Fare Thee Well Friend

A few years ago, there was a certain video released by Prager University, whose intent was to extol the virtues of marriage and in this video it was mentioned that the married ma n spends less time with friends and more time working. This was being offered as a major selling point of marriage. It seemed as ridiculous then as it does now, at least to me. I recall not being alone in this and I remember thinking no man in his right mind would find that argument to be convincing reason to get married. The idea that spending less time with your friends was somehow a good thing specifically seemed ridiculous. Few years later I’ve come to realize both by way of observation and repeated reflection that there was something greater and indeed more sinister at work here. I say “sinister”, not in some dark conspiratorial sense, but rather that there’s something at work, ruinous to what historically had been one of the strongest human bond in existence — male friendship.

Romantic dystopia

It doesn’t take a genius to make the observation that the current world is nothing less than obsessed with romantic relationships. Both men and women, but especially men. Both the “haves” in this matters, and the “have-nots”, spend endless amounts of time attempting to further extend their conquests and some even attempt to market out their strategies to earn a quick buck. That which they perceived to be the ultimate good, namely romantic female company, eludes them. The most cursory look online reveal this rather readily. Think about all the time spent on the sermons, lectures, the riots, the rage about relationships, about men, about women, about dating, about marriage. Some people might argue that this is only natural as humans, above all men, esteemed such matters as being most important, but I would argue that this is only partly true at best. Some might argue that the reason for this is the admittedly horrid state of disrepair marriages and relationships are in, but again, I only believe this to be partly true.

Our friendships between men, faring any better.

The discussion of friendships, and what they mean to men, is a topic rarely broached and only hardly acknowledged at all to be worthy discussion to begin with. Why is that? Now it could be that fraternity and friendship are faring so well that no one feels the need to talk about it. It could be that things are just peachy keen and all’s well in so called “brotherhood”. And yet, looking out at the landscape of contemporary western world and even places far flung as Japan, tells a somewhat different tale. Social dysfunction is rampant as is substance abuse, depression, despair and all the attendant features of such a social dystopia. If friendships and social bonds between men were going well, things would not be looking quite as grim as they currently do. If it all sat well with men, we would not see the large number of men, above all young men, looking to make any sort of social connection possible online, because if they had such connections in real life and they were genuine, it would be very unlikely that they would be there in the first place. To be sure, there are other factors: lack of employment, and the meeting market, but I think there are other reasons why we hear so little in this matter. Reasons far more pertinent than most people care to think.

Turmoils of present times

For decades now, we’ve seen a gradual reduction and attention paid to and care given to male interests. I’m using the “interests” word here broadly. By this I mean things that actually intellectually interests men, men’s natural behavioral proclivities and more recently — they very existence, assuming they do not meet certain predefined criteria. Criteria are predefined set forth by women, whether it is school and education (female teachers), the media market (female consumers), and even the simple perception of men (in general, as harmful, potential violent rapist). This all has become increasingly more difficult for men, partly due to the natural forces of technology and partly by design. One of the most unfortunate consequences of this has been the ever greater difficulty in forming close male bonds. In fact, these days there is an active hostility to the idea.

The general thrusts of things in recent years has been that any close relationship a man has or can have will be with a woman or seen through a female filter. Have you ever noticed for example that virtually every young man, when either paying a compliment to, or simply expressing enjoying spending time with another man, he is required, as if by some cosmic law, to loudly proclaim “no homo”. Perhaps even worse is the recent trend to declare any close male relationship to be so called “bromance”. Trying to find exact origins of these trends is difficult, especially in the modern context.

Linguistic explanation

This is not an etymological investigation, where we can often pinpoint an origin of a word or even phrases but what we can do is offer an analysis of when and where it is used. Before I proceed, let me make it clear that I have no problems or issues with gay man or with homosexuality for that matter, lest I be accused of it, but the attempt to reduce every close male friendship to a so-called “bromance”, and the fear most young men expressed when they half jokingly, half seriously say “no homo” tells much of the story. It is doing two separate things. On the one hand it’s telling us that the only close relationship a man can have with another man is of romantic nature, which ties it back in unsurprisingly to male-female relationships. On the other hand it is implying that if two males who are not related by blood express any degree of closeness, it must be homoerotic in nature, since after the male-female relationship the only possible human relationship would have to be homosexual one. Because it is tacitly implied between the naturally sexual heterosexual male-female dynamic, the only alternative could be a homoerotic one.

Sources of erosion

There is a twofold hostility at work here. One more obvious, the other less so. As pertains the more obvious hostility, this is manifested in the denigration of male friendship and male bonding. This blatant disapproval, it is effectively stating: “you cannot have that”, and to the extent that you can have it, it must be trumped by the male-female relationship, seen both in the term “bromance” and also in the heavy implication that only something born of the romantic could possibly be of any real value. Married men spend less time with their friends and it is nearly routine that a combination of new responsibilities as well as new active measures to make the married man entirely dependent on his wife as the only meaningful social connection ,contributes to this. In short, women perceive strong male friendship as a potential threat to social and emotional control and therefore seek to undermine it. It is not enough that there is sexual jealousy when other females might present themselves as potential reproductive threats. The male threat is that much greater, because it is much more likely to be meaningful and therefore must be undermined. It is an active attempt to cut a man off from the things he values most: his hobbies, his interests and spending time with his brothers, sometimes spiritual, sometimes otherwise. To her mind, she must be the be-all center of his universe, lest she be devalued. This mentality starts with terminology such as “bromance”, meant to trivialize the value and worth of male friendship and to ascribe to it something that could only manifest between a man and a woman, because value itself that is purported here, can only be found in male-female relationship.

The biggest secret of men

Someone with pink glasses could say, that it’s not a manifest of bad willingness but a simple misunderstanding. Ever wondered why males talk so avidly and at length about cars, movies, beer, history, politics, women? After a few minutes of “deep, sincere talk”, men switch to chit-chat about stuff, things, current affairs. For decades women have given men stick about this very topicality, assuming men aren’t in touch with their feelings, or are repressing issues they find difficult, or are superficial. Implying, men have emotional needs only a women can fulfill. But the themes men talk about can function as mood-signals — the way a man talks about, say, Top Gear, will reveal his feelings, as well as metaphors. An imagined perfect motorcycle ride might be a wished-for epiphany of the soul. A divulged memory of Manchester United’s glory days might be a longing for childhood. Trivia is, sometimes what we talk about when we talk about love. Women can’t quite get that, but so seem men, when they only brush the surface, not realizing what happens in their unconsciousness when having a chit-chat with a friend.

The other less hostile element is a subtle diggit homosexual man. For it is not entirely clear that women actually like gay man very much, and the reason for this is simple. The net of female influence is only as wide as the sexual and emotional allure she has to offer. Where there is none, as is in the case with gay men, there’s little to do and thus little to control. This is why you routinely see women trying to rope gay men into social circles as a sort of peer group. Not truly belonging, but under supervision observation and at least theoretically subject to the rules of female friendship, which largely circle around conformity, comfort and not offending anyone. At the same time, the overt hostility that can be encountered in male circles towards gay men, tends to drive them into those female circles. Therefore to suggest that the only thing that can exist between two straight men is a bromance, not as allegedly powerful as a male/female romantic relationship and the implication that if such relationship exists, it can only exist in the context of a small, somewhat maligned population that is seen to be of little value to women.

Low-status males

I should remind you the beta orbiter is never gay, but the modern obsession with relationships in marriage finds its most convenient victims in the so called “forever alone” men who’ve been made to believe that the only human relationships of any value are those with women. To the extent that such men do have friends, some of them believe that the purpose of these friends is to find them romantic partners and that if your friends are not actively helping you to find a girlfriend or wife, they are deficient or bad friends and should be traded at one’s convenience for “friends” who will do this. The sexual market is indeed tough these days, but the implication bound up within that there is nothing else to offer in terms of human connection other than sexual market. Something which reveals itself to be a tacitly agreed upon consensus, if you spend some time looking at the world.

Everything became disposable

There is yet another element at play. Modern American culture has dominated the globe and its outpourings of shape trends the world over. One trend, the obsessive consumer culture, has also come to dominate the human interactions, globally. We certainly see it in the sexual market with apps and swipes souped-up online dating profiles and the general tendency to commodify everything, starting with products and ending with human beings. The very idea that one can simply trade in some friends with some others on a whim smacks of this commodification effect. It’s probably an additional contributing factor to the general disregard men have towards their own friends.

When one pair of shoes gets old, you buy a new one.

It’s just that humans are the shoes now. The net results of this is the standard fair-weather friend as a best case scenario. Someone who’s around for a limited quantity of time for the good times and gone the moment the clouds presage a coming storm. In fact, in most cases, I think the fair-weather friend is the only former friendship most men have ever experienced. Needless to say, this was not always the case.

Lessons from the past

It’s no exaggeration to state that the strongest human bonds on earth have been forged between men, forged in hardship, in battle, in survival. The first literary exploration of this, indeed the first piece of literature ever produced by mankind that has survived the historical record, makes highlighting the incredible bonds that can exist between men. One of its keynote stories embedded into a larger story. I am of course referring to the epic of Gilgamesh, whose cataloging of the friendship between the protagonist Gilgamesh and his friend Enkidu presents a worldview that’s scarcely recognizable to the modern man. It’s clear from the text, the bond between Gilgamesh and Enkidu is stronger than any other. When Gilgamesh spurns the goddess Ishtar and points out her fickle unreliable nature as a reason. She lashes out in vengeance, sending the bull off heaven after both Gilgamesh and Enkidu. The bull was defeated, but Enkidu is nonetheless struck down by the gods. This episode is so painful to Gilgamesh than it emboldened him to quest after immortality itself. A failed prospect to be sure, but such was the impact of the dead of his friend.

Envisioning the future

Male friendship has been tried and tested in the deadliest of circumstances, toughest of trials and unfortunately is a shadow of its former self. Some of this has arisen simply due to changing environment, and some of it is due to the active erosion and integration of the potential bonds men can have with each other. That is withered and attenuated. That does not mean however, that it cannot, at least in smaller circles, be resuscitated. To do so requires the awareness of the forces that seek to reduce it and ridicule it, and a refusal to give in into these forces. Something I fear for most men has already come to pass.

Marriages between men and women crumble and fold, because a man forgot to take out the trash or do the dishes, but the bonds of male friendship have withstood the slings, bullets, spears and indeed arrows of outrageous fortune, only to be renewed and strengthened. Besought not to be forgotten, not now and not in the future.

Thanks for reading! 😊 If you enjoyed it, share it with your friends! Sharing is caring.

PS Before you question my authority, please remember I’m a professional teacher. You should always listen to teachers 🙃

Tweet Share