Agree with all of this. There is also a need for an institutional response to this problem. I am a middle-aged Australian man who found myself with few friends for all of the above stated reasons. I joined a new organisation, The Men's Table, which is specifically-designed to help men rebuild a friendship circle of about a dozen men, quite fast. It is very effective, with men drawn from all walks of life and circumstances. This is growing very fast in Australia, just as the Men's Shed movement did before. One thing Aaron's essay doesn't mention is that women's larger friendship groups are partially due to institutional arrangements too. For instance, my wife's closest friends are members of a New Mother's Group that she was put into 18 years ago by the hospital she had our first child in. The hospital didn't bother to do anything for us new fathers! I believe that the solution to this issue, will not just be a change of heart by men, but will require institutional support too.
Very nice. An intentionally regular gathering time and place is quite valuable and can turn colleagues into good friends. That's certainly been the case for me and my small group when the men started meeting regularly in addition to the normal group. We're now all now close friends, and friends with each other's families from having just been acquaintances before then.
I think it's very worthwhile to call out and praise friends' wives who encourage their husbands to develop and nurture their friendships, especially because it is comparatively rare. There's also the aspect of actually being a good friend to their marriage and trying to help them out (and good friends will help you out in your calling, whether you're single or married)
I'd also add that whether one is a single guy or fellow married man, a big part of friendship is spotting the family's challenges and trying to be a help and support to them in those times. That might mean a much less exciting, shorter, and less frequent visit with your friend while their kids are young but keeping those connections open if they're willing is worthwhile for both of you.
Some friends (2 are married and I'm not) and I have started a series of projects where we'll work on each other's "intractables" - nagging, nasty house or other projects we're paralyzed on - together to get them done.
I've always had plenty of friends--making friends has come easily for me. But I've also set time aside for being with them throughout adulthood. This has never been a problem for my wife, who also has a large circle of friends. Early on in our marriage I let my wife know about my convictions regarding marriage and friendship--one of the axioms I've held to is the conviction that we can expect too much from marriage, looking for it to fill all our social needs. I think that both men and women need strong friendship networks outside of marriage, and when those are in place, and the friends are of good character, then marriage doesn't have to carry more freight than it should.
One thing I noticed early in my married life was my wife's jealousy of my friends. She as much as openly accused me of homosexuality. It was even more so with my second wife. She had three sons by her first husband, and while she used them in luring me, because she sensed that I very much longed to have kids, which I couldn't with my first wife. I very soon after marriage adopted her sons, and within three years we had a fourth, whom I suspected wasn't mine, because I was convinced that it was my fault that my first was baren. I soon became obvious that he was mine, genetically as well as by choice. He is now in his forties and looks very much like me. Our personalities and tastes are identical.
But my second wife became very jealous of my relationships a with all of my boys. And she might have been correct in her assessment that I was closer with them than I ever was with her. She is not a likeable person, always flirting with other men while jealously guarding me against contact with other women, including my two sisters, and against other women, married or not. She also guarded me against friendship with any other men, including my broth and my uncles (five) and cousins (thirty-some first cousins.) I also has six aunts and thirty-some female first cousins. There were sixty-eight first cousins on my father's side; he had five brothers and six sisters, one uncle who was only six weeks older than I, and a sister only six years older.
My mothers family was much smaller, one sister and two brothers, the eldest having died in WW II in Europe. Her sister had six daughters and two sons. The older brothers had one, born after his dad died in Europe, the other had four sons and two daughters. My wife kept me away from my family as much as she could, and separated my from all of my male friends. I never had close female friends. Perhaps it was cowardice on my part that I let her drive my friends and family way. She could never understand why I didn't do the same with her family and friends. I guess that her warped personality was to blame. Somehow I put up with it for almost fifty years. Within a few months after I retired, she announced that she wanted me to leave, so I left. I left town, family, and whatever friends I had, mostly friends of my sons who I had accumulated through my grandsons sporting events, and moved to another state to be close to my sisters and brother.
Within a year, I had a severe stroke, which took away my mobility. I could no longer drive, and was confined to a wheelchair. My two brothers-in-law kept me in the loop somewhat. One of them died during the COVID debacle, during which getting out was problematic for over a year. Both of my sisters have been hampered by arthritis. I now get out of my apartment mostly to the grocery store and to doctor appointments. My brother, while only three hours away, has a large family who live close to him, and keep him busy with grand and great grand children. He also is busy with his two mission projects, one in Kentucky and the other in Haiti. He is also active in the Gideons Bible distribution ministry. I get to see him at least once a month. My youngest son lives nearby, but his work in retail management and his two children keep him busy, as well. My other sons live hundreds of miles away. My second oldest, unfortunately died at fifty-years-old.
I am well aware of the loneliness of men in America, and of the cultural changes that have made male friendships difficult to form and maintain. Feminism has shifted the loci away from men, both professionally and socially. Men's' groups are, for the most part, dead. Even in Church settings, men have few, in any, opportunities to associate with each other without the intrusion and disruption of women. Yes, women are disruptive of men's interaction with each other. Only some of which is because of sexual attraction. Most of which is that among humans, unlike among all other living organisms, women are the more attractive in general, which breeds preening and competitiveness. They not only insist that they be the sole attraction of every man, but their competitiveness with each other is much more vicious than is men's with each other. Men, in general, are more good heartedly in their competitiveness with each other--with the exception of competing for the attention of women, which is ever present in mixed company. And, women are almost always jealous of men's attention to other men, which invariably warps into homophobia, for women as well as men.
The common theme throughout Aaron's post, Sam's in the Times, and my comment is the intrusiveness and disruptiveness of sex into relationships. Sex is primarily a function of breeding children. When it takes on other social functions it invariably becomes intrusive and disruptive. It is unquestionably pleasurable in itself, apart from its primary function, though never as pleasurable as it appears that it would. Even within marriage, one cannot distinguish between the extasy occurring in the act that results in a pregnancy and those that do not. But those times when pregnancy is not desired, as between unmarried partners, and especially between those who are married to different partners, invariably result in a letdown, if not outright disappointment, especially long-term. One can hardly return to one's spouse with the same excitement as before, even when that original excitement has been in long decline.
The hope for a spark of new life takes a long time to extinguish. Even in the presence of birth control, or in the known absence of the possibility, as in the case of old age and in homosexual sex it is hardly completely extinguished. When it is absent or unlikely, it or something like it seems necessary to pursue. Erotic play-acting, cross-dressing, oral or anal stimulation, odd positions, extended fore or after play, multiple partners and any number of erotic or autoerotic activities and imaginings seek to force some kind of simulation of that life-spark, even though it could not be felt when it was there, at least within possibility. But, ultimately, all is vanity. In however fleeting moment of sanity, we cry out, Is that all there is?
Regardless of whether one admits of the possibility, a sexless relationship is far deeper in reward or even contentment than a sexual one, even with a loving partner. For breeding more frequently that once every two or three years is not very healthy for a mother, and probably not for a baby. A healthily developing infant requires more exclusive attention early on than a woman can comfortably give with more than one infant. Those who have twins or more at once certainly need more care themselves and for longer recovery than those who have only one infant. My mother had the four of us in the course of four years and nine months. From June to September we are one year apart in ages. Her doctors told her that if she didn't stop, another would have likely killed her. My father was a good father and husband. But they realized that the doctors were right. He had a vasectomy. And, in time, my mother did recover. Five or more tears having multiple of us in diapers took a toll on both of them, and, I am sure, one the four of us, which we overcame(?) with time. We also benefited growing up very close to each other.
The old saying, birds of a feather, applies to humans also. Men are more comfortable in each others' presents than with women or in mixed company. So do women--in each others' company. Mostly, I think, because of the absence of the intrusiveness and disruptiveness of sexual attraction, but also because of different levels of competition with each other. We are not necessarily from different planets, but with differing social destinations. We can each have multiple deep friendships with those of the same sex, but friendships with the opposite sex are problematic in multiples. It is what it is. Not impossible, but problematic. Homosexual relationships are apparently also problematic. Very few last a lifetime. And having multiple sexual partners also seem problematical.
One minor aspect (more of a half-baked thought), is how there is a liberal bent in certain parts of our culture to code any close male bonding as gay. Maybe a specific writer/author of a piece didn’t intend for it to be “gay-coded” but we as the participant are allowed to interpret the art (book, movie, show) and way we want. Certain corners of the internet have made this phenomenon of “shipping” two characters together a cottage industry.
What this lends itself too are sometimes TERRIBLE takes (and I’m not always talking romantic), but, because we let everyone interpret differently, it means that stories that men should relate to get co-opted to other ends.
I think it may be challenging for men to see themselves having close friendships with other men if they don’t have stories about what that looks like.
There was a First Things article a long time ago that argued that the various taboos that we have when it comes to sex provide the space for the relationships we need. Obviously the strong taboo against incest is necessary for healthy families. The taboo against paedophobia creates space for children to learn from adults who are not related to them and those who are. Finally, the taboo against homosexuality is what creates the space for friendships among men. Note well how all three of these taboos have been under vigorous assault. In the blue collar world, to pick up on someone's comment here, the taboo against homosexuality remains strong and as a result so do male friendships. I think Aaron hinted at this when he said that male affection is gay coded, but didn't use to be when the strong taboo was in place. In addition, it is not only wife and kids that undermines male friendships, it is more likely wife with a career. In such households, which are the norm now among younger married couples, all the housework is put under the category "do it when you have time." And it is all hands on deck. If a guy never sees his wife because she is working all the time, he is going to pick her over the guys after a long week (and probably should.)
Your comment is profound and a few proverbial lightbulbs went off for me … and the proverb that references “ancient landmarks” was brought to mind. Cultural taboos are solutions to problems that our ancestors have dealt with. Thank you for sharing!
We have a guy in my local F3 chapter (great organization for male friendship, by the way) who has a funny story about this. He had been recently divorced and kept asking "who are the single guys?" so he could have people to hang out with during the week, etc. It exhibited both these issues clearly. He recognized that the married men were unlikely to hang out with him during the week. It was also interpreted as a gay-coded request, when the other guys were just getting to know him. It's a funny story now, but illustrates your point very well.
I agree with everything in the article. The increased expectations on us as husbands and fathers, along with the sharp decrease in spaces where "guys can be guys", greatly inhibits our ability to simply get out of the house and hang out with friends. None of this is in and of itself bad, but when added together makes deeper friendships among men more difficult.
In my experience, the article is missing something, however, which is that I've found most men are highly allergic to anything which might not be predictable and hence "unsafe." In my world, and 70 years of life, "men's groups" have always had to be something scheduled and formal -- that said, the comment about hanging out with "blue collar" men very much resonates with me, but more in my experiences outside the US. But where do I find or make the time?
But back to the idea of scheduled, planned events. These do even less, in my experience to help develop deeper friendships. There is the possibility of it happening accidentally, but I have found them generally no different than coffee hour after church, professional cocktail parties, etc., where everyone is in a way performing and one never gets beyond the superficial -- that "safety" thing. And yet, that unplanned aspect is precisely what makes genuine male friendships so exhilerating -- my friendships with women are normally missing a certain "rough and tumble" of ideas. Real friends don't have to agree about things, but we DO like each other as persons and like being together and sharing our thoughts about the world. THAT is what I find almost entirely lacking in American male relationships, and why my, yes, 4 or 5 real friends are scattered around the world, and mostly in Europe or SE Asia.
I'm 28 and will be married in about three months. When I was young, I had difficulty forming romantic relationships with women... but I've always been excellent at forming male friendships. Maybe I was so good at interacting with men because I spent so little time interacting with women!
Sports, movies, music, and drinking are the easiest ways to bond with a guy. Politics and religion can work too, but there's always the risk of controversy. Carving out time is really the hardest part.
There's still more I can do to build friendships. I don't hang out with my F3 men outside of our workouts as much as I'd like to. But they also can't be accused of being my wife's friends' husbands. F3 is just for the boys.
I was once part a of a church men’s group. They would do large weekend outings once a year, and follow up through the year with monthly meetings. The meet ups were usually a hike at a park. But the meeting time was 4:45 AM. It was set up this way so that there were no other schedule conflicts with work or family. It’s a good example of how men seeking friendship can be something that is outside the “important” schedule items.
Let me posit another reason - the lack of military service amongst American men. From the statistics I have seen approximately 4% of the US population has served - and that includes women.
As a retired Army officer who began my service over 50 years ago, I can tell you I have friends for life and have endured those over 50 years. Men that I still talk with and see. The comment about doing something you hate every day struck a chord - but add to it doing something you hate - or something that is hard or dangerous with other men builds those friendships in my mind. The shared experiences of hardship and suffering bind one man to another.
We don't talk with the same flowery affection, but more with sarcasm, off-color jokes of those shared experiences.
Sports teams, I would submit, provide a similar type of strong male friendships.
I co-host and produce a podcast. There are two blue collar guys, with one being the main host, and two white collar guys, of which I am one, and usually a guest or two. We discuss the problem of male friendship a ton on the show and one of the interesting dynamics I've noticed is the blue collar guys, given they work in male dominated industries, not only have very large friend groups, they also have absolutely zero problem telling other men they love them and are there for them. By being part of it, it's helped grow my friend group and support network in ways that I never have been able to in the white collar world. Producing a podcast isn't an option for everyone, but for white collar guys, it might be worth the time and effort to start hitting up a bar, pool hall, or other location where blue collar men congregate. Our hopes and fears and stresses and successes really aren't that different from one another, we just dress a little differently for our respective jobs.
Agree with all of this. There is also a need for an institutional response to this problem. I am a middle-aged Australian man who found myself with few friends for all of the above stated reasons. I joined a new organisation, The Men's Table, which is specifically-designed to help men rebuild a friendship circle of about a dozen men, quite fast. It is very effective, with men drawn from all walks of life and circumstances. This is growing very fast in Australia, just as the Men's Shed movement did before. One thing Aaron's essay doesn't mention is that women's larger friendship groups are partially due to institutional arrangements too. For instance, my wife's closest friends are members of a New Mother's Group that she was put into 18 years ago by the hospital she had our first child in. The hospital didn't bother to do anything for us new fathers! I believe that the solution to this issue, will not just be a change of heart by men, but will require institutional support too.
https://themenstable.org/
Very nice. An intentionally regular gathering time and place is quite valuable and can turn colleagues into good friends. That's certainly been the case for me and my small group when the men started meeting regularly in addition to the normal group. We're now all now close friends, and friends with each other's families from having just been acquaintances before then.
I think it's very worthwhile to call out and praise friends' wives who encourage their husbands to develop and nurture their friendships, especially because it is comparatively rare. There's also the aspect of actually being a good friend to their marriage and trying to help them out (and good friends will help you out in your calling, whether you're single or married)
I'd also add that whether one is a single guy or fellow married man, a big part of friendship is spotting the family's challenges and trying to be a help and support to them in those times. That might mean a much less exciting, shorter, and less frequent visit with your friend while their kids are young but keeping those connections open if they're willing is worthwhile for both of you.
Some friends (2 are married and I'm not) and I have started a series of projects where we'll work on each other's "intractables" - nagging, nasty house or other projects we're paralyzed on - together to get them done.
That's an intriguing idea, to help each other with projects you're stuck on. Of course, it works better if your friends are local.
I've always had plenty of friends--making friends has come easily for me. But I've also set time aside for being with them throughout adulthood. This has never been a problem for my wife, who also has a large circle of friends. Early on in our marriage I let my wife know about my convictions regarding marriage and friendship--one of the axioms I've held to is the conviction that we can expect too much from marriage, looking for it to fill all our social needs. I think that both men and women need strong friendship networks outside of marriage, and when those are in place, and the friends are of good character, then marriage doesn't have to carry more freight than it should.
100% agree with this
One thing I noticed early in my married life was my wife's jealousy of my friends. She as much as openly accused me of homosexuality. It was even more so with my second wife. She had three sons by her first husband, and while she used them in luring me, because she sensed that I very much longed to have kids, which I couldn't with my first wife. I very soon after marriage adopted her sons, and within three years we had a fourth, whom I suspected wasn't mine, because I was convinced that it was my fault that my first was baren. I soon became obvious that he was mine, genetically as well as by choice. He is now in his forties and looks very much like me. Our personalities and tastes are identical.
But my second wife became very jealous of my relationships a with all of my boys. And she might have been correct in her assessment that I was closer with them than I ever was with her. She is not a likeable person, always flirting with other men while jealously guarding me against contact with other women, including my two sisters, and against other women, married or not. She also guarded me against friendship with any other men, including my broth and my uncles (five) and cousins (thirty-some first cousins.) I also has six aunts and thirty-some female first cousins. There were sixty-eight first cousins on my father's side; he had five brothers and six sisters, one uncle who was only six weeks older than I, and a sister only six years older.
My mothers family was much smaller, one sister and two brothers, the eldest having died in WW II in Europe. Her sister had six daughters and two sons. The older brothers had one, born after his dad died in Europe, the other had four sons and two daughters. My wife kept me away from my family as much as she could, and separated my from all of my male friends. I never had close female friends. Perhaps it was cowardice on my part that I let her drive my friends and family way. She could never understand why I didn't do the same with her family and friends. I guess that her warped personality was to blame. Somehow I put up with it for almost fifty years. Within a few months after I retired, she announced that she wanted me to leave, so I left. I left town, family, and whatever friends I had, mostly friends of my sons who I had accumulated through my grandsons sporting events, and moved to another state to be close to my sisters and brother.
Within a year, I had a severe stroke, which took away my mobility. I could no longer drive, and was confined to a wheelchair. My two brothers-in-law kept me in the loop somewhat. One of them died during the COVID debacle, during which getting out was problematic for over a year. Both of my sisters have been hampered by arthritis. I now get out of my apartment mostly to the grocery store and to doctor appointments. My brother, while only three hours away, has a large family who live close to him, and keep him busy with grand and great grand children. He also is busy with his two mission projects, one in Kentucky and the other in Haiti. He is also active in the Gideons Bible distribution ministry. I get to see him at least once a month. My youngest son lives nearby, but his work in retail management and his two children keep him busy, as well. My other sons live hundreds of miles away. My second oldest, unfortunately died at fifty-years-old.
I am well aware of the loneliness of men in America, and of the cultural changes that have made male friendships difficult to form and maintain. Feminism has shifted the loci away from men, both professionally and socially. Men's' groups are, for the most part, dead. Even in Church settings, men have few, in any, opportunities to associate with each other without the intrusion and disruption of women. Yes, women are disruptive of men's interaction with each other. Only some of which is because of sexual attraction. Most of which is that among humans, unlike among all other living organisms, women are the more attractive in general, which breeds preening and competitiveness. They not only insist that they be the sole attraction of every man, but their competitiveness with each other is much more vicious than is men's with each other. Men, in general, are more good heartedly in their competitiveness with each other--with the exception of competing for the attention of women, which is ever present in mixed company. And, women are almost always jealous of men's attention to other men, which invariably warps into homophobia, for women as well as men.
The common theme throughout Aaron's post, Sam's in the Times, and my comment is the intrusiveness and disruptiveness of sex into relationships. Sex is primarily a function of breeding children. When it takes on other social functions it invariably becomes intrusive and disruptive. It is unquestionably pleasurable in itself, apart from its primary function, though never as pleasurable as it appears that it would. Even within marriage, one cannot distinguish between the extasy occurring in the act that results in a pregnancy and those that do not. But those times when pregnancy is not desired, as between unmarried partners, and especially between those who are married to different partners, invariably result in a letdown, if not outright disappointment, especially long-term. One can hardly return to one's spouse with the same excitement as before, even when that original excitement has been in long decline.
The hope for a spark of new life takes a long time to extinguish. Even in the presence of birth control, or in the known absence of the possibility, as in the case of old age and in homosexual sex it is hardly completely extinguished. When it is absent or unlikely, it or something like it seems necessary to pursue. Erotic play-acting, cross-dressing, oral or anal stimulation, odd positions, extended fore or after play, multiple partners and any number of erotic or autoerotic activities and imaginings seek to force some kind of simulation of that life-spark, even though it could not be felt when it was there, at least within possibility. But, ultimately, all is vanity. In however fleeting moment of sanity, we cry out, Is that all there is?
Regardless of whether one admits of the possibility, a sexless relationship is far deeper in reward or even contentment than a sexual one, even with a loving partner. For breeding more frequently that once every two or three years is not very healthy for a mother, and probably not for a baby. A healthily developing infant requires more exclusive attention early on than a woman can comfortably give with more than one infant. Those who have twins or more at once certainly need more care themselves and for longer recovery than those who have only one infant. My mother had the four of us in the course of four years and nine months. From June to September we are one year apart in ages. Her doctors told her that if she didn't stop, another would have likely killed her. My father was a good father and husband. But they realized that the doctors were right. He had a vasectomy. And, in time, my mother did recover. Five or more tears having multiple of us in diapers took a toll on both of them, and, I am sure, one the four of us, which we overcame(?) with time. We also benefited growing up very close to each other.
The old saying, birds of a feather, applies to humans also. Men are more comfortable in each others' presents than with women or in mixed company. So do women--in each others' company. Mostly, I think, because of the absence of the intrusiveness and disruptiveness of sexual attraction, but also because of different levels of competition with each other. We are not necessarily from different planets, but with differing social destinations. We can each have multiple deep friendships with those of the same sex, but friendships with the opposite sex are problematic in multiples. It is what it is. Not impossible, but problematic. Homosexual relationships are apparently also problematic. Very few last a lifetime. And having multiple sexual partners also seem problematical.
One minor aspect (more of a half-baked thought), is how there is a liberal bent in certain parts of our culture to code any close male bonding as gay. Maybe a specific writer/author of a piece didn’t intend for it to be “gay-coded” but we as the participant are allowed to interpret the art (book, movie, show) and way we want. Certain corners of the internet have made this phenomenon of “shipping” two characters together a cottage industry.
What this lends itself too are sometimes TERRIBLE takes (and I’m not always talking romantic), but, because we let everyone interpret differently, it means that stories that men should relate to get co-opted to other ends.
I think it may be challenging for men to see themselves having close friendships with other men if they don’t have stories about what that looks like.
There was a First Things article a long time ago that argued that the various taboos that we have when it comes to sex provide the space for the relationships we need. Obviously the strong taboo against incest is necessary for healthy families. The taboo against paedophobia creates space for children to learn from adults who are not related to them and those who are. Finally, the taboo against homosexuality is what creates the space for friendships among men. Note well how all three of these taboos have been under vigorous assault. In the blue collar world, to pick up on someone's comment here, the taboo against homosexuality remains strong and as a result so do male friendships. I think Aaron hinted at this when he said that male affection is gay coded, but didn't use to be when the strong taboo was in place. In addition, it is not only wife and kids that undermines male friendships, it is more likely wife with a career. In such households, which are the norm now among younger married couples, all the housework is put under the category "do it when you have time." And it is all hands on deck. If a guy never sees his wife because she is working all the time, he is going to pick her over the guys after a long week (and probably should.)
Your comment is profound and a few proverbial lightbulbs went off for me … and the proverb that references “ancient landmarks” was brought to mind. Cultural taboos are solutions to problems that our ancestors have dealt with. Thank you for sharing!
We have a guy in my local F3 chapter (great organization for male friendship, by the way) who has a funny story about this. He had been recently divorced and kept asking "who are the single guys?" so he could have people to hang out with during the week, etc. It exhibited both these issues clearly. He recognized that the married men were unlikely to hang out with him during the week. It was also interpreted as a gay-coded request, when the other guys were just getting to know him. It's a funny story now, but illustrates your point very well.
This is a great argument. I’d thought about this angle on homosexuality but hadn’t extended it beyond that to other sexual taboos.
I agree with everything in the article. The increased expectations on us as husbands and fathers, along with the sharp decrease in spaces where "guys can be guys", greatly inhibits our ability to simply get out of the house and hang out with friends. None of this is in and of itself bad, but when added together makes deeper friendships among men more difficult.
In my experience, the article is missing something, however, which is that I've found most men are highly allergic to anything which might not be predictable and hence "unsafe." In my world, and 70 years of life, "men's groups" have always had to be something scheduled and formal -- that said, the comment about hanging out with "blue collar" men very much resonates with me, but more in my experiences outside the US. But where do I find or make the time?
But back to the idea of scheduled, planned events. These do even less, in my experience to help develop deeper friendships. There is the possibility of it happening accidentally, but I have found them generally no different than coffee hour after church, professional cocktail parties, etc., where everyone is in a way performing and one never gets beyond the superficial -- that "safety" thing. And yet, that unplanned aspect is precisely what makes genuine male friendships so exhilerating -- my friendships with women are normally missing a certain "rough and tumble" of ideas. Real friends don't have to agree about things, but we DO like each other as persons and like being together and sharing our thoughts about the world. THAT is what I find almost entirely lacking in American male relationships, and why my, yes, 4 or 5 real friends are scattered around the world, and mostly in Europe or SE Asia.
I'm 28 and will be married in about three months. When I was young, I had difficulty forming romantic relationships with women... but I've always been excellent at forming male friendships. Maybe I was so good at interacting with men because I spent so little time interacting with women!
Sports, movies, music, and drinking are the easiest ways to bond with a guy. Politics and religion can work too, but there's always the risk of controversy. Carving out time is really the hardest part.
I'll keep on plugging F3 here. A way to take the self-improvement ethos but channel it in a way that builds friendships with other men.
https://f3nation.com/
There's still more I can do to build friendships. I don't hang out with my F3 men outside of our workouts as much as I'd like to. But they also can't be accused of being my wife's friends' husbands. F3 is just for the boys.
Yes - I had the F3 president on my podcast a few years ago.
I was once part a of a church men’s group. They would do large weekend outings once a year, and follow up through the year with monthly meetings. The meet ups were usually a hike at a park. But the meeting time was 4:45 AM. It was set up this way so that there were no other schedule conflicts with work or family. It’s a good example of how men seeking friendship can be something that is outside the “important” schedule items.
Let me posit another reason - the lack of military service amongst American men. From the statistics I have seen approximately 4% of the US population has served - and that includes women.
As a retired Army officer who began my service over 50 years ago, I can tell you I have friends for life and have endured those over 50 years. Men that I still talk with and see. The comment about doing something you hate every day struck a chord - but add to it doing something you hate - or something that is hard or dangerous with other men builds those friendships in my mind. The shared experiences of hardship and suffering bind one man to another.
We don't talk with the same flowery affection, but more with sarcasm, off-color jokes of those shared experiences.
Sports teams, I would submit, provide a similar type of strong male friendships.
I co-host and produce a podcast. There are two blue collar guys, with one being the main host, and two white collar guys, of which I am one, and usually a guest or two. We discuss the problem of male friendship a ton on the show and one of the interesting dynamics I've noticed is the blue collar guys, given they work in male dominated industries, not only have very large friend groups, they also have absolutely zero problem telling other men they love them and are there for them. By being part of it, it's helped grow my friend group and support network in ways that I never have been able to in the white collar world. Producing a podcast isn't an option for everyone, but for white collar guys, it might be worth the time and effort to start hitting up a bar, pool hall, or other location where blue collar men congregate. Our hopes and fears and stresses and successes really aren't that different from one another, we just dress a little differently for our respective jobs.
Interesting! Be sure to post a link to your podcast!
You can find them all here! Our guests run all over the place and episodes are long, but our audience prefers it that way.
https://www.buzzsprout.com/1942562