To generalize grossly, the process of counting slights Ben describes seems more of the process that women seem use to than the way that men I know deal with conflict, which is either to ignore it, or say, fuck you.

"My friend Jeremy is an anthropology professor and a cabinetmaker. He tells me that in most societies, historically, there were few mechanisms besides trade and wife-swapping to repair rifts between men. So after conflict, men split up. This is because the highest premium is placed on a man’s sovereignty, and his ability to be aggressive. Men must be strong to be accepted by society, an expectation that runs counter to the need to get along."

Is this true? Has anyone ever heard of this before? citation-needed.jpg

"Women, on the other hand, have it better. I look on with envy at the tortured friendships that make up the fabric of my wife Lauren’s social life. She sometimes tangles with a close friend who is dating and sensitive about it, while my wife has a baby and goes to bed weirdly early.

My wife and her friend hurt each other’s feelings at dinners with other friends. Then they stew and obsess and vent to other friends. Next, they engage in a difficult phone call. A few days later they meet and drink wine and work on gently knitting their bond back together. And their friendship not only survives, it is also strengthened."

Wow, that sounds like a huge improvement over a) ignore it or b) fuck you. I can understand why Ben is totes jelly of it.

Ben Schrank is being a big baby. He needs to talk to another Ben about guy friendships - Ben Affleck. Look how long he and Matt Damon have been best buds! They even write movies together, and star in them sometimes! And they act in other movies together, "Dogma" ferinstance. Some guys just know how to do the friendship thing. Some guys don't. I dunno, I'm a girl, whadduiknow?

I do see his point. When women argue we discuss it. And discuss it. And discuss it. Yes, there are friendships that fall by the wayside but women are more inclined than men to talk it out. He's right. Men will confront a line cutter before they'll confront a friend who hurt their feelings. "Hey you're a dick," is not exactly the same as dealing with an issue.

But I disagree with him that only female friendships are highlighted in the media. Bromances are a big thing. We see Clooney and Pitt and even had speculation that they had a falling out. Like Flynne said, there's Damon and Afflec. I think there are other examples of it too that garner very positive media attention.

I happen to think "I Love You, Man" is a fine film. Also, this guy is a little feminized whiner. Boo hoo, I lost my bestest buddy, woe is me. Man up and go hang out at the bar on game day. The place will be full of friends you haven't met yet.

"to learn how to be friends -- not 1950s-style buddies, but real friends who were actually able to talk to one another?"

WTH is this guy on about? Seems like a lot of guys have a few really good friends, and also a buncha buds...

Also? after school's over a lot of the closer intense relationships you may have had then, run headlong into a wall called life. My friends from that era all moved away to different cities all across the US... got married, settled down, etc. In several cases we married jealous women who didn't want us to have friends. [ah Hindsight. showing a needy insecure woman as a controlling nastiness] Now that it's many long years later, we reconnect on occasion, but it's not like we live down the street, anymore. Or in the same dorm, or whatnot.

OTOH, you meet guys through work, or on the block, and these guys are 'buds'. You dun grow up with them, and know lotsa stuff about them. But they invite you over to watch the game... lend you that one powertool you don't have. And it's ... enough.

Those guys that have been scattered to the 4 winds? I could call them right now if I needed help - so I keep that card in a vest pocket for if I ever need it. We let each other know about jobs, divorces, and deaths in the family. But life has gone on, and we have gone on with it.

If you wanna person to talk to a bunch, find a female friend, who wants to talk a lot.

Importantly YOU have to be a friend, without reciprocation. Because it's what comes out of you that matters. If your friends drift away, there is only so much you can do about that... keep in touch and so forth. But it is important that you are a friend.

Ultimately, many of my friends are a loose confederation of loners. We were all on sports teams that were individual sports like cross-country, rather than football players on a close team... Many of us are now programmers or other IT.

The dialog goes like this:

'what's going on, man?'
"nothing much, divorce."
'dude'
"yeah."
'what d'you need?'
"not much, but maybe a couch..."
'yours whenever you need it. booze too.'
"k' I'll call you in a coupe of days."
'nah, call tomorrow.'
"what're you my mother?"
'no, bonehead, I'm your brother.'
"yeah. call you tomorrow."

The whole conversation. Different guys may be different, but the guy in the article seems kinda high maintenance to me.

"My friend Jeremy is an anthropology professor and a cabinetmaker. He tells me that in most societies, historically, there were few mechanisms besides trade and wife-swapping to repair rifts between men. So after conflict, men split up. This is because the highest premium is placed on a man’s sovereignty, and his ability to be aggressive. Men must be strong to be accepted by society, an expectation that runs counter to the need to get along."

Is this true? Has anyone ever heard of this before?"

Jerry, I think this is so ethnocentric that it's about useless. This culture puts a huge value on individual independence.

This in particular is just false:
"historically, there were few mechanisms besides trade and wife-swapping to repair rifts between men."

Historically the mechanism was the social hierarchy men fit into. If two equals had a falling out, their superior would knock their heads together. It was up to the superior to mediate. This isn't all in the past; the military damn sure works this way. No one can afford to have an organization or an operation hampered or even crippled by petty personal shit, and it's all petty personal shit.

Women can function exactly the same way if they are re-enculturated to act like professionals and adults. Neither men nor women show up that way at Basic Training, but there is less distance to go with the men.

this is not just a militatry thing eother. i noticed that this was the way things worked between civilians in Germany, and that isi the opposite of a military society.

"My friend Jeremy is an anthropology professor and a cabinetmaker. He tells me that in most societies, historically, there were few mechanisms besides trade and wife-swapping to repair rifts between men. So after conflict, men split up. This is because the highest premium is placed on a man’s sovereignty, and his ability to be aggressive. Men must be strong to be accepted by society, an expectation that runs counter to the need to get along."

Is this true? Has anyone ever heard of this before?"

Jerry, I think this is so ethnocentric that it's about useless. This culture puts a huge value on individual independence.

This in particular is just false:
"historically, there were few mechanisms besides trade and wife-swapping to repair rifts between men."

Historically the mechanism was the social hierarchy men fit into. If two equals had a falling out, their superior would knock their heads together. It was up to the superior to mediate. This isn't all in the past; the military damn sure works this way. No one can afford to have an organization or an operation hampered or even crippled by petty personal shit, and it's all petty personal shit.

Women can function exactly the same way if they are re-enculturated to act like professionals and adults. Neither men nor women show up that way at Basic Training, but there is less distance to go with the men.

this is not just a militatry thing eother. i noticed that this was the way things worked between civilians in Germany, and that isi the opposite of a military society.

"Hey you're a dick," is not exactly the same as dealing with an issue.

Really? You're being a dick. Stop being a dick. points out the problem and offers a solution. It is a starter. The recipient of the information can then respond, perhaps to defend their action, or to admit guilt, or be defiant.

SwissArmyD's description jibes with what I've experienced. There are people you know. There are people you trust. There are people you love.

And then there are the people who you will help you move bodies. And they will reciprocate, should the need arise.

"while guys can sometimes sock each other and then go off and have a beer."

Last year my buddy's wife was driving our bowling team home when a spontaneous fight erupted in the back seat and we all spilt out into a gas station parking lot fists a flying. We're talking median age of 40 here. We get together for beers about once a week. I never once thought we were in trouble, I figured it would take a bout a week to shake out.

Men seem to be much better at forming temporary alliances than women are. They also do a better job of compartmentalizing their activities and their friendships.

Women expect their friends to be loyal to the point of almost having a contract signed in blood.

Men, on the other hand can have a football watching buddy, a fishing buddy, and a workplace buddy, and these don't need to be the same people.

Men can usually agree to disagree and still be friends.
Most women take any disagreement as a sign of disloyalty.

A man usually lets his activities and interests drive his friendships, while most women, let their friendships drive their activities...

One thing men seem to do better than women is let go of toxic relationships. When men are done, they're done. Women will hurt each other for eternity.

He didn't break up with anyone. Their lives went in different directions, and they let their friendship lapse. Sure, one may long for the good old days, but life moves on. What are you supposed to do, put the relationship on artificial life support?

The guy's trying to turn his personal whininess into some sort of memorable metrosexual moment. He needs to grow a pair. If that doesn't work, maybe he can throw a skin-care party for the other metrosexuals, and use the proceeds to at least rent a pair.

There is a line from Home Improvement that has stuck with me. Wilson was talking to Tim about a visit from Tim's best friend that wasn't going as expected. Wilson finally asks:

Has he been your best friend for fifteen years; or is he your best friend from fifteen years ago?

I met up with a friend from high school, and his parents, for the first time in about ten years and twenty years after high school. I had been in the USAF, been overseas a little, lived in several states. He was still living in the same area, had never really gone anywhere, and was pretty much the same guy I knew in high school, just in an older body. They also had picked up a more racist edge I couldn't stand. I had an "enjoyable" night of drinking beer with them. And I haven't been back.

"He didn't break up with anyone. Their lives went in different directions, and they let their friendship lapse. Sure, one may long for the good old days, but life moves on. What are you supposed to do, put the relationship on artificial life support?"

That's a good point; sometimes you have to put a friendship on indefinite hold because of changing circumstances, but that doesn't mean that the friendship has ended. You're still there for each other when needed. I have a friend that I used to work with (I mentored his wife when she was a college grad new hire). We used to do a lot of things together, but he left the company; they started a family; and they moved just far enough away that getting together is inconvenient. So we don't see each other or communicate regularly anymore. But he's gotten caught up in a dispute with his NPD/BPD ex, and I volunteered to take an afternoon off from work to go testify on his behalf as a character witness. Because I know that he'd do the same for me.

We broke up with a long time couple. We had followed each other through college and then at least 3 cities. One night I said something inappropriate (and knew it). It really was the migraine meds that altered my inhibitions. Still, a true friend would told me I was an idiot and I would have agreed with him. Then we would laugh over a beer. Nope, one stupid line ruined the relationship. In retrospect he may have been looking for a way out and just took the first "feasible" chance.