https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38158616
The phenomenon began in Australia but it has spread to other countries.
Freemasonry began as a workers' guild, but the accreted "goals and rituals" take a group far beyond the simplicity of a men's shed.
The simplicity of any club rapidly becomes complex when monotheism or henotheism (any theism) is injected:
From Wikipedia:
* Anglo-American style Freemasonry, which insists that a "volume of sacred law" should be open in a working lodge, that every member should profess belief in a supreme being, that only men should be admitted, and discussion of religion or politics does not take place within the lodge.
* Continental Freemasonry or Liberal style Freemasonry which has continued to evolve beyond these restrictions, particularly regarding religious belief and political discussion.
* Women Freemasonry or Co-Freemasonry, which includes organisations that either admit women exclusively or accept both men and women."
When we study this we notice very small actual bias at an individual level on socialization preference. The differences are modest and more like slight preferences. There is more overlap than not at a local individual level. What gets missed is that even though the differences are relatively small, the network effect greatly amplifies these small variances resulting in non-linear outcomes. Even small biases at an individual level essentially produce significant effect in socialization behavior.
I'll defer to you of course if you have personal experience that I do not. But would it not become more complex than a "woodworking club" (men's shed) or than a brick mason's guild as soon as a complex filter such as religion is introduced?
> I won't analyze the sexism or male only nature of the fraternity
No need to analyse the usefulness of fraternity (or sorority), I think. It's just a fact that sometimes the sexes don't want to mingle. What could become problematic are cases of gender-fluidity.
There seem to be as many Women’s Institute members in England as there are Freemasons.
And that is before you consider more ad hoc organisations like book clubs that are definitely more female dominated (though sports clubs perhaps the opposite?)
That describes you and your wife, and that's great to know yourselves. Why do you feel the need to generalize it to everyone else?
People don't need to justify needs by pointing to some greater power that compels them. People have needs; what's most important is understanding them and their loved one loving and supporting them. That one is yours.
Each person has needs; I have no data that it has to do with gender or sex, and why would it matter? The needs aren't predictable based on gender/sex (though socialization is, to some extent). It doesn't change what I do or how I think of it.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109051382...
https://psychcentral.com/health/didactic-memory?utm_source=c...
>> I have no data that it has to do with gender or sex, and why would it matter? The needs aren't predictable based on gender/sex
not sure what you're trying to say here, but you seem to have taken a very mild, very general statement incredbly personal.
There is more overlap than not. So, how do we reconcile that with how things end up: network effect. Small biases in socialization norms lead to significant non-linear outcomes due to amplification of these biases leading to norms that exaggerate these biases and end up creating norms that are quite distorted from the average. Leads to some significant consequences for how different genders end up socialization.
Also, it assumes that there's a correlation between these behaviors and that definition. For example, it could be more common in people who are non-binary.
We don’t need to step back and work out the fundamental nature of sex and gender in order to have a functional conversation about them.
I don’t need to provide a definition of a chair before I can tell you that ones with three legs are more stable (“but what is a chair? what is the exact definition? aren’t some of them tables? aren’t some three legged chairs less stable?”). We just don’t have to do this. Do you do it for chairs? Or just gender? Why? Does it help feminism or trans rights to interrupt a conversation about male mental health with a semantic rabbit hole?
As for your second paragraph, there very much are studies showing the correlation being described, and they’re very easy to find. It would have been far more constructive to actually ask rather than suggest it’s an “assumption” — or even better, to research it yourself.
<https://www.paulgraham.com/heresy.html>
>For example, when someone calls a statement "x-ist," they're also implicitly saying that this is the end of the discussion. They do not, having said this, go on to consider whether the statement is true or not. Using such labels is the conversational equivalent of signalling an exception. That's one of the reasons they're used: to end a discussion.
>If you find yourself talking to someone who uses these labels a lot, it might be worthwhile to ask them explicitly if they believe any babies are being thrown out with the bathwater. Can a statement be x-ist, for whatever value of x, and also true? If the answer is yes, then they're admitting to banning the truth.
----
Please don't try to end our constructive discussions, mmoose; people (men and women sure fine) have a tough enough time without having to get the language police involved.
[this will be my last response to this thread, as I continue hoping somebody learned anything, today]
Do you need a 'safe space'?
Just stick to the merits of the issue; you don't need to bring in ad hominem arguments.
I haven't heard it before.
> We have a much harder time connecting socially without some sort of shared activity or action.
You might have a harder time doing that; other men have different experiences. The average man has brown eyes and is 1.72m tall; does that mean your eyes and height are that way? It's certainly an error to take statistical generalizations and apply them to individuals - one of the first things you learn in statistics.
Also, the studies you cited don't address this issue. The psychcentral link is about memory research. The other looks at social relationships, but doesn't look at this aspect of them. Do you actually know of any research?
> incredbly personal
Don't bother with the ad hominem distractions.
>I haven't heard it before.
You learned something, today.
Edit: As far as learning something, the GGP's citations were nonsense, as I pointed out. What has anyone offered, other than a demonstration of the fundamentals of misapplying statistics.
nobody's worrying about you, rest assured.
Social interactions don’t thrive when negative emotions are present.
People want to feel good about what they are doing.
Even the used car salesman that wants to be your friend knows this… bring good energy to HN as well.
I don't even see something negative in what I posted - it's pretty positive to me. I didn't say, 'we're all going to die' or say something fatalistic (like the comment I originally responded to).
Unless you mean 'negative' is 'disagrees', which of course badly is miscontrued in open intellectual debate, especially on HN.
> nobody's worrying about you, rest assured.
That seems pretty negative! :)
Especially if, say, that man and woman always do things together, but one of them is starting to feel like they need a little bit of something else.
I'm not thinking about myself on the basis of what someone else thinks all people of my gender/sex do - that's irrelevant. Do you redefine your own needs based on what you read someone else thinks half the population does?
For example, studies have shown that men who decide to isolate themselves to be "family men" die earlier at age 58.
It might not need to be a pub, but having a club house to do pretty much anything is enormously beneficial to the human brain to have positive social interaction.
We get to decide our own social interaction.
The world is not responsible to not triggering us.
Yes, but isn't it a benefit to society as a whole though? All the prime working years are gone by then and there is no need to pay pension to those men or for expensive medical treatments. And younger generations can be happy for there being one less cishet white male boomer in the world.
I mean, it sure sucks for the individual not being able to enjoy their retirement, but for the society it seems that it will be a benefit.
This idea that people you don't like should die for the "benefit" of society has been tried before. It doesn't end well.
Well, not needed, unless an actual shooting war breaks out and you need a lot more people pulling guard duty or just some very high-risk stuff younger men should not be wasted on. Like that Ukrainian unit of pensioner men in a ground-attack missile unit who source their own missiles by repairing unexploded ones.
The mistake - which leads to disaster - is more fundamental. Modern society isn't an actual thing with needs, just an abstract concept. Individual people are real, and we all have real rights and needs. 'Goverments exist to protect rights' - society exists to serve the individual, not vice versa. Almost all morality includes protecting and helping the vulnerable.
Who decides who is a burden? Infants and children are also a 'burden' as are people with all sorts of illnesses (and people spreading disinformation). Only the cruelest fascists have suggested they should die to help society, as if that's a reasonable discussion.
> Just look at how triggered the GP
Ad hominem is against HN guidelines. Just stick to the issues instead of trying to change the subject by attacking and characterizing people who don't agree with you.
Instead we clutch to life far beyond any societal benefit and, in many cases, beyond personal benefit too, spending a fortune to delay death another few weeks or months… but with incredibly low quality of life.
That said, dying at 58 is probably of no real benefit. But everyone dying a few years younger would have prevented Brexit.
I'm all for death with dignity and not being a burden on your loved ones. But people who've worked all their lives deserve to have a period after where they can enjoy life without the burden of "productivity".
> men who decide to isolate themselves to be "family men" die earlier at age 58.
That seems extremely young. Is that a typo?
(Seriously, I have no idea what the actual statistic is that's being misquoted here)
Frankly, I don't know why more women doesn't center their social life around activities.
It's an excellent idea. Seriously, what's not to like?
Not that its impossible, but the majority* of men get together to watch, play, or talk about sports the majority of the time... whereas I'm perfectly fine just hanging out where hanging out is the activity!
I eventually just stopped trying to invite most of my guy friends out for 1-1 meals, etc.
* hyperbole
A few years ago I joined my rural neighborhood council, and I’d never been around so many people consistently being generous with their time and energy. It’s really uplifting, and you end up learning a lot from each other in the process too.
Some person somehow gets to be the leader and bosses people around. Those people aren't always the brightest or the most compassionate. They often are pushy, they are somewhat totalitarian, they really don't like their ways to be questioned. Sometimes (not always) they are the most dedicated but only because they made volunteering their identity or their main source of self-esteem (this can either happen because they don't have anything else going on in their life OR because what goes on in their life do not satisfy them).
They are often "open to new people, ideas and contribution" only as long as anything new is very well aligned with their (personal) line of thinking and/or does not question their "authority" in any way.
Either way, I've seen that happen too many times to take volunteering any seriously.
In my case, local community orgs are usually run by older, often retired people. Doesn't mean there's no drama, but it's not the same kind of drama you'll find in predominantly younger organizations.
I stay volunteering for the people I work with even more than my investment in the goals of the organization.
You can find something like that - keep looking.
You don’t even to find a group or friends before you go. Just go to the bouldering area and hang out during a popular time.
Most gyms have partner finder programs and designated social nights.
Every gym I’ve been a member of has also had a bring a friend program where you get to bring one new person for free periodically.
Online groups are also a good way to meet new friends. This is HN so a lot of people will turn their nose up at Facebook but it’s full of groups of people who go out and do things.
This is how I met most of my local friends; I went out and started a D&D game.
D&D is slightly tricky, because most people want to play a character, instead of be the DM - so, you either need to find a DM, or be the DM. I'm lucky - I love DMing.
Another problem is maybe similar to what OP was facing; I see many people joining our local Discord, looking for a game, but none of them or the people welcoming them seem to take the actual next step of picking a time and a place to meet and start discussing where and when to actually play.
It's really easy to be in the mindset that someone else should have already set up the rock climbing club and that if it doesn't exist it just can't.
Turns out that someone can be you! (and this is the thing people miss out on, you can actively make your world more like the way you want it to be by being that leader yourself and doing so is often way easier than you think)
Then organically these tend to turn into trips together or simple hangouts for someone's birthday or a holiday.
Once you don't need to ask, because it has a standing slot and standing membership, that's a club; once it has organised and centralised payments, that's a club.
"Hey tekno45, pub?" is not an initiation of a drinking club.
Prior to Covid, I'd started a Wednesday "Dad's Night" where we just got together from 9-10 in my backyard to hang out and have a beer. Eventually we'd move to random local pubs and often it would go to 11pm. It grew with consistency as people would invite other folks. Had one of the assistant basketball coaches from Clemson show up one time. Some of the guys who home brewed would bring something.
The key was a time, after the kids are in bed on a night in the middle of the week when people didn't have other plans.
Covid killed it, but we eventually just became a "grab lunch" text group.
I think Country Clubs and golf used to be the "default" outlet for a lot of people, but as those prices have increased there's a gap to fill.
> how, for dad’s in particular, there is a massive need for this
- Yes
- And also for single men at 45, because everyone’s busy and they feel like a failure for not having a family (meanwhile having a family is such an incredible performance)
- Teens. There is a massive loneliness epidemic among teens. At least we 40-year-olds have had friends before. But the iphonocene (the era of smart phones) has created a generation of people whose friends were always, constantly, busy with phones.
We play a game (whichyr.com) were we guess the year of random pictures. The first criteria is whether people are bent while walking. Not bent: pre-2013. Bent on the phone: Post-2013. It’s not the invention of the phone, it’s the usage of it.
I mean not just 1 or 2, every single time. It maybe golf, gun range, driving, anything. I'm a introvert that has problem scheduling time, but a lot of Dads don't have male friends and are desperately seeking other male-only quality time.
One of the things that really drove it home for me was going on r/daddit and seeing post after post of dads with young kids talking about how lonely they are.
In the scenario of the "working dad, stay at home mom" + elementary age kids, it's REALLY tough b/c moms can socialize during school hours whereas the dad is only available from 5-6pm onwards which coincides with dinner/bed time.
Some tips for the above:
- Have regularly scheduled "hang out with friends night". Lot easier to manage than "hey, can I hang out with my buddy tonight?"
- Do "swaps" e.g. where after kids are in bed, dad A hangs out with dad B at house B, wife B hangs out with wife A at house A (so you don't need to get a babysitter)
Two years later, that guy and I are best friends, and we cold plunge every Saturday together. Just did a new years plunge with our friend group that is growing. My wife commented this morning that I've really 'farmed' my friend group, whereas a few years ago. I was myself very frustrated with having no real friends anymore.
FYI, my son is in a much better place.
However, the Finns in the winter did not seem to be happy at all, but mostly quite deep in seasonal depression.
- We see each other every week, almost without fail
- I suspect the invitation to a cold plunge pre-selects for people with very high openness, and those people aren’t afraid of deep friendships
- Doing something hard and a little bit scary together strengthens the bond
This can’t be underestimated. Most of my adult friends come from my trekking hobby. Everyone struggles during a trek, group dynamics form, you stay surprisingly close with the people you trekked with.
We initially wanted to do a ride in France called Paris-Brest-Paris, but never got good enough. That's a 1200km ride. Then kids happened, careers, etc. I'm too bad at time management for that kind of riding, haha.
Hats off to you!
I’ve done some long rides to be sure, but the longest I’ve ever ridden non-stop-ish is probably about 14 hours. I think riding through the night is a deal-breaker for me. I’ve never been on the road earlier than 6am, or later than 10pm.
For sure, riding at night is awful. I'm too risk-averse to do it much these days. I've got kids who depend on me to be more careful than that.
We typically left around 4am, and on some rides would finish after midnight if not riding most of the night. Those dark hours were always pleasantly low-traffic, yet I always wondered if the ratio of drunk and/or tired drivers was far worse.
I think that's really the only part I don't miss, come to think of it. Headlights at night were always unsettling.
Also watch Ghost in the Shell which is vaguely set in Hong Kong then feel the vibe when you're there.
Many people also just put you on a text messaging list when you exchange numbers. They only tell you the number to their list, but they are capable of responding individually from it
When they go somewhere, they tell the list, if you come you come, if you don't, nobody's missing you. No obligation, reply STOP to end. Otherwise you can bond at the event and meet everyone else too
My experience is, in the USA, eventually nearly every meetup is ruined by politics. Eventually someone says something unintentionally trigging someone else and then off it goes.
I was about to turn 40 and realized that the place we were staying had a rock wall. In a somewhat "mid life crisis" spur of the moment decision, I decided to go buy shoes, a belt and a chalk bag (I did a lot of indoor rock climbing in college).
We get there and the rock wall is a. closed and b. only for kids.
Get back to the US and COVID lockdown starts. As things open up, I go on the town dad's Facebook group and ask if anyone wants to go rock climbing with me. Multiple dads say "hell, yes!" so I start a rock climbing club.
One of the dads that joins the climbing club loves board games, is inspired by my starting the rock climbing club so he starts the town board game club.
I tell people this story to illustrate that:
- if you don't have a club or org for something that you're into, go start one
- you doing the above can trigger other people to start clubs too