Advertisement

Group dynamics

Reading Time:3 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
0

A FRIEND of mine, Peter by name, recently returned from Canada, where he participated in a conversation that probably marked a new low point in male-female understanding. It was Peter's fault - he started it, after all, by asking a woman at a cocktail party what she did for a living.

'I'm the president of Women For Fish,' she said. 'As you know, there is a deficiency of cod in Newfoundland. Fishermen are worried about it. We're trying to help them. But you wouldn't be interested,' she said with a sneer.

'Why do you say that?' asked my friend.

'Men aren't interested in fish.' 'Why do you say that?' asked my friend. He can be repetitious at times. He was also dumbfounded. True, he had been unaware of the Newfoundland cod situation. But no one had ever impugned his fellowship with fish before.

The woman said, 'Well, for one thing, we have no men in our organisation.' Peter had no response ready. So as far as we know this woman is still busy resenting the fact that no men have joined Women For Fish.

Surely some men are interested in fish. After all, she mentioned fishermen, didn't she? Aren't they interested in fish? Or do they just catch any old thing and call it a day? 'All right, guys, 200 tuna, four dolphins, some blue kind of fish with a pointy nose, a Turkish submarine and a tank of toxic waste. Good enough. Last one in buys the beer.' Even if I were interested in fish, I would not join Women For Fish. If an organisation can't get my sex right, how can I trust anything else it does? The idea of joining associations based on other common traits doesn't appeal to me. In the United States you'll find MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) SADD (Students Against Drunk Driving) Jews For Jesus and SAD (Singles Against Drugs). Don't ask why someone's opinion about drugs should be weightier because that person is unmarried.

Advertisement