of (proto-)mens rights organizations. As soon as that mens rights organization starts getting somewhere, the first thing the government will do will be to declare it a “public accommodation” because it is sufficiently large according to the government and business/career networking can happen there. That will be the end of that mens rights organization. Either the organization will disband to refuse to comply with the government’s orders, or it will admit women and grind to a halt. Either way the mens rights organization in question is dead.
This isn’t an unsolvable problem, but it is a difficult one. Completely decentralized solutions like MGTOW avoid this problem, but that isn’t going to get any laws changed either, at least not directly. It’s the political equivalent of women invading a male space. Once a male space gets big enough women are either going to want in or want to destroy it.