Let us assume that we live in a social domain with two groups. One is formed by males and the other by females.
According to the theories of identity I mentioned in the previous appendix there is no way to expect the two groups to be stable . The way they are going to unfold depends on the way the costs of defecting your identity are going to evolve.
At a given moment however we can take the too groups as given and think about the differences in structure between one and the other.
Here is my conjecture. Men will tend to organize themselves as circles and womenn as cliques. This is easy to understand. We think of men as having two friends, one at each side, and to consider his acquintances as the friends of his friends to whom they do not relate directly. On the other hand we can think of women as having nothing but friends to whom they are directly related.
This might or might not capture the emphasis put by feminists on the way women relate to each other, but it has certain merits, I hope.
For one my conjecture allows an easy way of understanding what is to be situated. It is much easier to define for a circle than for a clique. And correspondingly this situation seams to be more stable for a man than for a woman. Then it is no surprise feminists do not find much merit in the orthodox choice theory. A good choice theory has to take into account the exact situation and this varies very much in a clique
A possible second merit of my conjecture is that it allows to infer that for the same degree of centrality a clique of women is much more resilient to attack than a circle of men. Therefore networks or social groups which have women as their central hub are much more durable than those having men playing this central role. Compare a club of businessmen belonging to the same economic sector to the desperate non-working housewives of a suburb of an american city. I claim the former is much mre easily destroyed and cannot be expected to last log.
But I am already far beyond my competence, so I better stop now.