11 ms·

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 eve

by izend 9mo ago

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.

heresie-dabord 9mo ago
The concept of a social cabin or "men's shed" has been discussed before on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38158616 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38158616 The phenomenon began in Australia but it has spread to other countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_shed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_shed
- bitexploder 9mo ago
  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.
  - heresie-dabord 9mo ago
    > 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." [1] _ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry
    - bitexploder 9mo ago
      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.
      - heresie-dabord 9mo ago
        > I don't think it is complex. 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.
      - laurencerowe 9mo ago
        > 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?)
mmooss 9mo ago
[flagged]
- skeeter2020 9mo ago
  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. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513824001077 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109051382... https://psychcentral.com/health/didactic-memory?utm_source=chatgpt.com#recap https://psychcentral.com/health/didactic-memory?utm_source=c... >> I have no data that it has to do with gender or sex, and why would it matter? The needs aren't predictable based on gender/sex not sure what you're trying to say here, but you seem to have taken a very mild, very general statement incredbly personal.
  - patall 9mo ago
    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)
    - mmooss 9mo ago
      [flagged]
      - bigmealbigmeal 9mo ago
        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.
xorcist 9mo ago
> men need activities more than women to bond Frankly, I don't know why more women doesn't center their social life around activities. It's an excellent idea. Seriously, what's not to like?
- y0eswddl 9mo ago
  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. * hyperbole
  - gcanyon 9mo ago
    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.

by izend 9mo ago

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.

heresie-dabord 9mo ago

The concept of a social cabin or "men's shed" has been discussed before on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38158616 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38158616 The phenomenon began in Australia but it has spread to other countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_shed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_shed

bitexploder 9mo ago
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.
- heresie-dabord 9mo ago
  > 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." [1] _ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry
  - bitexploder 9mo ago
    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.
    - heresie-dabord 9mo ago
      > I don't think it is complex. 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.
    - laurencerowe 9mo ago
      > 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?)

mmooss 9mo ago

[flagged]

skeeter2020 9mo ago
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. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513824001077 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109051382... https://psychcentral.com/health/didactic-memory?utm_source=chatgpt.com#recap https://psychcentral.com/health/didactic-memory?utm_source=c... >> I have no data that it has to do with gender or sex, and why would it matter? The needs aren't predictable based on gender/sex not sure what you're trying to say here, but you seem to have taken a very mild, very general statement incredbly personal.
- patall 9mo ago
  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)
  - mmooss 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - bigmealbigmeal 9mo ago
      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.

xorcist 9mo ago

> men need activities more than women to bond Frankly, I don't know why more women doesn't center their social life around activities. It's an excellent idea. Seriously, what's not to like?

y0eswddl 9mo ago
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. * hyperbole
- gcanyon 9mo ago
  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.