Support the news

'Bromance' Revisited

We got a great range of reactions to today's show on "bromances," both on air from callers (and Tom and Jack), and online in the comments section. One view we heard a lot: that the terms we were headlining — bromance, man-crush, and so on — weren't the angle we should be taking: one commenter writes, "I think the 'bromance' thing is rather gimmicky and unnecessary."

For others, it wasn't just the language, it was the whole topic that was of little interest: "...honestly, is this topic top-of-mind with anyone? Let’s all run away, run away fast and read a good book."

Others found the topic engaging, or had their own points (and cultural examples) to add:

This is all so new for me!
The first I ever heard of it was when I started the book “Team Of Rivals: The Political Genius Of Abraham Lincoln.” I couldn’t believe the very close relationships some of these men had with each other. Doris Kearns Goodwin writes about it as though it was completely normal. I do believe that it is a kind of understanding we should open up to once again.
-- Ruth

Adding to the “bromance” list: Samwise and Frodo. Is it just my perception, or do ALL male/male pair bonds involve/require a dominant and a submissive personality?
-- Mari McAvenia

Have any of you seen Patrice Leconte’s “Mon Meilleur Ami” (My Best Friend). This seems to be a more serious treatment of the subject of male friendship.
-- Paul Ford

Tell us what you think in the comment thread. There are plenty of good questions waiting for answers.

This program aired on April 2, 2009. The audio for this program is not available.

+Join the discussion
TwitterfacebookEmail

Support the news