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.

+Join the discussion
TwitterfacebookEmail

Support the news