
Do Men Suck At Friendship? - hbe_
http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/print-view/do-men-suck-at-friendship-20140422
======
elohesra
Has anyone actually read the studies linked by the author to back up his
drivel? I'll save you some time: the 2007 study isn't valid even by the low
levels of scientific burden required for psychological studies (it's entirely
based on self-reporting), and the 1982 study support the _opposite_ conclusion
to the author's. In fact, the 1982 study [0] finds that men and women simply
have _different kinds_ of friendships, where men are likely to only engage in
emotional sharing with their closest friends, and women are more likely to
engage in emotional sharing with all their friends.

This brings me on to challenging the true point of the article: slating the
traditional male gender role. It's no accident that the author turns to the
authority of feminists for perspectives on men -- despite that being so
laughly outside the remit of feminism -- because the entire point, unstated
but present, throughout the article is that women have 'got it right' and men
should be more like women. In lieu of any studies which actually support his
point (note that only the first two studies in the article actually even
discuss his point about male friendships, the rest are an irrelevance), he
instead uses anecdote as evidence for a point neither study can support, and
then goes on to blame the entire mess on the traditional male gender role. I
won't defend the male gender role, because I have no stock in doing so, but I
would at least ask that if something's going to be blamed for mens' terrible
friendships then we at least provide some proof that men do indeed have
terrible friendships.

Lastly, the article, like so many in the media, is yet another argument that
encourages you to accept its faulty form by providing you with a false
dichotomy: the argument begs the question that either type of friend (the
emotional numerous friends of women, or the close few friends of men) is a
superior type of friend, links some 'evidence' which doesn't support its
point, and then encourages you to ask yourself whether men or women 'have it
right' before even bothering to prove if there's anything to actually _get
right_ in this situation.

I will say one thing though: if this is the kind of stuff Men's Journal
prints, then either its readership is mostly women, or men sure do love self-
flagellation.

[0]
[http://www.peplaulab.ucla.edu/Peplau_Lab/Publications_files/...](http://www.peplaulab.ucla.edu/Peplau_Lab/Publications_files/Caldwell%20%26%20Peplau%2082.pdf)

~~~
thelettere
There are whole field of scientific study based almost entirely on self-
reports. As such, there has been much research done on its veracity, which has
shown that it is largely valid and reliable when reporting on simple things
(like friendship behavior) so long as it's anonymous, does not require
introspection(1), and there is no fear of reprisal(2).

The 2007 study meets all those requirements, so I see no scientific reason to
question its results.

Also, I can't think of any practical methodology for studying friendship
behaviorally - but would love to be proven wrong.

1\. Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the
science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual
behavior?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 396-403. Baumeister,
R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007).
[http://users.business.uconn.edu/jgoodman/mgmt%206201%20assig...](http://users.business.uconn.edu/jgoodman/mgmt%206201%20assigned%20readings%202008/1%20theory%20and%20research%20design/Baumeister%20Vohs%20and%20Funder%202007.pdf)

2\. Brener ND, Billy JOG, Grady WR. Assessment of factors affecting the
validity of self-reported health-risk behavior among adolescents: evidence
from the scientific literature. Journal of Adolescent Health 2003;33:436-457.
Summary at
[http://www.minnetonka.k12.mn.us/TonkaCares/RwR/Documents/Val...](http://www.minnetonka.k12.mn.us/TonkaCares/RwR/Documents/Validity%20of%20Self%20Report.pdf)

~~~
elohesra
Oh, very well. Thank you for proving that the scientific community disagrees
with me, and proving evidence for your point. I can't say I actually agree
with those criteria; especially since one is wholly impossible: there is never
a possibility that there's 'no fear of reprisal' when the reprisal can take
the form of conflicting with one's self-identity. To be honest, to accept a
self-report I'd have to see the following:

1) A study which shows that the questions themselves do not introduce bias. An
actual study, where multiple groups of participants were asked the same
questions in different forms so as to prove the language of the question
cannot influence the result. Of course, this would cause every questionnaire
and interview study to fail, because the language does indeed affect the
results and is thus a confounding variable (which cannot be controlled without
pretending that some language "just doesn't affect people", and yet still
functions as language).

2) A proof that the demographic of the sample was controlled for all
controllable factors other than those measured. For instance, in this study it
wouldn't be good enough to test for the correlation between gender and
friendship satisfaction by just getting a bunch of men and women: they'd all
have to be the same class, race, wealth etc.

3) The study cannot draw conclusions, nor interpret its results as causative.
This is really quite self-explanatory: correlation does not imply causation.
Yet, especially in sociology and psychology, this logical maxim seems to get
forgotten amongst the excitement of having produced a study.

I'm sure there's more objections, but you've already put up with me arrogantly
berating the scientific community for 3 points now. If I were allowed to edit
my post to state that the scientific community disagrees with me regarding the
validity of the 2007 study, I would.

As for an experimental methodology for studying friendship, I can't say that I
can think of any studies which would do so and get past an ethics committee
(bloody ethicists), but making the study longitudinal over childhood through
to young adulthood would help, as it would show what age-bound variables
affect the output. It might just be that young adult men are, for instance,
too busy developing a career to have friends, or too busy drinking beer to
have friends, or whatever; either way, making it longitudinal would allow some
of the uncontrollable confounding variables (such a life experiences) to
become more apparent.

~~~
thelettere
1) Questions that introduce bias are known as leading questions, and
researchers have devised multiple methods of avoiding that - including, as Dan
noted, asking the same question more than once with different wording, and
using only neutral language. Also, keeping questions simple, clear, specific
and brief - with no implicit assumptions or loaded phrases.

2) Good research controls as many variables as possible. The more uncontrolled
the variables are the less valid the data is - but this applies to all
studies, not just self-reports.

3) Correlation ≠ causation is rarely forgotten in the actual research - the
discussion sections of research in reputable journals are overly modest at
best, noting the limitations and weaknesses of the study and typically making
few claims for generalizability. Mass media reports, however, tend to take
more than a few liberties.

I agree any valid study of friendship has to be longitudinal - the issue
becomes one of measurement. You do not trust self-reports, yet how else could
it be measured? Hire a researcher to follow people around? Ask them to carry
an audio recorder with them every day for a few years?

The only practical alternative I can think of is to ask their close friends or
relatives. However, this may be unnecessary because research has already
compared self and other reports on a sensitive issue (life satisfaction) and
found a high correlation (1).

And finally - although unscientific, the high upcount of this article suggests
that it hit a nerve and that many here are unsatisfied with the quality of
their friendships. It is my own experience, and that of my brother and my
father, and most of the other men I know - more than enough to suggest
something is not quite right - that it warrants a thoughtful discussion and
not be dismissed out of hand.

1\. Crandall, R. (1976). Validation of self-report measures using ratings by
others. Sociological Methods & Research, 4(3), 380-400.
[http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/69039...](http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/69039/10.1177_004912417600400305.pdf?sequence=2)

*edited for brevity and grammar

~~~
elohesra
> And finally - although unscientific, the high upcount of this article
> suggests that it hit a nerve and that many here are unsatisfied with the
> quality of their friendships.

See, you used the term 'suggests' rather than 'proves' because you know that
claiming a stronger relationship between upvotes and motive would be affirming
the consequent. But this is precisely the sort of weasel-wording which I've
seen in observational studies, and it seems deliberately crafted to trick an
uncanny reader ill-versed in logic into misinterpreting 'suggests' as
'proves'. Of course, we both know that we cannot infer anything from a
consequent other than one of the possible antecedents must have occurred, and
we both know that the antecedents in this case -- motive for clicking upvote
-- is huge, and thus nothing meaningful can be inferred about the consequent.
I'm happy to have a discussion about almost anything, but if someone comes to
the party with nonsense evidence pretending the discussion has already been
studied and decided, I'm going to call them on it.

I also feel like you've also dodged every point I've raised (or perhaps I
didn't explain my objections very well). With regards to #1, the issue wasn't
that I think researchers are deliberately crafting leading questions, but that
in order for the study to be valid they'd have to show that their questions
either _do not lead_ thus aren't confounding (which I've argued is
impossible), or that they lead predictably thus can be countered in the
analysis (which I also argued is impossible).

With #2 you're correct that this is an issue for all studies, but it's a
particularly large issue for studies of things which are irreducibly complex,
like people. Since we can't (easily) take specific facets of a person and
study those in silo from the rest of a person, controlling confounding
variables becomes a bigger issue. Even in other observational sciences we can
usually demonstrate the core parts of our assumptions in a controlled
experimental manner. For instance, in the study of global warming, we can
demonstrate in a controlled, experimental way that the combustion of fossil
fuels releases CO2. With studies of human behaviour this is rarely possible.

With #3 you're correct that the media is far guiltier of this than the
scientists, but I'd argue that scientists need to be more vocal about this
issue. I appreciate this treads a fine line between asking for more scientific
social responsibility, and holding scientists responsible for the behaviour of
society, but I feel this is a valid concern due to the way that politicians
like to fund studies such as these to validate their personal opinion. The
reason I believe this important isn't that I think scientists are trying to
dupe us, far from it, but because it worries me that as burden the of proof
for a posteriori logic falls from the strongly codified and philosophically
justified rules of empiricism and falsifiability, so scientists move from
being discoverers of truth to yet another controllable authority figure.

Also, thank you again for citing evidence for your point. I apologise that I
have not done so, but I seriously doubt any scientists actually agree with me
here. Having read your linked study, I would say it both stands to reason and
doesn't really seem to prove the point it claims to prove. If you set out to
prove that self-reporting isn't invalidated by confounding variables, and you
do so by invoking self-reporting which contains almost exactly the same
confounding variables, then you can't really claim to have proved anything.
Relatives and friends of a sample in such a study would be just as likely to
change their answers, consciously or subconsciously, to avoid internal
conflict, and because they're tied to the sample in such a way that would
produce a similar personality and similar self-identity reprisals if the
subject's life choice were cast in doubt, it's also not a large leap of logic
that their changed answers would usually change along the same lines as the
sample.

Again, I can't really think of a better way of studying complex issues like
human behaviour, but since we started at the point of 'science agrees self-
reporting is fine' and are now at 'we agree it is the best we can get', I feel
we're moving in the right direction. I do agree that well-controlled self-
report studies are probably the best we can get in this field, it just seems
to me that the best we can get isn't as valid as the best we can get in
experimental sciences, and should be noted as such.

------
seanccox
Quoted text below from this source:
[http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/300997-ok-now-let-s-have-
som...](http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/300997-ok-now-let-s-have-some-fun-let-
s-talk-about-sex)

OK, now let’s have some fun. Let’s talk about sex. Let’s talk about women.
Freud said he didn’t know what women wanted. I know what women want. They want
a whole lot of people to talk to. What do they want to talk about? They want
to talk about everything.

What do men want? They want a lot of pals, and they wish people wouldn’t get
so mad at them.

Why are so many people getting divorced today? It’s because most of us don’t
have extended families anymore. It used to be that when a man and a woman got
married, the bride got a lot more people to talk to about everything. The
groom got a lot more pals to tell dumb jokes to.

A few Americans, but very few, still have extended families. The Navahos. The
Kennedys.

But most of us, if we get married nowadays, are just one more person for the
other person. The groom gets one more pal, but it’s a woman. The woman gets
one more person to talk to about everything, but it’s a man.

When a couple has an argument, they may think it’s about money or power or
sex, or how to raise the kids, or whatever. What they’re really saying to each
other, though, without realizing it, is this:

“You are not enough people!”

~~~
vacri
There is more divorce now because it is no longer a burdensome shame to break
from a joyless marriage. People change and mature in different ways, and young
people aren't known for making sensible decisions affecting the rest of their
life. In ye olde days, people would stay with abusive (or boring) spouses
purely because the social stigma of leaving was worse. These days that stigma
is largely gone in much of the West.

~~~
xyzzyz
What you say is true, but the grandparent is arguing _why_ people _want_ a
divorce and why today's marriages are boring for participants. The implication
is that even if access to divorce had been as easy 100 years ago as it is now,
people would still divorce less frequently than they do now, because of the
extended family stuff.

~~~
aestra
This might not be completely it.

Human physiology is weird.

Only in recent history have we married for love and in some cultures you don't
marry for love. Previously marriage was more like a business arrangement
between families. They were also more final because of things like coverture
men generally owned all the property of his wife. The woman tended to lose
their own identity and become an extension of their husband's identity. My
grandma exclusively refereed to herself as "Mrs. HusandFirstName
HusbandLastName." For example "Mrs. John Smith." She was never her own name
after marriage. My mom said at the DMV they would specifically say on forms
"women use own first name."

This sounds crazy but humans have the ability to manufacture happiness.

Since the partners in the relationships of yesteryear didn't have much of a
choice in the matter they subconsciously were happier because they didn't have
an easy way out nor did they make the choice. They couldn't decide otherwise
so their brains manufactured happiness with the situation they were in. This
isn't really "fake" happiness, it is real, there is nothing different about
it. It is how the human brain works. There is nothing bad about this. It is
kinda like a psychological immune system.

If divorce is easy and socially acceptable and you choose your partner from
millions of potential partners your subconscious thinks "maybe someone else
can make me happier" and you are less happy with your choice.

Our brains "make" happiness with the life we have if we can't choose an
alternative.

Daniel Gilbert has a great book on this aspect of humans ability to alter
their own happiness - "Stumbling on Happiness"

Here is his TED talk on the matter which has a lot of the same material as the
book -
[http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy](http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy)

The following is from my memory and might not be 100%:

For example - he cites a study in which students in a photo class were asked
to choose and submit one of the photos to get blown up and framed. One group
of students were told that the photo they choose was final and they couldn't
change it and the other group was told they had two weeks time to change their
minds and submit another one. When the students received their final photos
the group who couldn't change their photo were more happy with the photo they
choose than the students who had the two week option of changing their photo.

Another one is asking people to rank several Monet paintings on how much they
like them. Then they got one to take home. When the researchers came back and
asked them to rank the paintings again they ranked the one they owned higher.
They like the painting more because they owned it.

~~~
xyzzyz
Seems intuitively acceptable to me. For instance, when shopping for clothes, I
usually buy the ones I hate the least. However, I actually like most of the
clothes I own, even if I hadn't liked them that much before I bought them.

------
Xcelerate
> That's because nearly all research into healthy aging has found that the key
> to a long, happy life is not diet or exercise but strong social connections
> – that is, friendships. Loneliness accelerates age-related declines in
> cognition and motor function, while a single good friend has been shown to
> make as much as a 10-year difference in overall life expectancy.

This makes me sad :( My mother passed away from cancer in 2001 after 16 years
of marriage to my father. Their marriage was one of those ideal marriages that
most people don't think really exists; they were truly each other's best
friend and were incredibly happy together.

Now that my sister is finishing college and I'm in grad school, my dad goes to
work for long hours each day and comes home to an empty house. He doesn't
socialize much more than going to the coffee shop on weekend mornings.

I don't know what to do about this; I live three hours away and can't visit
every weekend, and my sister is getting married soon and moving away as well.
He's not opposed to dating, but the last time he dated was nearly a decade
ago, and I know he doesn't want to date because of the sheer sadness he still
feels from my mother's death. He has mentioned it would be really nice to have
a companion though.

I need ideas. Solitude isn't a good way to spend the rest of one's life, and I
really want him to be happy. This article has confirmed my fears about
loneliness even more, and I want to help him.

~~~
wikiburner
I would get him a dog.

I would also set him up on Skype so that you and your sister can interact with
him in a personable way more often.

~~~
srean
This is actually a great suggestion. If you are a dog person it can bring a
lot of joy, amusement and companionship. The thing that sucks though is that
they very short lives. My lhasa apso did live to be 17 years, but this is
unusual for most other dog breeds.

About loneliness and losing people dear, my brother's friend's dad lost his
parents, wife and son all at an unusually early age. I would have no idea how
to deal with that.

~~~
mcmullen
I also agree with this suggestion. I know that battle grounds are drawn on the
dog vs cat debate, but either/or would do well for most lonely people. My
wife's grandfather died when we first started seeing each other; 5/6 or so
(oops - I hope she isn't reading) years ago. Bizarrely, this was within a few
months of his dog dying. He took that thing everywhere - snook him into hotel
rooms, family houses, the golf club, trips abroad.

------
bsder
USian viewpoint here.

This article makes me cringe. Is the author gay or a pseudonym for a girl?

The article seems to extol what most would call "girly" friendship--continuous
contact, social gossip, etc. Lots of attention to little things.

Most guys I know of tend to equate true friendship along the lines of "will
help you bury the body and won't ask questions." Male friendship tends to get
tested around helping with big, infrequent things--death of parent/spouse, get
somebody to hospital, cover for you when you did something _monumentally_
stupid.

Men tend to forgive the "didn't hang out last week" but won't ever forgive
things like "didn't show up for your dad's funeral".

~~~
colechristensen
Speaking of cringing, the adjective you're looking for is 'American'.

~~~
adwn
I wonder when "America" ceased to mean "the two continents North and South
America" and started to mean "USA" in the heads of US citizens. There's a
reason why "European" isn't synonymous to "German", and why "Asian" isn't
synonymous to "Chinese".

~~~
Hasu
It's been going on since long before you were born. John Adams(our second
President) called the United States "America" in his inaugural address. [1]

We use "The Americas" to refer to the continents as a pair, and prepend a
cardinal direction to refer to one of them individually.

Citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia call themselves Australians, despite
there being other governments on the continent of Australia.

[1]:
[http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres15.html](http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres15.html)

~~~
aestra
Many cultures consider "The Americas" to be one continent - America.

~~~
Hasu
That's true, but the United States and most other English-speaking countries
do consider them to be separate continents, and that's why we refer to them
that way.

------
rybosome
This article raises an issue that terrifies me; over-reliance on one's wife
for friendship. I love my wife and I do consider her my best friend, which is
wonderful...but now that I no longer live in the same city as my closest
friends, I don't have any really strong local bonds other than with her. She's
planning a trip out of town in a few weeks, and I've already started figuring
out what I'll do: maybe go on a bike ride, play some video games, clean our
apartment, go see a movie, order takeout, etc. None of those plans involve
friends. Probably not a good sign. =/

It's not exactly difficult to make loose friends or fun acquaintances, but
maintaining and strengthening those into deep, close friendships feels nearly
impossible.

~~~
chill1
I am in a similar situation, except I moved to another country with my long-
term girlfriend. I know what you mean, but I think all it takes is time. You
must have met someone recently in your new city? A neighbor? Is there a
"hacker space" in your city to which you could go to a meetup to meet similar
people?

It's almost like dating, but for friendship. Try to find people you think
you'd get along with, meet them, and invite them to do things. Sure, you'll
have to put yourself out there a bit, but after the first few times you don't
even think about that anymore.

------
ashwinaj
Yeah this is clearly a American issue. It's certainly not true in Asian/South
Asian countries, sure we lose touch with friends but whenever we meet there is
an instant and unmistakable bond. When I moved to the US, I couldn't
understand why Americans were so "distant". I don't have the same friendships
with them as I do with others. Sad but true.

~~~
te_chris
Anecdotally, I've noticed this when I'm in America. Everyone is normally
outwardly very friendly, but there's always the feeling that they don't give a
shit about the encounter you're having and they're only even talking to you
out of some perverse sense of politeness.

It was even more strange for me because often our conversations would be
relatively honest and about somewhat personal topics (not just the weather,
what cities we'd been to etc) which, in my experience, you only broach when
you really want to discuss such things and feel a connection with a person,
but, apart from a few people there was still always that feeling that people
were just being polite and basically waiting for you to excuse them. YMMV.

~~~
ashwinaj
You're right. Strangers are outwardly friendly for no apparent reason. The
worst part was when I met them again, many of them wouldn't recognize me!

I was mainly referring to the convenience/activity/mentor friends described in
the article.

~~~
zhemao
> Strangers are outwardly friendly for no apparent reason

Why should one need a reason to be friendly? Would you rather people be curt
and standoffish by default?

~~~
lmm
If everyone is your friend then no-one is. I wouldn't say curt and
standoffish, but it's good to keep a certain amount of distance and formality
with people you're not actually friends with so that you both know where you
stand.

~~~
Hasu
Unless friendliness is an expected social signal, and there's a separate
signal, known to the local culture, but not to you, that says, "I'm being nice
but we aren't actually friends".

------
victorhooi
This article really resonates with me.

Many of my male friendships do seem to resonate around convenience (i.e. we
help each other) or activities.

If you take that away...I'm unsure what the depth is.

This could just be me though.

I do have friendships with females who are nothing like me, which are more
around just...fun/chatting/hanging out.

But either way, friendships do take work/effort - and sometimes you need to
push that along a bit, and think gee, I haven't seen "XYZ" in a while, let's
organise a catchup.

~~~
reinhardt
It really resonates with me too at a personal level but at the same time it's
quite surprising if this is indeed so widespread across men.

I'm an extreme introvert with few, if any, close friends and relationships or
a strong desire for such, and it has always befuddled me how smooth and
effortless many friendships look from the outside. The whole concept of
"hanging out" without some common ground or a common activity or goal in mind
is almost foreign to me. I can "hang out" with a friend I haven't seen for
ages to catch up with what's been going on with each other but I can't see how
this is sustainable on a weekly basis or more.

Age is also a big factor. It seems that most friendships go back to childhood,
teenage or college years. The older you get, the harder is to make new
relationships that go past the plain acquaintance stage. The prospect of
building a social network (in the offline sense of the word) from scratch in
your mid thirties, say after moving to the other side of the country or the
world, sounds intimidating even to normal extroverted people I've talked to,
let alone chronic loners.

~~~
ericd
I've found that there are people that I instantly click with, typically people
to whom I can speak my mind without any filter, and who come back at me with
theirs. I think filters and worrying about being inoffensive in general really
gets in the way for a lot of people.

I think that if you want to get past the polite acquaintance stage, you have
to risk offending them, which can be scary, but I think one really good friend
is worth more than almost any number of acquaintances, so I think it's worth
it.

~~~
buzzybee
My bad social habit which I am working on correcting is in imposing a thought
on someone's personal life a bit too eagerly, which for me usually begins with
the phrases, "so then it's like..." or "you should..." \- I got caught out on
the former phrase just today, in fact. When they take offense it's always a
blow to me since I don't want to be That Guy, but I have to admit that I get
the same sense that people I really click with don't even bother taking
offense at that stuff. They're okay with having a conversation that has some
conjecture and vulnerability, and some difficulty of thought conveyance, built
into it.

Conversely, I get a really bad impression when the defense mechanism rolls
out, particularly so when it's elaborate, practiced, and snarky. A strong
rejection indicates that I've tread into territory they'd really want to not
dwell upon. Extreme snark is even worse since it indicates that their
intention is to control the power dynamic. The time I encountered that, I
found myself boomeranging it by replying "I'm too trusting."

------
mercurialshark
While I agree with most of the author's points, I think it's missing two key
aspects. Intellectual curiosity doesn't continue for everyone (I want to
scratch my eyes out just watching football and never discussing anything of
intrigue) and some guys don't know how to be friends outside of a group.

1\. I don't find most my old friends interesting. The guys I have stuff in
common with are mostly work connections/guys that understand the plight of the
entrepreneur and we don't actually hang out. Activity friends are cool but
like most my friends from college, it increasingly feels like a chore.

The few friends that have any depth to them live out of town. That said, in
the future we have email and don't have to physically see each other all the
time to coddle our friendships.

2\. Some dudes just never learned how to have one-on-one friends outside of a
group. This is by far the most common problem I see that transcends male
friendships. If you befriend someone as an adult that you can regularly carry
on a conversation with, without outside help, take note - they may become your
new brosive.

------
ryanklee
Yeah, and/or people are totally fucked on average when it comes to sustaining
deep, long-lasting relationships. Go figure. That shit is hard. _Hard_. Like:
fulfillment, actualization, self-discipline, happiness, etc., etc.

Do men suck at friendship? Of course. Just like they suck at vying w/ their
own mortality. It's hardly a gender thing.

Start with a better narrative and you'll end up with a better answer.

------
pmorici
I don't think men are bad at friendship I do think it takes more for them to
develop the kind of deep friendship between men that the article laments are
missing. I have a handful of good friends who mostly live in different cities
now but we still keep in touch and make a point to get together whenever we
cross paths. These all came out of things like high school cross country or
roommates over several years. Point being I think there needs to be a strong
shared experience over several years for men to get to that point.

The sorts of things described in the article usually don't run deep enough or
last long enough to cultivate a longer lasting friendship.

------
sosuke
I feel this, my chat group I've had with friends from work for the last year
just went dead. We bonded strongly at work, in work, and when work didn't
connect us we disconnected. This year I made more effort than ever to make
friends, but it just hasn't stuck yet. I'm not giving up though.

~~~
mixmastamyk
People at work aren't necessarily your friends, rather they are people forced
to "cohabitate" together. Makes sense to keep it friendly, but don't expect it
to last much longer than a year or two past your resignation.

Patio says the same thing here: [http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-
call-yourself-a-pro...](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-
yourself-a-programmer/)

Similarly, I've always liked to keep in touch with friends, see how they are
doing, etc. When I was younger I expected others were the same, but no. Most
people have their own friends and family and while you'll get a hi and smile
from them if you bump into them at the grocery, they won't put any effort into
keeping in touch.

I notice as people get older they tend to isolate themselves, dare I say on
purpose. For example I have school friends from 20 years ago who don't even
want to be friends on facebook, which is about as close to zero effort you can
manage. No, I don't post much, treat others well, and keep it light.

In other words, get used to it.

~~~
ardit33
I disagree. Three of my best friends were former co-workers. We happened to be
new-ish to the city back then, in our 20s, going out, bars/clubs, etc, yet
sharing a lot of other common career goals as well as personal ones.

If you hang out with co-workers on non work related (or sponsored activities),
a lot, there is a greater chance for you to become friends on the long term
after you moved on to different jobs.

They key is to have other common interests that are not related to work, and
hang outside work related activities.

~~~
sosuke
HN is a common interested, and this is completely outside the current thread,
but we joined HN on the very same day!

------
SoftwareMaven
My formative years were somewhat less than ideal (moving every three months,
abusive environment, fat before fat was normal, nerdy, etc). I always blamed
not being able to make lasting relationships on that. I've now come to the
conclusion that 80% of why I suck at friendship is innate, and 20% is learned.

I've tried hobbies and meetups to no avail; I just wind up sitting in the
corner. I think this is where the 20% mentioned hurts. Even if I manage to get
out of that corner (a rare event, but it does happen), I don't know how to
take a conversation beyond "How's it going?"

Where's the Facebook for actually finding new friends?

~~~
zequel
Like boardgames (ones on boardgamegeek.com, not Monopoly)? It's a great hobby
that requires interaction. It's great for ice-breaking imo. Most men need ice
broken to make a connection, alcohol helps too. Some shared common thread like
kids in the same school helps a lot. Joining a sports league is good too if
that's your cup of tea, I've met a number of people that way. It's a good no-
pressure way of interacting with your teammates.

------
jzzskijj
I've realized that many men (I know) want to talk about their feelings,
frustrations, relationships, insecurities etc., when given a good example and
opening up a little at first. I learned to do that a couple of years ago, when
I was going through difficult times. Went to meet a friend for a couple of
beers, started slowly talking, without whining or complaining, about things
that make me insecure and we realized opening up and talking about all kinds
of "non-manly" things that made us feel bad. That friend relationship deepened
into totally new level and since then I've gone through same thing with many
of my real friends.

1) Open up, 2) Share, 3) Listen, 4) Care.

It felt really great to get a SMS a week later saying "how are things and are
you feeling better?"

Not saying that I am a perfect friend or Mr. Empathy, but I feel that I am a
little bit better person than I used to be.

~~~
Lapsa
You are slowly turning into a girl. Before you'll realize that - you gonna
become a transperson :(

~~~
simplemath
I would be so happy if attitudes like yours didn't exist.

C'est la vie. Assholes all the way down.

~~~
Lapsa
Feed me!

------
scythe
I would like to take a moment to remind everyone that this article refers
primarily to non-poor white men in the OECD, and that most people are not
WEIRD:

[http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/jvt002/brainmind/readings/h...](http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/jvt002/brainmind/readings/henrich_2010.pdf)

In particular attempting to draw conclusions about innate (genetic) behavior
from this skewed sample is highly subject to confounding.

~~~
aestra
>In particular attempting to draw conclusions about innate (genetic) behavior
from this skewed sample is highly subject to confounding.

Was the author trying to do that? It didn't read like that to me at all. He
tried to explain some cultural trends that contribute, etc.

------
wyager
This article implies that living a long life should be the ultimate driving
goal behind our actions.

What's wrong with "convenience", "mentor", or "activity" friendships? They
sound perfectly logical and reasonable to me. Just because these kind of
friendships might not contribute as much to longevity doesn't make them wrong.

~~~
PeterisP
The problem with "convenience", "mentor", or "activity" friendships, as the
article later explains, is that they tend to rapidly go away when the
convenience, mentorship or particular activity ceases.

If you want a long-term friendship, then you'd need to push those
relationships beyond the convenience/mentorship/activity to have more than
that single tie that may randomly disappear.

~~~
wyager
And why do you want long-term friendships? The article seemed to imply that
they were good because they were healthy.

------
nailer
I think men's friendships tend to be fewer but deeper. This resonates with a
lot of people:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hmlPtRu1SQ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hmlPtRu1SQ)

~~~
vacri
There's a lot of variation between individuals, and it also changes
significantly with age. 20-year-olds tend to form cliques of 5-15 people that
do things together... then as they age and pair off or move elsewhere, they
stop doing things as a group. Friendship dynamics change as well.

I think there's something in the research about a healthier life being one
with more friends, but the author seems to make a huge jump from that to
extrapolating his own experience to all other men.

------
sardonicbryan
As a male with more close female confidants/friends than male, I find it
interesting that this article in no way acknowledged the possibility of a
platonic male/female friendship.

~~~
cperciva
Men and women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way.

~~~
cdr
I really hope I'm missing some sarcasm there.

~~~
cperciva
It was a quote from 'When Harry met Sally', but a study recently backed it up:
[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-and-women-
cant...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-and-women-cant-be-just-
friends/)

~~~
ama729
> but a study recently backed it up

Except it ... doesn't? Not only it doesn't seem to be a well designed study
(the 9 point scale doesn't make much sense, there is no graph with the numbers
for each answers, etc), the conclusion they get from it seem strange, since
most people _don 't_ want to go on a date:

On average: Male: 4.55 Female: 3.90, since it's a 9 point scale[1]: 5 mean
"Neutral/Unsure" and below is the "no" range.

[1][https://analysights.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/071210_2340_...](https://analysights.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/071210_2340_considerres22.png?w=450)

------
serf
I wrote a big long spiel about the comments in this thread, but i'll summarize
to save everyone some time.

The culture-centricity in this thread is kind of sickening, and as hackers I
hope that everyone who is reading through it remembers to attempt to take
things as a neutral observer and apply scientific methods to your findings;
and take anecdotal evidence at it's worth.

~~~
lotsofcows
Oh! As a hacker I was planning on calling bullshit and doing my own thing as
normal. I'll try it your way...

Hmmm... it's all anecdotal including the original post and the citations...
there is no scientific method present... so it's all bullshit and I'll just do
things my way as normal.

There's been some interesting discussion though.

------
darylteo
I'm 28 now and I already feel like I have no friends left. Yay.

------
roymurdock
"In Steppenwolf's case, the fact is that, like all hybrid creatures, he lived
with the feeling of being sometimes a wolf, sometimes a human being. However,
as a wolf he was forever conscious of his human side lying in wait, observing,
judging and condemning him; just as the wolf did when he was a human being.
For example, whenever Harry in his capacity as a human being had some lovely
idea, experience some fine and noble sentiment, or did a so-called good deed,
the wolf in him would bare its teeth and laugh him utterly to scorn,
indicating how ludicrously out of character all this fine play-acting was in a
wild animal of the steppes, a wolf who at heart knew perfectly well that his
real pleasure lay in stalking alone across the plains, occasionally blood or
pursuing a she-wolf. Seen thus from the wolf's point of view, every human
action became frighteningly comic and self-conscious, vain and inane. But it
was exactly the same when Harry felt and behaved like a wolf, when he showed
other people his teeth or became murderously hostile to humankind as a whole,
hating all its hypocritical and degenerate manners and customs. For then it
was the human side of him that lay in wait, observing the wolf, calling him a
brute and a beast, spoiling and souring all the pleasure he was taking in the
straightforward life of a healthy untamed wolf...

His position was a lonely one; it was uncanny the way the world left him to
his own devices. Other people were longer of concern to him; he wasn't even
concerned about himself. The air around him was getting thinner and thinner
the more solitary he became, severing all contact with others, and he was
slowly suffocating as a result. For the situation now was different. No longer
his desire and goal, solitude and independence were a fate he was condemned
to. He had made his magic wish and there was no going back on it. However
strongly he yearned to re-establish contact with others, however willing he
was to hold out his arms to embrace them, it was of no avail: they now left
him alone. Yet there was no indication that people hated him or found him
repugnant. On the contrary; he had lots of friends. Lots of people liked him.
But friendliness and sympathy were the only reactions he ever encountered.
People would invite him to their homes, give him presents, write him nice
letters, but nobody was able or willing to share his life. He was no breathing
the air that the lonely breathe, living in an atmosphere that was still,
adrift from the world around him. No amount of yearning or goodwill had any
effect on his inability to form relationships."

Steppenwolf - Hermann Hesse

------
rpm33
This is definitely an American "culture" issue. Especially in a big city like
San Francisco, i've noticed a lot of ephemeral relationships that last around
convenience.

------
theswan
Tangential point - what does the phrase "any dish?" mean?

~~~
Omniusaspirer
It's equivalent to "scoop" or "gossip".

------
pabb
I had an issue with this while finishing up classes at school, although I
understand being a college student isn't really the main demographic for this
article. I had a group of friends that I met with only through convenience (we
were all in the same fraternity, and then I quit).

After some time, one of the guys made a multi-way text/chat group on WhatsApp
and it gave us all an opportunity to bullshit amongst each other about
whatever we felt like. The best part was that it didn't leave anyone out of
the loop, and held us each accountable for responding to attempts to get
together. Most of the time the interactions are pretty pointless (cracking
jokes at someone, sending links to a funny picture or article, changing the
group photo to a hotter girl than the last one someone put up, etc), but it's
just a good outlet to stay in sync with one another, even if we don't all have
time to hang out. I'd recommend it to anyone who connected with the article.

~~~
Omniusaspirer
Adding onto this:

Set up a Teamspeak or similar voice server. Like the guy above I'm only in my
lower 20's at this point but it's the single best move I've made in
maintaining friendships with people I'm no longer physically close to. My
friends know that they can hop in any time they want and we can have a great
time chatting or playing a game together.

I think the more accessible you make it to keep in touch the better off your
relationships will be, but there's no getting around the simple fact that
friendships require effort from both parties to maintain.

------
LoganCale
I have both male and female friends, but all my closest friends these days are
male. This wasn't always the case, though. I used to have a lot more female
friends, and I guess now it's shifted the other way. I haven't personally
noticed any sort of difference between genders that makes one better suited
for friendship over the other...

------
adamzerner
Some people say we're past the "social fad". I think that we're just at the
tip of the iceberg, and this article hints at some of the problems that we
could solve.

~~~
pskittle
like?

~~~
adamzerner
\- The fact that most friendships are shallow, not deep.

\- The fact that people lose touch with their friends at predictable points in
their lives.

\- The fact that married people have trouble finding friends.

------
vineetdhanawat
Automated tweet for this article has a custom mjm.ag domain instead of bit.ly
for first time. Not sure why that happened
[https://twitter.com/hnycombinator/status/458827145398484992](https://twitter.com/hnycombinator/status/458827145398484992)

~~~
evan_
That's part of bitly's premium offering.

nytimes.com shortens to [http://nyti.ms/1gQdV1r](http://nyti.ms/1gQdV1r),
Amazon shortens to [http://amzn.to/1mCftnd](http://amzn.to/1mCftnd), and
anything .gov shortens to 1.usa.gov:
[http://1.usa.gov/1iejWVe](http://1.usa.gov/1iejWVe)

The shortened part is totally interchangable, ie
[http://bit.ly/1gQdV1r](http://bit.ly/1gQdV1r) still goes to the NY Times
site.

------
shittyanalogy
If you have friends that are flaky and won't hang out, fuck 'em and get new
friends. Get hobbies and meet people who do the same thing. Learn a language,
join a book club, go to code meetups, start your own Code/BBQ/Motorcycle
workshop. Be interesting and you will meet interesting people. Be boring and
wrapped up in your own life and you will not.

This has nothing to do with men, the article should be titled: "Do boring,
flaky people suck at friendship?" Most of the people on this planet are
boring, and flaky, and wrapped up in their own lives, and if you don't learn
how to cope with that and you don't have one of those miraculous, since high-
school, partners in crime, friendships you're not gonna have friends. Have
kids instead.

------
hosh
Really?

To be fair, I have only a small handful of friends who I'd entrust my body and
my life to in the worse case, but I've generally made friends wherever I have
lived. These friends are ones that isn't quite activity, mentorship, or
convenience friends.

Maybe I'm just the outlier.

------
vacri
I don't understand why the author thinks that a good friendship requires
collecting some gossip for his wife for each hour or two of contact.

~~~
bolaft
He doesn't. At the end of his story, after he rekindled his friendship with
this surfer guy, he still has no gossip for his wife.

~~~
vacri
Looks like I read the end of it the wrong way, thanks.

------
dang
Can anyone suggest a better title? This one is pretty linkbaity.

~~~
abandonliberty
Actually quite appropriate, since the data set doesn't answer the question.

I think we could make it more linkbaity.

Men: You're shitty friends, and it's killing you

~~~
dang
Good lord. You're good at that. Please don't do it often :)

------
jon_black
> That's because nearly all research into healthy aging has found that the key
> to a long, happy life is not diet or exercise but strong social connections

Epicurus believed that three things were necessary for a happy existence:

1\. Friends 2\. Freedom 3\. Thought (as in personal reflection on yourself and
your life)

I believe that in life there are many doors and therefore many keys. If you
find a key and it opens a door, do not assume that all other doors will open
for you; likewise, do not assume that what's behind the door you have opened
is the answer to life long happiness.

It's quite frustrating that as a species we try to reduce such complex matters
into such simple rules.

------
saraid216
Well, if anything, the article concludes that men suck at gossip. Which is a
little disappointing if true. Gossip has its insidious bits, but it was also
the best carrier of information before things like internet forums and news
aggregators.

There are studies that show things like health and job-finding happen along
second-degree links. Friends of friends, that is, or in other words, the
gossip space. Things like, "Oh, I hear Joe quit smoking" or "Oh, I hear Sam is
looking for a new executive" and so on are gossip. So is "So it turns out Jay
is allergic to chocolate", which tells you _don 't give any chocolate to Jay_.

So, Mr. Duane? A suggestion? Tell your wife about how Matt reacted to biking
through that one area. Or how goofy he looked when he finished taking apart
the wall. Give her a connection to him, even if it's viewed entirely through
your perspective. These are touchstones for her to help you maintain your
friendship with him, too. Yeah, sure, you want to make sure he's okay with
this. Don't gossip behind his back, or reveal things he wants to remain
confidential. But she obviously knows what you're doing together; share
details.

------
namuol
All my long-term friends are women. The closest are ex-lovers or best-friends
lovers/ex-lovers. Most of our banter is about relationships and general angst.
Many I only see maybe once or twice a year, but talk regularly online or over
the phone.

But even before I had any romantic history, most of my friends were girls.

Nearly all of my male friends have drifted, but I have female friends from
highschool that I still talk to pretty regularly.

~~~
return0
Maybe it's hard to make male friends when all you wanna talk about is
relationships and general angst.

~~~
namuol
Or maybe I just don't bother maintaining friendships with people who aren't
capable of getting real without hiding behind a veil of snark.

------
doyoulikeworms
As a 27 year old male, most of my friendships revolve around doing things
together. Working, video games, sports, drinking, or eating, mostly.

~~~
dankoss
I agree with this but, my problem is that most people have only one or two
major interests so friendship is completely one-dimensional based around a
single activity. So when conversation drifts off the common topic or activity,
there isn't much to do or talk about. People interested in sports may not also
be interested in video games, etc.

------
thewarrior
This doesn't happen in India. This is a purely western phenomenon.

~~~
sumedh
Do you speak for all Indians?

This also happens in India and has nothing to do with western culture.

~~~
wsxcde
It's certainly easier to make friends in India. I used to do it effortlessly
when I was there and I never felt lonely at all. Here it just seems harder to
make friends. Part of it might just be that there are fewer people so you're
less likely to find someone with whom you connect.

And the other thing might be that a lot of interactions are so much more
impersonal here. I haven't lived there in years but I know many of the
shopkeepers who operate near my parents house in India and we always catch up
and chat a bit when I visit. The supermarket here is a merry-go-round of high
school kids and other temporary workers. There's no connection to be made at
all.

Ashwin's story upthread about people seeming to be very friendly and then
forgetting who you are really resonated with me. There was this lady who gave
me haircut a year or two ago. We chatted quite a bit, I told her where I
studied and what I worked on (somewhat unusual for me because I'm very
private). She told me he was doing a master's degree at a nearby university,
lived in a nearby town and I think we even talked politics for a bit! I felt
like we had at least established an acquaintance and I gave her a $5 tip on a
$10 haircut. And the next time I went there she had completely forgotten me! I
understand their profession requires them to be friendly, but I did feel a let
down. :-/

~~~
Omniusaspirer
A lot of this stuff is very dependent on the person I feel, the hair stylist I
always went to (living in the US) was incredibly on top of what all of her
customers were up to. There were even times she'd mention things my parents
had told her about that my parents hadn't even thought to mention to me since
they didn't deem it important. It's all anecdotal of course, but figured I'd
chime in.

Speaking more broadly on your first paragraphs I feel that my ability to make
new friends has really changed as I've aged. As a kid I had tons of friends
and people I'd talk to, leaving for college I also met and got to be friends
with new people. Now living on my own in a new city as a self employed single
male I'm finding it really difficult to make friends. Or perhaps difficult
isn't the right way to word it...I think it's more fair to say it requires
very real _effort_ now. I simply don't meet people unless I make a conscious
effort to do so and the grocery store isn't a very conducive location for
making friends.

Everyone I talk to is friendly, but I seemingly never got very good at turning
"friendly" into friendships. I still have old friends that I make a point of
keeping up with and talking to regularly, but without normal social
obligations in my life it's tricky for me to break that invisible wall (if you
will). Curious stuff.

~~~
wsxcde
I definitely agree it depends on the person and it gets harder with age.

While I kinda agree that the grocery store isn't the best place to make
friends, the point I was trying to make was that in India sometimes these
people unintentionally end up becoming friends.

An amusing related anecdote: my tailor back in India was mildly upset I didn't
invite him to my wedding! On the one hand I was touched that he felt that
strong a connection with me. On the other hand, while Indian weddings are
quite large, one does have to draw the line somewhere! But the point is this
sort of thing does happen. The security guard at the university where my wife
and I studied did get invited to our wedding.

These serendipitous friendships do seem harder here or maybe it's just that
the cultural gap between me and the average American is too large to bridge.

------
Ryoku
I find it interesting how focused this article is in the "traditional" male
gender role. It doesn't even touch the subject of different friendship types
and relations when involving other genders than 'male'.

Without denying that sex has it's toll in the physical (duh) and psychological
treats of a person, I do believe that traditional gender roles are the only
roles taken into account for this article, making a great deal of assumptions
on how males act towards friendship. Does anyone know if there are studies
such as the ones mentioned in the article that take into account a less black
and white view of gender roles or that digs into other types of friendships?

------
bluedino
I wasn't sure I was supposed to be expecting more as a guy?

Most of my male-to-male interaction occurs because of shared interest. Usually
a 'man activity' such as working on a car, house, or yard, working out, riding
motorcycles, that sort of thing.

But there's no talk about feelings or things like that. I could help a buddy
cut down a couple trees and nothing of the sort gets discussed. I'll come home
and be asked, "So did Mike say how it's going with his new
job/girlfriend/whatever?"

I reply, "No. Was I supposed to ask him about that?"

I think the only time there's any real discussion about things of that sort is
the other activity I share with other guys: drinking alcohol

------
d23
I've certainly found this to be my experience with my friends, who are mostly
males, but I've also found it to be that way with females as well. My theory
has been that evolutionarily it is advantageous for us to get over loss
quickly. If a person in your tribe suddenly disappears from your daily
experience, there's really only one explanation -- they aren't coming back. It
doesn't do much good to pine over them for your own survival's sake. I'm not
saying that it's a good thing -- it actually depresses me quite a bit. Maybe
it's different for females though. I'm not sure what to make of it.

------
wittgenstein
Some men are genuinely not very interested in forming intimate friendships
with other males. This does not mean men "suck" at friendship. It just means
they prefer to have intimate relationships with women, not men.

------
gr3yh47
"when we were all so freaked-out about seeming gay that we'd leave an empty
seat between us at the movies."

or, you know, because horizontal leg room...

------
kitsune_
In my experience it's the total opposite: I've known most of my friends since
kindergarten. We all know each others dreams, hopes and fears and support each
other without being judgmental. We share a common set of values. I could
vanish without saying a word and they'd welcome me back with open arms 10
years later.

------
allochthon
How culture-specific is this trend?

------
Aloha
The article is statistically irrelevant - but feels right.

I have many close friends, most of them are worlds away in terms of distance,
and I don't hang out with many locals - sometimes I wonder if its Seattle, or
something specific to my generation.

~~~
finnh
Having split my life between Seattle and San Francisco, I feel comfortable
making the generalization that many Seattleites are very shy in real life.

If you moved to another city you might be surprised at how much easier it is
to make new friends out of absolute strangers.

------
C1D
This seems more like a myth to me. I have friend that I have known since we
were toddlers. Even though me and him are in different countries we Skype
daily! I will be visiting him in August and he's going to visit me in
December.

------
known
Google "Men have bigger brains than women, research reveals"

------
kevrone
Men can be friends with women too. Just sayin'.

------
youRallMad
Do men suck at friendships? the answer is yes but because most of us never
try,

Personal Ramble

It all starts when we are children. Look at how young boys and girls play.
Boys will do things together, play football, play video games talk about
things they do (notice the DO, guys like to DO things). Girls will play games
around social events, and developing their social hierarchy. Girls learn from
a young age how to operate in social groups. boys do not tend to learn these
skills until teenage years, until then they will entertain themselves

To make the point, say 2 boys have an argument, they are more likely to come
to blows, fight and then drop the issue, dealing with the issue. Girls on the
other hand will use talking/and social to punish those that they are fighting
with. Social exclusion is the general form of punishment for girls that do not
follow the established social hierarchy of a school system. This is simply to
highlight the differences between boys and girls as children (aka less time
for social manipulation in to pre-defined roles)

The above i feel is a biological difference in the way that men and women
operate even at young ages. This is still in us as adults. (there are a number
of studies about this point, boys raised as girls and so on, personally i KNOW
that boys and girls are biologically different and in turn you can not just
tell someone to be a girl or boy, it is hard coded (trying to highlight that I
do not believe that the role of girls and boys are interchangeable as some
people imply; I believe trans and other gender identity issues are based on
biological triggers))

So moving on, i might be getting to a point

In my part of the world men are taught from a young age to be 'strong',
'leaders', 'money earners', 'head of the family'. Men have been exploited
throughout history because of this mentality (think men front line of wars,
its the mans role to defend his country and not complain (if you ran you got
shot), protect our women, and supply our family with money. We are taught to
ignore our emotions and to endure (work 8hrs/5days a week for 60 years). This
is 1000s of years old, men are the work horses, well minus the very few at the
top who pull the strings and certain people use to proclaim that men rule the
world.

I also believe that we put too much focus on SO to 'complete' our lives (an
extension of the idea that a man should support a family). So many people have
said that their SO is their best friend and i think this is great. However as
a 30 year old male I have one group of friends that have all got engaged at
the same time, they all getting married within the same few years and they
will be having kids at the same time i am sure. My honest option on this is
that out of the 5 guys in that group, 4 of them have been pushed in to it by
the girls of the group, and the first couple that started it off, well the guy
was told he either asked her to marry him or she would ask him that leap year
(last year) Basically what happened was one girl wanted to get married and
then using that as a president the other girls banded together and got the
rest of the guys to ask them.

This might sound like harsh but men need to stop thinking that their lives are
about supporting other people, we need to learn that our lives are our own, we
are not here to pay bills, support children (if you want to then amazing) but
it is not our default roles. Sadly there is such a lack of male roles today
that the 9-5 with 2-4 children is now the default. I feel sorry for men, we
have been used and abused as wage earners and human targets, we work to
support our families all the time self sacrificing our own social well being.

i am 30 and spent the last 9 years working on my friendship (balanced between
girls and boys these days) and being close with my family. I was one of the
most socially difficult people you will never know when young but thanks to
lots of practice i can start a conversion with anyone anywhere. I can go to
clubs by myself, dancing as an example or the pictures, it is not an issue. I
guess i should put in that I have only had few relationships and i have spent
more time living on my own that I ever have in relationships but on the flip
side, I have a lot of friends (Sounds bad, but i have always feared some girl
loading me up with kids and then me spending the rest of my life slaving to
support them while they all resent me for never being at home because i am
working). One thing i will say is that single guys do tend to socialize
together, a lot of my single male friends are all interlinked, and most of my
friends in couples are friends with couples. There is very little over lap
between these groups. Single guys have different social requirements to men
with SOs, and I guess it is a preference to what social groups you prefer.

So to all of you what is your priority? to become the default wage earner for
a family and then complain that you have no friends? or start making your own
path in life, focus on your friends rather than chasing the next SO. Find out
who you are, and what you like, and you will have no issues making friends.

Be true to yourself, not true to someone else s view of you

I guess a summery is... Men and women socialize differently from a young age,
i think its hard coded to a large degree. Men have lost their roles in every
day life, and (personally) too many men spend their lives supporting family's
because they believe it is what is expected off them. I say it's time for a
male revolution, a time when men can band together (pack style) and we can
entertain ourself and get out of this rat race that is a life of working to
raise a family. There are too many people in the world anyway, do you really
want to bring someone in to it? where the hell do you think we will be in 10
years given what has happened over the last 10 years.

It is time for Males to start redefining their roles in the world and this
will start with you.

------
chintan39
Men just talk less.But Men are equally good at friendship.

------
dkarapetyan
I don't buy it. What stresses me out the most are groups of people jabbering
about nothing in particular. Give me a hammock and a nice book and I'm good to
go. No elevated cortisol and whatnot.

------
non0nsense
How are we really defining friendship here? I've mostly found in my
experiences that females value self-serving relationships that build them up.
Meaningless values of 'friendship' where they have no contrast for a real,
meaningful relationship. See how sexism swings both ways? Who the heck posts
this kind of drivel?

~~~
aestra
You've been hanging out with some terrible people.

I actually didn't find this article sexist or attacking.

~~~
non0nsense
I'm sorry? Do explain how you could read so much into a single comment. That
or crawl back into whatever hole you came from please.

------
stefantalpalaru
Even though we use the same word, friendship in the male culture is a
different concept from friendship in the female culture and it is a mistake to
judge one with the criteria for the other.

------
leccine
Semi sexist, greatly generalizing title. The sample used for the study covers
only fraction of the entire data set so making this conclusion is very bold.

~~~
cowpig
It's just sexist, no semi about it.

"this is how men are, this is how women are, this is how black people are,
this is how gay people are..." it's a harmful way of thinking about the world

~~~
theorique
Acknowledging and cataloging real observed differences between men and women
is fine. That's just science. What's not OK is shaming men for behaviors that
are not better or worse than women, but just different.

------
vishaldpatel
tl;dr; answer: no. No they don't.

