Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


  1. No, you just have a very Freudian view of men. Men bond by taunting and teasing, after the original meeting. Men are social animals as well, and despite the pressure to outperform the other men so they can attract women, they often are able to- and almost always- unite together. When compounded with testosterone and a sense of fraternity, you get the beginnings of a monastic order, or an army. Due to my being a man, I have no idea how women bond, but I’ve never seen large groups of women work together for long periods of time, suggesting that they aren’t good at maintaining bonds, at least while remaining as productive as an identical group of men. In summary, men don’t prioritize the cliques they want to join with, unless actions from that clique throw a monkey wrench in the machine. They get together equally. Also, I see several strawman arguments in your piece. Correct me if I missed a point of yours.

  2. All I know, for me to be able to be friends with another man. I need to be able to trust him, that’s usually gained with shared experiences or displays of loyalty or courage. Most of my best friends are men I originally hated until we had a fist fight. Then I some how grew to respect them or at least saw a quality in him that I could appreciate. I have friends who I hate say 60% of their personality qualities but the 40% I do like, is enough for me to overlook the rest. You got to be able to accept the good and the bad of your friends, and I think males do that slightly better then females.

  3. Wow, this is an old blog that the author doesn’t appear to maintain anymore, but still, for anyone that stumbles by..

    I think David above has a point, and there is an interesting and related article here:

    Also, from a male perspective, men do (at least from my experience) gravitate toward other male friends with similar interests. I think we can get along with other guys from different backgrounds, maybe better than women apparently from the blogger’s experience, but I still think men prefer buddies with similar interests. Anyway, I think there are lots of factors: personalities, cultural & societal perceptions of gender roles etc, and then the biological aspects mentioned by David.

  4. I think you have it all wrong. It’s not your fault you just don’t understand men. Men bond across social boundries because these things are made up and not important. Men have bonded together since before the dawn of civilization and have needed to ever since. One guy out hunting with a spear is bear/lion food. Ten stand a good chance of bringing something home without casualties. Not much has really changed that would affect that kind of bond. Women naturally make more distinctions about social differences as part of their biology. It’s important when you are looking for the best guy to have kids with, but counterproductive when you need to kill a mammoth.

  5. Naturally generalizations dont work.
    In my opinion, u’r right at one level and wrong at another. Loyalty is kind of a big deal for chaps …..wimmen?….not so much.
    Besides, you seem to make out that this bonding thing among women is somehow a good thing?…..ever hear that women can never live together without tearing each other’s hair out?…..why do u think that is?…too much familiarity breeds…

  6. What abt a girl-guy attraction? Do you think girls go for guys who are similar to them? It is very probable that females try to hang out with like minded females. But when it comes to men I think girls go for traits they crave rather than possess..

  7. You think too much.. you do.. but thats why you come up with fascinating theories dissecting the male vs female psyche.
    Somehow, I’m either unconvinced, or confused by what you’ve laid out here. Are you saying that women have narrower cliques since they have a greater need to bond and group, while men are generally comfortable with the entire brotherhood coz they are lone wolves at heart!
    Or am I just snaking around your words to goad you into thinking some more and coming up with many more such beguiling hypotheses?