I have had this discussion with my wife, men need activities more than women to bond. My wife can make friends just by randomly running into other women at events or my daughter's activities.
Basically the whole point of the Freemasonry fraternity as well. Male only. It is dressed up with some altruistic goals and rituals, but it is a social club for men essentially.
> Basically the whole point of the Freemasonry fraternity as well. Male only. It is dressed up with some altruistic goals and rituals
Freemasonry began as a workers' guild, but the accreted "goals and rituals" take a group far beyond the simplicity of a men's shed.
The simplicity of any club rapidly becomes complex when monotheism or henotheism (any theism) is injected:
From Wikipedia:
* Anglo-American style Freemasonry, which insists that a "volume of sacred law" should be open in a working lodge, that every member should profess belief in a supreme being, that only men should be admitted, and discussion of religion or politics does not take place within the lodge.
* Continental Freemasonry or Liberal style Freemasonry which has continued to evolve beyond these restrictions, particularly regarding religious belief and political discussion.
* Women Freemasonry or Co-Freemasonry, which includes organisations that either admit women exclusively or accept both men and women."
I don't think it is complex. The theme of a social group is just there as a filter. If you like rock climbing and meet someone at a rock climbing gym that person is far more likely to be interested in things you are interested in: physical fitness, the particular mental challenges of rock climbing, etc. It was just an example. I won't analyze the sexism or male only nature of the fraternity, but I think Freemasonry anecdotally reinforces the idea that men want/need/form these kind of clubs more than women on average.
When we study this we notice very small actual bias at an individual level on socialization preference. The differences are modest and more like slight preferences. There is more overlap than not at a local individual level. What gets missed is that even though the differences are relatively small, the network effect greatly amplifies these small variances resulting in non-linear outcomes. Even small biases at an individual level essentially produce significant effect in socialization behavior.
> but I think Freemasonry anecdotally reinforces the idea that men want/need/form these kind of clubs more than women on average.
There seem to be as many Women’s Institute members in England as there are Freemasons.
And that is before you consider more ad hoc organisations like book clubs that are definitely more female dominated (though sports clubs perhaps the opposite?)
I'll defer to you of course if you have personal experience that I do not. But would it not become more complex than a "woodworking club" (men's shed) or than a brick mason's guild as soon as a complex filter such as religion is introduced?
> I won't analyze the sexism or male only nature of the fraternity
No need to analyse the usefulness of fraternity (or sorority), I think. It's just a fact that sometimes the sexes don't want to mingle. What could become problematic are cases of gender-fluidity.
Honestly, as a non-sports loving male, it makes it much harder to build male friendships.
Not that its impossible, but the majority* of men get together to watch, play, or talk about sports the majority of the time... whereas I'm perfectly fine just hanging out where hanging out is the activity!
I eventually just stopped trying to invite most of my guy friends out for 1-1 meals, etc.
Kids these days get together and give presentations to each other. For example, a co-worker of mine had everyone at her birthday party present on an inventor they chose.
This is generally known to be true for men. We have a much harder time connecting socially without some sort of shared activity or action. The OP isn't trying to project on to you.
While that may be true, there are exceptions. And hence I think parents comment is more inclusive to say: some people (that are overwhelmingly male) need activities to bond, while others (majority female) do not need that. (May not be the best example here but helps i.e criticising certain toxic behaviours that are somehow more linked to one sex without blaming everyone of that sex)
To be honest, I apologise if the following appears a bit terse; I’m just really frustrated with what you’ve said and this is the best I can describe why that’s the case (without watering it down)
We don’t need to step back and work out the fundamental nature of sex and gender in order to have a functional conversation about them.
I don’t need to provide a definition of a chair before I can tell you that ones with three legs are more stable (“but what is a chair? what is the exact definition? aren’t some of them tables? aren’t some three legged chairs less stable?”). We just don’t have to do this. Do you do it for chairs? Or just gender? Why? Does it help feminism or trans rights to interrupt a conversation about male mental health with a semantic rabbit hole?
As for your second paragraph, there very much are studies showing the correlation being described, and they’re very easy to find. It would have been far more constructive to actually ask rather than suggest it’s an “assumption” — or even better, to research it yourself.
>For example, when someone calls a statement "x-ist," they're also implicitly saying that this is the end of the discussion. They do not, having said this, go on to consider whether the statement is true or not. Using such labels is the conversational equivalent of signalling an exception. That's one of the reasons they're used: to end a discussion.
>If you find yourself talking to someone who uses these labels a lot, it might be worthwhile to ask them explicitly if they believe any babies are being thrown out with the bathwater. Can a statement be x-ist, for whatever value of x, and also true? If the answer is yes, then they're admitting to banning the truth.
----
Please don't try to end our constructive discussions, mmoose; people (men and women sure fine) have a tough enough time without having to get the language police involved.
[this will be my last response to this thread, as I continue hoping somebody learned anything, today]
There is an interesting thing. If you study the socialization patterns there are only small to moderate average differences and huge overlap between individuals (all genders). This is in part social construct and in part nature. When you average things statistically you can mislead yourself pretty quickly reading some of these studies.
There is more overlap than not. So, how do we reconcile that with how things end up: network effect. Small biases in socialization norms lead to significant non-linear outcomes due to amplification of these biases leading to norms that exaggerate these biases and end up creating norms that are quite distorted from the average. Leads to some significant consequences for how different genders end up socialization.
> We have a much harder time connecting socially without some sort of shared activity or action.
You might have a harder time doing that; other men have different experiences. The average man has brown eyes and is 1.72m tall; does that mean your eyes and height are that way? It's certainly an error to take statistical generalizations and apply them to individuals - one of the first things you learn in statistics.
Also, the studies you cited don't address this issue. The psychcentral link is about memory research. The other looks at social relationships, but doesn't look at this aspect of them. Do you actually know of any research?
Do you have something to say about the issues? Don't worry about me, thanks anyway.
Edit: As far as learning something, the GGP's citations were nonsense, as I pointed out. What has anyone offered, other than a demonstration of the fundamentals of misapplying statistics.
lol. Just address the issues, if you can. I've done nothing more.
I don't even see something negative in what I posted - it's pretty positive to me. I didn't say, 'we're all going to die' or say something fatalistic (like the comment I originally responded to).
Unless you mean 'negative' is 'disagrees', which of course badly is miscontrued in open intellectual debate, especially on HN.
I don't know what the 'personal' issue you have is. Perhaps a stereotype of people whose beliefs might overlap with mine in this area? It's not personal to me.
Just stick to the merits of the issue; you don't need to bring in ad hominem arguments.
All they need to know is their own needs. Mine are not defined by my gender/sex, but by me; same with the person I'm talking to, same with you.
I'm not thinking about myself on the basis of what someone else thinks all people of my gender/sex do - that's irrelevant. Do you redefine your own needs based on what you read someone else thinks half the population does?
Why does anyone need to be defensive about what someone has found for them?
For example, studies have shown that men who decide to isolate themselves to be "family men" die earlier at age 58.
It might not need to be a pub, but having a club house to do pretty much anything is enormously beneficial to the human brain to have positive social interaction.
We get to decide our own social interaction.
The world is not responsible to not triggering us.
> For example, studies have shown that men who decide to isolate themselves to be "family men" die earlier at age 58.
Yes, but isn't it a benefit to society as a whole though? All the prime working years are gone by then and there is no need to pay pension to those men or for expensive medical treatments. And younger generations can be happy for there being one less cishet white male boomer in the world.
I mean, it sure sucks for the individual not being able to enjoy their retirement, but for the society it seems that it will be a benefit.
Of course people dying younger is a benefit to society. Old people cost a lot, they're not productive, and (unlike children) they don't have any productive years in their future either. Ideally we would all drop dead of a heart attack 10 years after reaching retirement age (this would also solve the geriatocracy we find ourselves in).
Instead we clutch to life far beyond any societal benefit and, in many cases, beyond personal benefit too, spending a fortune to delay death another few weeks or months… but with incredibly low quality of life.
That said, dying at 58 is probably of no real benefit. But everyone dying a few years younger would have prevented Brexit.
I notice that both you and bragh have this idea - bragh calls it "working years", and you call it "productive years". You only value the lives of people so long as the wealthy are able to extract value from them.
I'm all for death with dignity and not being a burden on your loved ones. But people who've worked all their lives deserve to have a period after where they can enjoy life without the burden of "productivity".
Eventually it doesn't end well indeed. But modern society has made it pretty clear that older men aren't actually needed and are more of a burden. Just look at how triggered the GP of the thread got just about a mention that men might want a different approach when it comes to social stuff.
Well, not needed, unless an actual shooting war breaks out and you need a lot more people pulling guard duty or just some very high-risk stuff younger men should not be wasted on. Like that Ukrainian unit of pensioner men in a ground-attack missile unit who source their own missiles by repairing unexploded ones.
> modern society has made it pretty clear that older men aren't actually needed and are more of a burden
The mistake - which leads to disaster - is more fundamental. Modern society isn't an actual thing with needs, just an abstract concept. Individual people are real, and we all have real rights and needs. 'Goverments exist to protect rights' - society exists to serve the individual, not vice versa. Almost all morality includes protecting and helping the vulnerable.
Who decides who is a burden? Infants and children are also a 'burden' as are people with all sorts of illnesses (and people spreading disinformation). Only the cruelest fascists have suggested they should die to help society, as if that's a reasonable discussion.
> Just look at how triggered the GP
Ad hominem is against HN guidelines. Just stick to the issues instead of trying to change the subject by attacking and characterizing people who don't agree with you.
