[formerly_proven]

I know it's supposed to be a joke but it actually encapsulates one of the core issues about this already on the language level, men thinking they'd "get" something out of thin air. Do you think women have 31.41x larger emotional support networks out of thin air? Of course not, they put the effort in. Men don't.

[swatcoder]

Compassion is helpful here.

Consider that many men (among others) don't consciously experience regular or frequent need for verbal or tactile emotional support as such, so they don't get a lot of practice culturing it as a skill, either as a giver or receiver, and don't often get to feel out which people in their network are going to be well-suited for it anyway.

Infrequent needs are hard to "work on" and often benefit from institutional support rather than ad hoc support: therapists, churches/etc, discussion groups, etc

It's sort of like changing tires, in that way. Now that manually changing a car tire is rare, because tires are more durable and crises can generally be remediated by calling some number on the cell phone you're certainly carrying, fewer and fewer people have actually done it and have a working, practiced familiarity with how to do it. But thankfully, roadside assistance and tow trucks are widely available and there's mostly no shame to using them now.

Supporting instutitonal access for emotional support would go along way towards helping the many people who just don't have an opportunity to "work on" building support networks the way you suggest.

[horrible-hilde]

The person, above you, is responding as such because the framing is very passive, it sounds like it’s everyone else’s responsibility which will not help men because they have to show up. The title should “Men are not maintaining or making friendships”

They do show up at my art and DnD meetups and some of them can barely talk, at first, but after a while you can see them start to come out of their shell, I find it takes about two years before their lives become transformed.

But again, they have to show up and thats on them.

[keybored]

You are reading into “we get”, a perhaps shortened phrase (“we get to have”, i.e. “that’s an option for us?”) which is obviously useful in such a sardonic reply. This was interpreted as a joke but for some reason this person still ran with the entitlement shtick.

And since we’re playing language/interpretation games: this attitude that men in particular feel entitlement in this area is backlash against people writing about problems that men have is if it isn’t simply and narrowly a problem of the individual. It starts like this:

- Initially it’s taboo

- Then it’s a topic about how men are failing as individuals

- Then it gets seen as a sociological problem (a sociological problem can still be an individual problem in other contexts, it’s a lens)

[horrible-hilde]

I think the people pushing this narrative want, exactly, the reaction you are displaying here.

[keybored]

What position? That social science is conceptually a thing?

[horrible-hilde]

I think we are agreeing it’s an individual’s problem. I was responding to the “compassion” comment not the joke comment but the same applies for everyone.

I just see streams of these weirdly skewed articles. The irony of segmenting society to fight loneliness is not lost on me.

[watwut]

Women do not build these networks by needing frequent emotional support. It is build on mundane stuff, when you do not need support, when no one need support.

The emotional support thing is a consequence of building relationships when you do not need help, when you are fine. If you build them only when you need emotional support, you will be perceived as needy and people will get tired of it.

[swatcoder]

If that's all it was, there'd be no distinction at all.

Men, broadly, have plenty of "relationships" that they invest themselves in and are extremely loyaly to.

What the study was about, and the discussion is about, is emotional support, and that quality is often not seen (or at least acknowledged) in the intense, loyal, committed, and earnestly worked on relationships that men do form, because its only one quality among a whole plethora that might define a relationship.

[em-bee]

the distinction is that men are raised not to show emotions. so when women are with their female friends, and the need for emotional support arises, they can open up because they were raised to know that this is acceptable, and they can just expect that most of their friends will be supportive.

men's friends on the other hand, don't at all mean that they can open up and get emotional support from them. they have to go an extra step in their friendships to find those that they can get emotional support from.

[watwut]

I get it, but my point was that it is not the frequency of the need that makes the difference. The acts/discussions/whatever that let you find and get comfortable with people able to provide emotional support are happening when no one needs emotional support.

You build emotional support network by building it when you do not need emotional support.

[acuozzo]

It's a problem of the commons.

It's particularly hard to bootstrap. You can take the plunge, attempt to open up to dozens of different guy-"friends", and repeatedly run into replies like "sucks, bro" or even "man up".

I have a hobby which exposes me regularly to men of different ages, backgrounds, financial circumstances, etc. This seems to be the case for all of them.

[exe34]

> they put the effort in. Men don't.

Or you know, they do, and get used and cast aside enough times and stop.

[constantcrying]

>Men don't.

Even the idea repulses me.