Can a woman and a man be friends? Not easily! Why not? Because of love, you say. How often do people really fall in love with each other, though? Well, then it's about sex, you might reply. But I have noticed that, even among people who keep their desires under control, a friendship between a man and a woman is still rare and precarious. Have you ever noticed that men make friends much more easily, and readily, than women? Could it be that women don't care that much about friendship?
Women seem to dismiss the fact that two people can talk seriously, can share some of their most cherished thoughts even, without committing themselves to one another on a deep level. When a woman voices her thoughts she is "telling you how she feels". When a man tells you something, he is "giving you his opinion". To the woman it is important that this is how she feels. The man's conversation is more transactional, monetary even: he is just giving you something, his "two cents", that could be given to you by any other man that thinks the same way. When you reject a man's opinion he shrugs. When you reject a woman's feelings, you are rejecting her. Could this difference be the main obstacle to friendly conversation between the sexes?
Bruce Chauvain
A Manual for The Sexist pg. 33
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
This was abviously written by a man ...
I'm here to tell you that women and men can be friends (as a woman who grew up with 6 brothers, I have more male friends than women friends!)
In fact, I was best friends with my spouse for 15 years before we even entertained the idea of getting married.
-C
I mean obviously ... obviously :-)
-C
Thanks for the comment. I don't doubt that women and men can be friends. I just don't think it happens that often, and I blame women for that.
P.S. Cool Blog
Six Brothers! Oh Brother!
Why would you blame women? Or lump all women into a single category?
My experience of men is that they aren't all the same - same goes for women, I think.
I wonder if the reason lots of men and women have trouble being friends is because they are afraid. Afraid of being themselves around someone of the opposite sex, afraid of not falling into certain cultural stereotypes, afraid of what their friends will suspect or think - just afraid of alot of things. So sad, really - life's too short to be so afraid.
(Oh, brother, indeed! And many of my male friends are like brothers to me - like I need any more!)
-C
I am one of those afraid people. I am usually afraid that people won't realize how great I am! This is probably a rather feminine part of me, perhaps I should blame myself for not being able to make women friends.
Well, if you are a great person, and an honest one, maybe not all women will realize it, but the right ones will!
Bless you!
Good LORD. Damn right it's from a sexist journal. Have you ever had a conversation with me?
I make friends more easily with men. But, I also know many women who do not converse like the article claims we do. I know some who do, as well as some men who do (express an emotional opinion).
I can't think that a rational person would wholeheartedly agree with that statement. To do so would be to fall prey to the condition from which the author claims women suffer: believing something because one "feels" it, or wants to. What self import.
Ugh.
I have had a conversation with you and, trust me, you are not the type of woman I had in mind when I wrote this. But wouldn't you say you are kind of exceptional?
I don't deny the self import by the way. Not surprisingly, I still "feel" I am right about this.
Haven't you "felt" this same kind of frustration when talking with some people? And wouldn't it be right to characterize this particular intellectual vice as a distortion of the feminine virtue of nurturing; specifically: applying care to oneself or one's opinions to the detriment of the truth?
I think it is too hard to have a conversation about this unless we redefine what is feminine and masculine... or agree on a definition, and I don't see that one coming any time soon.
What a lawyer! You know as well as I do what a real man or woman is supposed to be like, despite neither of us or anyone we know at all approaching the ideal. This is not a good forum for discussing this, but come on!
Who sets the standard for what "real" men or "real" women are "supposed" to be like? Media?? Society??
Are they reliable sources? For anything??????
If media and society are trying to teach us anything right now, it is that the differences between men and women are unimportant or changeable.
Maybe the question is: do you agree with me that it is important to have a clear idea of what it means to be one sex and not the other?
It must mean something that we, as Christians, are taught to refer to God as a Father; and that the most perfect creature, the Theotokos, is a woman. Can we say we have understood our own religion if we don't at least have an inkling for why it wasn't the other way around?
I am trying (quite ineptly) to approach these questions in a very distant way by calling attention to the fact that, despite us being trained by the media and society to think otherwise, our actions are still deeply determined by the idea of what it means to be a real woman, or a real man.
I get what you're saying here and agree with it on the most basic of levels, the ones to which you refer - but not on a comprehensive level. (Perhaps we are picking up different messages from society and media).
But it very much depends upon which actions you consider "male" or "female".
Giving birth to the children is the woman's task/privelege in any given household. But changing diapers on a baby is a parental task, neither the specific duty of the mother or the father. Do you know what I'm saying?
My husband and I, as separate male and female parents, share in whatever ways works best the tasks that it takes to run a household. This often means that he grocery shops and I take the boys fishing, or he cooks the meal and I stain the deck. We have differing gifts and interests and they don't fit neatly into the typical traditional family roles. Is this some sort of an abomination? We don't think so.
My sister is an electrician and my husband is her secretary - is THIS an abomination? We don't think so.
Does this mean that we don't have a clear idea about what it means to be one sex or the other? We don't think so.
BTW, the whole issue of gender-inclusivity in church language is not something I ever had much time for - and it's one of the things I was happy to leave behind in my former tradition. It just scratches me where I don't itch, as I told my former pastor.
Curious though, to know where you are going with this ...
-C
...And curious to know what YOU think it means to be a "real" man or a "real" woman.
-C
Your marriage, far from being an abomination, is beautiful. And I would guess that its beauty is in no small part due to the fact that you two were such good friends before you were married.
The question here, the question we started with, is what gets in the way of friendship between the sexes? Before we try and count up the number of women and men who are friends and the number of men and men who are friends, lets agree on what we are talking about when we talk about friendship.
When I was little, I knew what it meant when I said that someone was my "best" friend. That I had a best friend did not make my other friends anything less than friends, but there was an aspect of trust, or a shared knowledge, or a transporting love that suffused that word "best" with all of its meaning. However you want to describe it, there was an aspect of depth to the friendship that was not as obvious or developed with my other friends. It is hard for me to envision a life without such depth as anything but a hell.
I'm getting wistful here: back to the main point. The point is: what matters in friendship is not, "how many?", but "how deep?" If we want to know how to make friends, we would do well to get more specific about what makes a friendship deep.
I would say that friendship is deep because it is a reconciliation of opposites. Maybe I am right about this, maybe not. Argue with me if you think I am wrong. But, here is what I mean: if you heard that two people were best friends, but they had never gotten angry at one another, would you believe that they could really be such good friends? Now, anger is a desire to vehemently reject something, and yet I, and maybe you, think it has a place in friendship. To really get deep, we have to somehow reconcile ourselves to what we vehemently reject in our friends.
What does this mean for our question? I have to stop typing now, because I have to go to the store. I will continue this later, or maybe you can come back with some thoughts. God Bless!
I'm back from the store. I got a good deal on batteries! Anyway, I left off suggesting that the usefulness of anger in a friendship indicates that a deep friendship needs to be a reconciliation of opposites.
Now, however our roles might shake out in the day-to-day of us moderns, can we at least agree that men and women are complementary opposites? If so, and if we also agree that friendships are deep in proportion to their ability to reconcile opposition, then shouldn't we lament, rather than celebrate, the effacing of the opposition between men and women? And this, precisely because it keeps us from dealing with one of our God-given differences?
But maybe you still doubt that the differences between men and women are more than skin deep. I guess I would just repeat what I said earlier: God seems to think it is important to remind us that he is a Father.
Jeez - this is really long - but here goes:
Your marriage, far from being an abomination, is beautiful. And I would guess that its beauty is in no small part due to the fact that you two were such good friends before you were married.
>>>As they used to say in my former tradition: This is most certainly true.
The question here, the question we started with, is what gets in the way of friendship between the sexes?
>>>Well, for us – nothing! For me and the friendships I have with other guys – nothing. He has friendships with other women, too. Sex gets in the way in alot of male/female relationships. But when you remove that piece, it's alot easier to be friends with someone of the opposite sex.
...However you want to describe it, there was an aspect of depth to the friendship that was not as obvious or developed with my other friends.
>>>I would agree with this. It’s a trust thing. But such trust is not built among most healthy humans in a single day (or with a single conversation!) Such trust is built over time through shared experience and deepening knowledge and honest appreciation of the other. I don’t think gender is an issue with this. A desire to be in relationship with another is a human thing which transcends gender differences, I think.
I would say that friendship is deep because it is a reconciliation of opposites. Maybe I am right about this, maybe not. Argue with me if you think I am wrong.
>>>Though I’m not prepared to say you are wrong about this, I’m not prepared to agree, either. Most of those who are my closest friends became my friends not because we were opposites, but because of things we have in common. I think that the closer a friendship is, the easier it is to overlook the differences for the sake of the relationship.
But, here is what I mean: if you heard that two people were best friends, but they had never gotten angry at one another, would you believe that they could really be such good friends?
>>>Why yes, I would. My 2 best friends are my husband, who I've known for 27 years (though we’ve only been married 13) and my best girlfriend from high school who I’ve known for 30 years. I’ve not had a fight of any substance with either of them in all this time. Have I gotten frustrated with one or the other on occasion? Maybe a little – but what can be worth fighting with someone I love about? Very little. But never in my relationship with either of them have I ever had a desire to vehemently reject them or anything about them. I love them and I trust them. They are who they are, which is why I love them.
...the usefulness of anger in a friendship indicates that a deep friendship needs to be a reconciliation of opposites.
>>>But what if there is no anger in a friendship?
Now, however our roles might shake out in the day-to-day of us moderns, can we at least agree that men and women are complementary opposites?
>>>I’m not so sure. I think we can agree that they are physically quite different (duh!) But complementary opposites? I’m not so sure. I don’t think men are from Mars and women are from Venus. Women and men have much in common, which makes them excellent companions for each other – I think that’s why God designed it that way.
If so, and if we also agree that friendships are deep in proportion to their ability to reconcile opposition, then shouldn't we lament, rather than celebrate, the effacing of the opposition between men and women? And this, precisely because it keeps us from dealing with one of our God-given differences?
>>>Not sure I’m picking up what you are laying down with these last couple of sentences. You lost me there.
But maybe you still doubt that the differences between men and women are more than skin deep.
>>>“Skin deep” a good way to describe it – cute. Media and society do not encourage men and women to form friendships with each other – they encourage men and women do form sexual relationships with one another. There is a REALLY big difference.
I guess I would just repeat what I said earlier: God seems to think it is important to remind us that he is a Father.
>>>In response, I’d just repeat what I said earlier about this, too: I agree. God is our Father – no argument here.
And I'm still curious to know what YOU think it means to be a "real" man or a "real" woman ...
Thanks for the long response. I am really impressed! I'll have to chew on it for a while to absorb what you have said.
The ideal woman is so passive that she ends up being active. The ideal man is so active that he ends up being passive.
For example: the Theotokos was so receptive to God that she gave birth to the Word. She did the most important thing that any creature has ever done simply by allowing God to do something to her. This is not to say that women should only have babies and should do whatever their husband says. Mary was an ideal, something to keep in mind, and as far as bringing her active-passivity into daily life, all we can do is pray about it.
The ideal man is Christ. Now, the following is not something we can probably come to an agreement on anytime soon, and frankly, I have not lived with this idea for very long. Also, this is a personal opinion and I have not checked it against the church. In fact, I would have no idea where to begin checking something against the church. That said, here goes:
At first glance Christ's death on the cross was primarily a passive death. He was betrayed by one of his own disciples. He did not die in battle against the Romans or the corrupt Jews. That said, we are told in the liturgy that "he was given up, or rather gave himself up for the life of the world". It's the "or rather" clause that I am here stressing. The passive seeming death on the cross was actually an active choice to give himself up. "Nobody takes my life from me, I lay it down". So, at heart, Christ's activity, the most important activity of all of human history, resulted in a radical passivity: the cross. Once again, this picture of the ideal man is not very practical, all we can do is pray for guidance in applying these things to our daily lives.
I have to think about this some more, but I think I can relate this in a useful way back to our discussion.
I don't blame you if you ditch this discussion. I have asked you to read a lot of unclear, weird stuff. I am really enjoying this, though!
I'm not sure what I think about this except to say that in your definition, I know no "ideal" men or women. And I know that this less than ideal woman (not even close by your definition) has many male friends who are also less than ideal.
Ergo, being the ideal man or woman in your definition isn't necessary for men and women to be friends - at least friends with me - the original question on this post.
Also, I think that a part of the barrier between M/F friends is preconceived notions. Going into any friendship expecting that your new friend is going to be a certain way or will act in a certain way or think a certain way is not the grounds for establishing a good friendship - which is based on acceptance and love, I think. That would be expecting the other to meet some sort of standard you have for who they should be - and not accepting them for who they really are, which of course, doesn't really lend itself to a good friendship.
Our job as Christians is to love one another - even if are not like Christ and the Theotokos. And to say that a woman who is not so passive she's active is not a "real" woman is just wrong and unloving, I think. To say to a man that he's not a "real" man because he's so active he's passive is also wrong and unloving. It just means they don't meet your criteria of ideal. Who of us is ideal in this way?
Just my thoughts - you are free to take 'em or leave 'em.
Post a Comment