Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    Interesting, Ray.  Could you post an excerpt or two to focus the
    discussion?
    
    LArry

re .0

Is it *only* applicable to MEN?  I really don't have any friends, either,
and I'm a woman.  I've been wondering why I've set up my life this way, 
and what to do to change things.

I've been reading some books written with a women's focus that are really
applicable to everyone, that's why I asked.

THank you,
Paula

    I haven't seen the book, Ray, so I can't comment on the  book.
    
    I can comment on the loneliness.
    
    First,  I think it's pointless to compare the situation
    of males to the situation of females.  It simply doesn't matter
    that females are better or worse at having close friends, that
    they survive loss more easily or less easily.  That comparison
    doesn't do anything for me.   If anything, it makes me feel that
    there is nothing I can do about my plight.   I'm not female,
    I'm male.  I can't change my sex.  Therefore, I'm stuck with being
    alone, depending on women for closeness, etc?  If I managed to
    solve my loneliness problem through friendships with males, I'd
    probably have to become more "feminine," right?  I'd probably
    have to be a sweeter guy.  I'd probably have to give up watching
    football, or something.
    
    And it isn't useful to realize that all the rest of the males in
    America are just as unconnected and lonely as me.  That's the way
    it is.  We're all in it, we're all stuck with it.    There's
    nothing you can do about it, right?   That leaves me feeling that
    if I were to "solve" my problem that I'd be "weird."  That I'd no
    longer be like the rest of the guys.  I'd be suspect (of something).
    I'd be trading one problem for another problem. (And I'm not even
    talking about being gay -- I know a gay guy and it looks to me like
    he's got the same problem I have.  He sure isn't any happier...)
    
    Maybe I do have lunch with a couple of guys at work, and we talk
    about sports, or maybe I had a good time watching that football 
    game last weekend with Mike and Bill.   And we even got to do some
    bitchin' about work and about Bill's car, and Mike's girlfriend
    and about my crazy brother.  I felt just as crappy that night 
    as any other night.  So what good did it do to bitch?  Work is
    still just as lousy as ever, Bill's car is gonna cost him a fortune
    to fix, Mike's girl is gonna dump him and I still have a crazy brother.
    Nothing's changed, nothing got solved.
    
    I mean those guys are my friends, I'd rather do something with those
    guys than anyone else, but so what?  Let's just shut up about this
    loneliness stuff.
    
    (More to come later.)                 Wil

    Poor Wil....

    
    I've often been surprised by male friends of mine who "confess" that
    they don't have any other men that they regard as real Friends -
    and precious few wmn-friends, come to that.
    
    My guess was that it's to do with what men do talk about when they
    hang out together - and I guess this leads back to the note on
    male bonding and stuff....
    
    For me, it's the intimacy and soul-baring of the subjects that we
    discuss that bonds me to my true Friends. We talk about feelings,
    vulnerabilities - make confessions, tell secrets, admit deepest
    fears. Get to really *know* each other.
    I've had this kind of exchange with some men, and other wmn, but
    I've never seen it between two strate men.
    
    Moral: if in doubt, get thyself some female Friends! ;-)
    
    'gail

    Well, 'gail, look around.
    
    Some of us men *do* have that sort of relationship with other men. 
    Being 'straight' has nothing to do with it.  I'm 'straight' as they
    come, and so are my friends.
    
    I can attest, from my own personal experience, that at least *some* men
    are cabable of, or lucky enough to have, friendships such as you
    describe... where sharing and giving and loving are unconditional.
    
    It's a special condition of the soul and I value it highly.
    
    tony

    
    
    >>    Moral: if in doubt, get thyself some female Friends! ;-)
    
    
    I second that sentiment. I've found that, for the most part, I've
    been able to establish more meaningful (platonic) friendships with 
    women than with men. I never let societal pressure dissuade me from
    establishing a friendship with someone for any reason (ie the other
    person is married, etc.). I've found that I've been able to establish
    great friendships with people that many would not consider to be my
    "peer" group (ie older or younger people, for example). I guess what 
    I'm trying to say is if you can't find meaningful friendships within 
    your peer group, start looking outside it a bit. It seems to work for me...
    
    Bob
    
    

    Hi, Wil,
    
    I'm surprised to find myself disagreeing with you; I've long felt
    so sympatico!
    
    Differentiating the typical behavior of men and women, with respect to
    loneliness, is helpful IMO because it informs us men that there's
    another way. Learning that most men have this problem is helpful
    because it says the usual male model doesn't work. If becoming more
    functional means becoming more "female" (because women are more
    functional, by OUR (new-age sensitive male :) lights), then we need to
    become convinced that "wierd" is better, and that the disapproval of
    typical males should be taken as high praise.
    
    - Hoyt

    RE: .4
    
    Wil, here's my view on several points you raised (excues the slight
    paraphrasing):
    
    > (Am I) "Stuck being alone, depending on women for closeness?"
    
    That's a heavy load to bear for all women, especially any one woman. 
    It discounts the opportunity of being close with approx. 50% of
    the population.  Are you stuck?  Only if you want to be.
    
    > "Being closer with males meand I'd probably have to be more
    "feminine"?"
    
    If you're equating feminine with effeminate, of course not.  If
    "feminine" means sharing feelings rather than debating issues,
    listening rather than giving advice, understanding rathering than
    judging; then maybe so.
    
    > "All the rest of the men in America are just as just as unconnected
    and lonely as me."
    
    Nah.  Many, far to many, but far from all.  Seems to me many men would
    indeed like to be more connected but never learned the steps.  One of
    the more refreshing aspects of the late 20th century is the societal
    permission for men to learn those steps.  Take a moment to re-read
    some past Mennotes strings to see that process in action.
    
    > "There's nothing you can do about it, right?"
    
    If so then all hope is lost.
    
    > "I'd no longer be like the rest of the guys."
    
    Correct.  You'll be more spontaneous, harbor less frustration and
    anger, be more responsive to positive feelings (from women and men)
    and serve as a model for others who wait for someone else to make the
    first move.
    
    > "... and I'm not even taking about being gay."
    
    As you observed, it has no positive or negative bearing on this issue.
    
    > "What good does it do to bitch."
    
    Nothin'.  However if communication between two men, or any two people,
    involves simply trading gripe stories, bitter put-down humor, two mono-
    logues as opposed to a single dialogue, then it's all for naught.  In
    my personal experience, the rishest communication happens when I go
    from ranting about how bad things are to how I'm coping with the world
    around me.  A bar fight is easy compared to the bravery it takes to
    reveal one's insecurites to another man.
    
    > "Let's shut up about this loneliness stuff".
    
    I say no.  There's a legion of angry lone wolves out there, using the
    Simon and Garfunkel song "I am a Rock" as an an anthem.  I really
    didn't want this reply to be in any way a rebuke of your comments. 
    It's actually an invitation to continue the discussion.  That's how all
    this loneliness stuff goes away, you know.
    
    Allbest,
    LArry
    
    
     
    

    
    I have five very close male friends.
    
    I've seen them once a week for the last three-plus years
    because we are in a men's group that meets once a week.
    I know one of them through work, two through a church
    that I go to.   Various of us get together outside of
    our meeting for one thing or another.
    
    We are all in our forties/fifties.  All have been married,
    three divorced, two of those remarried.  All have  
    children, one with grandchildren.  We all have had our
    share of problems with parents, especially fathers.
    Two are wrestling with life-threatening disease in their
    wives.   Two are wrestling with teenagers.  We are all
    wrestling with work and what it means and whether we will
    continue doing what we are doing (forever).
    
    Over the three years, we have seen each other through some
    crises.  Not one of us who has been through a crisis and
             -----------------------------------------------
    felt the support of the other guys in the group would want
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    to ever face a crisis again without having such a group.
    --------------------------------------------------------
    (And the married guys have very close, solid relationships with
    their wives.)
    
    How did this happen?  One of the guys (not me) WANTED to have
    some close men friends.   He didn't know what that meant exactly
    but he knew he wanted it.  He had been on the fringe of
    a couple of abortive efforts to form an "open" men's group in
    the church that we go to, and he decided it would work only if
    he hand-picked the men, and kept the group closed.   
    
    So he asked us and we agreed and we started.   It happened.
    It was not easy, and we had to learn to fight together and
    survive, exactly like it works in a marriage or any good
    relationship.  We don't always agree on the level of our
    expectations and we push or drag our feet on things at 
    different times.  So it can be frustrating.
    
    No one is facilitator.  And the guy that started the group
    does not own it, although we had to push him out of that
    position (even though he denied ever trying to own it).
    
    It happened because one man WANTED it and then made it happen.
    
    Wil

    RE:   Larry's and Hoyt's replies to my .4
    
    I was trying to state what I have heard, but stated from
    an "I" position.  It was a "come-on."  You guys gave
    excellent rebuttals.  Thanks.            Wil
    

    
>    First,  I think it's pointless to compare the situation
>    of males to the situation of females.  It simply doesn't matter
>    that females are better or worse at having close friends, that
>    they survive loss more easily or less easily.  That comparison
>    doesn't do anything for me.   If anything, it makes me feel that
>    there is nothing I can do about my plight.   I'm not female,
>    I'm male.  I can't change my sex.  Therefore, I'm stuck with being
>    alone, depending on women for closeness, etc?  

This is certainly one way to look at it.  (As Wil already knows, I'm 
from the Church of Your Point Of View Determines What Is Possible.)

I think that there might be other points of view that might facilitate 
growth and movement.  For example, I could take the point of view that 
many women may be practiced in techniques that I could use to form 
deeper and more meaningful relationships.  I prefer this point of view 
for several reasons, but one of the biggest reasons is that it offers 
me the idea that loneliness is not genetically linked to males and 
that there's something I can do about it.  Maybe....

>    Nothing's changed, nothing got solved.

You don't have to "solve" anything or "understand" anything to stem 
off loneliness.  It's more along the lines of acceptance, 
communication, and genuineness (saying what's really true for you at 
the time).
    
>    I mean those guys are my friends, I'd rather do something with those
>    guys than anyone else, but so what?  Let's just shut up about this
>    loneliness stuff.

I'm not sure where you are going with "let's just shut up about this 
loneliness stuff," so I'll wait for your next reply.



							--Gerry

    Wil, I got the "spin" of your .4 after I read your .11.  I posted my
    .10 before the .11 was on-line.  This would all be *so* much easier in
    person. :^)
    
    LArry 

    >>Moral: if in doubt, get thyself some female Friends! ;-)
    
    But 'gail...Quakers are hard to find!  (*8

    Some of my best friends are female Friends.
    
    -- Mike  :-)

    
    RE .7
    
    Hey - that's great.
    I hope my note didn't sound like I was saying that this *couldn't*
    happen....it's just that quite a few of my male Friends have told me
    that it hasn't happened to them....
    
    RE .15
    
    E. Grace - female Friends, the best sort! :-)
    
    RE: my style
    I just realised that I was "writing as I think" here with no
    explanations....
    
    In my mind, I differentiate between "friends" (people who are a little
    more than aquaintances, but not extremely important to me) and
    "Friends" - those rare and wonderful people that I'm stuck for
    words to describe. I just know that my life would be far poorer without 
    them.
    
    My Friends are about 50/50 wmn/men, but that balance has only come
    about quite recently - it was heavily wmn-biased for a long time.
    
    My menFriends tell me that their Friends are mainly female.
    
    'gail
    

    Re: .17
    
    Abby, we seem to have a problem of culture difference here.  In the
    US, "Friends", capitalized, often refers to members of a religious
    sect called the "Society of Friends" or "Quakers".  I think this
    was the joke E. Grace was trying to make.
    
    			Steve

    Actually, Steve, the Society of Friends was founded in England.
    
    -- Mike

Re: .19

I didn't know that, but I think they are most well known in the US.

		Steve

Everyone except quakers says quakers here: its called the Society of Friends
true but 'Friend' is not used.

    
    re .6
    
    >Moral: if in doubt, get thyself some female Friends!
    
    if a guy out here hasn't got it together, femmes don't want to hear it...
    
    moral is to be strong, be a man,  and save the crying for the beer...

    Actually, all, *we* call ourselves Quakers most often, also.  And
    Steve, I believe that Quakers *are* well known in England.  At least as
    well known as in this country, where I still get asked why I'm not
    wearing a bonnet!
    
    BTW, it's E Grace, _not_ E. Grace.
    
    hugs,
    
    E Grace

    
    Re: .18-ish
    Steve,
    Yes, I know about Friends. We call them that here too. I'm afraid
    my attempt to make a small jest about this in .15 (I think) to show
    that I understood failed abysmally 8-}
    
    >well known as in this country, where I still get asked why I'm not
    >wearing a bonnet!
    
    I always thought that applied more to those Amish (sp?) people?
    
    'gail

I've always had a problem noticing when people were making jokes - sorry.

		Steve

    'gail,
    
    *I* knew it was a silly!  A true silly, but still a silly!  (*8
    
    It *does* apply more to the Amish now, though at one time the Friends
    also wore "plain dress", but that was sort of my point.  Most people
    don't know we even still exist.  Those that do don't realize that we
    understand that we have passed the time of the Puritans.
    
    Being a Quaker is fun!  You should see the looks I get! (And the stupid
    jokes about oatmeal.  groan)
    
    E Grace

    ah, did ...
    
    Nahh, we've had enough misunderstood jokes...
    
    ed

    
    E Grace...
    
    I know this is ratholing this subject a little, but....
    
    Could you tell me the difference (or affiliation, or relation) between
    Quakers and Shakers? This has always confused me!
    
    I caught the end of beautiful documentary about Shakers a few weeks
    ago - sadly though I missed the beginning which told of their roots
    and their founders. I was so impressed with some of their principles.
    I've always felt welcomed and comfortable with Quakers also, and I
    wondered if the simplicity and warmth of the two communities meant that
    they came from the same root....
    
    Or maybe you should just point me to the QUAKER conference!
    
    'gail

    I started a new note (554 on Quakers (Society of Friends)).
    
    Maybe this note can get back onto Men Without Friends?
    
    Wil

    O'k, Wil, back to the subject: yesterday at our coffee hour after
    the church service, I talked to four different women, and to one
    of them quite animatedly.  (I enjoyed that a lot!)   But I talked
    to no men.  I saw a few around, and I thought, "Oh well, why bother?"
    The subject was a sensitive one, one that I felt more women would 
    agree with me on than men.  And they did agree with me on it.

    Somehow, I don't feel that I was depriving myself by not seeking out
    the men, nor did I have any guilt pangs.   I've read Robert Bly and
    am half way through "Iron John".   The reason I haven't finished it is
    that I discovered Oliver Sacks, and became far more interested in what
    he is talking about.   

    What's more, I didn't watch the super bowl.   I have zero interest 
    in football.    And I'm as 'straight' as they come.

    Weird?   Maybe.   But I have a few male "friends" of sorts, as far as
    anyone can have friends.   I tend to think the issues are bigger than
    just male-female.

    Mardy

>    What's more, I didn't watch the super bowl.   I have zero interest 
>    in football.    And I'm as 'straight' as they come.

Thanks for that reassurance.   ;-)

					From one who is gay as they come,

					--Gerry

re: .31

Well, that slipped out of me, didn't it?;-)  Was I saying it was nice
to realize that there are 'straight' men who have zero interest in
football?   Thanks for pointing out my little built-in prejudice, 
unrealized as it might have been...

:-)  Mardy