on men, women, and social dynamics

i went out with the boys from slac (the stanford linear accelerator center, for those of you NOT into particle physics) last night, and was struck by how much i miss hanging out with guys. i love the anthropologists in my cohort (mostly female), but it's a very different dynamic. we talk about literature and movies and tv and current events, and of course anthropology. and we have a great time, and i enjoy it. but it's kind of--quiet. we go out, we eat, we have a couple of drinks, we're home by eleven. last night, out with the guys, we talked about the ways chukwudi meets girls, and embarrassing things eric has done (boy howdy, were they ever embarrassing!), and the point (or lack thereof) of strippers. and it was hysterical and boisterous and not quiet at all. i think i really need that occasionally, just to have an evening when i'm laughing and talking about stupid things.

it's so odd that people socialize in such different ways. the browncoats are different yet again, and the archaeologists at cornell yet another. and i wonder if it is the case that every group has a distinct character, or that these are distinct different types of people and thus they socialize differently, but each group of similar people would be similar. i know swati and i had a theory in college that there are certain roles in each group of people, and if a new person enters they either have to create a new role or usurp someone else's. that is one of the (many!) reasons the poker group in ithaca didn't like rick's friend when she moved to town, because she wanted to take my role and that destabilized the group. but we never discussed whether the roles varied from group to group, or are universal.

thoughts, anyone?