By Delilahjed..

Ok boys your on..we wont sneak in..promise...

Sherri

This thread failed before it was even created! At least the girls thread got to post 4!

Perhaps it just need a decent chance.

So for the sake of this thread, cheers

Well I think there is an important difference at work. The 'girls post' was started out of a desire from at least 1 or 2 of the female members to experience a little 'female bonding' on the forum. There has been no similar desire shown by any of the male members for 'male bonding' on the forum - hence no participation in this thread.

Personally I hate (if thats not too strong a word) gender-based bonding of either flavour, just as much as I do 'black bonding', 'jewish bonding', or any other variety you can think of. Bonding into sub-groups of society just reinforces differences that I think we should try and grow up and beyond as a species. I believe that is the path to overcoming discrimination fully at some stage in the future.

If there is a connection between 2 people, they will experience a sense of 'bonding' while communicating - but basing that connection purely on the fact that the two people have the same type of genitalia, or similar coloured skin or similar ethnicity just doesn't work for me. And actually assuming there will definitely be a connection based on such a factor clearly doesn't work at all - there are many men who don't connect, women who don't connect, etc to demonstrate this. Connection between two people is better based on the two people's individual personality, experience etc (sure there is an increased likelihood that two people will have some similar experiences if they are both women, or both men, etc - but that to me should be the secondary issue, not the primary).

Amen brother!

Boy, girl, black, white, Muslim, Catholic.... If I don't like the person I don't like the person. Thinking that I share a bond with another female purely on the basis that I am myself a female gets up my goat.

This is why I post in a thread saying males only.. because I am a rebel :P

Plus, 'boys'? isn't that a tad condescending?

Ok 1Veedo..including myself opening the post up for negation..so it seems..that makes 5...Oh and its O8 dear on your post 07,,but I get the point. Its just a post to open people up a bit..its great both genders recognize and participate outside of the Post heading itself..What do you know..its a success..COOL!

It does just go to show the differences in us all..

Sherri

The only epic failure I see is 1veedo's trolling.

Anyway, I'm wondering when kevmartin became an individualist. What he's talking about is a form of self-segregation. This is a bad thing. It hurts the people who participate. I could point to an example, but I'd be called a racist.

Racist: 1. Someone who says something disagreeable to liberals, collectivists, and America-haters - sometimes having something to do with a race or group.

What ARE you talking about? Please explain what you mean by individualist and self-segregation?

You already explained it pretty well in your earlier post. An individualist identifies himself as an individual - not part of a group.

Self-segregation is basically isolating yourself from the rest of society. For example, if someone only sat with people of his approximate skin color in the cafeteria, only had friends who are people of that skin color, etc - they would be self-segregating. It probably doesn't happen in Australia that much, but its common in the U.S. unfortunately.

qft

There is a limited amount of the behaviour you refer to in Australia, among some ethnic communities, as well as some aboriginal communities. It's not something I'm a fan of, but understandable too because mainstream culture does have its racist history.

But it's different to the gender based thing I was referring to I think. In the 'male-bonding' and 'female-bonding' scenarios, people don't so much isolate themselves from the rest of society, but there is a presumption that you can put any two strangers of the same gender in a room and they will form a bond. It's heavily reinforced by pop culture too (That TV show 'Sluts And The City' being the worst offender I can think of right off, not to mention an expression I have heard on multiple shows/movies, 'Bros before Hos'), to the extent that (I believe) in real-life scenarios it becomes the way things actually mostly play out. People subconsciously try to force themselves to bond with people because they feel that they 'should' in order to be 'normal'. Who knows what damage this does to some people's psyches, especially through formative years?

Kevin..Hi
I admire your ingenuity here..but what about just random socializing? anymore you cant put two people in a room together and they bond..too many changes culturally and society as a whole has changed. We have allowed everything from A to Z to initiate all kinds of acceptable behaviors ..thus changing what may have been normal in the early part of this ever growing society. That is to say..how you may see it..the stigma attached per generation..hush hush on this..but now that door is open..this door is open..nothing is hush hush now.

Some people may indeed be able to bond one on one in a room alone..some may not..but for those who can..guess what? a friendship is developed..possibly a lifetime friendship..nothing wrong with that..so all who enter..enter at their own risk..

Its all about people..love..comittment..on the flip side..debate..controversy and dissolution.

To each his own..but unless we know who we are..where were going and have a direction..we will follow societal stereotype leadership as our mentors if we arent careful.

Sherri

I agree that if you put two random people in a room together they may not get along and form a bond, or on the other hand, they may. Chances are that they will probably try communicating to some extent and what happens, will happen - or at least that is what I think should be normal. But my point is more about the fact that society's 'norms' dictate that if they are the same gender, they should automatically have common ground and form a bond - and therefore that if they are of opposite genders, they are less likely to be able to bond - is what I see as destructive. The same is true on 'racial' basis as gender basis too (perhaps to a lesser extent - an interesting question in its own right).

Opening doors is great, but in this case it seems that opening one door closes another because of the dynamics of the situation.

Hi Kevin.
I agree..thank you

Sherri