What Women Tell Me About Their Friendships

Anticipating a zoom conversation with my cousin and oldest friend, Jonathan, I sent a link to an essay I had written a couple of years ago on friendship.  I thought it would help us think about the evolution of our own friendship over these 79 years.  Jonny, as I call him, liked the article but, partly spurred on by his wife, wondered if women thought the same way about friendship.  “Good question,” I wrote.  “I’m going to check in with some friends of mine to see what they think.”

So I wrote to about 20 female friends, mostly but not entirely women of my generation and all in heterosexual marriages.  I sent them the essay and posed the question.  Most of them wrote back quickly and answered firmly.  “No. Our friendships are different.”   As a reference to the original posting, see: https://barrydym.wordpress.com/2017/08/21/friendship-and-marriage/

The responses were all friendly—they are my friends, after all—but ranged from “you’re close” to “you are way off.”  All but one assured me that we are friends and I shouldn’t take offense at the differences they noted.  I didn’t but was embarrassed by how skewed my portrait was towards male friendship.  And, after my initial response, I wasn’t all that surprised.  During decades, while practicing marital and family therapy, I had heard women endlessly express their wish that men would be more like them, that conversation would be more intimate, vulnerable, revealing.  And that men could at least try to change. Like Henry Higgins, but in reverse: Why can’t men be more like women.  I hadn’t captured that yearning and that difference in my essay.

Here, as apology and recompense, are some of the differences noted by my friends: 

  • First, women are more emotional in the way that they experience themselves and their relationships in more intense and open ways. Some imagine that men have lots going on inside but don’t know how to share it.  Others have finally concluded that men don’t even have an intense, complex internal life—and turn to female friends for that. 
  • Second, women formed friendship bonds less through the shared activities that I emphasized in my portrait of (male) friendship, and  more through empathic connections.  This way of connecting leads to feeling seen and gotten. And to intimacy.  And to great comfort. Most of the women wondered if men experienced intimacy with one another but either doubted it or confessed that they couldn’t quite decipher it. 

The empathic bonds were formed in several primary ways.  First, through shared vulnerabilities.  According to my friends, women are less afraid—often, not afraid at all—to express their fears and insecurities.  And they are less afraid of asking for help.  But, as they reported, compared to men, women are an open book.  And that open book leads to greater emotional depth within and between women. 

  • In short, then, male friendships can be generally characterized as side-by- side, while women’s are face to face.
  • Almost every women noted that female friends talk with one another about their families—both their immediate and their families of origins.  They hang out together with friends and their children.  They know and love one another’s children.  So, in fact, women do connect through at least this one key shared activity. And since so many women know themselves as a woman-in-a-family, a person-in-context, their friendships share a level of complexity that is largely foreign to men, who are often bored with all the family talk. 
  • So, it’s not that women don’t bond through activities.  It’s that the activities are different.  For women, it’s about family, friendship, and work.  For men it tends to be about work, sports, finances, and work-related networks are for men.
  • I remember reading an article asserting that men’s friendships, while not as emotional, were still deep and enduring.  To illustrate the author described a poker game that had endured for about 20 years.  The guys believed they could trust and depend on one another but didn’t know each other’s families very well.  The author tested his hypothesis by asking one of his poker buddies his children’s names.  His friend couldn’t come up with them.  He didn’t.  But, at the same time, this same friend had helped him out of a couple of financial jams. 
  • One of my respondents emphasized the importance of meaning making: “I believe my friends have always been the people with whom I figure out life,” she wrote.  This includes both understanding what’s going on and strategizing what to do about it.  While the men she knows might also join in to figure out what’s going on and what to do, they do so much more often around work and less frequently around relationships.  And not much at all about life’s deeper meanings.  
  • In my essay, I had written that by comparison to marriages, friendships are generally are far less demanding.  Men generally accept what they have with one another.  But several women said that their friendships are very demanding.  They require rapt and frequent attention, sympathy, and advice. 

Because these female friendships are so vital, a few women reported that helping one another change, sometimes unbidden, was one of the key dynamics in their relationships.  I had noted that one friend might help another change but almost only when invited and, even then, with great caution.  Acceptance of exactly who they each are is among the essential—and differentiating qualities of friendship; and this distinguishes friendship from marriage, in which men often feel that their female partners want them to change in important ways. 

It’s Henry Higgins in reverse.  Men generally don’t want to work on the emotional quality of their relationships, though they are often eager to work with and for friends in other, perhaps more instrumental, ways.  In fact, most men avoid like the plague what they consider high maintenance relationships in need of repair. 

  • Several women emphasize how intentional their friendships are.  They work to improve them.  The terms of engagement are often explicit: “This is what I need from you; This is what you can expect from me.”  With the intentionality and without the implicit acceptance of the status quo, there is lots of push and pull, an ongoing rebalancing of expectations.  In short, women paint a much more dynamic picture of friendship than men do. 
  • The experience of friendship within the heterosexual marriages of friends I queried, covered a range.  On one end were women who had wrestled with the differences, acknowledged disappointments, and reached an acceptance, sometimes wry, sometimes sad, sometimes full hearted.  On the other were women who seemed actively disappointed and critical.  Because men’s emotional distance robbed them of an intimacy they craved in marriage.  Because men’s inability to form deeply emotional relationships left them feeling stranded and alone. 

I already knew some of what my women friends shared with me—would have to know, having been a couple and family therapist for so many years.  But there were new insights, too, and ways that what I knew were reframed, uncovering nuances of difference and complexity.  I want to thank my friends, my teachers, for that. 

We Should Know Better: Quashing the Trump Insurrection

In 1786, Daniel Shays and a group of Western Massachusetts farmers, feeling pinched by taxes and unappreciated for their service during the Revolutionary War, rose up in rebellion.  The insurrection coincided exactly with the Constitutional Convention, which was meant to sew the colonies into a nation.  And even though Thomas Jefferson, speaking from the safety of Paris, thought a rebellion, now and then, useful for a democratic republic, the majority of Colonial leaders, including Jefferson’s closest ally, James Madison, decided that the insurrection needed to be put down in the name of nation-building. 

Throughout the 1830’s, 1840’s and 1850’s, Southern states sought to “nullify” northern or national priorities, particularly regarding slavery.  When in 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected President, the South chose to secede from the nation.  Under the leadership of the new president, the United States government put down that insurrection, despite the suffering it required,

We have reached such a time again.  We need to put down the increasingly active, Trump-led insurrection against the United States of America – an assault on both its government and the ideals for which it stands.

Over the last four years, I have written several times about the danger posed by Trump and his base, comparing it to the fascist uprisings of the 1930’s in Europe.  So, for that matter, have much better informed people like Timothy Snyder (On Tyranny). Each time, the response to my posts has been largely polite.  Friends confide that I seem shrill, alarmist.  No more, I hope.  This week, David Frum, a “liberal Republican,” joined me in an article he published in the Atlantic: “There’s a wowrd for What Trumpism is Becoming: Fascism.  

Frum has charted the course of the Trumpian insurrection through distinctive stages.  Early on, he says, you could see Trump’s autocratic tendencies, born of his experience as a corporate leader with absolute power over decision-making, leading to a disregard for democratic rules and norms.  Following the 2017 Charlottesville riot, Trump offered the false equivalence in Charlottesville between the KKK and Nazis on one side and progressives who oppose them.  By January 6, he incited an insurrection.  Immediately after the insurrection, Trump and his supporters distanced themselves from and minimized the action.  Soon, their narrative recast the insurrection as a “party” among loyal citizens.   Now Trump fully endorses such parties and his increasingly hypnotized followers give full-throated support to his claim that the election was stolen and that he is the rightful leader of the United States.  And by rightful, they mean more than legal.  There’s an almost religious fervor to their current claim.

Frum’s point is that Trump’s actions are no longer clumsy and inadvertent but intentionally subversive.  And, at least as importantly, his following, now perhaps 30% of the American people, represent a movement.  Their passionate, frantic adoration is increasingly reminiscent of Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany, and Peron in Argentina.  The toxic interplay between Trump and his followers, each building on the other, is reaching towards a dangerous crescendo.  

A new book by Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker, I Alone Can Fix It, describes General Mark Milley, the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Trump’s Presidential tenure, as fearing a Trump coup, what he called a “Reichstag moment.” General Milley reportedly strategized with other military leaders about how to prevent it. 

In sum: Trump represents a palpable threat to American democracy. He has turned a large segment of Americans against the electoral system — and against facts, too.  He and the Republican Party are actively working to rig the voting process throughout the states, thus insuring that the Trumpian minority regains and retains power.  He glorifies and reinforces the build up of militias, who pose an on-going threat of local and national insurrection. 

Although Trump and the Trumpians represent a demographic minority, revolutions are often instigated by well-organized minorities that surprise and overwhelm those in charge of the status quo.

And it seems to me that our tepid response, our hope that the regular wheels of democratic politics will eventually defeat Trump, add immensely to the danger.  We are acting like a collective Neville Chamberlin, who hoped that Hitler would simply go away.  We are protecting the free speech of traitors.  They are not the “loyal opposition” that democracy requires.  They threaten and break laws.  They preach treason (another term I have used in previous posts that has disconcerted some of you, dear readers).

It’s as though Trump were yelling “fire” in a crowded, closed room, and no one is willing to do what it takes to stop him.  The time for warnings should be over.  A not-so-invisible line has been crossed. 

We must put down the Insurrection, just as we put down the Shays Rebellion and defeated the Confederate army during the Civil War.  We must defeat and punish the traitors.  In fact, this is a war, not a principled disagreement or even a nasty conflict, and we must treat it that way.

For instance, we need to make the “Big Lie,” which undermines the legitimacy of our democratic process, illegal.  Illegal in print.  Illegal at rallies.  And criminally prosecute those who continue to perpetuate it.  It means closing down armed militias, or at least taking the weapons from those who endanger the peace by threatening, kidnapping, or bullying elected officials.  It means insisting that our public officials be vaccinated, so that they do not threaten the health of Americans they are sworn to protect.

Now is the time to put down the proto-fascist movement.  Its accelerating growth is terrifying.  What has seemed gradual can turn, from one night to the next, into a revolution.  If so, it will have been abetted by people like us, too lazy or frightened to act now.  We should know better.