I'd like to mention that two big reasons people never acknowledge wrong doing is, because people rub it into your face, or bring it up in the future, in a totally unrelated topic, as a cheap way to discredit you.
Aha this is why dating was an "off limits" topic, haha!
"Friendship is not merely about listening to complaints but requires helping each other grow. Without this mutual growth, one person will inevitably outgrow the other" –– YES
"do they validate or challenge your interpretation? Mutual challenge between friends is required but is almost non-existent "
It's quite a thing to experience they need "validation" but only validation. Even not providing validation is an attack. As I'm a man, that means insta-divorce. "Emotional Abandonment" they would call it in the 30s. However, two things: is everyone coddling you really good? Veruca Salt. Is repeating what you say with affirmations expanding your mental ability and outlook?
I say this because the very thought of a man affirming anything to another man is anathema. You are literally required to bust his balls or stay silent. That's not an attack, by the way, neither is it toxic. It's a first meta-way to say "Don't take yourself so seriously" and the magic in doing it is that you must then cleverly make your greater point in the context of busting. Imagine you must issue a thesis on Martin Luther but in rap battle form. The benefit is all of this causes you to break OUT of yourself and your present mindframe. And in male for NOT that I am going to even attempt to tell you what frame you should use instead. Deconstruction, but the Construction is up to you. And expected. If you didn't act, that is choose, and construct something I don't know what we'd say but it would be a Wtf?
The point here is: Mutual Challenge. Do they Vent, Validate, etc? Men are happy to listen, nod, whatever, doesn't bother a bit. But to actually actively NOT allow, or rather ONLY allow perfect support and agreement is not something than can be done, least of all because it's an unconscionable disservice to a woman you presumably love and care about. He's supposed to watch you hurt yourself and do nothing? As more spaces become feminine, they lean toward their approach. Who wins? Which is more practical?
I belong to a yoga studio and meet a lot of different types of people including many who are immigrants. One of the teachers who is Brazilian is a deep thinker. I can get deep into conversation with her because like myself she is curious about how the world works and is very smart.
I find the members who lived outside of America the most interesting to talk to because they have a different perspective on life and they also are motivated to learn more about their new home country. And of course I learn about what is like to live in their place of origin.
I can see people who came here as adults being more curious because they must be. The rest of us can walk around not considering other perspectives. The people who use social media heavily, I suspect, are less open to considering contrary opinions. I often learn the most from people who didn't grow up here, especially from the not-west.
This is very interesting. I think about you a lot because we are so different. I dont have a lot of friendships, and the ones I do have dont feel super deep and meaningful. I have one friend who I kinda hate talking to because she treats me like there's something wrong with me whenever I have an opinion she doesnt like or agree with. So I have tried to cut down contact with her, though I would prefer to stop being friends.
My hope has always been that I will make new friends, but this is simply not happening. So I am stuck with no reciprocal relationships and unable to generate new ones.
For awhile I thought it best to simply have no friends. I am pretty apolitical and dont enioy discussing politics in real life. Although I am treated as an invisible person, I possess no desire to be seen.
And to be perfectly frank, if I were to make any friendship goals it would be to meet someone who actually likes me and wants to talk to or hang out with me. Which, so far, isnt really a thing I have experienced as an adult (or ever).
Hi Kitty, I've been delayed in responding so apologies, but I read this a few days ago and have been thinking about what to say. I feel you on the friend you're talking about. I have several exactly like this. I want you to be able to experience being seen. I think there is hope for you to find people who get you. Unfortunately it takes us introverts more effort.
Is there any sort of intellectually stimulating group you can join, like a writing group or a book club (based on serious topics)? I'm a tad surprised by this: "I possess no desire to be seen." Are you sure? I don't need you to tell me, but I want to push back because I once thought the same, but it turned out that it was because I didn't want to be hurt repeatedly. That is the thing that sucks most about friendships; it's a different kind of hurt.
I so relate to this. Group chats were the worst for my friendships even more than social media. I left most of them, I'm essentially off social media, and I try to only interact with my friends now in person, on the phone, or on Substack. It has been good for me, and I think for the quality of my friendships.
I didn't break up with any of my old friends, though, and I also don't love the concept of boundaries. Basically, I followed the advice of Olga Khazan's Atlantic article, "Stop Firing Your Friends; Just make more of them."
I right-sized my old friendships by setting realistic expectations and being clearer with myself about what I get out of each of them. (For instance, one of my friends is a bad listener, but he's very funny, and we laugh for hours. Another friend is bad at keeping commitments, but we occasionally have four-hour, deep conversations that leave me thinking for weeks. So I appreciate the good and let the rest go.)
Right-sizing my old friendships gave me space to focus on building new ones. Before 40, I don't think I was even self-aware enough to know what I wanted: friendships that are reciprocal, generative, and honest. Like you, I want to be challenged, to feel seen, to grow together. I'm still in the early days of this and every phone call and hang is an opportunity to get better at it. But I think I am getting better.
PS: I love how your writing prompts such great comments and conversations among your readers. The same thing happened on my blog in the mid 2000s and I wish I knew how to bring back the magic today.
I am delayed in commenting back but first, I always appreciate your thorough responses. I know what you mean about group chats. I commend that you're putting so much effort into maintaining them. I find that even talking on the phone is draining after a long day of meetings, and I've been doing it less and less with time. But, I need to change this. It is wise to right-size. Maybe I'm just resisting doing that because I am afraid I'll be left with no one at the end. I honestly just really appreciate what thoughtful readers I have. Thank you for the good advice!
This resonates deeply Radha. The issue of true reciprocity in friendships, including the ability to challenge each other non-judgementally is in short supply across generations. I see the pressure to be agreeable and practitioners of Right Speak among Millennials way more than older generations.
Friendships that facilitate growth and self-discovery are the only ones I have today among Gen Xers and Millennials that took years to cultivate. A critical characteristic of these friendships is what you mention - the ability to gently challenge each other's thinking, curiosity to learn about how the other arrived at their conclusions, and an appreciation for our different perspectives. We share our observations about each other and use a reflective stance that enables both of us to learn more about ourselves from each other.
We also anchor our conversations to spiritual or philosophical principles - it helps that we share similar frameworks for exploring our thoughts, feelings, and experiences.
One of the pieces of feedback I get from friends is that I helped them develop better inquiry skills so that they can do to me what I do with them. It's made a huge difference in cultivating intimacy.
It's sad that people have to pay for the types of relationships that help them see themselves more clearly because they don't have friends who can attentively listen to them (and vice versa) but thankful there's something that can fill that void. It's no wonder we have a loneliness epidemic alongside Cluster B society.
At least you're clear about what you want and no longer want out of friendships, which is a step toward forging those lasting connections.
I've seen these topics being addressed in your writing and that percolates in my mind as I work on my own arguments. There are some deeper vulnerability issues that prevent women from being honest with each other. I imagine the strongest friends you have carefully considered their values and opinions. I almost never find philosophically grounded perspectives of late because no one really reads. I'm really inspired by the feedback your friends gave. I'm trying to figure out how to be that person for mine without leading them to hate me. As always, you make me think. <3
You raise a really important point about women having a hard time being honest with each other about how they're really feeling/thinking. I am currently working on a piece about mothers and women more generally who are on the spiritual path, seeking to fill the void. The access to deeper vulnerability is blocked by denial of suffering/struggle in favour of high vibe thoughts and unrealistic ideas about success. Women in groups can still be competitive and not want to lose face by even considering that they could be struggling and cover it up with material acquisition and striving for new goals.
Re: friends who ask good questions - I developed a program that I piloted. People in my network and many I didn't know signed up to participate in free 8 week training to help them learn how to moderate anonymous group chats of medical professionals disclosing their workplace/training/interpersonal woes. They were specifically taught techniques to not go into fixer/rescuer/saviour mode and required them to get very curious, check their assumptions and apply reflective listening skills to help the person make sense of their issue. I basically taught them skills for effectively helping people that they later would use with me when I reached out for help with them.
With other friends, I basically asked them if they would be ok with me no longer jumping in an advising but doing something different so I could practice my skills..and it involved slowing down the conversation to give us both more time to think before speaking. We would assess at the end of the convo about how it went. They preferred this mode when exploring their own personal issues, which enabled us to examine wider influences/politics/world events/history to help give more depth to their story. It could be that you are transparent about your interests in having more exploratory convos with them and that you will be trying a few different things.
I hope that helps and it's a possibility among your current connections.
Like Telegram Support who recently out of the blue deleted my 1/2 Years long used paid 1 Year Premium Account, where I also had the Sayings sent to People... they also don't react...
Those are great practical ideas. I think I may have to start creating my own contexts for intellectual engagement like you’ve modeled. Or I just need to become braver. I hear people say things like “they voted for the wrong person”. I will have to get comfortable saying “who’s the right person”? Most of the time these sorts of statements are begging for clarification but feminine communication norms prevent even that, because even that is hostile.
I have a friend (1) that I can say anything to and still be friends. We used to be on different sides politically, but I've come around to her way these days. It never mattered. We kind of enjoyed drinking and sparring. Sometimes yelling. And slamming the door. Cool off. Laugh about it. Move on. I'm different from most people and so is she. Like you said, I'm not everyone's cup of tea. Some people like coffee and that's okay.
The article really resonates with me. I wish I was surrounded by more people in my life who consider things in depth like I do. At work, I hear the women I work with vent about their problems, but I'm not sure how much they really consider the solutions to those problems. I don't have many close girlfriends, as I don't relate to what most women my age are interested in. At home, I want to share and have people agree with my positions concerning societal trends, but either a) it's an inconvenient time to bring that stuff up, b) nobody really understands what I'm talking about, or c) I get told I'm overthinking everything, or that none of those possible scenarios I'm worried about will ever happen to me, or that I spend too much time on the internet and I need to focus on the positive. The only person who is on my level in this way is my psychotherapist, but she lives in another state and I have to pay her an extravagant amount of money for discussing topics that I don't believe can be unpacked fully in an hour once a week.
I want to feel seen, like you, Radha, and that's why I post on Substack, but I'm afraid if I seriously attempt to devote myself to writing and cultural commentary, I'll come across as one of those overprivileged, overeducated, and naive progressives that the internet is starting to hate. But being understood, and even being someone who influences people to find meaning in their lives is a core need for me. Does anybody have any insight on this?
I agree with Radha — please do post on Substack. Who cares what "the internet" thinks. Who cares if this post prompted five people to unsubscribe ... they're surely not the ones she wants to form deeper relationships with. I love Henrik Karlsson's notion of a blog post as a way to start fascinating conversations with interesting people: https://www.henrikkarlsson.xyz/p/search-query
I feel this very much. Since I posted this about 4 hours ago, 5 people have unsubscribed, which perhaps proves my point to an extent. Your entire comment describes how I feel. I, too, once unpacked these things with a therapist and still do (my issues with women feature prominently). I've been told the same as you. I can tell you that your level of thoughtfulness with this comment indicates you're at the point where writing publicly may help you work through those topics with others who truly get it. This is the one place I've found people who are willing to engage in depth. If nothing else, I encourage you to do it to develop your voice. Writing, even if it's for yourself, can help you work through these topics to find your position on them. But writing publicly can help even more because there are people out there who will engage in good faith with thoughts you may never have considered.
In my experience, it has been easiest to make meaningful friendships in contexts where I was pursuing something deeply important to me and, in the process, connecting with others doing the same thing.
So, in my 20s, I was in grad school, and made friends there. It was easy to find interesting, curious women, as if they weren’t that, they would not have signed up for that pursuit. Then, in my 30s, I mostly made friends with other mothers of young children who were trying to figure out how to balance being really involved with family and maintaining some sort of satisfying professional life. That’s very difficult, but being together navigating the same problems created a deep bond.
Now that my kids are grown up and out of the house, and I’ve become so interested in a heterodox way in contemporary American politics, I also find that it’s harder to connect with others who share those interests except online. I’ve tried to do it IRL, but it doesn’t work well. Even when the shared interest and sense of connection is there, other factors that make friendship easy aren’t — we live too far apart, have different schedules, are in different stages of life, etc.
I agree with you and other commentators that the shallow, toxic, divisive political culture is getting in the way of meaningful connection. I think it’s possible to get around it, as my sons are in their mid-20s and have many close, meaningful friendships, as well as one strong primary relationship. And this is the norm in their circles. But it’s evident that that’s becoming rarer and rarer. How to counter it, I don’t know. But it’s a serious problem.
It's amazing that you have found women who are navigating life with both kids and careers (so much for those who say that women can't have it all!) But I have kids nor a high-level career, and I'm almost 30, and I blame myself for not putting in the work to get both in my twenties, even though I went through a pandemic and severe anxiety in my twenties. I wish I had some incentive to study this stuff in my offline life, as a career, but I don't think those jobs actually exist, or if they do, nobody who does them does anything important because they live in the realm of abstract theory and not practicality.
Well, I am in my early 60s and I think pretty much everyone acknowledges that my generation had it easier than people in their 20s do now (on the whole - of course, there are many exceptions). That said, I see couples in their 20s managing to have really good, intimate friendships and relationships (without kids so far, however) - so, I think it's possible. Just harder.
In my experience, the women who have found it easiest to balance family and professional life have several things going for them, none of which are necessarily easy to find and maintain. A good relationship with a supportive partner and a job that allows for flexibility I'd say are key.
For example, I know a lot of women who are therapists who started out in a group practice, then went independent, then cut down on their client load when they had young children, then ramped it up again later. (As a side note, I'm now hearing a lot from younger women about how that profession has become insufferably woke. But, I think that means that there will be a big market emerging for those who are not. It's just a matter of time.)
Having the option to work from home can also be super-helpful, too, so that is one benefit that a lot of younger people have that we, on the whole, did not.
I also think that to have a marriage last and build a strong family takes a lot of time, effort, sacrifice, and hard work. And it's a lot harder to do that when you haven't come from a background where those values were instilled and you've personally experienced the payoff.
That said, I know lots of people from very f-ed up families of origin (and I'd definitely put myself in that category) who managed to break the old, bad patterns they grew up with. It's not easy, though. And both partners have to be committed and willing to work both on themselves individually and the relationship together as a couple. Then, it can definitely happen.
I've also seen things fall into place for both women and men much later than they might have expected or liked, too - it only takes one person and one job, so, while that's hard, it can happen when we're least expecting it.
And, then, even when you have those things down, life will throw you big challenges and perhaps some shocking traumas - hopefully not, but often enough. So we all have to, as best we can, just "keep on trucking," as we used to say back in the day :)
“A good conversation is not a group of people making a series of statements at each other. (In fact, that’s a bad conversation.) A good conversation is an act of joint exploration. Somebody floats a half-formed idea. Somebody else seizes on the nub of the idea, plays with it, offers her own perspective based on her own memories, and floats it back so the other person can respond.”
This is an incredible truth. Inspired to buy the book you spoke about. Here’s to a year of great connection and conversation!
1. How highly do you recommend How to Know A Person? It's on my list...just not sure how high to move it up WRT priortization.
2. Simon Sinek talks about this a lot
3. Point about mutual growth is powerful. I've noticed the same. I wonder if that could become a more in-depth essay/exploration. The question that comes to mind is...can we identify (reliably) some indicators that show that one person is not growing at the same pace as the other, and if so, how reliable is that as a predictor of a fragile relationship that's likely to break? I think there may be something there.
I still haven't read Sinek, but he keeps coming up. Is there anything in particular that interests you that Sinek wrote?
You could read a summary of How to Know a Person on something like Blink, but it also includes some impactful meditations, which I return to. Moreover, I would rate it as one of the top 10 books I read last year.
As for number 3, I think there is certainly something here that I will ponder. My indication is binary: Can they discuss a controversial topic with me without the conversation being emotionally charged? Can I be my actual self with honest opinions? If I can't authentically share such thoughts as this essay with my friends without their being strife, I'm not sure it's worth it. Separately, others tell me whether that person can examine their actions and their impact on others even when they complain about something that happened to them. Are they trying to improve themselves? And finally, do they read? Do they discuss anything besides the inane topics I mentioned in my essay?
"People take turns telling quotidian stories, often about dating, and there’s no engagement from the others in the group about any person’s words or any attempt to understand why they reached certain conclusions."
This is a pattern I've observed that has changed over my lifetime. People used to ask "Why?" to try to understand each other. Then we got the "Coddling of the American Mind" generation that Jonathan Haidt identifies and asking "Why?" became considered offensive because it 1) forces people to justify themselves & 2) implies that the listener is in a position to judge whether the reason given is sufficient to justify the position taken.
Which, to me, raised in the Classical Liberalism of John Stuart Mills, are perfectly reasonable expectations: people SHOULD be able to offer an explanation for their opinions and be open to other perspectives and reasoned counterargument. But society has instead shifted the definition of "empathy" from trying to UNDERSTAND what other people are feeling and thinking to instead mean unquestioning AFFIRMATION of what they are feeling and thinking.
When questions are interpreted as attacks, we're discouraged from asking. When opinions, feelings, "My Truth", and "Lived Experience" are indisputable... There's nothing left but exchanging statements. When having opposing, or even merely differing, statements is severely punished (social censure, mockery, shunning, etc), even exchanging the statements is discouraged unless you know that you agree. So conversation gets reduced to little more than banal observations of the inconsequential ("How about this weather, huh?") and reaffirming points of agreement ("That other side really sucks, huh?").
Ironically, this state of affairs is traceable to attempts to force people to be MORE empathetic (interpreted as attempting to avoid inflicting any emotional suffering or effort on others). The trouble is, it's effectively impossible to have any deep, meaningful conversation about something that truly matters to the people involved without mutual effort and risking inflicting emotional suffering. Meaningful debate can be painful, frustrating, disappointing, saddening, exhausting, offensive, etc. Meaningful conversation requires making yourself vulnerable. If we aren't willing to take that chance, and allow others to take that chance, then we end up with the social equivalent of a demilitarized zone with walls on both ends that nobody can cross without being attacked.
Maybe it's a "guy thing", maybe it was just a generational or regional thing, but when I grew up you knew who your friends were because your friends could tease each other, challenge each other, even have a fight over strong disagreements... And then laugh about it and move on with no lasting harm done to the friendship. Friends weren't the people you didn't allow to disagree with you, not even the people who just genuinely have no disagreements with you, friends were the people that you trusted to disagree with you, the people you trusted tell you honestly when they think you're wrong. It saddens me that I don't see that in society much anymore.
There is so much here (took me a while to work through all the comments but I did sit with this one). First, you've stated basically everything that has been bugging me in recent years. Some thoughts on each:
Re: coddling, I've found that asking why is considered rude and immediately makes the conversation hostile. I've found this to be true in groups of women, especially, and I think you're onto something about gender. It is more acceptable among men to have open debate, maybe because men are less emotionally attuned to each other or emotion plays less of a role in the ways you relate to each other, but could be wrong.
Re: affirmation, female relationships seem to be predicated on affirming everything your friend does and thinks, whether that be about political opinions or life choices. Because empathy has come to mean listening without commenting, you can't challenge the way your friends go through life even if it means they harm themselves and others in the long run. Giving advice is rude, and could potentially even end friendships. It's so tedious to be friends with people like that, but I have many such people in my life.
I tried to have many debates on contentious topics with women, specifically, and it becomes emotionally charged immediately and there's no real room for people to consider changing their minds. Perhaps what I should do here is keep asking why, or learn how to be like Socrates. Still working on that. I think women especially are uncomfortable making ourselves vulnerable to other women, even as our female friendships require a great deal of emotional connection. It's a difficult dance. I noticed that when I enlist a man to argue with women on my behalf, suddenly the temperature goes down a bit. I don't know. I think it is a guy thing.
We are unwilling to grant that others may have reached their opinions that we disagree with after much consideration. I've now read so many books on these subjects I feel far more confident in my own opinions, but it's difficult for people to see that maybe I reached my incendiary conclusions after careful research.
The only thing I can add, having studied the sociology and history of political and cultural fragmentation and atomization for decades is that DNA matters (in that it maps european subcultures of origin in regions of the USA). Trump's base was the NASCAR "tribe", Appalachian Celts (Scots-Irish, Border Rievers). That distinct gene pool had been in conflict with the lowland, Manorial Franks* for something like 500 years in Europe/Britian, and those conflicts came to the USA with the populations in question (resurfacing most in the Civil War, see Colin Woodard's 11 Nations). Celtic people (very clannish, very pre-classically-liberal) tended to settle in the remote areas of central/southern Appalachia, which most resembled where they came from in Britian.
The DNA mapping, to vastly oversimplify, predicts the difference between the clannish, low-social-trust social form and the classically liberal, high-social-trust form. (Henrich's WEIRD model)
The national unity narrative that was the glue that held the factions together against King George really began to fail as a result of the spread of the slave plantation system, which was first imported into the USA by a particularly nasty gene pool of sociopathic, pre-classically liberal Aristocrats originally from SW England. The Civil War was supposed to settle the matter, but it was imperfect (Jim Crow, state-sponsored terrorism).
The "fix" for Jim Crow, the Civil Rights and Social Justice movements, were hijacked by postmodernists and neo-marxists, so we are now back in a situation where the national unity myth is disintegrating.
I really appreciate your astute observations from other fields. Honestly, I have stayed away from the biological aspect of it because I'm not sure where to start. I do think, though, you're onto something with the low/high trust observation. We have an extraordinarily low trust society, and as an aside, I've seen even less trust in India, which makes its way over here.
Reading Achieving Our Country led me to question whether a cohesive national identity can be created in a heterogenous society such as ours. Despite race being accepted as a construct and there being less racism, we still stay in our tribes, and that's because humans are just tribal. What do you think? Can there be a shared narrative? I fear social media and the internet have entirely obviated that possibility.
I love your writing and I agree 100%. An interesting question is: if people took this to heart and stopped calling one another dolts and bigots over genuine political differences which ideologies and interest groups would suffer the greatest diminutions?
Back at you, James. I was at a dinner this past week and the total strangers around the table made clear immediately that one could vote a "right" and "wrong" way 5 minutes into the conversation. I tuned out because people like that don't actually want to understand where an opposing argument comes from. I fear we won't get past it because it's so ingrained in female professional class culture.
I think it would kind of work itself out (and would have decades ago, when our worlds lay closer to one another and intersected daily). Unfortunately, some of those subcultures are very insulated from many aspects of reality and protected by credentials and other barriers to entry.
How ironic that an egalitarian philosophy is sustained by elite distance and intellectual snobbiness. It's like a Marxist Marie Antoinette.
I think that the institutions that employ and protect these kinds of people will (in some cases) begin to lose effectiveness and funding but I can't imagine how the individuals will cope, psychologically. I would bet money that their outlook is indirectly affecting their contentedness and their ambitions and their relationship prospects, in some cases. Of course, when your worldview has those effects it must be the world that's at fault... not your belief system.
I predict that things are going to begin turning soon (not in every field... but in some-publishing, writing, content creation-the ones that have direct connections to the market in some way). As time passes many professions will remain insulated from thew shifting culture, but they will be regarded as increasingly strange and ridiculous by the mainstream. It will take a long time but that's the nature of ideology. It can leave believers stranded and afraid of the world, unable to take in new information.
I don't have much hope for mainstream publishing because that industry is captured and has no method of taking market feedback. That said, I see more and more books pushing back. As for the institutions, they will be impoverished because the 'discourse' prevents actual discussion about a how to create a positive working environment. And women will ascend the managerial hierarchy and eventually take over. Dark days are ahead, because their status games are less visible than that of men.
The David Brooks book is awesome, I read it last year too. I always liked Brooks; I used to listen to him on Air America, usually being interviewed by, I think, Al Franken. You've reminded me I need to pull it out and write down the good questions to ask people so that I can have better conversations, especially strangers, than I've been having.
I have a friend I think I just burnt a bridge with this weekend, but I can honestly say he brought it on himself. I didn't do it because I don't like his politics but because he became explosively angry and abusive every time he lost a discussion with me. He wasn't like that before the pandemic, but now he's just...insane. He's fine if you don't talk politics, but it's his primary interest and he's just gone down so many pandemic-era toxic rabbit holes. He's no longer a rational person.
I don’t think anyone should feel guilty over severing ties under such circumstances. Political fixations can lead folks to join ISIS with their kids in tow. It can certainly make people angry and unpleasant! No one is obligated to keep the company of angry or unpleasant people.
If it were me I would honestly tell my friend what I was doing and why (provided I felt safe). Sometimes the genuine concern of a friend is a powerful catalyst for personal growth. Sometimes not 😂
I did. I kept it short and sweet. Let's just say I'm not the first person he's alienated with his anger. He wasn't like this before the pandemic....I think he went down a lot of rabbit holes. I would still welcome him back if he changed his ways, but I'm not holding my breath :(
I'd like to mention that two big reasons people never acknowledge wrong doing is, because people rub it into your face, or bring it up in the future, in a totally unrelated topic, as a cheap way to discredit you.
It's true, but then it's a race to bottom isn't it?
Aha this is why dating was an "off limits" topic, haha!
"Friendship is not merely about listening to complaints but requires helping each other grow. Without this mutual growth, one person will inevitably outgrow the other" –– YES
Exactly that reason yes - gets used as a default topic. But you and I can extract more meaning from it I’m sure.
"do they validate or challenge your interpretation? Mutual challenge between friends is required but is almost non-existent "
It's quite a thing to experience they need "validation" but only validation. Even not providing validation is an attack. As I'm a man, that means insta-divorce. "Emotional Abandonment" they would call it in the 30s. However, two things: is everyone coddling you really good? Veruca Salt. Is repeating what you say with affirmations expanding your mental ability and outlook?
I say this because the very thought of a man affirming anything to another man is anathema. You are literally required to bust his balls or stay silent. That's not an attack, by the way, neither is it toxic. It's a first meta-way to say "Don't take yourself so seriously" and the magic in doing it is that you must then cleverly make your greater point in the context of busting. Imagine you must issue a thesis on Martin Luther but in rap battle form. The benefit is all of this causes you to break OUT of yourself and your present mindframe. And in male for NOT that I am going to even attempt to tell you what frame you should use instead. Deconstruction, but the Construction is up to you. And expected. If you didn't act, that is choose, and construct something I don't know what we'd say but it would be a Wtf?
The point here is: Mutual Challenge. Do they Vent, Validate, etc? Men are happy to listen, nod, whatever, doesn't bother a bit. But to actually actively NOT allow, or rather ONLY allow perfect support and agreement is not something than can be done, least of all because it's an unconscionable disservice to a woman you presumably love and care about. He's supposed to watch you hurt yourself and do nothing? As more spaces become feminine, they lean toward their approach. Who wins? Which is more practical?
I belong to a yoga studio and meet a lot of different types of people including many who are immigrants. One of the teachers who is Brazilian is a deep thinker. I can get deep into conversation with her because like myself she is curious about how the world works and is very smart.
I find the members who lived outside of America the most interesting to talk to because they have a different perspective on life and they also are motivated to learn more about their new home country. And of course I learn about what is like to live in their place of origin.
I can see people who came here as adults being more curious because they must be. The rest of us can walk around not considering other perspectives. The people who use social media heavily, I suspect, are less open to considering contrary opinions. I often learn the most from people who didn't grow up here, especially from the not-west.
This is very interesting. I think about you a lot because we are so different. I dont have a lot of friendships, and the ones I do have dont feel super deep and meaningful. I have one friend who I kinda hate talking to because she treats me like there's something wrong with me whenever I have an opinion she doesnt like or agree with. So I have tried to cut down contact with her, though I would prefer to stop being friends.
My hope has always been that I will make new friends, but this is simply not happening. So I am stuck with no reciprocal relationships and unable to generate new ones.
For awhile I thought it best to simply have no friends. I am pretty apolitical and dont enioy discussing politics in real life. Although I am treated as an invisible person, I possess no desire to be seen.
And to be perfectly frank, if I were to make any friendship goals it would be to meet someone who actually likes me and wants to talk to or hang out with me. Which, so far, isnt really a thing I have experienced as an adult (or ever).
Hi Kitty, I've been delayed in responding so apologies, but I read this a few days ago and have been thinking about what to say. I feel you on the friend you're talking about. I have several exactly like this. I want you to be able to experience being seen. I think there is hope for you to find people who get you. Unfortunately it takes us introverts more effort.
Is there any sort of intellectually stimulating group you can join, like a writing group or a book club (based on serious topics)? I'm a tad surprised by this: "I possess no desire to be seen." Are you sure? I don't need you to tell me, but I want to push back because I once thought the same, but it turned out that it was because I didn't want to be hurt repeatedly. That is the thing that sucks most about friendships; it's a different kind of hurt.
I so relate to this. Group chats were the worst for my friendships even more than social media. I left most of them, I'm essentially off social media, and I try to only interact with my friends now in person, on the phone, or on Substack. It has been good for me, and I think for the quality of my friendships.
I didn't break up with any of my old friends, though, and I also don't love the concept of boundaries. Basically, I followed the advice of Olga Khazan's Atlantic article, "Stop Firing Your Friends; Just make more of them."
I right-sized my old friendships by setting realistic expectations and being clearer with myself about what I get out of each of them. (For instance, one of my friends is a bad listener, but he's very funny, and we laugh for hours. Another friend is bad at keeping commitments, but we occasionally have four-hour, deep conversations that leave me thinking for weeks. So I appreciate the good and let the rest go.)
Right-sizing my old friendships gave me space to focus on building new ones. Before 40, I don't think I was even self-aware enough to know what I wanted: friendships that are reciprocal, generative, and honest. Like you, I want to be challenged, to feel seen, to grow together. I'm still in the early days of this and every phone call and hang is an opportunity to get better at it. But I think I am getting better.
PS: I love how your writing prompts such great comments and conversations among your readers. The same thing happened on my blog in the mid 2000s and I wish I knew how to bring back the magic today.
I am delayed in commenting back but first, I always appreciate your thorough responses. I know what you mean about group chats. I commend that you're putting so much effort into maintaining them. I find that even talking on the phone is draining after a long day of meetings, and I've been doing it less and less with time. But, I need to change this. It is wise to right-size. Maybe I'm just resisting doing that because I am afraid I'll be left with no one at the end. I honestly just really appreciate what thoughtful readers I have. Thank you for the good advice!
This resonates deeply Radha. The issue of true reciprocity in friendships, including the ability to challenge each other non-judgementally is in short supply across generations. I see the pressure to be agreeable and practitioners of Right Speak among Millennials way more than older generations.
Friendships that facilitate growth and self-discovery are the only ones I have today among Gen Xers and Millennials that took years to cultivate. A critical characteristic of these friendships is what you mention - the ability to gently challenge each other's thinking, curiosity to learn about how the other arrived at their conclusions, and an appreciation for our different perspectives. We share our observations about each other and use a reflective stance that enables both of us to learn more about ourselves from each other.
We also anchor our conversations to spiritual or philosophical principles - it helps that we share similar frameworks for exploring our thoughts, feelings, and experiences.
One of the pieces of feedback I get from friends is that I helped them develop better inquiry skills so that they can do to me what I do with them. It's made a huge difference in cultivating intimacy.
It's sad that people have to pay for the types of relationships that help them see themselves more clearly because they don't have friends who can attentively listen to them (and vice versa) but thankful there's something that can fill that void. It's no wonder we have a loneliness epidemic alongside Cluster B society.
At least you're clear about what you want and no longer want out of friendships, which is a step toward forging those lasting connections.
I've seen these topics being addressed in your writing and that percolates in my mind as I work on my own arguments. There are some deeper vulnerability issues that prevent women from being honest with each other. I imagine the strongest friends you have carefully considered their values and opinions. I almost never find philosophically grounded perspectives of late because no one really reads. I'm really inspired by the feedback your friends gave. I'm trying to figure out how to be that person for mine without leading them to hate me. As always, you make me think. <3
You raise a really important point about women having a hard time being honest with each other about how they're really feeling/thinking. I am currently working on a piece about mothers and women more generally who are on the spiritual path, seeking to fill the void. The access to deeper vulnerability is blocked by denial of suffering/struggle in favour of high vibe thoughts and unrealistic ideas about success. Women in groups can still be competitive and not want to lose face by even considering that they could be struggling and cover it up with material acquisition and striving for new goals.
Re: friends who ask good questions - I developed a program that I piloted. People in my network and many I didn't know signed up to participate in free 8 week training to help them learn how to moderate anonymous group chats of medical professionals disclosing their workplace/training/interpersonal woes. They were specifically taught techniques to not go into fixer/rescuer/saviour mode and required them to get very curious, check their assumptions and apply reflective listening skills to help the person make sense of their issue. I basically taught them skills for effectively helping people that they later would use with me when I reached out for help with them.
With other friends, I basically asked them if they would be ok with me no longer jumping in an advising but doing something different so I could practice my skills..and it involved slowing down the conversation to give us both more time to think before speaking. We would assess at the end of the convo about how it went. They preferred this mode when exploring their own personal issues, which enabled us to examine wider influences/politics/world events/history to help give more depth to their story. It could be that you are transparent about your interests in having more exploratory convos with them and that you will be trying a few different things.
I hope that helps and it's a possibility among your current connections.
I once had the Idea for a Hemp EMF Protection Business with T-Shirt Sayings, besides others "with Honesty comes Honour"
https://youtu.be/isPlnxD6rUc?si=Iti0zzGj9sonZEnv
Evernote has suddenly deleted my Years-long Storage with all the Notes for T-Shirt Sayings and its Support doesn't react to my Complaints...
Like Telegram Support who recently out of the blue deleted my 1/2 Years long used paid 1 Year Premium Account, where I also had the Sayings sent to People... they also don't react...
Those are great practical ideas. I think I may have to start creating my own contexts for intellectual engagement like you’ve modeled. Or I just need to become braver. I hear people say things like “they voted for the wrong person”. I will have to get comfortable saying “who’s the right person”? Most of the time these sorts of statements are begging for clarification but feminine communication norms prevent even that, because even that is hostile.
I have a friend (1) that I can say anything to and still be friends. We used to be on different sides politically, but I've come around to her way these days. It never mattered. We kind of enjoyed drinking and sparring. Sometimes yelling. And slamming the door. Cool off. Laugh about it. Move on. I'm different from most people and so is she. Like you said, I'm not everyone's cup of tea. Some people like coffee and that's okay.
The article really resonates with me. I wish I was surrounded by more people in my life who consider things in depth like I do. At work, I hear the women I work with vent about their problems, but I'm not sure how much they really consider the solutions to those problems. I don't have many close girlfriends, as I don't relate to what most women my age are interested in. At home, I want to share and have people agree with my positions concerning societal trends, but either a) it's an inconvenient time to bring that stuff up, b) nobody really understands what I'm talking about, or c) I get told I'm overthinking everything, or that none of those possible scenarios I'm worried about will ever happen to me, or that I spend too much time on the internet and I need to focus on the positive. The only person who is on my level in this way is my psychotherapist, but she lives in another state and I have to pay her an extravagant amount of money for discussing topics that I don't believe can be unpacked fully in an hour once a week.
I want to feel seen, like you, Radha, and that's why I post on Substack, but I'm afraid if I seriously attempt to devote myself to writing and cultural commentary, I'll come across as one of those overprivileged, overeducated, and naive progressives that the internet is starting to hate. But being understood, and even being someone who influences people to find meaning in their lives is a core need for me. Does anybody have any insight on this?
I agree with Radha — please do post on Substack. Who cares what "the internet" thinks. Who cares if this post prompted five people to unsubscribe ... they're surely not the ones she wants to form deeper relationships with. I love Henrik Karlsson's notion of a blog post as a way to start fascinating conversations with interesting people: https://www.henrikkarlsson.xyz/p/search-query
Thank you for your reassurance and for the blog recommendation!
I feel this very much. Since I posted this about 4 hours ago, 5 people have unsubscribed, which perhaps proves my point to an extent. Your entire comment describes how I feel. I, too, once unpacked these things with a therapist and still do (my issues with women feature prominently). I've been told the same as you. I can tell you that your level of thoughtfulness with this comment indicates you're at the point where writing publicly may help you work through those topics with others who truly get it. This is the one place I've found people who are willing to engage in depth. If nothing else, I encourage you to do it to develop your voice. Writing, even if it's for yourself, can help you work through these topics to find your position on them. But writing publicly can help even more because there are people out there who will engage in good faith with thoughts you may never have considered.
In my experience, it has been easiest to make meaningful friendships in contexts where I was pursuing something deeply important to me and, in the process, connecting with others doing the same thing.
So, in my 20s, I was in grad school, and made friends there. It was easy to find interesting, curious women, as if they weren’t that, they would not have signed up for that pursuit. Then, in my 30s, I mostly made friends with other mothers of young children who were trying to figure out how to balance being really involved with family and maintaining some sort of satisfying professional life. That’s very difficult, but being together navigating the same problems created a deep bond.
Now that my kids are grown up and out of the house, and I’ve become so interested in a heterodox way in contemporary American politics, I also find that it’s harder to connect with others who share those interests except online. I’ve tried to do it IRL, but it doesn’t work well. Even when the shared interest and sense of connection is there, other factors that make friendship easy aren’t — we live too far apart, have different schedules, are in different stages of life, etc.
I agree with you and other commentators that the shallow, toxic, divisive political culture is getting in the way of meaningful connection. I think it’s possible to get around it, as my sons are in their mid-20s and have many close, meaningful friendships, as well as one strong primary relationship. And this is the norm in their circles. But it’s evident that that’s becoming rarer and rarer. How to counter it, I don’t know. But it’s a serious problem.
It's amazing that you have found women who are navigating life with both kids and careers (so much for those who say that women can't have it all!) But I have kids nor a high-level career, and I'm almost 30, and I blame myself for not putting in the work to get both in my twenties, even though I went through a pandemic and severe anxiety in my twenties. I wish I had some incentive to study this stuff in my offline life, as a career, but I don't think those jobs actually exist, or if they do, nobody who does them does anything important because they live in the realm of abstract theory and not practicality.
Well, I am in my early 60s and I think pretty much everyone acknowledges that my generation had it easier than people in their 20s do now (on the whole - of course, there are many exceptions). That said, I see couples in their 20s managing to have really good, intimate friendships and relationships (without kids so far, however) - so, I think it's possible. Just harder.
In my experience, the women who have found it easiest to balance family and professional life have several things going for them, none of which are necessarily easy to find and maintain. A good relationship with a supportive partner and a job that allows for flexibility I'd say are key.
For example, I know a lot of women who are therapists who started out in a group practice, then went independent, then cut down on their client load when they had young children, then ramped it up again later. (As a side note, I'm now hearing a lot from younger women about how that profession has become insufferably woke. But, I think that means that there will be a big market emerging for those who are not. It's just a matter of time.)
Having the option to work from home can also be super-helpful, too, so that is one benefit that a lot of younger people have that we, on the whole, did not.
I also think that to have a marriage last and build a strong family takes a lot of time, effort, sacrifice, and hard work. And it's a lot harder to do that when you haven't come from a background where those values were instilled and you've personally experienced the payoff.
That said, I know lots of people from very f-ed up families of origin (and I'd definitely put myself in that category) who managed to break the old, bad patterns they grew up with. It's not easy, though. And both partners have to be committed and willing to work both on themselves individually and the relationship together as a couple. Then, it can definitely happen.
I've also seen things fall into place for both women and men much later than they might have expected or liked, too - it only takes one person and one job, so, while that's hard, it can happen when we're least expecting it.
And, then, even when you have those things down, life will throw you big challenges and perhaps some shocking traumas - hopefully not, but often enough. So we all have to, as best we can, just "keep on trucking," as we used to say back in the day :)
“A good conversation is not a group of people making a series of statements at each other. (In fact, that’s a bad conversation.) A good conversation is an act of joint exploration. Somebody floats a half-formed idea. Somebody else seizes on the nub of the idea, plays with it, offers her own perspective based on her own memories, and floats it back so the other person can respond.”
This is an incredible truth. Inspired to buy the book you spoke about. Here’s to a year of great connection and conversation!
A few comments/questions:
1. How highly do you recommend How to Know A Person? It's on my list...just not sure how high to move it up WRT priortization.
2. Simon Sinek talks about this a lot
3. Point about mutual growth is powerful. I've noticed the same. I wonder if that could become a more in-depth essay/exploration. The question that comes to mind is...can we identify (reliably) some indicators that show that one person is not growing at the same pace as the other, and if so, how reliable is that as a predictor of a fragile relationship that's likely to break? I think there may be something there.
I still haven't read Sinek, but he keeps coming up. Is there anything in particular that interests you that Sinek wrote?
You could read a summary of How to Know a Person on something like Blink, but it also includes some impactful meditations, which I return to. Moreover, I would rate it as one of the top 10 books I read last year.
As for number 3, I think there is certainly something here that I will ponder. My indication is binary: Can they discuss a controversial topic with me without the conversation being emotionally charged? Can I be my actual self with honest opinions? If I can't authentically share such thoughts as this essay with my friends without their being strife, I'm not sure it's worth it. Separately, others tell me whether that person can examine their actions and their impact on others even when they complain about something that happened to them. Are they trying to improve themselves? And finally, do they read? Do they discuss anything besides the inane topics I mentioned in my essay?
"People take turns telling quotidian stories, often about dating, and there’s no engagement from the others in the group about any person’s words or any attempt to understand why they reached certain conclusions."
This is a pattern I've observed that has changed over my lifetime. People used to ask "Why?" to try to understand each other. Then we got the "Coddling of the American Mind" generation that Jonathan Haidt identifies and asking "Why?" became considered offensive because it 1) forces people to justify themselves & 2) implies that the listener is in a position to judge whether the reason given is sufficient to justify the position taken.
Which, to me, raised in the Classical Liberalism of John Stuart Mills, are perfectly reasonable expectations: people SHOULD be able to offer an explanation for their opinions and be open to other perspectives and reasoned counterargument. But society has instead shifted the definition of "empathy" from trying to UNDERSTAND what other people are feeling and thinking to instead mean unquestioning AFFIRMATION of what they are feeling and thinking.
When questions are interpreted as attacks, we're discouraged from asking. When opinions, feelings, "My Truth", and "Lived Experience" are indisputable... There's nothing left but exchanging statements. When having opposing, or even merely differing, statements is severely punished (social censure, mockery, shunning, etc), even exchanging the statements is discouraged unless you know that you agree. So conversation gets reduced to little more than banal observations of the inconsequential ("How about this weather, huh?") and reaffirming points of agreement ("That other side really sucks, huh?").
Ironically, this state of affairs is traceable to attempts to force people to be MORE empathetic (interpreted as attempting to avoid inflicting any emotional suffering or effort on others). The trouble is, it's effectively impossible to have any deep, meaningful conversation about something that truly matters to the people involved without mutual effort and risking inflicting emotional suffering. Meaningful debate can be painful, frustrating, disappointing, saddening, exhausting, offensive, etc. Meaningful conversation requires making yourself vulnerable. If we aren't willing to take that chance, and allow others to take that chance, then we end up with the social equivalent of a demilitarized zone with walls on both ends that nobody can cross without being attacked.
Maybe it's a "guy thing", maybe it was just a generational or regional thing, but when I grew up you knew who your friends were because your friends could tease each other, challenge each other, even have a fight over strong disagreements... And then laugh about it and move on with no lasting harm done to the friendship. Friends weren't the people you didn't allow to disagree with you, not even the people who just genuinely have no disagreements with you, friends were the people that you trusted to disagree with you, the people you trusted tell you honestly when they think you're wrong. It saddens me that I don't see that in society much anymore.
There is so much here (took me a while to work through all the comments but I did sit with this one). First, you've stated basically everything that has been bugging me in recent years. Some thoughts on each:
Re: coddling, I've found that asking why is considered rude and immediately makes the conversation hostile. I've found this to be true in groups of women, especially, and I think you're onto something about gender. It is more acceptable among men to have open debate, maybe because men are less emotionally attuned to each other or emotion plays less of a role in the ways you relate to each other, but could be wrong.
Re: affirmation, female relationships seem to be predicated on affirming everything your friend does and thinks, whether that be about political opinions or life choices. Because empathy has come to mean listening without commenting, you can't challenge the way your friends go through life even if it means they harm themselves and others in the long run. Giving advice is rude, and could potentially even end friendships. It's so tedious to be friends with people like that, but I have many such people in my life.
I tried to have many debates on contentious topics with women, specifically, and it becomes emotionally charged immediately and there's no real room for people to consider changing their minds. Perhaps what I should do here is keep asking why, or learn how to be like Socrates. Still working on that. I think women especially are uncomfortable making ourselves vulnerable to other women, even as our female friendships require a great deal of emotional connection. It's a difficult dance. I noticed that when I enlist a man to argue with women on my behalf, suddenly the temperature goes down a bit. I don't know. I think it is a guy thing.
We are unwilling to grant that others may have reached their opinions that we disagree with after much consideration. I've now read so many books on these subjects I feel far more confident in my own opinions, but it's difficult for people to see that maybe I reached my incendiary conclusions after careful research.
Spectacular, as always. Thank you.
The only thing I can add, having studied the sociology and history of political and cultural fragmentation and atomization for decades is that DNA matters (in that it maps european subcultures of origin in regions of the USA). Trump's base was the NASCAR "tribe", Appalachian Celts (Scots-Irish, Border Rievers). That distinct gene pool had been in conflict with the lowland, Manorial Franks* for something like 500 years in Europe/Britian, and those conflicts came to the USA with the populations in question (resurfacing most in the Civil War, see Colin Woodard's 11 Nations). Celtic people (very clannish, very pre-classically-liberal) tended to settle in the remote areas of central/southern Appalachia, which most resembled where they came from in Britian.
The DNA mapping, to vastly oversimplify, predicts the difference between the clannish, low-social-trust social form and the classically liberal, high-social-trust form. (Henrich's WEIRD model)
The national unity narrative that was the glue that held the factions together against King George really began to fail as a result of the spread of the slave plantation system, which was first imported into the USA by a particularly nasty gene pool of sociopathic, pre-classically liberal Aristocrats originally from SW England. The Civil War was supposed to settle the matter, but it was imperfect (Jim Crow, state-sponsored terrorism).
The "fix" for Jim Crow, the Civil Rights and Social Justice movements, were hijacked by postmodernists and neo-marxists, so we are now back in a situation where the national unity myth is disintegrating.
I really appreciate your astute observations from other fields. Honestly, I have stayed away from the biological aspect of it because I'm not sure where to start. I do think, though, you're onto something with the low/high trust observation. We have an extraordinarily low trust society, and as an aside, I've seen even less trust in India, which makes its way over here.
Reading Achieving Our Country led me to question whether a cohesive national identity can be created in a heterogenous society such as ours. Despite race being accepted as a construct and there being less racism, we still stay in our tribes, and that's because humans are just tribal. What do you think? Can there be a shared narrative? I fear social media and the internet have entirely obviated that possibility.
I love your writing and I agree 100%. An interesting question is: if people took this to heart and stopped calling one another dolts and bigots over genuine political differences which ideologies and interest groups would suffer the greatest diminutions?
Back at you, James. I was at a dinner this past week and the total strangers around the table made clear immediately that one could vote a "right" and "wrong" way 5 minutes into the conversation. I tuned out because people like that don't actually want to understand where an opposing argument comes from. I fear we won't get past it because it's so ingrained in female professional class culture.
I think it would kind of work itself out (and would have decades ago, when our worlds lay closer to one another and intersected daily). Unfortunately, some of those subcultures are very insulated from many aspects of reality and protected by credentials and other barriers to entry.
How ironic that an egalitarian philosophy is sustained by elite distance and intellectual snobbiness. It's like a Marxist Marie Antoinette.
I think that the institutions that employ and protect these kinds of people will (in some cases) begin to lose effectiveness and funding but I can't imagine how the individuals will cope, psychologically. I would bet money that their outlook is indirectly affecting their contentedness and their ambitions and their relationship prospects, in some cases. Of course, when your worldview has those effects it must be the world that's at fault... not your belief system.
I predict that things are going to begin turning soon (not in every field... but in some-publishing, writing, content creation-the ones that have direct connections to the market in some way). As time passes many professions will remain insulated from thew shifting culture, but they will be regarded as increasingly strange and ridiculous by the mainstream. It will take a long time but that's the nature of ideology. It can leave believers stranded and afraid of the world, unable to take in new information.
I don't have much hope for mainstream publishing because that industry is captured and has no method of taking market feedback. That said, I see more and more books pushing back. As for the institutions, they will be impoverished because the 'discourse' prevents actual discussion about a how to create a positive working environment. And women will ascend the managerial hierarchy and eventually take over. Dark days are ahead, because their status games are less visible than that of men.
The David Brooks book is awesome, I read it last year too. I always liked Brooks; I used to listen to him on Air America, usually being interviewed by, I think, Al Franken. You've reminded me I need to pull it out and write down the good questions to ask people so that I can have better conversations, especially strangers, than I've been having.
I have a friend I think I just burnt a bridge with this weekend, but I can honestly say he brought it on himself. I didn't do it because I don't like his politics but because he became explosively angry and abusive every time he lost a discussion with me. He wasn't like that before the pandemic, but now he's just...insane. He's fine if you don't talk politics, but it's his primary interest and he's just gone down so many pandemic-era toxic rabbit holes. He's no longer a rational person.
I don’t think anyone should feel guilty over severing ties under such circumstances. Political fixations can lead folks to join ISIS with their kids in tow. It can certainly make people angry and unpleasant! No one is obligated to keep the company of angry or unpleasant people.
If it were me I would honestly tell my friend what I was doing and why (provided I felt safe). Sometimes the genuine concern of a friend is a powerful catalyst for personal growth. Sometimes not 😂
I did. I kept it short and sweet. Let's just say I'm not the first person he's alienated with his anger. He wasn't like this before the pandemic....I think he went down a lot of rabbit holes. I would still welcome him back if he changed his ways, but I'm not holding my breath :(
Many more become "woke" postmodern neo-communists.