Women’s naive understanding of male psychology is that the male version of “getting together with the girls” is men drinking beer instead of tea and sitting around to discuss problems.

Men don’t bond over talking. And men don’t bond over problems. This isn’t what drives men to be with each other.

What women don’t want to acknowledge is that male camaraderie is fundamentally about forming a tribe to play violent patriarchal war games. That is what scratches men’s itch. Any actual group where “men have each other’s back” is unforgivingly about male power and subjugating an opposing team.

Of course there’s a spectrum, but that spectrum only grows in one direction. At a minimum it’s locker room banter before destroying the other football team. But even this grows into things like hooliganism.

So the law of the universe is that the more dangerous, the more violent, the stronger the bond. This is why men’s strongest bonds are found in street gangs, the military, fascist movements, etc. The more defanged, safe, predictable the weaker the bond. Men aren’t going to bond over making cupcakes.

So yes men can get their loneliness resolved through male friendships. No women required. The price you need to accept is that this inevitably leads to sewing the seeds for patriarchal groups that will probably take away your rights for sport.

Nearly organized sports today is a defanged version of some ancient violent war game that involved killing people.

Women should thank their lucky stars that men have become addicted to digital simulations of war. That’s what basement losers are actually doing. They’re forming weak digital bonds that would otherwise be embodied in the real world in some way that would negatively impact women. So instead of doing actual violence and subjugating women they kill each other’s pixels and subjugate pornstars (virtually).

When you encourage actual “male friendship” - you’re telling men to go play war.