Are male bonds superior to female bonds? If so, why can't females achieve these same bonds?

YetAnotherCommenter · 2018-07-17T07:09:25+00:00

That's interesting, because Baumeister's research suggests women have stronger, but fewer and more personal bonds, whereas men have a lot weaker bonds but a larger number of them and they're more mediated through institutional structures (official, formed groups and organizations).

I think the OP seems to treat these official institutional structures as proof of a stronger bond. But I would argue the opposite may be the case; these structures operate to make the bond stronger through socialization.

Let me begin with a proposition: male bonds are always ambivalent in that they have always included cooperative and competitive aspects.

The default situation is one where most men see each other as competition for mates (for the most part). At the same time however, the only way to provide a reliable source of protein is for men to work together in order to take down animals that are typically stronger than humans. An additional layer to this is that when men organize in groups, they can pillage other tribes and take the women, and also can band together to repel such groups.

And these bonds are often not happy and cheerful ones; typically there is not only out-group competition but a kind of within-group competition designed to create a rank order (thus making it faster for decisions to get made relative to deliberative processes) and also to "weed out the weak."

What does this imply? Men form mostly formal organizational bonds often out of necessity. These bonds are ambivalent; they are necessary, but your allies can still inflict suffering upon you. They impose personal costs. They are cooperative but also competitive.

So how do we strengthen these ambivalent bonds? The use of official socialization processes, pomp and pageantry, the deliberate cultivation of group identity through the tribal chest-thumping shaman-chanting witch-doctor shit.

That's one possible explanation. Another is a matter of group identity as /u/MMDT pointed out. Women are seen as socially valuable and useful just Because Womb. They are granted an identity as women that they just acquire as soon as they start menstruating.

Men lack this. They're a social nothing, a social neuter, a 'boy' and not a 'man' until they can prove they can bring home the buffalo, protect wives and children etc. There is no biological signal akin to menstruation that signals a man is likely to be able and proficient at performing these tasks (whereas almost all women who menstruate can bear children). So the identity of "real manhood" is something that society has to dispense out and regulate, which means it has to be socially proven and socially verified.

This again fits with Baumeister's observation as well as the Precarious Manhood thesis put forward by Bosson et al. (2008, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, v95:6, p1325-1399). Masculinity has always been more dependent on collective validation, social proof, and that kind of thing. Therefore, masculine identities are more likely to be mediated by social institutions like military squads, fraternities, sports teams and the like.

Of course there are other ways this validation is provided; there are peer groups, elders/father figures, and women (these are the three basic types... formal institutions tend to be a mixture of the first two).

So maybe the reason men gravitate towards and celebrate such group identities is that they aren't really otherwise given socially-celebrated identities. Are these male bonds really superior and stronger? Or is the pomp and pageantry and regalia a way to make up for a deficiency in innate identity?

Now if we're talking about male friendship outside formal organizations, I have to admit I don't see too much of a place for a "women don't compete" explanation because women do compete with each other and set up social heirarchies all the time (see Queen Bees and Wannabes). Partially it may be because men tend to be more explicit rather than tacit, so when they're being bro-ey, they're being very bro-ey and there's much less of the subtle demarcation you see with women who tend to be much more into passive-aggressive stuff.

IncomeByEtnicity · 2018-07-17T06:12:15+00:00

Given the following facts:

We are born either male or female.
Strength of MM bonds can only be evaluated by males.
Strength of FF bonds can only be evaluated by females.

Thus, Objective First hand comparison of MM vs FF wrt to bond strength is impossible.

That said with over 3 decades of observing humans, I have no reason to believe the FF bond is any weaker than the MM bond. But that is my subjective opinion. There is no way for anyone to find out for sure, without having undergone a sex change surgery.

DemonConsulting · 2018-07-17T09:57:21+00:00

Depends on what your parameters are. Male and Female bonds are different (shocker, who would have thought) and it's one of the few areas in life where, as an oursider of the other gender, you have no way of actuallly experiencing it accurately because by inserting yourself into the group, you disrupt the dynamic and with that the entire experiment.

Some core differences seem to be that male groups are more hirarchical and openly competitive, while female groups are more cooperative and the competition is more subtle. Because of this, I agree that a female “squad“ would not work the same as the male equivalent and if you gave them a traditionally male activity/ task, they would do worse. Same goes for the reverse situation though - these social bonds have evolved and adapted with us as a species.

However that does not show an actual difference in the strength of their bonds. To women, men seem to be constantly busting eachother's balls and just being really harsh towards eachother, while being emotionally closed off. To men, women's friendships often seem “fake“ or not very stable, with them acting very close with a large number of women, then suddenly turning on eachother.

I entirely disagree that women in general do not have close friendships and that male friendships are a paragon of loyalty and brotherhood while women just enevitably take eachother apart. As a woman, I cannot speak for male frienships from an inside perspective. However similarly to how you might have seen female friendships fall apart, I have seen long standing male friendships do the same. The main reasons were fights over the same woman, one guy putting the others down as soon as they are in mixed company, disagreements in the hirarchy, hurt egoes, and then just the usual shit all people fight about (money, property, someone's a sore looser, A likes B better than C, etc.)

My autistic attempt at explaining female friendships:

The thing with both male and female friendships that I have observed is that most people have one or two best friends and those are the most stable relationships. They might grow apart for different reasons (like moving away) but they don't generally end in a fight.

For most women that's the person/people they feel comfortable sharing absolutely everything with. That best friend will know intimate details about her sex life (mostly gross stuff), her periods, her family, her deepest darkest secret, all before anyone else.

Where it gets complicated for men to relate and accurately observe/ interpret female friendships, is the whole system of there being layers of how close their bond really is. Most extroverted, “normal“ women have a large social cycle with lots of friends. The threshold to being called a friend is usually pretty low but they will often act like life-long besties to the outside just by being super nice, physically close, doing the little squeel of excitement, etc. This is one of those cases where men will see this display of closeness (and often explicit declaration of a friendship) and then get confused when as soon as girl #1 leaves, the other one goes “ugh she's so annoying“. The truth is, they were never close - this is just how women socialize, in contrast to men. Being super nice and seemingly close/ inclusive is the norm and doesn't mean the same thing that is means for men.

Then, on the topic of hirarchy, you usually have one girl at the top of popularity and many “orbiters“ competing for the spot/ trying to get closer to gain status. Those aren't her best friends either. But they'll totally act like it on the outside to try and worm their way in while signaling a closer bond to the top than they actually have. Those orbiters are usually one or two layers down from being close friends and they are typically the ones starting drama, backstabbing those “in their way“ and are just generally the worst people... or maybe that's just my view. But they are the type who will openly “claim“ their target (the girl at the top) as their best friend on the outside without it being the case, then attempt to undermine them and/or their best friends as was their plan all along, and again that's confusing when you're not part of the group. It also probably sounds exhausting to people who do not participate - but the good news is, most women are not as involved in this constant popularity contest, they're chilling with their friends and just keep the drama prone people at arm's length.

In general: public displays and declarations of closeness do not equal a strong bond. This is very different from how men socialize. A much better metric to determining their bond is (1) duration of relationship, (2) time spent together in private 1 on 1 or in a small group (usually no more than 5 people) and (3) amount and type of information shared, though that's very hard to tall from the outside. In general, the person she texts first about important stuff, the girl who acts as her wingman in getting guys, the girl she prefers to drag into the bathroom for further discussion or calls at 2 am to drive over after her bf broke up with her, and she does the same in return, that's most likely an actual close friend.

poppy_blu · 2018-07-17T09:55:33+00:00

Let's take your evidence example by example (except hypotheticals, which mean nothing in a debate)

sports teams

In my experience actually playing sports (have you?) women bond with their teammates just as well (or not well) as men. I can name like 100 male professional athletes who've been ostracized even traded because of their inability to get along with their teammates.

brother

I don't know what this means. Are you suggesting that bonds between brothers are stronger than bonds between sisters? I'd have to see some data to believe that. I know brothers who haven't spoken to each other in decades and sisters who would take a bullet for each other.

business partners

Business partners have bonds? I have to question whether you've ever worked in a corporate job. The bond is around the transactional value that one or both are delivering. If you can't deliver me what I want, we're no longer business partners.

Navy seals and soliders

There are no women Navy seals or all female units in the US military. Cant compare apples to oranges.

Rap lyrics

smh. Should I post some of the millions of "I'll fuck your girl" lyrics to counterbalance?

This is some weak evidence. Could it be there is no proof that men are more loyal to each other than women because its highly dependent on the individuals?

MMDT · 2018-07-17T06:00:56+00:00

Its all to do with group identity

Every women belongs to the group known as "women". They identity as being a part of this group, in the same way that people can feel part of a group such as supporting a certain team or being from the same hometown. Being part of this group means you have shared experiences and can relate to other people in the group. Every woman is part of the group of "women" and so they can relate to, he friendly with , and feel safer around other people in this group.

However I would say for men this is no group of "men". Men do not relate to or have connection with other men purely from the fact of being a man. With men it is more like every man for himself. There is no universal group of "men" that we all identity with and feel a part of, not to anywhere near the extent that women have

The end result is that women are exceptional at forming simple, low level bonds with other women. Women can almost always get along and be happy with new women they meet.

Whereas for men, we don't form these simple connections with other men. For men to bond with someone must mean we really do feel a solid connection to them.

Now if you want to go deeper you can ask why do women feel part of a group and men do not ? I would argue it's because fundamentally men are always in competition with each other and women are not.

Men are the ones who have to compete to establish themselves as the alpha of the group. Women are never competing with each other like that. They can sit back, as a group, then observe the men fight amonst themselves to produce a winner. At that point women again, as a group, can all benefit from this alpha male. There is no reason for women to be in competition with each other.

If a man betters himself and improves his status, that directly affects my ability to attract women.

If a women betters herself it doesn't affect the ability of other women to attract Men

Conclusion: women form connections with the group. But these will always be low level connections. Men have no group so we form connections with the individual

(not that I am saying women don't form connections with indivuals.)

Salty-Bastard · 2018-07-17T05:42:16+00:00

Male bonds are different than female bonds which are different than male-female bonds.

Ercole_ · 2018-07-17T06:00:04+00:00

If my Facebook is any indicator, women are ridiculously well bonded. They think all their friends are Queens and they love to help them fix their crowns.

kandyapplez · 2018-07-17T06:41:45+00:00

no. i've seen lifelong male bonds crumble over the span of a few weeks because some cute girl entered the picture. its interesting how those strong male friendships go to shit watching them compete over a girl they barely know.
we can, we do, this is old hat for us. i've never seen a male bond as strong as the strong female bond i know.

[deleted] · 2018-07-17T10:41:23+00:00

"The Law of the Jungle" is a Rudyard Kipling quote. Football players aren't original.

Secondly, this is one of those times where you simply can't generalize. Multiple women have described their female friendships in a way I find to be completely untrue, yet men have failed to provide satisfactory responses that I also find to be true. Yet I know for a fact that I'm close with my female friends and my sisters in a similarly intense way to how my boyfriend is bonded to his friends and brother.

Ultimately, all friendships are different. They are so personalized that I don't think it's possible to generalize them in this manner. Hell, we can't even agree on PPD if men and women can be just friends, so an even more subjective discussion would be even more prone to solipsism and inaccuracies.

petrichordium · 2018-07-17T14:41:26+00:00

The Ancient Greeks had the very strongest of male bonds, except even they insisted that everyone become a top once they were at the macho warrior citizen state. Or at least if you were still bottoming at that age, Aristophanes would make fun of you.

Basically the Greeks understood it. Pimps up, hoes down, and it’s only gay if you’re bottoming.

Edit: Troll answer bc all research I’ve seen shows that ACTUAL American men are floundering away in their ability to socially connect with others and lose their friends in their 30s. Your post is definitely very imaginative in that it has little bearing on reality.

[deleted] · 2018-07-17T10:50:33+00:00

I'm a girl. My friendships are solid. We do "team building" stuff - I've just got back from a weekend camping and hiking trip with my female friends and it didn't all fall apart from our supposed inability to work together.

"Chicks before dicks" is as much a saying as "bros before hoes."

I don't know why you think half the population form lesser bonds. And you didn't present any evidence for your idea except from the fact you think of men as being in the military? But that is more a testament to the fact men have more muscle - not that they are better at teamwork and friendship. So idk where you get your ideas from.

AutoModerator · 2018-07-17T05:26:39+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Atlas_B_Shruggin · 2018-07-17T11:59:01+00:00

Suggest you read the book "in a different voice" by carol gilligan

wtknight · 2018-07-17T12:17:35+00:00

I thought that, according to the manosphere, men were more likely to be loners or autists than women, who are supposedly more social in general, and this is why so many of them have difficulty in the SMP. I suppose you could use the “extremes” argument once again and say that when men actually do have bonds, they are stronger than women’s bonds. But if there is so much variation in men and the bonds or lack of bonds that they have then I think that it’s useless to try to compare men and women in this aspect.

Christian_Kong · 2018-07-17T14:44:26+00:00

I say yes only based on personal experience. I have no answer for number 2.

Not only have I witnessed 10 times more horrible break up's on the "women friends" side of things, pretty much every women I know(especially >25) have almost no friends, or has a best friend that they talk to 2 times a month on facebook. It's weird and it's kind of sad to be honest. It feels like womens friends are their boyfriends/husbands and mens friends are their friends. It's all too strange. Maybe I just know(and my friends are married to) a bunch of terrible women.

Atlas_B_Shruggin · 2018-07-17T14:52:39+00:00

2: If so, why can't females achieve these same bonds?

men and women evolved very diferently. being able to work in and maintain status in th emale group was essential to male survival, as in, the other men will kill you. im sure its not totally obvious to you that this social pressure was not brought to bear on women to cause them to develop the squad mentality or the martial virtues.

female group dynamics are looser, more flowing, less hierarchical and female physical survival to breed rarely depended on it.

officerkondo · 2018-07-17T15:46:30+00:00

Male bonds resulted in civilization. Female bonds result in "clap backs" on social media.

aretheyaliens · 2018-07-19T03:48:09+00:00

I think female bonds tend to be stronger. The media will have you think that women are catty and always fight and compete with each other, but this paints a false picture. You have to remember most movies and TV shows are written by men and make it appear like women's live revolve around men and competing for them.

In reality most women (with some exceptions, like autistic women and other women with more "masculine" personality profiles) naturally trust, relate to and like most other women, and either have more of a guarded feeling towards men or don't think that much about them outside of their partners and family members that are male.

justhanging92 · 2018-07-19T06:53:03+00:00

From what I gather after reading all these comments, is that the male hierarchy is more solid and structured while for women it’s more loose with more ambiguity. Men were the ones who essentially built society so they have to be more rigid with how they interact but it doesn’t mean they are deeper bonds, female heirarchy isn’t as strict but it doesn’t mean they have weaker bonds at an individual level.

With this in mind I would like to add that there have been studies that show women have a higher in group preferences than men do. What’s more, I seen men admit that things start to fall apart when competing for the same woman, because male competion is still a thing, or that they wished they could talk about intimate things with each other that same way women do for each other.

Also, the examples you use only really addresses how men interact with each other, you made no references to how women interact with each other so what made you think male bonds are superior?

Eartherry · 2018-07-17T05:54:30+00:00

I think this has a lot to do with roles men and women had when living in hunter-gatherer societies. Men hunted, usually together, animals that required tracking. That sometimes took men away from their tribes for days at a time with just each other to rely on. Because there's no telling what they might encounter on their hunts no two are the same, making all the knowledge that can be passed on just basics with further experience coming from the act itself.

Women didn't work in groups, they completed allocated tasks as needed. Those tasks were repetitive, only needing to be taught once. That leaves women able to self-direct, eventually growing in skill and speed to the point where assistance from others is unnecessary.

[deleted] · 2018-07-17T14:08:43+00:00

Because it's not in female nature to make strong bonds. Women are always on the winning team and will always choose self preservation over loyalty

GridReXX · 2018-07-17T14:57:57+00:00

Maybe I’m the random sociable woman on this part of Reddit but my experience doesn’t show me that male male bonds are stronger than female female bonds.

I absolutely adore my friends and we would move the world for one another. They’re also super funny.

Also I didn’t play sports but two of my best friends did. The bonds they have with their teammates is no diff than what you describe.

InformalCriticism · 2018-07-17T09:42:53+00:00

They seem to have a greater potential to.
Just seems to be a matter of genetics/evopsyche. Bit, the conditions that created them appear to be based in the division of labor each are best suited - men are more lilely to survive if they work together. Women were/are most likely to be selected (and more often) if they are pretty.

sublimemongrel · 2018-07-17T14:02:32+00:00

I have an identical twin. I struggle to find how any bond could be much stronger than that. I feel like you’re just seeing what you want to see OP. Plenty of women have very strong friendships.

celincelin · 2018-07-17T06:04:36+00:00

Of course.
Because they never needed them. You don’t need a team to give a birth. You do need a team to hunt and kill others efficiently.

Are male bonds superior to female bonds? If so, why can't females achieve these same bonds?

Comments

THE RULE

THE METHODOLOGY

Strength of Action. a|b

Strength of Emotion. a|b

Title	Are male bonds superior to female bonds? If so, why can't females achieve these same bonds?
Author	DifferentNecessary0
Upvotes	14
Comments	123
Date	July 17, 2018 5:26 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/8zig4y/are_male_bonds_superior_to_female_bonds_if_so_why/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/are-male-bonds-superior-to-female-bonds-if-so-why.261498 https://theredarchive.com/post/261498