Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    doesn't it require swearing and beer-drinking?
    
    honestly, i don't really know...
    
    

Re: <<< Note 261.1 by DECWET::JWHITE "the company of intelligent women" >>>
    
>>    doesn't it require swearing and beer-drinking?

Yes, and constant, vicious, cruel insults.  What better way to become friends!

For example:  Balding, inability to grow facial hair, lousy at sports, no
female friends, etc.  If you can't find anything specific, just use various
generic "wimp" phrases.

:-)
                                  Roak

    Re:1 Cute, junk note but cute
    Re:2 ho-hum
    Re:3 another junk note.
    
    I'm kinda disapointed in the replys so far. I would think the true
    women of this notesfile would really have an idea what male and female
    and male/female bonding is. I guess that female bonding happens when
    the females go shopping.. Right? Or when the females go to the beauty
    parlar to have their hair done... and their nails done. Sorry but the
    the first reply really got me ticked off.
    
    REK
    
    >

Re: <<< Note 261.4 by GOLF::KINGR "Eat healthy, stay fit, die anyway!!!!" >>>

Along the lines of your personal name -- Good health is the slowest way to die.

>>    Re:3 another junk note.

Actually it isn't.  Ascii doesn't allow me to make a half smile.  My tounge
was only half in cheek on that one.

When it comes down to a serious talk, I think there is little difference
between the sexes conversing with one of their own; the difference is that
men seem to have those "deep meaningful" coversations far less frequently
than women; in in the great gaps between "those" conversations, the most
caring phrase that is exchanged between men is along the lines of "you
scumball."

And I know the difference from being called a scumball by somone who doesn't
like me and someone who is close enough where I know it isn't an insult,
it's the opposite, something along the lines of "We're close enough to insult
each other for fun."  For a reference I refer you to some mindless
entertainment, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles -- watch the scene where one of the
turtles and the human man (forgot both their names -- it was such a memorable
movie) are fixing the truck -- they're insulting each other in alphabetical
order.  Just for fun.  And they're "best buds" in the throws of male-turtle (?)
bonding.  If it wasn't just a little true, teh movie wouldn't make fun of it
because no one would understand, right?

Ok, now for the question; do women do the same?  Is this common for male-female
bonding? (the answer to the latter, in my experience, is no).

                            Roak

    I have always wondered...Maybe you guys can help me out. You all know
    the way women talk to each other about feelings. We all know how guys
    usually talk more about activities and things. Do men really want the
    kind of bonding that women have with each other? If they were not chas-
    tised or ridiculed for being wimpy would they open up to that degree?
    I know men who cry at weddings and movies etc but do they really have
    the need to express that perceived vulnerability to everyone as women
    can?
    
    Just WOndering,
    Kate

    Kate,
    
    I think that men do want that kind of support from other men, but many
    of us have been socialized to believe that we aren't supposed to act
    that way except in two specific environments:
    
    1) dead blasted drunk
    
    2) sporting events
    
    Men often think that they are only allowed to show affection for each
    otehr in these senario's.  The second case is during a "team" effort,
    so you can lose your individuality into a group's emotions, while the
    first gives you an easy excuse. "whoa, man, I was blasted -- wasn't
    me...it was the boose."
    
    Example from my freshman year in college:  the guy across the hall had
    a private "party" for some of his buddies that basically entailed 100
    decibel music and tequila shots.  After 45 minutes of this, the music
    stopped and I poked my head out of my door...the door was closed, but I
    heard some groans and some shuffling.  Twenty minutes later, campus
    police showed up.  I stuck my head out again, and there was Ray,
    cradling Mike who was lying on the floor, in his underwear, groaning
    because he had nothing left to throw up and had the dry heaves.  Ray
    was stroking his hair, saying "I love you, little buddy..."
    
    That's about as extreme as I'd seen, but here were two guys who really
    were best friends and the only way they could get close to each other
    was to get sh*tfaced until they were sick.
    
    daniel

    oops, how silly of me!  hey, guys, we musn't forget that we can hug
    each other when there are grenades going off all around us...

    re: .8
    
    Having dated a former "Frat Brother" for over a year (I don't recommend
    it for the faint of heart ...), and having recently dumped him as well,
    I can relate to .8's statement.  It seems male bonding revolves around
    1) macho sports and 2) drinking to excess as well as 3) chasing women
    (but ony when there's nothing better to do, such as drink).
    
    Every conversation revolves around 1) future drinking   or 2) past
    drinking.  And men don't consider you to be a "true" man, unless
    there's a beer or a drink in your hand.  God, Sean and I went to a
    picnic two months ago and one of his buddies (and they were all
    drinking like crazy, 'cept Sean, cause he was driving) said to Sean,
    "Hey, bud, aren't you drinking?  What's WRONG with you?"  Sean said
    "No, I've got to drive Tammi home tonight" and his friend says "Oh
    good, I thought there was something seriously wrong with you cause you
    weren't drinking".
    
    Who can figure?    (BTW, don't mean to generalize, guys, but I've only
    experienced this type of men in my life so ...)
    

	RE: .11 I have never ever gotten a hard time for not drinking.
	In fact I think I was invited to a lot of parties that I would
	otherwise never have know about *because* I don't drink. A lot of
	people like to know that there are a couple of sober people around
	to take care of the drunks.

	I've also never been part of "male bonding" that involves drinking.
	Sure I have a lot of friends who drink but no close friends who
	have even been drunk in my presence. Developing a trusting relationship
	with someone who drinks a lot is not something I can concieve of.

	Male bonding around girl chasing seems to end after school does. Before 
	that many males need support in dealing with girls/women. Females can
	be very intenidating to a young male. As for macho sports I
	think that is a bit of an over statement. Any game will do. Even
	board games.

			Alfred

    .10 gave a sarcastic response to the suggestion of war as a place where
    men bond to one another:
    
    "...musn't forget that we can hug each other when there are grenades
    going off all around us..."
    
    now I'm not a pacifist, nor a warmonger.  My kids don't play with war
    toys as a general thing.  I don't let them watch G.I.Joe, or
    Thundercats, or Silverhawks, or other "fighting" shows, and here's the
    reason I give them:
    
    It's best not to fight.  There are other ways of solving problems.  You
    should try those other ways first.  The fighting shows _always_ use
    fighting to solve problems, and _never_ try other ways first.  It's
    true that sometimes we have to fight, but it should not be the first
    choice.  But when you have to fight, fight to win.
    
    So, back to war-as-bonding-place:  I would assume that when you are in
    combat, and depend on your comrades (not a political term!) to save
    your life, and you save theirs too, that extremely strong bonds are
    forged.  (This would happen in hunting societies, also, especially when
    the game hunted was bison or mammoth.)  It has little or nothing to do
    with the political/social/economic/ideological/religious reasons that
    people - men and women - invent for making war.

    the sarcasm was in response to the fact that many men have been
    socialized to the point that they can't show affection for each other
    except in extreme circumstances: ie. drunk, butting heads on the
    football field and, yes...war.
    
    I'm not saying that it is bad to rely upon each other when at war, but
    rather that it is sad that people need to wait until then
    
    daniel

    
    re:.7 
    i'm not at all sure that 'we guys' do 'know the way women talk
    to each other about feelings'. we see rare examples of it in film
    perhaps, or even here in womannotes, but almost never in real life. 
    
    re:.13
>	It has little or nothing to do
>    with the political/social/economic/ideological/religious reasons that
>    people - men and women - invent for making war.
    
    actually, i tend to think just the opposite. namely that our twisted
    ideas of 'male bonding' do *alot* to encourage war-like solutions.
    
    

    .4
    
    hmm, what are "true women?"
    
    

I suspect the whole subject comes about from a misconception. I think the 
phrase which has been bandied about is "bail bonding", which is what is required
after what has sometimes been misconstrued as "male bonding" has taken place.

	Paul

    A male bonding activity requires that either there be absolutely no
    women present, or present in a subservient, demeaning or degrading
    capacity.  Men don't generally "bond" around mothers or wives or women
    of relative power in their lives.  Male bonding requires the complete 
    absence of any trace of female power and at its absolute best, it 
    presents the power women have over men, (their sexuality), and offers 
    it up for symbolic, (or real), destruction. 

    I don't see any connection to male bonding and the absense of women
    other than that males are rather (IMHO) shy about showing affection to
    each other in front of observers. I would think this would include
    other males they weren't also close to.

    I think male bonding has all the strange rituals it sometimes contains
    more to appease the disapproval of other males than to oppress women.
    It has to be sufficiently "macho" to avoid the appearance of anything
    like even a hint of homosexuality. liesl

    
    .18 looked pretty accurate to me
    

    Re:18 is garbage. Stop referring back to the 19th century. Surly
    you have a better clue don't you?

    REK

    .18 -
    
    Absolutely. Any thoughts on *why* males seem to feel they must separate
    from, or else destroy, "the power women have over men (their
    sexuality)"? I.e., why is women's sexuality so threatening to men?
    
    D.

    I think that in a topic about male bonding it would be good to allow
    males to talk about what they think it is for them, rather than have
    females talk about what they think it is for males.
    
    And vice versa.  
    
    If you can follow that sentence.  :-)
    
    Pam

    Another response, based on Pam's .24:  First, thank you, Pam.  
    
    Hearing women talking about male bonding is, to me, incomprehensible.
    Why? Well: imagine, if you will, a group of men sitting around, trying
    to describe what women do and say when *they* get together. 
    Impossible, right?
    
    From what I have heard, the conversations that groups of women have
    about (among other things) sex would flabbergast any man who heard
    them.  Now, would women have those same conversations in mixed company?
    Probably not.  Why?  Because, as I see it, groups of women (and men)
    act differently when separate than they do when together.
    
    					andrew

    re .18:
    
    I must respectfully disagree.  To portray male bonding simply as
    anti-feminine is both inaccurate and unfair.  The bonding activities I
    have with the men in my life are not anti-feminine; they are masculine.  
    
    Would I perform all of these activities in mixed company?  Probably
    not.  Men show their affection for other men differently than they
    show their affection for women.  Many men (but I can only speak for
    myself) would be reluctant to let women see how they express their
    feelings toward other men.  Why?  Simply because it's different.
    
    This is obviously just my opinion.  Consequently, I don't really
    feel the need to defend it.  If you disagree, so be it.
                                                                             

    .18 - I've seen male bonding go on in the presence of "women of
    relative power".  But the women generally get bored and walk away... 
    
    Ray

    
    'male bonding' is a loaded term. that is, it can be construed a 
    number of ways and can therefore be manipulated to suit a particular 
    'agenda'. strictly speaking 'male bonding' simply means the
    'bonding', as in 'emotional joining', of males. it should come as
    no surprise that i have experienced this and think it is a good
    thing, per se. it would be disingenuous, however, to pretend that
    the term 'male bonding' is not also used to discuss the kind of
    fear-inspired, anti-woman behaviour that sandy and others have
    described. since i believe, along with- as best as i can tell- the
    basenoter, that that behaviour is worthy of further study and comment, 
    i choose to focus on that definition.
    
    

    
    re:.31
    correct
    

    Women know nothing about male bonding?  I think women know practically 
    everything about men since men are such public creatures in comparison 
    to women whose lives are private, whose desires are hidden, whose 
    "rituals" are trivialized or ignored.  Just to live one day in this 
    culture is to know what men like, what they hate, what they want, what 
    they do, etc.  They built the damn world according to their desires and
    for the most part, continue to run it according to them.  What's not to
    know?  And when you know them personally, they generally have no 
    problem telling you flat out what they want, what they don't, etc.  
    Here's a general statement that may bother those of you who hate
    general statements:  Women live in men's world and men generally avoid
    women's world, (part of the "bonding" ritual?).  It's no surprise that 
    women know far more about men than men do about women.  We've been 
    through this before, I thought.  I just offered my opinion on the
    topic and believe I have both a right to do so and more than just a
    wild guess to offer.  Ignore it if you don't like it and read only
    men's replies.  I won't mind.
    
    I wasn't trying to rile up the boys with .18.  I sincerely thought
    about all the male bonding activities I know of, (and I grew up with 2
    brothers approx my own age and all their friends - no sisters), and
    what I came up with in .18 is what seemed to me to be the common
    thread.  And that is, that males are generally "solitary hunters" and
    bond only with and through an "us-against-them" theme.  I don't know if
    the exaggerated displays of raging sexuality and independence from
    women are there because of an overt desire to oppress women, (I tend to 
    doubt it - I think it's a side-effect of a desire to seem better than
    everyone, even other males), or if the displays are there because of a 
    covert desire to avoid any association with homosexuality.  But in 
    either case, I believe the bonding is completely sexual in nature.   
    
    So Mike, you disagree.  I'm open.  List some male-bonding activities 
    that do not fit the description in .18.

    Mike, she invited you to PROVE her wrong with counter-examples.
    Merely stating it without the examples is inconclusive.  Put up
    or shut up.
    
    DougO
    
    PS- I don't know, Herb, if I agree with Joe about Dorian's intentions.
    And whether we are attempting to determine positive or negative aspects
    of male bonding seems to me to be different from the honorable
    intentions/dishonorable intentions distinction you are drawing.
    In any of the four cases, though, if you don't think this is safe 
    space to discuss it, feel free not to.

    
    re:.36
    wow!
    

    
    well, since i'm trying to get laid...i mean, trying to be pc, i
    guess i should try this one more time. 
    
    the question was 'what is male bonding?'
    
    the answer 'the bonding of males' is circular and of no use.
    
    the answer, 'all that stereotypical stuff' continues the discussion
    and raises some, to me, interesting questions:
    
    'what are some stereotypical things?'
    
    'is there any factual basis to these stereotypical things?'
    
    'what might be the meaning of these stereotypical things?'
    
    as it happens, we've had a few examples of what might be considered
    stereotypical behaviour given by a few women in this string. here's
    another one: going out for some beers with the guys after a softball
    game and talking about women: waitresses, girlfriends, spouses,
    the woman at the other table, the scorekeeper, etc. 
    
    does this actually happen? yes. after every single softball game i
    have ever played.
    
    and what might be the meaning? well, since the content of these
    discussions invariably at some point is demeaning to women (maybe
    not the whole conversation, but always at least part of it) it seems
    to me that sandy's (et al.) hypothesis concerning male fear and
    antagonism towards women might be a good place to start.
    
    conclusion? one answer to the question 'what is male bonding?' is,
    in fact, the stereotypical one and that one implication of that answer
    is that male bonding may be misogynistic.
    

Well, to answer .0's question, what is male bonding, I have no idea!

We certainly have been fed many ideas about what this is but I am
having trouble discovering the usefulness of such a concept.

Certainly, when I spend time with either male or female friends, I
don't think of it as male bonding or male-female bonding.  Hopefully,
as times goes on, there will be less substantive differences with the
ways the females and males are raised and we can get on with the
business of relating to each other as human being to human being.

john

	I don't feel I have any profound insight here around male bonding.
Whether it has aspects of repressed sexuality or woman hating seems dependent 
upon the perspective of the viewer. I can describe some of the typical
male bonding behaviors I exhibit and hope it adds some valuable content to this
discussion.

	I bond with my son David. This lanky 12 year old guy spends a good
deal of time playing chess with dad, watching videos with dad, getting
gently and not so gently prodded by dad to do chores, stop teasing sisters
and harassing his mother. We've recently had some more serious moments
around sexuality: I felt the need to discuss his climax, new feelings toward
females, the female body as well as surrounding related issues. I take as an 
index of the depth of our bonding the many times David curls up in my arms
and just hugs me. Unrelated: For those of you who've seen the movie dad where
Ted Dansons character lies on his fathers death bed and hugs him is very close
to what David and I share....I lost it during that scene....it was so close
to home for me.

	I bond with a male co-worker from time to time. We usually meet
somewhere and share a few beers; just the two of us. We talk a great deal
about our marriages and attendant issues. I think we both feel that there are
some mysterious rhythms that we're not quite synchronized with having to do
with understanding the women in our lives...but we're still trying.


	A common question among the men I deal with on a personal level
is: If we weren't so sexually attracted would we deal with women at all ?
I know that a great number of men feel trapped by the power of their sexual 
drives. A number of them feel that they endure compromises that they wouldn't
if not so hormonally driven. Is this Misogyny?

	Throughout my whole life, as far back as I can remember, a great
deal of my male bonding behaviors centered around physical competition
with other males. Before my late teens we always seemed to need to work
out pecking order before we could move on to friendship. The most interesting
relationships were those where the pecking order was up in the air; always
dangerously unresolved. The movies Lords of Flatbush and Stand By Me largely
captured this theme in male relationships. I clearly remember doing that arm
punching routine depicted in the Lords of Flatbush.

	During this same period the number of female conquests, real or
imagined, added greatly to male status. I am aware I used the word conquest
and may draw some comment...it would have been dishonest to use any other
word as it would have betrayed the context.

	I hope these few are common enough male bonding experiences to have
added some quality substance to this string.

MAC

    re .45, I find it interesting where you say that you and your male
    friends often wonder "if we weren't so sexually attracted would we deal
    with women at all?"  I often wonder the same thing about myself in
    regard to men!  You also said that a number of men you know felt
    "trapped by the power of their sexual drives."  I could relate to that
    one also, because sometimes I feel that way, too, towards men.  Then
    you said that many of them feel they "endure compromises that they
    wouldn't if not so hormonally driven."  No kidding, so have I with
    regard to men.  But, I really only ponder these things when I'm upset
    with men or a man, or dissapointed by men or a man.  I think that, more
    and more, I agree with John in .44 (?), that as time goes on, I see
    less and less difference between the conversations I have with my male
    friends and the conversations I have with my female friends.  At this
    point, I don't think there is anything I have confided to a female
    friend that I haven't to a male friend.
    
    Lorna
    

    Mac,
      I really enjoy reading this kind of personal sharing of experience
    which in my opinion gets closer to the truth (the sum of different
    people's experience) than looking at the behavior of football players
    on the football field.  I mean, what are those men _feeling_?
    	Linda

    re. .45 - Thanks, MAC.  You've given me, at least, much food for
    thought.  Perhaps even explained some of life's puzzles.
    
    Karen

    If as women I want to know how male bonding affects me, then I
    might focus more on: is objectification of women a side effect
    of male bonding, but I don't think it is valid to say that
    the motivation for male bonding is to objectify women.  They must
    be getting more out of it than that.
    	Linda

    Mennotes and Womannotes have very different flavors.  I think even the
    men who might write their feelings would treat the subject differently
    in the two files (as would the women writing the counter-concept)...
    as a topic about this does not exist there yet, perhaps it would be a
    good idea to start one?
    
    In many topics in womannotes, people will treat a subject as *they* see
    it, in a positive light or in a negative light.  I am interested in either
    discussion, as I have always been curious about male bonding as it
    enhances men's lives, and I have often wondered if their comments which
    denigrate women as they spend time together (whether they be bonding or
    just "hanging out" I don't know) are a necessary part of the rites.
    
    Please, if you feel your experiences with it were positive, enter them
    by all means, men.  If they were negative, enter that too.
    
    Women, if you have seen something about it you question or that you
    found touching, enter *that*.  
    
    Perhaps we can learn more about how the two may or may not intermingle,
    and if there are misconceptions they can be clarified and the
    experience itself discussed.  There are a variety of opinions here, as
    usual, but all are valid for those who hold them.
    
    -Jody
    

    
re .24, 26 -

>    I think that in a topic about male bonding it would be good to allow
>    males to talk about what they think it is for them, rather than have
>    females talk about what they think it is for males.
    
>    And vice versa.  
    
    
>    Hearing women talking about male bonding is, to me, incomprehensible.
>    Why? Well: imagine, if you will, a group of men sitting around, trying
>    to describe what women do and say when *they* get together. 
>    Impossible, right?
    

I'm having trouble believing this. For literally centuries, men have been 
defining women's nature for us. Men have written tons of books on The 
Woman Question, The Woman Problem, woman as "Other." We are, they've told
us--with all the weight of patriarchal authority on their side--evil;
carnal; filthy; chattel; morally, physically, and mentally inferior;
uneducable; unemployable; masochistic; fit only for motherhood and domestic
servitude; just naturally "ill." Yet in this file at any rate (WOMANNOTES,
right?), if a woman presumes to speak on men's nature--why they (some)
rape, how they bond--she is made to feel she can't possibly know anything
about the subject, not being a man. 

It seems to me that we're all surrounded by evidence aplenty that's
pertinent to the subject of how men bond, more than enough to provide a
basis for starting a discussion of the subject by women as well as men. We
have politics; we have wars; we have books and movies on politics and wars;
we have sports; we have sports fans; we have beer commercials. It's all out
there in public, like most of what men do. We ought to be able to draw on
that data, I thought, to have some sort of dialogue of our own on the
nature of male bonding and how it compares with female bonding.

On the other hand, I'd say there's less basis for men to discuss how women
bond. Not that women don't bond; personally I believe they've always bonded
very deeply and meaningfully, but also, like everything else women have
done throughout history, they've bonded invisibly, in that private sphere
to which they've been relegated. Who cares about the koffee klatches, the
decades-long female friendships, the uniting of women to help a sister
through a difficult birth? Who's written about or filmed that?
Nevertheless, in my base note my intent was to invite comments from men
(and women) on how women bond, as well as comments from women (and men) on
how men bond. 

Maybe we need a whole nuther topic on "how well the sexes know each other"?

Or whether it's permissible for women to say *anything* about men?

Or something,

Dorian

    re: .54 
    
    But, Dorian, during those centuries when men were "defining women's
    nature for us," they were WRONG!!!  They didn't know what women were
    about and what female bonding was about BECAUSE it is done privately.
    
    After centuries of having men define women (wrongly), we know firsthand
    what it's like to have "the other" define everything you do as wrong. 
    I'd like to listen for a while and try to find some common ground to
    work toward.
    
    I definitely see the point Sandy made about men's lives being a lot
    more public, and the point you made about how we have the things that
    are important to men thrust at us by society all the time ... but I
    also find a little room for believing that if men have things to learn
    about how females bond, then it is probably possible that females have
    things to learn about how males bond.
    
    I would personally like to see more notes like Mac's .45, which simply
    and clearly stated what male bonding is to him.  
    
    Pam

    I've got a notion on the negative aspects of male bonding.  It tends to
    be what we see -- the brew laden belly buckers with the astogies
    screaming "YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH" at the top of their lungs until
    they find some quiet corner for vomitting and then go on to run the
    country...
    
    Underneath that, however, there is some real, honest to God bonding
    that has meaning and depth of emotion.  Way back in .8 I gave an
    example of some stereotypically negative male bonding...but I think it
    is important to note that despite the ugly behavior, these two guys
    were really sharing a very close moment to each other...their bonding
    was a way to support and maintain themselves.
    
    The behavior before hand I tend to see as an attempt for many men to
    get to a point where they no longer feel bound by societal stereotypes
    of how men "ought" to act. That may take huge quantities of alcohol, it
    may take misogynist behavior to prove that they're "real men" 
    Underneath that, there is real and supportive bonding.  the tragredy in
    my mind is that so many men feel a need to go to extreme behavior
    before they feel they can honestly bond and get something from it.
    
    I remember several times at college when a group of my male friends and
    I would just stay up until four in the morning, joking artound and
    laughing and sharing together.  Chris would take out his guitar and
    we'd sing "American Pie" off key...it was great -- supportive bonding
    without the negative stuff.
    
    By the way, I've had similar experiences in mixed groups as well.  In
    my honest opinion, male bonding itself is not negative, but the stuff
    that leads up to the actual bonding moments often is.
    
    daniel

    Some time ago, Tim read me [part of?] a short story by Ernest
    Hemingway.  It was about these men who go off to a cabin and
    drink, and the viewpoint character comes to the conclusion that
    perhaps, just perhaps, he could get back the woman he loved.
    
    I guess the story must have been about male bonding.  Anyhow,
    I thought it was dull and pointless, while Tim thought it was
    just great. "Aha!" I thought, "This is a story for men, just as
    _The_Tombs_of_Atuan_ is a story for women.  How 'bout that."
    (Of course I didn't tell Tim that I found the story dull.  It
    was *my* problem, and it shouldn't have clouded his delight.)
    
    (You know, I don't think my comments are at all relevant.  Ah!
    Here's a way:)  Can any men think of any good stories or movie
    scenes about [what they think of as] male bonding that rang
    really true for them?
    
    						Ann B.

    .35> So Mike, you disagree.  I'm open.  List some male-bonding activities 
         that do not fit the description in .18.
        
    .38> Mike, she invited you to PROVE her wrong with counter-examples.
    
    .50> What do you require as proof?
        
    A list.  Counter-examples.  Proceed.
    
    DougO

    
    *especially* wagner
    

Male bonding does not require the absence of females, or the presence
of subservient females, because I have been present during male-bonding
activities (that were identified as such by the men involved.)  However,
it appears (from my limited exposure) that it requires a lack of sexual
interaction/interest with the women present; ie; I was "just one of the
guys."

In particular, I remember the first weekend of my freshman year.  There
were various activities the school provided freshman so that they could
get to know eachother.  Well I, and a group of about 5 guys, found that
we got to know eachother better by thwarting the system than working
in it, so we hijacked the light/sound truck of the band playing at a
frosh dance.  (An interesting story in it's own right.)  The experience
of being new in a totally alien environment, of being "partners in
[albeit minor] crime", of having to remain stock still for half an
hour in the dark while the "authorities" passed us by - these were
bonding.  We all ended up fast friends for the remainder of the year.
(Things within the group got sticky when the women *did* start sexually
interacting with the men.  *sigh*)

D! 

    Where male bonding occurs:
    
    - Working together
    - Griping about work in bars
    - Being in a rock band
    - Griping about the rock band in bars
    - Discussing common "research" interests (you know how men get about
    their collections)
    - Discussing common "research" interests in bars
    - Playing basketball
    - Watching baseball games in bars
    - Going to demonstrations
    - Griping about politics in bars
    - Notes conferences (but not the =wn= type)
    - Griping about notes conferences in bars
    - Going to bars
    - Griping about drinking problems in bars
    
    
    Typical five-act structure of male bonding:
    
    - Bust chops
    - Get offended
    - Bust chops
    - Get maudlin
    - Pass out
    
    
    Typical subject matters of male bonding:
    
    - Work
    - Family
    - Sex (including misogyny)
    - Physical prowess (including any unusual capacity for drinking or
    drugs)
    - How stupid the rest of the world is
    - How stupid we are
    
    
    Who one male bonds with, in alphabetical order:
    
    - Asexual men
    - Bi men
    - Gay men
    - Het men
    - Women (this is called "being just one of the guys")
    
    
    Where you can find out more about male bonding:
    
    - Hang out with a bunch of men
    - Any movie, from Woody Allen to John Ford to Jean-Luc Godard to...
    well, any movie
    - Many novels, especially ones written by men - this limits things,
    but off the top of my head, there's Melville, Joyce, Flaubert, Hammett,
    Chandler, Hemingway, Twain...
    - A few autobiographies; there's some good subtle stuff in "The
    Education of Henry Adams", which I've just been rereading
    - Collections of letters, like the ones between Ezra Pound and anyone
    - Loud aggressive music (Minor Threat, speed metal, Wagner)
    - Oh, and Plato...
    
    Ray

    re .60, Oh, that was so cute, Mike.  Sandy asks for a list of
    activities and you refuse.  I repeat the request and you refuse.  
    I repeat the request again and you provide not a list of activities, 
    but a list of names.  Strike three; I'll assume you can't provide a 
    list of activities that don't fit her criteria from .18.  
    
    Or, I suppose we could consider your list of names as a nice try,
    perhaps a foul instead of your third strike.  Go on, tell us about the
    male-bonding activities you share with "Paul, Steve, Steve, Danny" that
    don't match Sandy's criteria.  Or, you're outta here.
    
    DougO

re: 18 Sandy

>    A male bonding activity requires that either there be absolutely no
>    women present, or present in a subservient, demeaning or degrading
>    capacity.  Men don't generally "bond" around mothers or wives or women

	This is not validated by the bonding experiences within my immediate
family or the larger family unit. My wife is ever present when I bond with 
my son. She doesn't have to be, but if she is it is not in some demeaning
or subservient role and in my household she has real power, sexual and 
otherwise.

	Our larger family unit had a cook-out just recently. Attending
were brothers and sisters and mothers, fathers and children. They was much 
male bonding: horse-playing, beer drinking, joke telling and quite a bit of 
male orientated silliness. I distinguish between the male bonding as opposed
to the general family bonding (that was there too) confining myself
to the male interactions. I built some good memories there and increased
the warmth I feel toward the male members of our larger family circle.

	The women were not in a demeaning or subservient role although I'm
sure with the proper perspective (prejudice) one could make such a case.
I like to see someone with that slant convince the women attending though.

>    Male bonding requires the complete absence of any trace of female power 
>    and at its absolute best, it presents the power women have over men, 
>    (their sexuality), and offers it up for symbolic, (or real), destruction. 

	Are you saying that women's power represented by there sexuality
somehow destroys male bonding? If so ,could you say how.

MAC

    	By the way...I'll be bonding with my daughter this weekend on the
    occassion of her 16th birthday. We're going to see a movie: Ghost. I'll
    be sensitized to what differs between male to male and male to female
    bonding.
    
    MAC

    (This is my first reply after being a read-only'er for a while.  I'll
    enter an intro afterward.)
    
    You're looking for examples of male bonding, Doug?  I'll offer a few ...
    
    * The proverbial road trip.  Anywhere, for any duration.  There's
    something about eating corn chips & fast food, arguing over radio
    stations, razzing the guy with the map and hours of stupid jokes and
    tall tales to break down barriers ...
    
    * Poker games (or Monopoly or whatever).  Shelly Berman said it best,
    "There's nothing like the trill you get once you've destroyed a
    friend at Monopoly".  Best played whilst smoking cheap cigars ...
    
    * Running out of gas with a friend on a deserted stretch of Route 8 in
    Lee, MA, miles from the nearest gas station.  Doesn't have quite the drama
    of a foxhole in 'Nam but it's close enough ...
    
    * A group of guys bench pressing more weight than they should in the
    freeweight pen at the gym (I'm still hurting ...)
    
    * Helping a friend more all his worldy good into a new apartment; giving
    him all kinds of grief regarding the weight, volume and taste of his
    possessions, then sharing a brew and pizza as a thank you ...
    
    * Camping in the White Mountains, sitting around a campfire and telling
    the stories behind how we attained our various scars ...
    
    These and about a thousand more make up how men begin or maintain the
    friendship process.  I like Daniel's description in .57 about simply
    sitting around with friends until the wee hours, talking, singing,
    hanging-out.  Some of my most enriching "bonding" experiences have
    happened during moments like these, as opposed to tackle football games
    drink-till-you-pass-out parties.
    
    The depiction of male bonding as primarily a loud, drunken, swearing,
    competitive, homophobic, hormone-driven, woman-fearing substitute for
    sharing feelings makes the mistake of using the most outrageous
    behavior of some members of a group as damnation of an entire group.
    Men are amazingly complex people, capable of far more passion and
    compassion than some members of this sting are ready to acknowledge.
    If you're not in contact with men who don't fit the stereotype, perhaps
    it's time to make friends with different men.
    
    Allbest,
    Larry

    re:67
    Larry, your last paragraph is terrific; took the words right our of my
    mouth.
    
    Thanks,
    
    -roger
    

    
    re:.67
    i think some of these examples are, indeed, examples of 'male
    bonding' that are not easily construed as misogynistic and are,
    in fact, quite healthy.
    

    Well, I suppose I can take off my devil's advocate hat now; pardon my
    jibes, all, but Sandy did ask for non-demeaning-to-women examples way
    back in .35, because there had been and continued to be numerous
    assertions that male-bonding was more than demeaning to women, with no
    such examples.  Daniel's .8 and .10 were hardly positive; Eagle's .39
    depicting male bonding as resulting from a need for structure to
    differentiate male affection from homosexuality was interesting, but
    hardly what I'd call positive (it begs the question of why men aren't
    permitted to be friendly without fear of that accusation.)  Joe's note
    .43 discussed his experiences with drinking after softball, which
    involved discussions Joe deemed demeaning to women; Mac's .45 stands as
    the first note which positively identified examples such as Sandy
    sought.  Of course, Mac did include the bonding and status arising from
    the "conquest" of women, in the same note.  I also enjoyed Daniel's .57
    about staying up late, talking and singing...though in my experience,
    these evenings were enhanced by the presence of both genders, and I
    wouldn't have put them in the male-bonding category of activities at
    all.  Perhaps that gives me a clue as to my prevalent take on all of
    this:  I have a hard time seeing "male-bonding" as positive because 
    anything I've ever done that enhanced my relationships with men worked
    just as well when women were included, and thus I don't see them as
    "male-bonding".  If I want to differentiate something as an activity
    which I can share "exclusively" with males, well, um, sorry...that's
    not something I see as positive.  Larry, I've had road trips, card
    games, mishaps, shared workouts, friends' moves, camping trips and yes,
    thousands more...but women figure into those just as easily for me as
    do men.  When I think of things I can share only with men...well, the
    first quandary is, why look for those kind of things?  Why seek to
    exclude women from areas of my life?  I *like* women.
    
    I guess thats why I don't call those experiences male bonding.  I tend
    to think that people who have the abilities to share themselves with
    both genders will do so because its more enriching to expose oneself to
    the broader experience base that friends of both genders will have.  
    If folks here are saying that most men are only able to experience
    closeness and bonding with other men, I reject *that* as negatively
    characterizing males' true potential.  So don't think I'm down on men
    when I reject the self-limiting activities I consider male-bonding to
    be.  I've *yet* to see anything described herein as male-bonding (that
    necessarily excludes women to 'work' as an activity,) that *isn't*
    demeaning to women.
    
    I'm not knocking the positive activities!  But I refuse to limit my 
    bonding to men only, and that's how I'm analyzing the arguments thus
    far presented; positive activities that some men refuse to share with
    women in their lives.  Um...hey.  Whatever floats your boat isn't mine
    to criticize, but I won't be living *my* life that way.
    
    DougO

    Re: .72
    
    Doug, I think we're about 10 degrees apart on the definition of a
    "male bonding" experience, a phrase so overused that it borders on
    self-parody.  As I see it, this male bonding thing happens whenever
    two or men find a common ground of experiences; "hey, here's someone
    who understands me".  It can be a planned event (a camping trip) or
    spontaneous (two guys stuck in an elevator).  It does not, in my view,
    demand or require woman be excluded.  A year a ago today I was up till
    3am with a dozen male and female London police "bobbies" in their police
    station, pounding down the ale and singing Beatles songs.  You would have
    loved it.  That fits your more inclusive view of bonding, does it not?
    But if circumstances created a situation where there were only male
    officers present, then the bonding would still occur but on a different
    level; that level of life exerience that men share.  And if a woman
    joined the group, fine, wonderful even.  The bonding goes from mono to
    stereo, as it were.  I agree with you regarding groups of men who must
    consistantly exclude woman in order to create a bonded experience. 
    *There's* an opportunity for growth.  But a scenario where a group of
    males play a hard game of hockey and grab a burger afterwards --
    where's the harm in that?
    
    Larry

    It's not clear to me that there's much to gain from discussing a phrase
    instead of a topic. In the absence of a baseline agreement of what this
    "male bonding" is, the discussion simply degrades to semantic
    quibbling.

    It would have been better, methinks, if the base note provided a
    definition of "male bonding", and use that as the de facto definition.
    If some people believe in other sorts of "bonding", then alternate
    definitions could be put forward, but at least a common ground would
    exist.

    For example, to me there seems little point in excluding from the
    concept any interactions which would work equally well between men and
    women, *unless that is the baseline definition* of "male bonding". If
    "male bonding" describes interactions which bring individual men closer
    together in some way, then the fact that similar interactions work with
    women is irrelevant to the topic.

    I, for one, have no idea what "male bonding" is, or is supposed to be.
    It's one of those nouveau-psych terms which generally gets my goat and
    keeps psych professors publishing. As such, I can't add anything
    substantive to the topic (assuming we really knew what the topic was);
    if some of the earlier serious descriptions of male bonding are taken
    as the working definition of the phrase, then I don't do any of it (I
    only have one really close friend, and I'm married to her). There's
    nobody else with whom I would discuss things in much more personal
    terms than might be appropriate to, say, the lunch table crowd. I can't
    imagine sitting down with a "male buddy" and discussing the
    complexities of women or marriage or whatever - it's a completely
    foreign concept to me.

    However, I've seen Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid, so I know it
    must happen.

    Well, more or less, Michael, and without the sarcastic sneer, yes, that
    is how it works out.  Without the sneer, meaning, why use a special
    word or phrase ("male bonding") to describe an activity that ISN'T
    exclusively male?  Larry asks a perfectly valid question, whats wrong
    with a tough game of hockey and a burger afterwards?  (I'd change it to
    the situation I had just this evening, when four other guys and I
    pounded Page Mill, Arastradero, and Alpine roads on our bikes, before
    we parted ways)...that is, I enjoy those experiences, but I *refuse*,
    like Paul, to attribute any special pop-psych term, to enshrine it 
    as a myth in our culture.  The more I think about it, with Eagles'
    contribution about needing an alternate term to describe male
    friendship without the stigma of the Homosexuality label, the more
    I'm convinced that the pseudo-mythical "male-bonding" experience is
    a semantic pulling-of-the-wool over this society's eyes.  WHY DO WE
    NEED A SPECIAL TERM, WHICH EXCLUDES WOMEN, TO DESCRIBE ACTIVITIES WHICH
    ANYONE CAN ENJOY?  
    
    DougO

    
    re:.72
    well done, doug old boy!
    

    Re: .72
    
    I like it, Doug!  How about "people-bonding"?
    
    Those evenings I mentioned did often become mixed crowds, and like you
    said, nothing was lost -- my friends and I were able to see ourselves
    as a group of *people* together who were able to be supportive...
    
    I agree.  Why *do* bonding activities have to be exclusively single
    sex?
    
    
    daniel

    But what about the stag parties (where women are often denigrated, even
    if only through the appearance of the stripper)?  I think that's a form
    of "male bonding" ritual which cannot include women (except in
    subservient or naked roles).....
    
    I think Doug's right that any male bonding which includes denigration
    of women by its nature cannot occur fully in the presence of women
    (sounds kind of logical)....
    
    I've had male friends who mention softly that they can't REALLY talk to
    each other unless women aren't around.  They can't "take off their
    masks" and get plastered or head-butt or just hang out and relax, or
    listen to old Stones tapes, or do whatever and just BE TOGETHER unless
    women are not there.  Women somehow hamper the process on occasion, as
    if by having women there to be unguarded and vulnerable would show a
    side of them that either they don't want to show, or feel they can't
    afford to show.  It would be like showing the underbelly of the dragon
    perhaps, the permeable, penetrable, softer part - and in showing that
    to women instead of other men it would incite - I don't know - what
    would it incite?  Why would that FEEL damaging - particularly if the
    woman present is theoretically also a "close friend"....?
    
    -Jody
    

    I do have a number of male friends with whom I hang out, and maybe
    get buddy-buddy with, and all that stuff, but it's never a "male"
    thing, just a "friend" thing. I do the same with female friends.
    And I don't *act* any differently with male friends than I do with
    female friends.
    
    --- jerry

    completely off the topic:
    
    "I will never understand how anynoe can put herring in their mouth"
    
    pickled herring on kichel is a delicacy that you have to grow up with
    to appreciate, I guess! ;-)
    
    Daniel who is flaunting his ethnicity for the moment!

    I've had a work experience where purely by chance it was 100% women in
    an off-site trying to accomplish a goal.  The same project had a
    follow-up off-site sometime later to review the results, and one man
    was added to the mix.  It was an absolutely fascinating experience. 
    There was a subtle, but very real, qualitative difference on the two
    occasions.  Not something that I can verbalize well, but it was
    different.  The all-women grouping was more relaxed, even though the
    work task itself was more difficult.
    
    That experience may qualify as a "female bonding" type of experience. 
    If so, I can certainly understand where *the same set of activities*,
    done in a single-sex setting, can result in qualitatively different
    experiences.  Both experiences have value, they just result in slightly
    different outcomes.
    
    Alison

    I have felt there are some personal weaknesses and foibles I would
    generally choose not to admit in a group of men, but would speak of
    to male friends who knew me on a one-to-one basis.  Men often quirk
    eyebrows at tales of intuition, or feelings of certain types, or
    strange hangups or intrinsic flaws of certain sorts - and their need to
    respond negatively and overpoweringly to weakness seems to compound
    when they are in a group of their male peers.  In addition, some things
    I don't generally share with men simply because I have learned by
    several tries that they are bored by certain topics that women find
    interesting.
    
    Having spent every other school week for 4 years surrounded by men,
    with no women in sight, I quickly learned how to dress, act, speak, and
    be "one of the guys" (increased my chance of survival by reducing
    ostracization).  I bonded with the males to the best of my ability,
    participated as best I could in their "guy talk" and generally hung
    around with them (although sometimes their "guy talk" was very
    negative/degrading of other women, I had disassociated myself with
    those "other women" by becoming "one of the guys", so although I
    understood it wasn't leveled at me, there wasn't a whole lot I could do
    or say about it)....
    
    I found that a lot of the men's most warm smiles came from ranking on
    each other, poking fun at each other, joking with each other, and
    sharing problem solving.  In fact, I've noticed in past boyfriends that
    one of the ways they feel comfortable being intimate/close with me is
    by teasing or poking fun gently.  This is something I am not very
    familiar with, as women don't seem to do it much (and as a result I've
    been told I'm taking the ribbing too seriously sometimes).
    
    -Jody

    No one is discussing "always" or "never".  I thought we went 
    through this demonstration, (10, perhaps 20 times), that most 
    educated people, (us included), understand that nothing is %100,
    (save for the usual, death, taxes, crab grass, etc.)
    
    I think there's a subtle difference between the scenarios in which 
    friendship *can* and *does* occur and the scenarios men generally
    *choose* in either creating or strengthening friendships.  So you make
    a new friend when the elevator breaks down and you two guys are in
    there together.  Do you make a date for dinner so you can talk and get
    to know each other better, (does the phrase itself kind of give you a 
    little shudder and a desire to say "Of course not!" in a loud voice?), 
    or do you instead just casually agree to maybe run into each other at 
    the local pick up joint (to "conquer" women), go to a baseball game, 
    (sans women), or something along those lines?  Yes friendship can and
    does happen anywhere.  But when men want to "act out friendship", what
    are the ways they most often choose to do that?  What are the preferred
    situations?  Are there any common threads to those?
    
    That's more in line with what I was thinking of rather than the
    happenstance occurrences which can happen to anyone.

    The term for what you are describing as "B", Herb, is a `click!'.
    
    						Ann B.

    From the Larry Andries dictionary:
    
    "Bonding" = the formation of a friendship between two or more people.
    [Bonding, in its most basic form, is gender neutral.]
    
    When "bonding" occurs (for whatever reason) among a pair or group of
    men it's popularly known as "male bonding".
    When "bonding" occurs (for whatever reason) among a pair or group of 
    woman it's popularly known as "female bonding" [which gets way less
    press than male bonding].
    
    Yesterday, I watch a repeat of a "Donahue" program with the cast of
    "Steel Magnolias".  Here was a situation where six highly successful
    women, who had never worked together before, bonded (their words) from
    the very first day and remain strong friends ever since.  Actually, it
    was wonderful to watch, especially with this discussion ringing in my
    head.  All this is preamble to my question: since prominent examples of
    women forming strong friendships/relationships are so rare, can someone
    give me examples of how woman "bond" (that word AGAIN) and how the
    process and content differs from male behavior?
    
    Larry

    Female friendship is so powerful and common, it is strange that you
    never see examples in film or TV.  I used to like to see the female
    friendships on "Roseanne" (not to be inflammatory!).  The friendships
    on "thirtysomething" are good -- all of the characters have a lot of
    the female in them.
    
    For me, I feel a commonality/bond/friendship with other women in
    various ways...
    
    Talking (usual way).   We'll chat about various things -- work, family,
    relationships, other friendships, the news, books we're reading -- then
    there comes a point in the discussion where it turns to things we have
    noticed or feel or think about something, and the empathy and AHAs
    start to happen.  "Yes, I feel the same way!  What a great insight, I
    never thought of that before, but it makes such sense!  Oh, I'm so
    sorry this has happened to you; thanks for understanding..." 
    Disagreeing about something but finding it neat to be different.
    
    Singing (obviously not as common as talking!).  Although I bond with
    men through singing as well, I have a female friend who I will
    sometimes spontaneously sing with.  We have a few favorites ("Country
    Roads" and "Why Do We Fall in Love", for instance) that we have worked
    up a nice harmony too -- and it's fun to sing and blend our voices. 
    We'll sing and then look at each other with a delighted smile when
    we're done.  In college, my group of friends used to sing "Twisted",
    "Hey, Big Spender", and "You're So Vain" in all different kinds of ways
    (dramatic, jokey, straight...). I've been in a few all-female singing
    groups.  You get a feel for what a female voice is, from deep to high
    -- it has a different timbre from male voices.
    
    There's also a common thing when talking or doing something together --
    just looking at each other and KNOWING you are in sync.  In talking
    with someone, we sometimes just meet eyes and nod, saying, "yeah". 
    Another example is my singing group (10 women).  We sing in a
    semicircle formation.  Everybody looks around while singing, and either
    meets eyes trying to convey the feeling of the song -- or grins while
    making some stupid dance move that "interprets" the phase being sung! 
    Oh, that's another thing -- joking around while something serious is
    going on, and sniggering together about getting caught!  :-)
    
    Pam

Some thoughts on bonding...

One common way bonding seems to occur is when the people bonding have some
sort of common "opposition".  "us vs. them" kind of thing.  The opposition
can be people (the opposing sports team, or the "enemy" in war), or nature 
(hunting) or circumstance (the flat tire, the broken down elevator.)  The
point is that having a goal, and more over, having something to work 
*against*, can be bonding.

I think some groups are invented so that there will *be* an opposition.
The opposition is contrived for the sole purpose of bonding. Sports, for 
instance.   "Never trust anyone over thirty".  Etc.  This is not inherently 
bad. But it seems to me that in  single-sex group, it is easy to create the 
"opposition" out of the unreprestented sex.  So being denigrating toward
women, or toward men, is one way of creating an atmosphere of opposition
that is conducive to bonding.

I have been in groups of women that create an opposition out of men.
I have listened to (and participated in) conversations that center around
"what's wrong with men".  And in truth, it does give one warm-fuzzy 
feelings about the women you are with, this sharing of problems.  I have
also seen (though not participated in) men doing exactly the same
thing.  I think it is natural. I also think it is unfortunate, because
while it may be inspired out of desire to bond, rather than a sincere
dislike of the opposite sex it still perpetuates misogyny/misandry.
And it certainly isn't necessary!  Opposition can be "created" without
dividing things on sex lines.  Bitching about professors and classes,
and how much the administration hates students was a bonding opposition
while I was in school, and an almost universal one at that.

I don't know if this "opposition" thing is *necessary* to bonding, but
it certainly is common.

----------

On the other hand, I have found being in same-sex groups to be more
conducive to bonding with other women than mixed-sex, even when "men
as opposition" is not present at all.  I'm not sure why this is, but
it doesn't feel unhealthy.  Therefore, when men tell me there is a 
"male-bonding" that can only occur in absence of females, I believe
them, and I believe that it doesn't (necessarily) have anything to do
with misogyny or denigrating women.

And I *do* believe that, for some people at least, there is a definite
distiction between general people-bonding, and same-sex bonding.  There
is for me.  The same activity shared with a mixed group will result in
a different sort of bonding than with a women-only group.  The activity
may be equally fun, but sometimes I crave one form of bonding or the
other and will therefore seek out one type of group or the other.

D!

    I think  there  are  a  few reasons why male bonding often doesn't
    work  if  there  are  women  around, having to do with the way men
    bond.

    Men seem  to  enjoy  trading insults in a friendly way. Many women
    don't.  (In  a  pre-marriage  class  I was in, the only thing that
    split  along sex lines was the women complaining that the men made
    fun  of them.) 

    Many men  are unwilling to admit that they are doing something for
    the  emotional warmth it provides, so having dinner and talking is
    too threatening. Instead, they do some activity, which provides an
    excuse  for being together, and a defense if the conversation gets
    too  heavy.  My  favorite  example  of  this  was bicycling with a
    friend,  and  having  some  discussion with him (I think about his
    then  unsuccesful  search  for  a  wife). At one point I must have
    touched a nerve, because he was huffing and puffing because of the
    exhertion  of  riding  his bike. Almost reasonable, except that we
    were  going  *downhill*, and barely pedaling at all. He felt safer
    talking  to  me  when  he  had  that  escape  that he could always
    concentrate  on  the  ostensible  reason for being together rather
    than the real reason which is to talk.

    Similarly talking  about hobbies is a safe way of interacting with
    a fallback position if the conversation becomes too heavy.

--David

	Re: Sandy

>    I think there's a subtle difference between the scenarios in which 
>    friendship *can* and *does* occur and the scenarios men generally
>    *choose* in either creating or strengthening friendships.

	Sure, but isn't that true in all friendships? I mean, if you meet
	someone in an elevator or in line at the grocery store or wherever, 
	regardless of the sex of the two "meetees,"  doesn't it make sense 
	to get to know them over lunch or coffee or something than to 
	depend on future random encounters?

>                                                               So you make
>    a new friend when the elevator breaks down and you two guys are in
>    there together.  Do you make a date for dinner so you can talk and get
>    to know each other better, 
>    or do you instead just casually agree to maybe run into each other at 
>    the local pick up joint (to "conquer" women), go to a baseball game, 
>    (sans women), or something along those lines?

	Personally, I'd probably suggest we meet for lunch or go out for a 
	beer, which I would consider to be roughly equivalent to your dinner
	date option.  In either case, I'd expect the activity to be "sans 
	women," I suppose.  But what's unreasonable about that?  I met the guy,
	not his SO.  I guess I don't understand what you're getting at, except
	that you seem to be giving examples of stereotypical male activities 
	and ascribing ulterior motives to them.

	What if I presented a parallel scenario to you:

	You make a new friend when the elevator breaks down and you two gals
	are in there together.  Do you make a date for dinner so you can talk 
	and get to know each other better,  or do you instead just casually 
	agree to maybe run into each other at the local pick up joint (to 
	"pick up" men), go shopping, (sans men), or something along those 
	lines?

	How does that come across to you?

>    does happen anywhere.  But when men want to "act out friendship", what
>    are the ways they most often choose to do that?  What are the preferred
>    situations?  Are there any common threads to those?

	I agree with you that "bonding activities" (whatever they are) in
	general, are different from "meeting activities" (which can be 
	anything, pretty much, and can happen anywhere).  That much seems 
	natural to me.  The only common thread in my experience (aside from
	the fact that "bonding" is taking place, which is a precondition) is
	that a common interest is usually involved.

	Some "bonding activities" (I originally typed "bonging activities" --
	I guess I better watch those freudian typos... :*]) in my experience
	include working on cars, fishing, staying up too late playing "Circus
	Maximus" and "Diplomacy," lying in bed/sleeping bags/whatever in the
	dark and talking instead of sleeping, standing between cars in a
	parking lot talking instead of going home, watching people, and 
	singing along (poorly) with the jukebox (in a bar) while we try to 
	scam more popcorn from the waitperson.

	Now, some of the time, there are women involved in these activities,
	but most of the time, there aren't.  I don't apologise for that, it
	simply is.  That doesn't mean that I hate women, nor that I denigrate
	them when they aren't around to hear me.

	I'm sure men exist who get together and talk about how awful and evil
	and <fill in the blank> women are and who believe it.  I'm also sure
	that there are women who get together and make the equivalent 
	statements about men (and believe it).  In either case it's sad and
	a little pathetic and I don't know what I can do to change those
	people.

	At the same time, I admit that there are times when I simply don't
	comprehend where a woman or women are coming from.  At those times, it
	can be a big help to commiserate with someone who shares my confusion,
	if only to be reassured that I'm not the only one who feels that way.
	Usually (but not always), this person is another man.  In such a
	situation, I would probably consider it a bonding activity, depending
	on the person and circumstances, but I still don't see anything wrong
	with such a situation, taken in context.

	Anyway, that's the way I see it.  Your mileage may differ.  Void where
	prohibited by law.  



	>>AL<<

    since i've teased pam about her .95, i guess it's my turn.  i'm not
    sure if this belongs in this topic or in the single-sex events topic,
    but...
    
    my new a capella singing group [hint, it's the same one as pam's] had a
    benefit concert with an all-male group on wednesday.  as i sat and
    watched them perform, it occurred to me that this was an example of a
    "male bonding" experience which had absolutely nothing whatever to do
    with women - and did not denigrate us at all [beyond trying to get one
    of us to sit in the front row so we could be the patsy on one song].
    
    it was neat as can be.  they were having sooooo much fun.  i doubt
    strongly that any of them are the kind of best friends that you *count*
    *on* to care/help no matter what; they were just a bunch of guys having
    a good time.
    
    i've been in mixed-sex singing groups, all-women, and [briefly] even
    considered joining an "all-male" group desperate for tenors.  the feel
    is different.  sex was a MAJOR social factor in the mixed groups, and
    entirely extraneous to the all-women's groups.  my presence in the
    "all-male" group would have changed the chemistry, despite any efforts
    on my part not to stand out, and in retrospect, i'm glad i never
    auditioned for them.
    
    i think men have had opportunities for that kind of all-male atmosphere
    for millenia, so the group i heard on wednesday is nothing new to our
    western world.  but it is rarer today, and it felt like a privilege to
    watch them interact.
    
    i would hope that even our hypothesized "perfectly non-sexist"
    society of the future would have room for that kind of bonding, in
    all-male or all-female (or all-gay, or all-lesbian, or, or, or)
    settings.
    
    lee

    in general, back to Dorian's question in .0; "we hear a lot about
    male bonding.  What is it?" [paraphrased]
    
    So far, Lee's a capella example is the ONLY one that I've seen that
    describes a bonding activity exclusively for men that isn't demeaning
    to women.  It corresponds to a particular quality of musical art
    (male vocal harmony).  That particular beauty can't be reached when
    women's voices are included.  Thanks, Lee, for finally describing
    an example I can understand.
    
    The point remains (for me, anyway) that if all the other positive
    bonding we've talked about is gender-blind, ie, men and/or women
    can participate equally, then why, as Dorian asked, do we hear so
    much about 'male bonding'?  Is it (as Eagle said) to protect male
    friendships from the stigma of homosexuality labeling?  Or is it
    for some other reason?  I still don't see a really good reason for
    'bonding' to be called 'male bonding'.
    
    What I suspect is that Paul Beck had it right; the culture has created
    a pop-psych term.  What that tells me is that its a myth; a pseudo-
    holy concept, a construct, a belief that 'male-bonding' is somehow
    'special' and 'different'.  Hokum; bonding is bonding, and its good.
    "Male-bonding", on the other hand, is an attempt to elevate that
    into some special experience women can't share.  Language, again
    being used to deny normal human experiences to women. 
    
    DougO

    I have certainly learned a lot from reading this rather long series of
    replies.   I am not sure anymore if my impressions of male bonding or
    friendship hold up anymore -
    
    I have always felt that most male-male relationships are not really
    based on friendship, but on common enmity, or more self serving
    interests - the old boys scratching each others backs.
    
    HOWEVER - I have also felt that the term "male bonding" was special.
    That is, once in a great while, boys/men feel love for each other.  Not
    necessarily sexual love, but true friendship; the kind that compels
    self sacrifice, and urges friends to keep in touch, and to call each
    other just to chat or offer/receive comfort when none is asked for.
    
    I have heard men say that women are not friends (we all know the jokes
    about "catty" behavior, and how cruel "gossips" are).  Actually, I find
    that most women extend friendship much more easily than men - the
    self-sacrifice-for-the-other-just-because-we-are-friends kind of
    friendship, and so the "bonding" isn't quite so special or rare, and
    not so easily noticed, just because it isn't rare.
    
    So what is "male bonding"?  I really believe that it's just plane
    friendship, not requiring anything more special than any other
    friendship.  But I am serious when I say that it's my impression that
    male bonding is not common.
    
    -m

    I can't remember whether anyone has already said this somewhere in
    here, but the def of "male bonding" I remember from class was guys
    doing something together specifically *for* the "together" part, as a
    re-affirmation of connectedness, i.e., it's not something that a guy
    will do by himself, there are ritualised elements to the activity...in
    fact the whole activity may take on all the character of a ceremony,
    and it's typically shared with the same other man or men time after
    time.