Talk:Female bonding

Critique on Wikipedia page on Female Bonding - Even more Clap Trap
This author does not know what they are talking about.

The gist of the webpages is that females are mutually supportive whilst men make wars.

'Bonding' and attachment are extremely important issues in psychology. Individuals with confused feelings may read these articles and seriously believe that there is something wrong with them because either they are in a female body and want to make war or in a male body and want to make cakes.

There are not different genes in our body which make us want to go to war or make cakes according to our gender. The idea is ridiculous.

Mankind is all the same. We all have feelings and emotions and is wrong to assign particular feelings or emotions according to the person's sex.

I have tried to highlight these points in the TALK pages on; Human bonding, Male bonding and now Female bonding.

Whoever is writing this stuff should read up on attachment theory.

Critique on Wikipedia page on Male Bonding - More Clap Trap
Here is the comment I made about the page on 'Human bonding'. The same criticisms are here. As the above person has stated it is not factual.

There is no 'natural' way men and women bond differently. As men we are not pre-programmed to go to war or eat curry or bond in the way suggested. Likewise women are not pre-programmed to do the cooking or for that matter look after children. The author seems to be oblivious to research on attachment.

Critique of 'Human bonding' page on Wikipedia
This article, although well intentioned, lacks intellectual integrity. There is an obvious conflict as to whether 'human bonding' is innate or sociological. The scientific references suggest that 'bonding' is natural and determined by genetics. But the historical references suggest 'bonding' is a man-made or sociological phenomenon. A particular anomaly in this account is the reference to the maternal bond which does not consider infanticide or mothers killing their own children. Indeed the differentiation the account seeks to make between bonding between children and mothers as opposed to fathers is based on popular folklore rather than evidence because as Schaffer in 'Social Development' (2000) states, "It seems likely that social convention explains whatever parenting differences are observed and that when fathers assume the principal responsibility for their children such differences disappear". The account also attributes the application of the term 'bonding' to interpersonal relationships to Merriam-Webster in 1976. But to do so would be to ignore the considerable academic contribution made to psychology before that date. The article is flawed and should be removed from Wikipedia because it seems oblivious to this research and for the other reasons cited. (For further information see Wikipedia page on Attachment theory as well as others) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsleyMiller (talk • contribs) 12:44, 6 January 2008

THESE 2 articles are unreliable and should be removed.

apologies
My apologies to anybody I may have offended but what is written here and elsewhere is seriously flawed and damaging. I have e-mailed Wikipedia head office to say that they should be removed but I have received the reply that I should amend them. I have tried to show that these pages are so seriously misguided they should be removed altogether.

Based on emotional sharing?
Emotional sharing is important obviously, but I don't know a lot of females with very different backgrounds and almost no common interests who share a friendship, while I know a lot of males who do. 79.100.28.127 (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)