Gender might be a social construct but the biological difference that ekes out men and women out of humans is one that cannot be refuted in all universality of it. Indeed, each one of us is unique ourselves as individuals but in our catering to the collective identity that shapes us up in our most basicness, we still tend to be different from the ones conforming to the ‘ideals’ of another category of that classification. What emerges thus is a distinction that cannot really be challenged despite exceptions ironically abounding almost to prod us on to reflections of the contrary. Considering though the more general state of affairs, one that is believed to be the norm though not so significantly outweighing the evolving nature of all things worldly, it still is worthwhile to allow for such differences to persist and be pursued as well in at least some sort of the logical essence wherefrom they stem.
The difference that we are scouting out here is one very universally established and yet equally contended as well. In its prevalence as a stereotypical, even prejudiced mode of behavior we tend to characterise as innate this is a case in neverending construction of views and notions and the countering of them. What manifests in this medium of the contradictory is an idea that supposedly furthers the perceiving of the gender divide in not so much of the absolute reality that it is (not). Continuing a strand of thought dominating the ‘natural’ understanding of the nature of what makes man and woman out of humans not so much physically as it does psychologically, or in fact emotionally to be more exact, is one that relates to the type and form through which these two ‘distinct’ kinds of the human world bond within the confines of their own larger identity as males and females.
What transpires from all this documenting of specific behavior and dissecting of prominent patterns governing the relationship of either in terms strictly accruing to the homosocial exploration of them is a certain difference indeed that explains the way in which they bond with others of their own kind. Tending to align rather resolutely to the typical perception of both man and womankind, with the latter believed to be capable of a greater emotional understanding over the former but also as much steeped in the dubious distinction of bitching and bickering and the like, with of course similar and/ or related features of both the desirable and the desirable availing to their male counterparts as well, and one could comfortably make out in almost certainty the kind of character attributed to the bonding bliss blooming within their respective circles.
And thus it turns out, exactly the way one would have expected to encounter in all predictability of things alluding to this spectrum of universality that male bonding and female bonding do encompass such ‘characteristic’ attributes in their individualness. Not just in the way they continue through the trail of friendship or companionship of the non romantic, non sexual kind but also in the very establishment of the bond, the basis of each is equally distinct. While male relations are believed to be fostered upon grounds of shared interest or experiences, and developing as well through the process of shared activities, the dynamics governing female bonds tend to be more variegated and deeper as well.
In either case though, it is the essence of their personal identity that leads both men and women to develop close homosocial relationships with others. The female relational unfurlings is found to have occurred over a range of the different variables inextricably tied with who they essentially are even when not in uniquely special reiterations of them. It can be something as general as age and status and race and the like that drives women to bond with someone of the same ‘living experience’ as them. Of course the basis can well encompass areas of common interests and ideologies, of shared beliefs and views and a hundred such attributes that each human being naturally harbour irrespective of their assigning to the identity of their sexes.
In such exploration and expression of friendships and other relationships, both male and female bonding pursue definitely the same universal trait in mirroring but in manners not essentially congruent with each other. What stems as interesting enough a ‘standard’ by which relationships are furthered by men and women is the fact that such connections cherished by women tend to be more intimate than those pursued by men even when they are defined by that same extent and level in closeness. Emotional connection is what matters the most for females when scouting out the enriching potential of genuine relations with other females. Male bonds on the other hand tend to be more evident on the surface of them, meaning that the intensity of their emotional connect might not be as apparent even when it is not any less rooted deep within the expanse of their feelings.
Even when compared in the awareness of them as significantly absorbing facets of their life, female bonds still strive more on intimacy and associated factors of understanding and compassion and support than those furthered by their male peers. No wonder why even something as naturally stemming as the love and connection between a mother and her daughter or the equally blood based relational expressions of sisters as siblings tend to assert as one among the most powerful of all bonds to ever characterise the entire fore of human relations.
But it perhaps is such deeper assertions of the female bond that also correspondingly make it more likely to be fragile. With such absolute, true, heartfelt realisations at the core of what shapes them up, relationships built up by women are more easily shaken by even seemingly minor untoward happenings perhaps because of their complete trust and confidence in them at the first place. As life entities they offer themselves wholly to in all devotion as something very personal to them, women who genuinely pursue such bonds that matter a great deal to them are obviously more affected by even the slightest of differences. With everything at stake, from the intimacy induced vulnerability to the emotional pouring in of their heart and soul, females feel rather deeply for the loss of a connection, equivalent to the extent in which they had cherished it.
The male interpretation of relations are different in that their range of the emotional is differently defined. Less entertaining of the definite notion in face to face contact or other forms of physical connect, or dwelling only in such dynamics of them not as profound are human males who do not really further their platonic bonds along the edges of affectionate ambling about in utmost companionship. Interestingly though, this extent of the dynamics undergoes a shift when it comes to pursuing heterosexual and/ or romantic relations by men as they tend to be far more open and intimate with their female friends and partners or even other relatives.
This perhaps has to do more with the behavioral conditioning that men and women have come to be naturally- or rather evolutionarily wired in. With women seen as more receptive when it comes to assessing emotions and responding therefore intuitively to them, it happens to be such relations involving at least one female that come across as more immersive a case in human bonding, of course with exceptions though.
What sets apart thus the domain of male bonding and female bonding is first and foremost the essential way in which they are fostered. While men are more likely to strike a chord with each other by indulging in some activity in shared interest, women take the bond further by choosing to dwell instead on the depth of the emotional. Equally definite a manifestation of the difference between all female and all male relations happen to be universally adhered an idea to in the secret sharing and non sharing of them. That might be more rooted in stereotypes than the science outlined as the psychological but as the way in which humans have come to assert their identification of the gendered kind, this furthering of trust and intimacy through the ‘sacred’ trove of the secret is something very quintessentially characterising of female bonding.
By extension of this founding principle in intimacy, female relationships emerge as more personal an affair than male bonds that adhere more to the innate nature of humans as social animals. Naturally therefore, men frequently further their connect and bond with other men as collective activities but for women the communication happens to be more one-on-one. And this generalisation isn’t something consciously explored by males and females alike to allow indeed discernibly different readings into the nature of their bonds.
Creeping in as something very necessary to their catering to one of the gendered types would be such traits that unfurl rather early in life among humans and advance through time to become more dominant strands of their relational revelation. Also despite all their universality in adhering as being of the male kind or the female kind, these differences in establishing male and female bonding tend not to be so absolute as would be presumed from our rather clear cut presentation of the versuses. What prevails at the end of it all though is the fact that homosocial fostering and furthering of bond tends to be of great significance to all humans irrespective of their sexual identification as well as orientation, simply because it stands true to the ultimate identity of all us human beings as individually social entities.