Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Do Men Suck At Friendship? (mensjournal.com)
313 points by hbe_ on April 23, 2014 | hide | past | favorite | 256 comments



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/...


> men and women simply have different kinds of friendships

I think you nailed it there. This matches what I've been picking up from books by Deborah Tannen, an author recommended to me by a guy at work.

Tannen describes men and women as having two massively different styles of communication. Communication is not at all addressed in the attached article, yet, when I perceive the dialogue in the article, it matches Tannen's model to a T. In a nutshell: men communicate in the domain of independence while women communicate about intimacy. If you remember _nothing_ else about what I write here, remember those two words: intimacy vs. independence.

So for example, when the wife in the article repeatedly asks for "dish," that's a blatant signal of intimacy. She wants to be in on secrets. She wants intimacy with her husband and is sending out "sonar" to see how intimate her husband is with his friends. Even her use of the idiosyncratic term "dish" and expecting her husband to pick up on it can be perceived as calls for intimacy.

Meanwhile, when the author describes "activity" or "convenience" friends, (with an undeserving negative air), he's failing to perceive that these types of friendship allow the men to preserve their independence. It also explains why the men felt intruded upon when the women scheduled an activity for them. The author perceives it in the parent-child spectrum, which is okay, but not insightful imo. Tannen's model of men's independence I find superior. It also explains the author's ignoring phone calls from his friend - it's a meta-communication about preserving his own independence.

Just to get meta about publishing in the 2010s, the article is a smorgasbord of irritainment, pseudo-psychology and self-doubt. Certainly not the kind of thing most men would find useful, valuable or insightful. Although that certainly doesn't it make the author "gay" as someone below suggested! However, this article is neither empowering through interdependence nor through independence, just a slab of rage press with a bit of correlation without causation statistics. (Can't you just hear an editor saying "Great, now finish up with some stats to back it up.")

So let's read Tannen's books to help our relationships and communication along, then get back to talking about Linux and signal processing and shit.


can you recommend something specific by Tannen?


Sure. She has numerous books now, but the first one that started her off on this path was _That's Not What I Meant!_, which was about differences in communications styles in general. One chapter of it was about the diff. b/t men and women and that got the most attention and requests for more info, so she wrote _You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation_. (There's a lesson for startups about listening to your audience there, too.)

The main one to recommend is the latter, but the first one is great, too. I haven't read her other ones. And TBH I haven't finished either one after several months, b/c the material in the first few chapters just got me so far along I was surprised and it shifted my perspective quite a bit. Especially for a literally-minded person like myself, it was like learning to see not only a new color, but a new, parallel spectrum.


> because the entire point, unstated but present, throughout the article is that women have 'got it right' and men should be more like women .... true point of the article: slating the traditional male gender role.

That was not my reading at all and on re-reading I still can't see it.

Then Liz would let out a big theatrical groan that said, in essence, What kind of friendship is that?

I thought it was a great friendship, if I thought about it at all.

To me, this suggests that there is a model for male friendships that works perfectly well. I perceived the problem to be that not all men are good at implementing or maintaining this model, especially over distance.

The author acknowledges that the female model isn't necessarily the single optimal model:

At the same time, a wave of feminist sociologists and psychologists began describing female friendship, with all its confessional talk, as the optimal model. Many feminist thinkers now see those views as overly simplistic.

> ...before even bothering to prove if there's anything to actually get right in this situation

But there is something to get right! Not feeling lonely.

> Has anyone actually read the studies linked by the author to back up his drivel?

No. I skimmed over that bit and didn't feel it was actually necessary for the point of the article. The author spoke to me on a personal level, through a narrative that I can relate to. They didn't need to prove anything to me: speaking to my lived experience was more than enough to make me think.


The problem is that the only point of the article, besides telling a story, is to raise the question of whether the author is unsatisfied with (or sometimes merely insecure about) his friendships because men are bad at friendship compared to women. It doesn't make it better to present both sides and say "but who knows," it just makes it a worse article. Without any real facts or insight to talk about, attributing something you don't like about yourself to your gender is just psychological projection and spreads negative feelings towards men.

Imagine if a Dad wrote an article, "Do men suck at parenting?" that assessed men on what was essentially their ability to "mother." Or imagine if a male teacher wrote, "Do men suck at teaching?" or a female programmer wrote, "Do women suck at programming?" None of them motivated by a new study or based on anything but a personal anecdote. We'd all rightfully rise to the defense of men and women in general.


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...

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...


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.


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...

*edited for brevity and grammar


> 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.


About 1) - don't most forms ask questions more than on e using different wording? This helps eliminate people just filling the form out randomly, but couldn't it also help keep language neutral?


Yes, this is correct. Most self-reporting relies on having the same question asked in different ways and places to catch people whose inconsistent answers suggest they should be removed from the sample.

However, my objection is that I don't believe language can be easily classified in terms of the response it'll elicit. Obviously, one can (usually) correctly guess the response that'll be received if one were to run up to a stranger and yell "You're a [swearword of choice here]", yet the fact that I've had to preface this with the modifier 'usually' betrays my point; some people will get aggressive if you swear at them, some will laugh, some will respond in kind, and so on. My concern is that if we can't even predict the effect of language in its most obvious state, we probably can't predict its effect in subtler states.

This unpredictability of language leaves us in a tricky position when it comes to asking questions on a self-reporting study. In order to solve that one objection, we'd have to come up with a method of using language which manages to communicate its point, without causing that point to make people feel emotion. This is further complicated by the fact that people are complex beasts with internal and external factors playing in to how they behave, such that a question formed neutrally for one person would probably not be so neutral with others. This also makes avoiding 'fear of reprisal' for one's response to a question impossible, as we can only remove external reprisal. It would not be possible for us to, for instance, removal the internal upheaval of a conflicted homosexual admitting to a survey that they were gay.


I am not sure I understand what you are claiming here?

Are you saying that self-reports (a.k.a. anecdotal evidence) has happened so often on this subject that it in itself has created a big enough dataset to label it a proper study?


No, he is claiming that self-reports are not anti-scientific, as the OP (you?) claims them to be.


Men's Journal is basically Cosmo. Bullshit journalism and fluff.


Which leads to the inevitable question of what in gods name this garbage is doing on the front page of HN


perhaps because it is an issue that resonates with the demographic of hacker news?


Agreed @aaren, in todays fast pace life, its becoming alarmingly simple to lose touch with friends. IMHO if you work in startup, its even easier.


Without it we wouldn't have had this great debate about male friendships. Sure, the original article may very well be crap, but the resulting debate is not.


It might be due to its linkbait title :/


Perhaps it highlights a potential problem and a market that needs to be disrupted.


I'd sooner say that men and women _currently_ have different kinds of relationships, for the most part. For men who have been conditioned toward independence but who have greater emotional needs than that model allows, the independence model can feel repressive. Likewise, I've known a number of women who lean more toward independence than intimacy. (This switching of relationship models seems to happen more than a little among the trans-men and trans-women that I know.) It isn't clear to me that the relationship categories are linked to anything other than cultural/societal conditioning.

Listening to feminists talk about relationships is actually helpful, in that by acknowledging the basic equality of women, we as men can allow ourselves to form the kind of relationships that we each want individually, rather than the kind that is trained into us from childhood. Escaping from societal pigeonholes can be good for men as well as women.


I don't think he attacked the traditional male gender role. In fact, I think the article supports your general opinion. it starts by entertaining the idea of the male friendship deficiency, and even giving some anecdotal evidence.

But then, it turns around. He could enjoy his friendships without sharing "deep feelings", just centering around activities. That's what the ending means, when the wife asks him for entertaining gossips, and he can't tell anyone.


Yeah, Mens Journal is not famous for its rigorous peer review.


Quoted text below from this source: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/300997-ok-now-let-s-have-som...

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!”


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.


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.


Yesteryear's marriages were also boring for some, it's not a new phenomenon. Yes, there is probably some effect in terms of psychological support from an extended family, but I doubt that that would have been more powerful (demographically) at discouraging divorce than the social stigma. Plenty of times that extended family was telling the individual to stay with the abusive spouse or else the family would be shamed. That's not a social environment to be proud of - who gives a fuck about the family name if the members have to live in misery to maintain it?


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

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.


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.


It's a Vonnegut quote.

I think he was lamenting the shift he had witnessed in American culture, from his common personal childhood experience – in a very large family – to the 'nuclear' family that tended to characterize America from the 1950s onwward. 'Slapstick', where I grabbed the quote, was written in 1976.


> There is more divorce now because it is no longer a burdensome shame to break from a joyless marriage.

You seem to imply this is a good thing. However, my issue is specifically with the fact that people vow themselves to a lifelong marriage -- a lifelong commitment, and then they break that vow later when they get bored. It shows a complete lack of integrity.

If you don't think you're going to stay with the same person the rest of your life, make this clear up front to them! You can still get married for the tax benefits, but it should be understood by both parties from the very beginning that the relationship is only going to last temporarily. Then no one gets devastated when it comes to an end, and no one has broken a promise.


EDIT: Didn't realize that whole parent post was a quotation. Sorry.

Well, you^W Vonnegut said that like all men and women are extroverts. Personally, I'd prefer a tiny group of pals (active, any amount of "hey, I know that dude, we talked once ten years ago" is fine), because being a well-connected peer in a large communications cluster is tiresome.

Oh, and I know at least one case where extended family caused a divorce. Guess that's a fairly common case, as finding consensus and maintaining good relationships within a large group is a harder task than between two persons.


Ha! I was just about to say this reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut's Slapstick, where people get automatically assigned to an extended family. Then I clicked the link at the bottom.


I edited the parent to overcome the confusion I caused some people. Sorry about that.


> 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.


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.


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.


Part of my commute involves walking through a public park and I've noticed that the people out walking their dogs seem to find it much easier to strike-up conversations with each other thank other park users. I'm not a dog person, but a dog might help Xcelerate's father make new friends, or at least acquaintances, as well as providing companionship.


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.


Really fantastic suggestion.

Dogs are amazing companions, however the long hours he works probably don't help, however he's probably working long hours so he doesn't have to come home to an empty house.


I agree it may help, but how on earth is a dog the same as a companion? It will fill a different void but certainly not the lack of a soulmate.


It's not. But it exposes one to many social interactions by walking, grooming, vaccinating a dog etc.


add a social hobby (e.g. golf) to that list for some out of house time


My father died 7 years ago after my parents had been married for more than 50 years. After a few years of solitude, my mother started to develop a whole new life (with 80). I think this will develop also for your father, it just takes time. But he has to be ready for it and there is little you can do to accelerate the process. Maybe he was busy with you and your sister until recently?

Key for him is to leave the house. Go to the doctor, buy fresh food on the market instead of in the mall and chat a few words with the farmers, join sports teams (my mother did when she was 78) or meet with colleagues for a beer (they all want an excuse not to go home, believe me).

My brother and I also live far away. That is not a problem (as long as he is in good health…), because it assures that your father has to manage his life for himself instead of sitting down and let you organize it. Also make him visit you instead of the other way round. This will let him leave the house, see different towns, revive his interest in life and discovery and he has to make plans (this is important). It worked for us, at least.

Where I live, also the church has groups for tea/coffee and cake. So has the red cross. This may aim at older people but it is great to go there. My mother loves it. (yes, I know, she is a woman and women make contacts easier). But, as I said, some day he will be ready.


I'd suggest him picking a hobby, and taking classes about it. He doesn't really need someone to date, apparently, but just someone to talk to and have fun. Going out and doing something he likes surrounded by like-minded people sounds about right.


When my dad retired he started participating in local organizations, like the Lions Club and a food kitchen. There may be groups, organizations, meetups, etc. that would help your father establish some meaningful relationships outside of work.


Just have him move with you. It's a priceless experience.


I've been thinking about doing this in the upcoming years. I'm guessing you're speaking from experience, if so, can you elaborate more?


Make sure he knows that dating doesn't mean he's trying to replace the relationship he had with your mother, or take away anything they had together. It's possible to meet new people, have new experiences, and still cherish those old memories.


I'm not sure where you are located, but back home in Australia they've come up with the idea of "Men's sheds". I think it's a great idea on so many levels.

http://www.mensshed.org/what-is-a-men's-shed/.aspx

I'm not sure if it's the kind of thing your dad would be into (my dad probably not). But sounds like fun.


My mom goes on vacations and city-trips with loads of different people. Some of those people she still has contact with, but even without that the trips themselves are a welcome diversion.


On the other hand, it's not your responsibility to arrange for your dad what you think is best for him. He's an adult and will try to make the most of his life and will succeed or fail to be happy on his own.

I'm a father and I wouldn't want my kids to patch my lonely life if I have one: they have their own lives and I have mine and it's certainly nice to see them sometimes but it can never be a deal breaker.


It's not OP's responsibility - but love is love, and wanting the best for your parents is not a bad thing at all.


Actually, I would consider that making it my responsibility. I love my father. He made sacrifices for me, I will return the favor if I have to.


The OP can't "make" his/her father do things, however they can suggest things. They implied the father wants to/is open to new experiences.


I don't know how old your dad is but I suggest he go to the local senior center.


create a profile for him on match or some other dating site, and organize some good dates


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".


This is true.

Which is why I have plenty of female friends to do everyday gossip and chatting with and a few male friends to bury bodies with. It tends to work out pretty well.

Maybe I'm a weird guy, but I find that I really need people with whom I can chat about things that are happening but are of no real consequence. Sometimes you just need someone to tell "Dude, something mildly interesting just happened!"

It's the whole "The only things worth complaining about are things that aren't worth solving" philosophy. Guy friends tend to handle those poorly. Lady friends relish it.


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


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".


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


Papua New Guinea, East Timor, and some Indonesian islands, if anyone else is curious exactly what else is on the same shelf.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_%28continent%29


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


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.


As I understand it, America = USA is not a US thing, it's an anglophone thing. For most of the history of the continent, if you were an english speaker, you were simply most likely to speak about the bit that's the USA, thus it got abbreviated. All language is littered with abbreviations that literally mean something broader, but has changed meaning for convenience. A car, for an example, technically means anything with wheels, but has changed its meaning to refer to an automobile for personal transportation.

Also, FWIW, my understanding is that the word "european" when used by americans and britons carries a mildly prerogative air of "frenchness". It certainly isn't a purely neutral geographical term.


Is it specifically anglophone? If anything, I think America=USA is a stronger association in some continental European languages. In English it's common to use "American" as an adjective, but not so common to use "America" as a noun to mean the USA, saying things like "I have a cousin in America" or "I took a vacation to America last year" (in both of these cases constructions like "the U.S." or "the States" are more common). But in Greek you'd definitely use "Αμερική" in those cases too, unless you were writing formally (in which case you'd say "Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες" or ΗΠΑ).


Same in Portuguese.


Not so much in Canada. We'll call someone from the US an American, but we don't say America; we'll say the US, instead.. as I just did.


"America" is short for "The United States of America". It's also the only shortened name which doesn't need to be preceded by 'the'. And it's the only single word which can be used to describe people of the US so then it's also been used to refer to the country. Originally 'American' was used to refer to people of British America, an area comprised of the eastern half of present-day US and Canada. Later the term came to refer to just the US.


> and started to mean "USA" in the heads of US citizens

You're being a little pedantic. It's usually understood to refer to US citizens by just about everyone outside the USA as well, not just US citizens themselves.


I guess you are being a little bit insensitive by calling him "pedantic".

As an "American" from the South, and having friends in both Central and North, we constantly make fun of the fact that we can't call ourselves Americans the way Europeans and Asians do.

Another "interesting point" though is that the Indigenous population are still called Indians and the the real Indians are not identified as Asians.


You can call yourselves "South Americans" though, and everybody would understand.

Not all taxonomies consider "America" as one continent. In geography school we were taught of North America and South America as different continents. And if you check Wikipedia, you'll see there are several ways to divide the continents, and they cound from 5 to 7 depending on how you look at it, IIRC.

>Another "interesting point" though is that the Indigenous population are still called Indians and the the real Indians are not identified as Asians.

In my corner of Europe we don't consider the "real Indians" as Asians either. Some cultures do, but we prefer to reserve the "Asian" moniker for the far east (Malaysia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Korea etc). I don't see much cultural or historical resemblance between these and Indians.


For those languages for which this is actually true, you can most likely chalk it up to US cultural influence.


There's no other word in English to say "from the US". When I'm talking with my Latino friends who don't like me using the word "American", I just say "gringo". But that obviously doesn't work well for general usage.


Yes, there's another word you're expected sometimes to use when traveling in South America: estadounidense. There's no equivalent in English, it would be USian.


> There's no other word in English to say "from the US".

Actually, there is: "US American" [1], though it's rarely used.

[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/US_American


Yea. I'm from India. And I resent the fact that any reference to 'Asian' means they are referring to the Chinese, Mongoloids or the Japanese. Hell, even most of Russia falls in Asia.


In the UK, "Asian" usually refers to India / Pakistan / Bangladesh.


I'm sensitive to this enough to specify 'US' when that's what I mean -- yet, when Europeans (well, N. Europeans in my experience) say "Americans" they're referring to US people. It's probably because US culture, politics, imperialism etc. intrude into their countries and lives a lot more than Canadians, Mexicans or South Americans do.


Usually the abbreviation "America" refers to "United States of ...", while if you're referring to the two continents, you refer to "The Americas". And if you want to get more specific, you can refer to North America or South America.


United States of America = America United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland = Britain


I'd say "Britain" more commonly refers to Great Britain, not the UK (i.e. Britain == [England, Scotland, Wales, *islands]).


Speaking from a US perspective again, for me "the UK", "England", and "Britain" are all completely synonymous with each other.


He knows how it came into being. I think his question was more along the lines of "should it?"


Here is a great video explaining the history of "America" and its usage around the world:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVMZC4y4zXU

tl;dw? Skip to 3:40.


Do Canadians self-identify as living in "America"? I would guess not. But Germans certainly self-identify as European.


They equate "America" with "USA". "Canada", "America", and "Mexico" are located in "North America". And, BTW, "Mexico" is also in "Central America".

It's a cultural/linguistic norm, not a programming problem. Don't try to reason it out as rigorous logic.


I do not. Maybe that would be different if I traveled to the US often. But despite some of our similarities I see Canada as distinctly Canada and I do not live in America (America’s Hat and Canada’s Pants jokes aside).


I believe "North American" would be suitable. (Sorry, Canada.)


Mexico is actually considered part of North America as well


Well... TIL! (Though, rather obvious thinking about it...) It definitely screws up my generalisation. I thought "North American" would be nice given the U.S. and Canada generally share the same language and culture. Mexico messes with that, slightly. Though, I suppose states like Florida (from my Dexter knowledge) would have similar issues given the high-proportion of Spanish speakers.

Speaking as a Brit, we do (rather ignorantly) generally refer to citizens of the U.S. as "American."


The US and Canada do not really have the same language demographics. 56% of Canada speaks English as a native language, 21% speaks French and Spanish clocks in at 1.2%; in contrast, the US has 80% English, 12.4% Spanish and 0.45% French.


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

This happens within the article - the writer's wife essentially shames him for his "surfing friendship" not being like her friendships.

I've encountered this too, as I'm sure many men have - being criticized or blamed by family or spouses for not talking enough or not talking about "the right things" when spending time with friends. And you're left asking yourself "was I doing it wrong?" when I come home from hanging out with friends and playing video games or hacking or whatever.


The author explicitly acknowledges that the traditional "girly" friendship may not be the optimal. And implies that male friendships can be deeper than shared activities without turning into such relationships:

> At the same time, a wave of feminist sociologists and psychologists began describing female friendship, with all its confessional talk, as the optimal model.

> Many feminist thinkers now see those views as overly simplistic. And as recent news about gay marriage shows, America is growing more comfortable with homosexuality.

I don't think the article extols that particular type of friendship. I am surprised the article gives you that impression at all.


I'm uncomfortable with the idea that feminist thinkers should be an authority on male friendships, since by definition feminist thinkers think from the point of women, and here we are discussing friendships between men.

I've a couple of female "friends"[1], and generally when talking to them I often feel all they're doing is telling me how right I am to feel in such and such way, frequently highlighting the differences between "us" and "them", whoever "them" might be, whenever the opportunity arise. (I suppose you'd call that 'gossip'). I also find often their opinions aren't decided till they figure out everyone else's, as if a fact cannot be correct until it is agreed on by other people. And when I speak confidently about a non-conformist view, they're often reluctant to outright disagree with me until they're sure my view is non-conformist, which might be weeks later when they suddenly bring it up (I assume after having quizzed all their friends).

I've been called a "best friend" half a dozen times by other men in the past year or two, but I've only got one best friend myself, who I've known for close to a decade, and we talk most days of the week. I think one of the most important qualities in a close male friendship is to mean what I say and say what I mean, even if no one would agree with me, even if it offends and hurts feelings. I think that is the stuff male bond is made of. It's hard to feel closeness when a friend is hiding what they really think about me from me[2]. To maintain the closeness of a male friendship, it's also important I put it above any romantic relationships I develop with women, even, and especially when, the women in such relationship puts pressure on me to become closer to her than to my friends. If I was "Matt" in the article, and if the author was my best friend, and a very important one at that, I would rather divorce my wife than move, if the move would endanger the friendship I had with the author. Only this willingness to sacrifice would ensure the strength of the bond in the friendship[3].

[1] I don't consider any female as "friends" even if they think I'm theirs, because of [2].

[3] It is also my opinion that "following" my wife wherever she goes and agreeing with her every word would reduce her attraction for me somewhat. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10524035/Hap...


'Feminism' (is a bad name and) does not by definition imply thinking from the point of view of a woman.

Feminism is usually defined approximately as 'anti-sexism'. Often that involves discussing issues where women are worse off- but not really in this article!


"Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.[3]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

I can tell we're going to have a lot of disagreements over the definition and the concept of Feminism so I'm just going to suggest maybe you could edit the wikipedia entry on Feminism and change the definition there to include the possibilities of inequalities against men.


> when talking to them I often feel all they're doing is telling me how right I am to feel in such and such way, frequently highlighting the differences between "us" and "them", whoever "them" might be, whenever the opportunity arise. (I suppose you'd call that 'gossip').

It's called "emotional validation", and widely acknowledged as something that women are notoriously keen on and men are notoriously bad at providing.

http://www.womensweb.in/2012/04/validating-feelings-expressi...

Or, in a satirical manner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg


Yes, it would be called that. I suppose the I'm not entirely comfortable with it all the time because when someone is doing it to me, they're just saying I'm right because I think I'm right, rather than telling them what they think. I suppose they could actually be feeling the same way as I do about the issue but that would only have happened because through the way I told the the story I managed to transfer my emotions to them. Sometimes I feel I'm talking to a mirror rather than a friend. Of course at other times it's just hearing what I want to hear and I suppose everyone would enjoy that from time to time. It's not something I want my friend to exclusively do to me all the time whenever we're communicating however.


My wife and I kid about it, but to me, emotional validation is the same as a lack of confidence. I have some unpopular beliefs, I don't need them to be validated by anyone. If I did, I would be a sheep.


"If I was "Matt" in the article, and if the author was my best friend, and a very important one at that, I would rather divorce my wife than move, if the move would endanger the friendship I had with the author".

Wow that's taking it to one extreme. What if this job was extremely rewarding financially for your wive or turned out to be what she really wanted to do for years? Would you not support her in this endeavour?

I think true, lasting male friendship should not necessarily imply frequent meetings among friends, but it should definitely entail something along the lines of "I've got your back, and I know you've got mine buddy". Also a lot of things in male friendship do not need to be explicitly communicated unlike female friendship (No need for endless text/messages saying "I love you man!").

It's very important to have friends with whom you share common interests and activities, but they are not necessarily your best friends. Your best friends are generally the ones you've known for decade(s) and regardless of where they are , will be ready to jump in a field of fire with you and come to your aid when times are tough. There's an unwritten contract among best friends; there's an unpronounced oath among men who hold each other in high esteem.


"Wow that's taking it to one extreme. What if this job was extremely rewarding financially for your wive or turned out to be what she really wanted to do for years? Would you not support her in this endeavour?"

I've assumed the best friend in question was very important and the move would endanger the friendship. Let's also assume my wife is important in my life. Yes, I would emotionally and perhaps materially support her in her endeavor, accept our differences in the paths of our lives, and separate/divorce. Though if we have kids, I imagine I would fight to keep them, probably trying to persuade her that her financially rewarding job may also be highly stressful and she might not want yet another responsibility.


>since by definition feminist thinkers think from the point of women

Hrm? Many men are feminist.

Feminism is defined as "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities." Feminism also deals with men's interests when the inequalities benefit women (child custody for example)

>"following" my wife wherever she goes and agreeing with her every word

Good god. These are join decisions that are made mutually.


Not sure if I understand what you're saying, but if I do, that's got to be offensive to at least two large groups of people.

At the end of the day, there are not just gay men, straight men and girls. Within the straight men there are subsets who equate a lot of social contact, gossip etc. with friendship, just as there are gay men or girls who don't equate this with friendship.

The "most guys I know of" thing is probably just confirmation bias based on social circles and career choices.


What exactly lead you to think the author was gay?


Do men have to be gay to be effeminate?


The adjective that should usually be used for that stereotype is 'camp'. Plenty of gay men aren't camp, and plenty of camp men aren't gay.


Yeah, I'm not the biggest fan of 'effeminate' really.


Do men have to be effeminate to identify with isolated feminine characteristics?


No.


Do men have to be to identify?


^^ This. I know I am there for my friends and I know that they are there for me. That already gives me a feeling of connectedness. I do not need to see them on a daily basis.


Good point. I can go fishing with my best friend, be at other sides of a lake and hardly talk all day. That still counts as hanging out.


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

You are officially part of the problem.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: