What are friends for?
You choose your friends, not your family - and for many today, the former have become the most important people in their lives. But are you sure your friends really like you as much as you like them? And how do you know they will still be around in five years' time? In the first of a highly personal three-part investigation into modern relationships, Jenni Russell looks at friendshipJenni RussellMonday January 24, 2005
GuardianEarlier this year, I rang my friend Jo and found her in a state of stunned misery. The week before, her best and oldest friend had sent her an email to say that she thought the friendship was over, that she wouldn't be in touch for a while, and that she sent Jo all her best wishes.
Jo is a witty, sexy, single, childless woman in her 40s. She's a talented artist, but earns very little. Without a career, money, husband or family to bolster her confidence, a small group of friends have been a key part of her identity. Genevieve, an ambitious, glamorous woman whom she met at university, has been her constant confidante for almost a quarter of a century. But in the past three or four years, Genevieve has become increasingly unreliable: making dates she later cancels; slow to return calls or emails.
Last winter, Jo arranged for them to go to a film together, only for Genevieve to ring at 6pm to say she was awfully sorry, but she had to spend the evening with some dreary Burmese refugees, friends of her father's. Fortunately for Jo, 20 minutes later she was rung and asked to make up the numbers for a formal dinner party. When she walked into the room, she felt as if she had been punched in the stomach. Genevieve was sitting on the sofa, flirting with the men on either side of her. There were no refugees.
"The next day I sent her an email saying: 'Why did you lie to me? Why not just say: I want to go to a dinner party? I can take that. I can't take being lied to. This is a friendship. We're supposed to trust one another.' She emailed back immediately saying she didn't have to explain herself to me. And then a month later she said our friendship had run its course, and she wouldn't be seeing me any more. It's one of the worst things that's ever happened to me. And I haven't just lost her; I've lost all our history, all that shared experience. The truth is I think I wasn't an asset to her any more. But I can't understand why we can't talk about it. Why it's just over."
Friendship has been given a special status in our society. It is contrasted with all those relationships over which we have so little control; the families we can't change, the neighbours who irritate us, the colleagues we have to put up with. Friends are thought of as the joyous, freely chosen part of our lives, and it's assumed that those relationships are always pleasurable. If asked how you're spending the weekend and you say staying in or seeing your family or your colleagues, people may think you're a little sad. Say you're seeing friends and there's an assumption that you too are desirable, connected.
On one level, friendships are very simple. They are the bonds between people who enjoy one another's company. But probe deeper and it's evident that there is no consensus about what it means. Start talking to people about friendship and it becomes clear that while people value it and seek it, there is also much confusion, hesitancy and disappointment about friends in many people's lives. Friendship is one of those areas full of hidden assumptions and unspoken rules. We only discover that our friendship doesn't mean what we think it does when those assumptions clash.
There is no agreement about what friendship involves, or what to do if it goes sour. No one would dream of suggesting to a friend that they start seeing a friends' guidance counsellor to talk about the dynamics of their failing relationship. When things go wrong, we very rarely challenge our friends. That's because friendship is often a delicate affair and we don't want to tax it with too many demands. It's more common to absorb the hurt, and retreat. After all, there is no contract. The terms are unwritten, and nobody ever makes them explicit.
Ask people about friendship and what's startling is that they hold such a wide range of views, often accompanied by an absolute conviction that they are expressing an obvious truth. Some think it demands total loyalty; others that it carries no obligations at all. One man says long friendships have transformed his life, and been in some ways more important than his marriage; another thinks the great thing about friends is that you can always drop the old ones, because there are new ones around every corner. One woman says she would die for her friends; a younger woman says that all her friendships are ruthlessly practical, and designed to make her life easier in the here and now.
And what's intriguing about those attitudes is that they aren't obvious from the way people lead their lives. Everyone I talked to above has a large number of acquaintances and a social life. All but one assumes that most people think as they do.
Most of us feel a certain pride about our friends, pleased that they have chosen us, and that we have chosen them. We tend to believe that they reflect some important truths about who we are. Yet making friends isn't an exercise in free choice, any more than buying a house is. We buy houses according to what we can afford, what happens to be on the market when we're looking, and whether a capricious owner decides to accept our offer. Friendship is rather similar. We can only choose our friends from among the people we meet, in circumstances where making a friendly overture would be appropriate, and who show a reciprocal interest in knowing us.
Recent research concluded that at any time we have around 30 friends, six of whom we think of as close. Over a lifetime we will make almost 400 friends, but we will keep in touch with fewer than 10% of them. Almost 60% of us claim that our friendships are more important to us than career, money or family. Other studies show that men have, on average, one fewer close friends than women do, that middle-class men have more friends than working-class men, and that both men and women find their friendships with women more emotionally satisfying than those with men. Those findings are fascinating, but they mask huge variations. When I asked people how many close friends they had, the answers ranged from none to almost 100.
Joanna, a radio producer in her 30s, thinks anyone she likes, trusts and finds interesting, male or female, is a potential friend. She meets them frequently. Her oldest ones date from when she was six, and because she has never lost a friend, she says she has more than 80 of them.
Rosie, a writer, also makes new friends easily, but drops her old ones with equal ease. At the same time, she believes that one ought to be loyal to one's friends. She is perfectly consistent, because she believes that friendships are automatically dissolved as soon as one participant finds the other one boring. She is exasperated by some people's tendency to keep pursuing her when it's clear that the whole thing is over. On the other hand she's always thrilled by invitations from new people, because she never knows who she might meet.
It's very different for George, an old Etonian in his 50s, with a fat address book and enormous charm. As far as he is concerned, friendship is a club of seven men which was full by the time he was 23. They all share the same interests, they don't make emotional demands, and that's just the way he wants it. Tell George that other people think him a friend, and he'll think them fools.
George doesn't need new friends because he grew up in the same social, professional and geographical worlds that he now occupies as an adult, and his group offers as much security and intimacy as he requires. It's more complicated for the increasing numbers of us who are socially, professionally or geographically mobile. We all look for friends with whom we share some common ground, so that as our circumstances change, we're likely to meet new people we want to know. But it can be very difficult to tell, particularly if we live outside a small community, whether anyone is really interested in us or whether we matter to them at all.
Often, we don't know where we fit into friends' lives. We may like them enormously, but not know whether they'd like us to get any closer. Are we in the first dozen, or the remotest 90 in their circle? If they ask us to dinner once a year, is that an honour because they only entertain twice, or a sign of our unimportance, because they hold dinners every week?
This degree of uncertainty exists partly because many of us now lead lives in which we are the only connecting thread. It is perfectly possible for much of our lives to be opaque to anyone who knows us. They may only ever encounter one particular facet of our existence, because we can, if we choose, keep parents, past acquaintances, old partners, colleagues, friends, and neighbours in totally separate boxes. Many people value the anonymity and freedom that gives them. The flip side is that just as we are not known, so we cannot really know others.
In the absence of certainty, we live by assumptions, and we can be horribly surprised. Edward is an author who says he was unprepared for the explosion of interest in him when he wrote a successful book. For a couple of years he was a sought-after guest, moving in the company of people he had always wanted to meet. He thought he had joined a new circle, and it made him very happy. Then his book ceased to be the issue of the moment, and he was comprehensively dropped. Not only did the invitations cease; so did the Christmas cards. He was profoundly shocked. After all, his character and his intelligence hadn't changed. He had just ceased to be of interest.
Clare would have thought she was insulated from such shocks, because she has been part of a group of friends for more than 20 years, and their social lives have been intertwined. The group is made up of ambitious and competitive people, and her membership of it has been a source of greater pride and meaning to her than her career, even though the dynamics of it have always made her anxious: "You worry about who's becoming closer, and whether you're being left out. It's a constant source of tension. You hear that A and B have been asked to M's house in Cornwall and you feel sick - you wonder, well why didn't they ask me? And there's a continual struggle over who's the top dog - who's the most desirable person."
Last year, Clare fell out with the group's most successful couple. Gradually, to her anguish and incredulity, she realised that she and her family were being excluded from all the group's joint activities. Parties and dinners were happening without her being told. Then she discovered, from an unguarded remark, that the traditional annual holiday was going ahead without her. She climbed into bed and cried for three hours. What hurts most deeply is her realisation that, even within the group she had thought of as a refuge, status is ultimately all that counts. No one within it wants to alienate the pair who are, in practice, the leaders of the pack.
She says now that she realises that the bonds she thought the group had established were only superficial. They met only for enjoyment. They didn't look to one another for support. No one in the group ever made any demands on anyone else; no one made any sacrifices.
From the outside, Clare's blind faith in her friendships looks naive. If your friends are hugely competitive, and driven by the desire for power, wealth and proximity to it, then those values are likely to drive their private lives too.
But Clare is not alone. Many of us are childish in our expectations of friendship. Even though we may only present our most sparkling, desirable selves to our friends, and even though there may be nothing more to the relationship than five years of occasional lively evenings together, we still nurture the illusion that the friends who enjoy our wine or our wit are somehow very attached to the real us, the vulnerable or dull or anxious one they may never have seen. Which is why we are so astonished when friends melt away at a time of trouble.
Sasha is an academic in her 50s who had always assumed that her friends were utterly trustworthy, until she had a real crisis a few years go. "My husband was rushed to a hospital in another city for a transplant, and the hospital said to me; you're going to support your husband, but who's going to support you? Well, I used up my best friend because she just agreed instantly to look after my son, who was only 10, whenever I was away. And then I asked my other friends whether they'd be on standby to come with me. And they all said, 'Yes, but ...' Yes, I'll come, but only if it doesn't clash with Zoe's piano, or Max's football, or working late. In the end, not a single one ever came with me, and it was a real shock. I felt so lonely.
"I look upon friendships very differently now. I'm much more cynical. I don't think most people are really prepared to make an effort for anyone else. They're prepared to enjoy your company, and that's all. It was funny, but the people I almost admired in that situation were the ones who were just honest about the fact that they couldn't help. One couple wrote to me and said they were so sorry, but since they lived 50 miles away it was just too far, and they weren't going to be able to offer me any support. Well, I admired it until he got ill a couple of years later. And then she wrote me a really abusive letter, accusing me of not caring about them. I couldn't believe it."
Anna, a full-time mother of three, is equally disillusioned. She thought she had a rich network of friends until her youngest child was born disabled. She says now that she can't really call any of them friends, since they've all been so useless. "If you become a needy person, if you say, 'My child's never going to walk,' friends find it very difficult to give. I assumed that when something went wrong, people would offer practical support, ask you out, arrive with meals. But they're embarrassed. If they ring, it's just to make a practical arrangement, like, 'When is the eldest coming to tea?' They ask if you're fine, and that's where it stops."
She thinks that friendships may have been different in the past. "People are so busy they don't really have time for it now. It's my parents' friends, people in their 70s, who are friends of the old school. They visit, they ask questions, they bring things. I think now I only ever had loads of acquaintances. Possibly that's what everyone has now. If you can join in on a Friday down the pub - of course you're great mates."
It's noticeable that the people who are least disappointed with their friendships are either those who have never tested them, or those with the clearest understanding of what they are about. Sometimes that's because the friendships are rooted in the realities of their lives. Like Jill, a mother of three children and a part-time teacher. "My friends make my life possible," she says. "We care for one another's children, look after pets, do one another's shopping, counsel each other on our marriages. From all the mothers at the school gate, you pick the ones you really like, and then they become your support network. People are very practical about it. You'll hear them saying things like, 'I need to find a friend with a five-year-old son.' Or they'll say: 'I liked X very much, but I don't need another friend like that.' I know I can rely on my friends, because I do that every day."
Others who are contented are those who expect nothing more of friends than that they share pleasurable activities. Like Bill, who has friends he drinks with, workmates he gossips with, and men he plays football with, and wouldn't dream of demanding anything else. Or Jeanette, a care worker in her 20s, who wants only to have a good time with her mates when they go out. She'd never ask them to help her with her housebound mother.
What do these experiences, as disparate as they are connected, tell us about the notion that has gained currency in the past few years that friends are the new family? In one sense it's clearly true. Each generation is spending more and more time as independent adults before committing themselves to having dependents of their own. But we are so enamoured of the idea that we can be part of a freely chosen community that we haven't stopped to consider what it really involves. We celebrate the idea that people are no longer restricted to the bonds of kinship and obligation, and replace it with an idealised vision of people brought together by genuine affection and respect.
But just how realistic is that vision? What can we expect from our friends? Families exist because their members accept that a degree of selflessness is necessary to sustain them, and to ensure the survival of the next generation. There is no similar drive behind friendship .
Perhaps we need to think a little harder, and be rather more perceptive, about what sustains our relationships. We could start by being more honest with ourselves about what we like about our friends, what needs they fulfil, and what we would be prepared to do for them. We may feel truly generous to some of our friends, and resentful of others. Some we love, some flatter us, some we tolerate while they serve a purpose, and some we might despise. One woman, a charming, hospitable, gentle person, said to me: "It's very important to have some friends you dislike. It's so lovely afterwards, tearing them apart." Another man, generous in his behaviour, says nevertheless that he has few pleasures greater than watching the setbacks and disasters of his friends.
This would help us to be more realistic about which friends we might expect to see by our hospital beds, and which ones we think we would visit. It doesn't mean we can't value the ones who won't be there. Often we can be drawn to others for exactly the characteristics that would make them unlikely to be helpful in a crisis. One man says that he values his friends just because they are iconoclastic, reckless, exciting, arrogant and clever. And a woman who has endured two bereavements and a serious illness in the past few years says she is grateful that her friends remain distant from her grief: "When I'm with them, I always feel slightly as if I'm on stage - and I feel much better for it." We can recognise people's charm as entertainers and companions without expecting emotional support from them as well.
Does it matter that we can distinguish between deep friendships and transient or superficial ones? Talking to a wide range of people, it was clear that few of them are really happy with the friendships they have. Many of them feel privately wistful about the lack of depth, or in tensity, or number of their relationships. People with consuming jobs are sad that they haven't had the time to build stronger bonds, and wonder whether it's too late to develop them; mothers with time to spare want to find new friends but don't know how. Many people would like to have more friends, or deeper, warmer, more reliable relationships than the ones they have now, but don't know how to go about it.
This sense was particularly strong among the men I talked to. Men have been thought of as less in need of intimate friendship. Perhaps that's changing, and just as more men are becoming closely involved with their children, so there's a similar desire for the ease of close friendship. A man in his 60s, with a wife and children, told me that he is absolutely distraught because his one friend, a man he has known for 40 years, is seriously ill. "I cannot imagine my life without him," he said, "It's been the most important relationship of my life." Another man in his late 40s, whose children have almost left home, said that he feels now that the absence of close friendship is a huge gap in his life. Career and family have consumed his time for 20 years, and now he feels oddly lonely. A third man, a very successful manager, says he wishes he could establish male friendships, but he finds it hard to reveal anything important to other men. They block intimate conversation, rather then opening it up. A fourth man says simply that he wishes his friends would make more demands on him. He would like to be more involved in their lives.
There are powerful reasons why we should create these bonds, even if we only start when we are older. The phenomenon of later births means families take up a smaller percentage of our lives. We wait years to have children, and we could be 70 before we become grandparents for the first time. We have more time available, and fewer familial responsibilities, than the generations before us. We all want to feel needed and valued by others. It is possible for friends to fill that need, but only if we work at it.
It isn't easy, because friendship is a subtle dance, and no one wants to be explicitly pursued when it's unwelcome, or explicitly dropped when they are not wanted. Nor does it come with any guarantees. People are unpredictable. But we need to play the game of friendship. Evidence shows that people with close friends live longer and are happier than those without. And friendship defines what it means to be human. As the Greek philosopher Epicurus observed: "Of all the things that wisdom provides to help one live one's life in happiness, the greatest by far is the possession of friendship. Eating or drinking without a friend is the life of a lion or a wolf."
[email protected] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
― ppp, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 11:39 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 11:42 (twenty-one years ago)
"Jo is a witty, sexy, single, childless woman in her 40s. She's a talented artist, but earns very little"
shouldn't her story be in chat magazine or something so?
― d.arraghmac, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 11:45 (twenty-one years ago)
Well, at least I know that the Guardian is reading my threads, even if only to steal my ideas, even if no one else is.
― Masonic Boom-Boom (kate), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 11:53 (twenty-one years ago)
― debden, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 11:57 (twenty-one years ago)
― Miles Finch, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 11:58 (twenty-one years ago)
― debden, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:00 (twenty-one years ago)
― debden, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:16 (twenty-one years ago)
Joanna, a radio producer
Rosie, a writer
George, an Old Etonian
Shoot the fucking lot of them, I say. The Guardian would have agreed with me not so long ago.
Or at least force the fuckers at bayonet point to take up proper jobs, then they wouldn't have time for loathsome Tory angst.
― Rachel Verinder, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:19 (twenty-one years ago)
Hardly
― Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:20 (twenty-one years ago)
― Miles Finch, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:21 (twenty-one years ago)
Funny how you never see angsty pieces in the Guardian about "Jo, a sink comprehensive school supply teacher" or "Joanna, a nursing auxiliary" or "Rosie, a firefighter" or "George, a miner."
― Rachel Verinder, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:23 (twenty-one years ago)
― Miles Finch, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:23 (twenty-one years ago)
Marcello, where does this fit in with your argument?
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:26 (twenty-one years ago)
... oh come come, this is 2005, how many more novelists than miners are there these days?
― Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:27 (twenty-one years ago)
'despite my installations being descriped as 'hauntingly diaphonous' in a 1996 issue of modern painters, i make very little money. i really just survive on my parental allowance. don't even talk to me about arts council grants. where's the justice in being left behind in spending power by my merchant banker friends? is this the blair society we voted for?'
― debden, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:29 (twenty-one years ago)
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:30 (twenty-one years ago)
Has anyone actually suffered from any of these dilemmas? Has anyone ever been inexplicably dumped by a friend, or by a social circle? Has anyone ever been judged and just "Not Measured Up" because of perceived status imbalances and differences in expectations?
Find me one person on ILX who hasn't suffered from some kind of social anxiety, and that's the person who can start picking on the form of this article, rather than the content.
― Masonic Boom-Boom (kate), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:31 (twenty-one years ago)
guardian bashing is fun
― debden, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:31 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:33 (twenty-one years ago)
but yeah, we have all day to talk about the article's substantive content.
― Miles Finch, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:36 (twenty-one years ago)
― tissp! (the impossible shortest specia), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:37 (twenty-one years ago)
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:38 (twenty-one years ago)
Let's hear more of those kinds of stories and we'll stop bashing the Guardian.
― Rachel Verinder, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:38 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:39 (twenty-one years ago)
― Miles Finch, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:41 (twenty-one years ago)
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:42 (twenty-one years ago)
Friendships end when the balance of input goes off, in terms of one person *needing* more than the other. Friendships end when you no longer share interests or activities, or your lifestyles have diverged. (The transition from singleton to smug married and in some cases back has huge effects on friendship, I think.)
I think what makes people friends in the first place is more interesting than what makes friendships break up.
― Masonic Boom-Boom (kate), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:42 (twenty-one years ago)
― RickyT (RickyT), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:42 (twenty-one years ago)
Or rather, the Guardian has to give its readers what its advertisers think they want.
Friends are overrated, anyway.
― Rachel Verinder, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:43 (twenty-one years ago)
― RickyT (RickyT), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:43 (twenty-one years ago)
― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:45 (twenty-one years ago)
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:45 (twenty-one years ago)
Actually, I think it's simpler, they are giving their readers what they want
― Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:46 (twenty-one years ago)
― Rachel Verinder, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:46 (twenty-one years ago)
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:47 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:47 (twenty-one years ago)
― Masonic Boom-Boom (kate), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:47 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:48 (twenty-one years ago)
― caitlin (caitlin), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:48 (twenty-one years ago)
― Rachel Verinder, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:49 (twenty-one years ago)
xpost
― tissp! (the impossible shortest specia), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:50 (twenty-one years ago)
― Rachel Verinder, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:52 (twenty-one years ago)
― Masonic Boom-Boom (kate), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:52 (twenty-one years ago)
Yeah, but you get to do the same back to them in return. Fair's fair.
― caitlin (caitlin), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:53 (twenty-one years ago)
I mean it isnt something one discusses with people is it? We dont go to counselling with friends when things go pear shaped.
Also, the comment in the article about the older people doing all the right things like visiting, bringing things, writing letters etc; theres that level of etiquitte and cilvility that just isnt taught or practiced anymore and I think that is kind of sad.
The media too has a lot to answer for, making it always look like everyone looks out for their mates 100% and would do anything for them, when in reality a lot of people *do* just think a mate is someone they see at the pub on Fridays.
― Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:54 (twenty-one years ago)
― caitlin (caitlin), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:54 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:55 (twenty-one years ago)
Well, that's true as well, isn't it? Its not an all-or-nothing thing.
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:56 (twenty-one years ago)
― Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:58 (twenty-one years ago)
― Miles Finch, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 14:31 (twenty-one years ago)
No and nor was I suggesting otherwise!
― Stevem On X (blueski), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 14:35 (twenty-one years ago)
Absolutely OTM. Many of my closest friends actually drive me crazy, and sometimes the line between love and hate is a very thin one indeed. But the reason that they are my friends, is that the good qualities outweigh the irritations, and that they are prepared to FEEL THE SAME WAY ABOUT MY GLARING FAULTS. (Such as intolerance.)
The smug married thing is partly jealousy and partly exclusion. It also depends on how long the couple has been together, and how flexible they are about doing stuff on their own as opposed to having to do everything together. Because sometimes it does feel like an utter millstone to be the lone singleton with a gang of married people. You end up feeling like the fifth wheel a lot. Also, your interests and concerns just aren't the same thing any more. And there is this weird... fear amoung certain women. But after a certain age, a single woman in the fold becomes a threat, or a reminder of mortality or the fragility of relationships, or something like that.
― Masonic Boom-Boom (kate), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 14:45 (twenty-one years ago)
― Miles Finch, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 14:49 (twenty-one years ago)
― Masonic Boom-Boom (kate), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 14:52 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dadaismugness (Dada), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 14:53 (twenty-one years ago)
OTM. Couldn't agree more.
― Rachel Verinder, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 14:55 (twenty-one years ago)
Thinking about it, I don't have many/any female irl friends anymore, b/c my wife does actually get a bit ratty about this. Not obviously jealous, but, you know... That's a bit annoying, when I think about it.
― Pashmina (Pashmina), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 14:57 (twenty-one years ago)
i fear i may have fucked a couple of friendships up this week, firstly with my oldest friend and former flatmate. he has self-esteem issues and can be prickly sometimes, but i love him to bits. he snuck over to my house at the weekend, without any warning, and hammered on my front room window while i was in there conducting an interview with a musician in america. after losing my shit at the 'practical joke' i calmly explained that i couldn't see him that evening, as i had a bunch of phone interviews to do all night - the truth. he sloped off in a huff and is now not answering my phonecalls. i feel bad that i snapped at him, but then i think, i don't go over to his job and disrespectfully interrupt and possibly harm what he's doing. i don't hold a grudge over this, but he is obviously in a huff. at christmas, he went in to a long spiel about how you have to 'make time' for people, but with all the people and work in my life, i honestly don't have any more time; i'd like some time for myself at some point too.
the second is rather more serious, and complicated. it centres around a friend i used to work with about 6 or 7 years ago, who i've always stayed in touch with. he's a dear friend, but i don't see much of him - he works days, i mostly work nights. we try and fit stuff in, but i only see him about 5 or 6 times a year, if that. there's tensions there, because its not because *he's* too busy that we don't see each other. his wife is very much aware of this, and is unafraid of bringing it up at times, to chide me. they have been married a couple of years and have been dating over a decade, but its been fiery at times. she called me last week, saying they were having troubles and that she needed to talk to someone who knew her husband and might be able to give her advice. then, before explaining what the problames were, she pointed out that i didn't really 'know' her husband anymore, and that it was stupid of her to call me. i told her she could talk to me about whatever she wanted, but she got off the phone. i've tried calling a couple of times but got the ansaphone and don't know what to do now.
advice, etc, gratefully received. x
― stevie (stevie), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 15:42 (twenty-one years ago)
― bnw (bnw), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 16:21 (twenty-one years ago)
uh, carry on
― Mediawhore, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 16:30 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dadaismugness (Dada), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 16:33 (twenty-one years ago)
I'm not sure what I think about friends. I know there have been a few good ILE threads about them, all of which I would rather read than that Guardian article.
The extent to which this series really is 'highly personal' is revealed in today's installment about money and marriage:Two years after moving in together, Jill was wondering privately whether to leave Mark. In a moment of drunken openness, she said that she was rethinking her relationship since being promoted to a higher civil-service grade. "There are a lot of senior men in my department who are interested," she said. "I've realised my market value is higher than I thought it was when I met Mark. Do you think I should leave him? I think I could do better." I mean, I don't really care if people want to repeat what their awful friends have said when drunk in a national newspaper, but it's not journalism, is it?
― Archel (Archel), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 16:35 (twenty-one years ago)
― Liz :x (Liz :x), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 16:37 (twenty-one years ago)
OTM. you can't generalise if your research doesn't stretch beyond your immediate circle of friends. unfortunately, journalism is regularly blighted by this solipsism.
― stevie (stevie), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 16:38 (twenty-one years ago)
― Archel (Archel), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 16:41 (twenty-one years ago)
― caitlin (caitlin), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 16:50 (twenty-one years ago)
― Archel (Archel), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 16:59 (twenty-one years ago)
― debden, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 17:03 (twenty-one years ago)
― RickyT (RickyT), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 17:05 (twenty-one years ago)
― Archel (Archel), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 17:08 (twenty-one years ago)
A person who was a fairly integral part of my circle of friends for a couple of years (and who had known some of the others in the group since childhood) managed to excise herself by going from endearingly eccentric to scarily bat-shit crazy and irrationally attacking two of the other girls in the group over a period of about three weeks. It started with her saying some petty and hurtful stuff about someone who had been a really good friend to her in front of everyone else, then denying she had said anything and accusing others of lying about it. Assorted threats and some really nasty emails followed, all without anyone else doing anything other than suggest that she apologize for her original remarks. I know that her perception of what happened is that everyone else suddenly and inexplicably turned on her. She truly believes this and has been able to completely ignore any contribution that she may have made towards events taking the course that they did.
― Graeme (Graeme), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 17:08 (twenty-one years ago)
I mean, the poor sod.
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 17:22 (twenty-one years ago)
― Stevem On X (blueski), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 17:28 (twenty-one years ago)
― RickyT (RickyT), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 17:30 (twenty-one years ago)
― Archel (Archel), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 17:32 (twenty-one years ago)
What IS the smug married thing? Seriously.
― Dr. C (Dr. C), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 17:38 (twenty-one years ago)
whats to be smug about with being married? i know it's a bridget jones-y thing isnt it?
― piscesboy, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 17:57 (twenty-one years ago)
― youn, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 17:59 (twenty-one years ago)
― youn, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 18:00 (twenty-one years ago)
i think a pretty frightening % of people feel this way about their relationships. (i mean the part after the equals sign.) if i'm feeling optimistic, 30-40%, and if i feel cynical, much higher (like maybe 70%). the physical-attraction part especially: "i wish i could be with someone better-looking, but i don't think i have what it takes". all kinds of social status issues here too.
i'm not proud of it (which is why i'm logged out), but when i was younger (early 20s), i definately had that feeling once or twice.
― Mark T. Value, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 18:08 (twenty-one years ago)
― Mark T. Value, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 18:13 (twenty-one years ago)
I am a dropper though. I went through a bit of a spate of it after I left my husband and told two people I'd known for a long time that I didn't want to be friends with them anymore. I really did not like them, had not liked them for a very long time, and never, ever made any effort to contact them ever. So the next time they contacted me I just asked them not to get in touch with me again. I think my reasoning was that if I wasn't going to hang out with my husband anymore, who is actually quite a nice guy, I was buggered if I was going to hang around with them.
― accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 18:19 (twenty-one years ago)
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 18:27 (twenty-one years ago)
I've known couples who have got together and then barely bothered to see the rest of us at all. Although what's worse is when there are three of you sitting around and they go all gooey and lovey with each other when you're in the room, or even during the middle of a conversation (which happened to me just last week and is just plain fucking rude).
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 18:37 (twenty-one years ago)
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 18:38 (twenty-one years ago)
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 18:38 (twenty-one years ago)
― dave q (listerine), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 18:41 (twenty-one years ago)
― RickyT (RickyT), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 18:42 (twenty-one years ago)
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 18:59 (twenty-one years ago)
― dave q (listerine), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 19:14 (twenty-one years ago)
this may only happen on TV tho...
― Stevem On X (blueski), Wednesday, 26 January 2005 00:02 (twenty-one years ago)
― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Wednesday, 26 January 2005 01:53 (twenty-one years ago)
― amanda lear (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 26 January 2005 02:10 (twenty-one years ago)
― fauxhemian (fauxhemian), Wednesday, 26 January 2005 02:17 (twenty-one years ago)
i'm not sure this is a good or bad thing, but i often think it, & it probably reflects more on me than them.
― bham, Wednesday, 26 January 2005 10:45 (twenty-one years ago)
― Stevem On X (blueski), Wednesday, 26 January 2005 10:48 (twenty-one years ago)
― debden, Wednesday, 26 January 2005 10:58 (twenty-one years ago)
― debden, Wednesday, 26 January 2005 11:02 (twenty-one years ago)
woah! that's some negative dialectics there.
― Miles Finch, Wednesday, 26 January 2005 12:05 (twenty-one years ago)