A Research Note on Friendship, Gender, and the Life Cycle

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces.Studies increasingly suggest that the personal relations of men and women differ. In this note we present data which show that differences between the friendships of men and of women are conditional upon stage in the life cycle, and we argue that this interaction effect is evidence for both a structural and dispositional explanation of behavioral differences between the sexes. Explaining Gender and Social RelationsThere are essentially two approaches to the study of how men's and women's social relations differ: dispositional and structural. Dispositional approaches explain gender differences in social relations by ongoing inclinations which originate in biology, culture, or early or adult socialization. Structural approaches explain gender differences by the different positions women and men typically occupy in the social system, and their differing access to economic, political, and ideological resources of power and privilege. Purely structural explanations explain behavioral differences by the direct, uninternalized effects of social structure. Dispositional explanations have been the most frequent approach to gender contrasts in social relations.We propose that gender differences in friendships emerge most sharply in particular periods of the life course, periods which offer very *This paper is a report of the Northern California Community Study, sponsored by the Center for Studies of Metropolitan Problems, N.I.M.H.Friendship, Gende; Life Cycle / 133 1,921 nonkin friends in the analysis, all men's friends were more likely to come from work than all women's, 25 and 14 percent, respectively, and far less likely to have been met through the spouse, 3 in contrast to 20 percent.) These differences narrow in the later stages, but in those stages relatively few wives worked. 9. The dependent variable here is a composite "affect" scale which includes items measuring anger, being upset, being pleased with oneself, and being happy. In both Stages 3 and 4 (children at home), mothers with less than ten nonkin in their networks scored significantly lower than did: mothers with ten or more nonkin; fathers with either few or many nonkin associates; and wives of the same age without children at home. Put another way, the presence of children at home especially depressed the feelings of women with small networks, indicating that children were no substitute for friends; and more, that friends were an important balm for mothers. 10. The means differ at p<.001. The units here are, again, the subsample of names-one hundred fifty-nine nonkin friends for ninety-one elderly women, and sevent...

Gender Differences in Drug Market Activities: A Comparative Assessment of Men and Women's Participation in the Drug Market

“…Women's networks tended to be characterized by more ties to kin, while men's networks appeared to include more nonkin or coworkers among their social ties (Fischer & Oliker, 1983;Wellman, 1985). According to Moore (1990), most gender differences in networks were due to opportunities and constraints arising out of women's and men's different locations in the social structure (p. 734; see also, Fisher & Oliker, 1983).…”

“…For women, marriage and children often act to constrain their ability to increase nonkin social contacts, wherein such circumstances have little bearing on the personal networks formed by men (Fischer & Oliker, 1983;Gerstel, 1988;Wellman, 1985). Moore (1990) examined the influence of structural variables on the range of network ties and found the effect of gender to be lessened once structural variables were considered.…”

Living Arrangements and Social Networks of Older Adults

“…The other focuses on the dissimilar structural circumstances in which men and women typically find themselves: through paid employment men have access to a wider pool of social contacts, while childcare and homemaking constrain women's opportunities to form ties outside the family and the neighbourhood. Fischer and Oliker (1983) point out that although women may be generally more inclined to have more varied friendship and family networks, this difference in disposition only becomes evident in circumstances where the opportunities for socializing are balanced for men and women. In their view, later life (the 'post-parental' years) offers such circumstances.…”

“…Generally speaking, there are two explanations of differences in the networks of men and women (Dykstra, 1990b;Fischer & Oliker, 1983;Moore, 1990). One focuses on contrasting relational dispositions, which are the result of socialization practices: women are viewed as having better social skills, and a greater capacity for the realization of empathy and intimacy in their relationships.…”

“…more multiplex relationships; to have more frequent contact with their network members; and to receive supports from multiple sources' (Antonucci, 1990, p. 212). These differences tend to be linked with differences between men and women in the opportunities to meet and interact with others, and differences in social skills and desires for social contact (Fischer & Oliker, 1983). This chapter starts with an analysis of gender differences in network composition.…”