Reviews
Girl Talk: What Science Can Tell Us About Female Friendship by Jacqueline Mroz, Claire Messud
ewelenc's review against another edition
1.0
The only valuable part is a chapter on cultural influences on friendship ideals. No need to stick around for a needless recap of things you already know (women who end friendships are distressed about it? Wow, who knew?), discussions about men (not what I signed up for), or an eye-roller of a chapter on social media that contains exactly the squalling moral panic you’d expect if you ask anyone over 60 what they think of Social Media.
sondosia's review against another edition
2.0
I've rarely been disappointed enough by a book to take the time to write a thorough review, but this book was just so reductive, shallow, and not what it promised to be.
1. This book lacks organization almost entirely. It reads like a series of undergraduate term papers consisting mostly of facts thrown together haphazardly at the last minute. It has no overarching thesis or subject besides "female friendship," no conclusion, and no obvious structure. Even though each chapter does stick to a particular topic, anecdotes and factual tidbits are arranged seemingly at random within each chapter. In one case, the author repeats *the exact same quote* from a source two pages later.
2. Only six of the ten chapters are really about women's friendships. The rest are about friendship generally, cross-cultural differences in friendship, "sex differences" (more on this later, oof), or, most bizarrely, how technology affects human communication in general.
3. The author spends multiple chapters in a row parroting *the most bullshit* evopsych claims about gender differences I've ever seen. Women are more emotional, women's friendships are more "fragile" (these are practically word-for-word quotes there), men don't seek social support from friends, all of this is because historically women had to leave their homes and move in with their husbands' families when they married (to say nothing of the fact that actual evolution moves a lot more slowly than that, so this can't really explain supposed biological differences in friendship patterns). After dozens of pages of this, there are a few pages where some of this is refuted by citations and quotes from important scholars like Cordelia Fine, but that's kind of too little too late after many many paragraphs of unnuanced, simplistic claims about biological sex differences.
4. In general, the author repeatedly makes extremely generalized statements about complex topics like social relationships and mental health--sometimes she's quoting or citing researchers and leaves their claims unexplored further, but other times she seems to be stating her own opinion. For instance, in the chapter on technology, she straight-up writes, "Kids going to college are lonelier these days because they're having a harder time making new friends and connecting due to social media." I just. What. No mention of current political or economic issues, class differences, changes in parenting styles...There is no evidence cited to justify such an extreme claim, besides more opinion and illogical interpretations of particular studies.
5. In a section on "toxic friends" (a loaded term if I ever heard one), there are a few paragraphs in which the author and one of her sources literally claim that people with borderline personality disorder are abusive and often "toxic." I'm going to just pull-quote this because it has to be seen to be believed:
"Other times, mental illness can play a factor in toxic friends. For instance, according to Jalma, women who suffer from borderline personality disorder--a mental illness characterized by unstable moods, behavior, and relationships--lack a solid sense of self, and every interaction is a potential for rejection. They tend to be needy and critical and feel frustrated much of the time. Their needs never seem to be met--and they probably suffered some kind of trauma as a child.
...[Jalma] likens these relationships to domestic abuse situations, and she gives the metaphor of frogs boiling in a pot."
Dr. Jalma is a clinical psychologist who sees clients, which just horrifies me, but Mroz doesn't come out looking great in this passage either. "and they probably suffered some kind of trauma as a child." What the fuck? As a therapist and a person who has experienced mental illness, all of this profoundly offends me and should never have passed an editor's review.
In general, Mroz has taken a completely uncritical and uncomplicated passing glance at a subject that has been poorly researched and subject to sexist bias, rather than taking the opportunity to probe and explore some of these claims about how women's friendships are "more fragile" and contain "more drama." (There's literally a whole section about an interview subject who's apparently some sort of Chill Girl and talks about how she won't be friends with women at all because of "the drama." This is presented without any sort of critique or further exploration.)
There were a few positives about this book--some of the research presented was interesting and new to me, such as the studies showing that women with breast cancer have better health outcomes and survival if they have more friends. Some of the stories and anecdotes were interesting too, especially the one at the very end about friendships between Black and white women. But overall, I cannot recommend this book whatsoever and wish this important subject had gotten the nuanced treatment it deserves.
1. This book lacks organization almost entirely. It reads like a series of undergraduate term papers consisting mostly of facts thrown together haphazardly at the last minute. It has no overarching thesis or subject besides "female friendship," no conclusion, and no obvious structure. Even though each chapter does stick to a particular topic, anecdotes and factual tidbits are arranged seemingly at random within each chapter. In one case, the author repeats *the exact same quote* from a source two pages later.
2. Only six of the ten chapters are really about women's friendships. The rest are about friendship generally, cross-cultural differences in friendship, "sex differences" (more on this later, oof), or, most bizarrely, how technology affects human communication in general.
3. The author spends multiple chapters in a row parroting *the most bullshit* evopsych claims about gender differences I've ever seen. Women are more emotional, women's friendships are more "fragile" (these are practically word-for-word quotes there), men don't seek social support from friends, all of this is because historically women had to leave their homes and move in with their husbands' families when they married (to say nothing of the fact that actual evolution moves a lot more slowly than that, so this can't really explain supposed biological differences in friendship patterns). After dozens of pages of this, there are a few pages where some of this is refuted by citations and quotes from important scholars like Cordelia Fine, but that's kind of too little too late after many many paragraphs of unnuanced, simplistic claims about biological sex differences.
4. In general, the author repeatedly makes extremely generalized statements about complex topics like social relationships and mental health--sometimes she's quoting or citing researchers and leaves their claims unexplored further, but other times she seems to be stating her own opinion. For instance, in the chapter on technology, she straight-up writes, "Kids going to college are lonelier these days because they're having a harder time making new friends and connecting due to social media." I just. What. No mention of current political or economic issues, class differences, changes in parenting styles...There is no evidence cited to justify such an extreme claim, besides more opinion and illogical interpretations of particular studies.
5. In a section on "toxic friends" (a loaded term if I ever heard one), there are a few paragraphs in which the author and one of her sources literally claim that people with borderline personality disorder are abusive and often "toxic." I'm going to just pull-quote this because it has to be seen to be believed:
"Other times, mental illness can play a factor in toxic friends. For instance, according to Jalma, women who suffer from borderline personality disorder--a mental illness characterized by unstable moods, behavior, and relationships--lack a solid sense of self, and every interaction is a potential for rejection. They tend to be needy and critical and feel frustrated much of the time. Their needs never seem to be met--and they probably suffered some kind of trauma as a child.
...[Jalma] likens these relationships to domestic abuse situations, and she gives the metaphor of frogs boiling in a pot."
Dr. Jalma is a clinical psychologist who sees clients, which just horrifies me, but Mroz doesn't come out looking great in this passage either. "and they probably suffered some kind of trauma as a child." What the fuck? As a therapist and a person who has experienced mental illness, all of this profoundly offends me and should never have passed an editor's review.
In general, Mroz has taken a completely uncritical and uncomplicated passing glance at a subject that has been poorly researched and subject to sexist bias, rather than taking the opportunity to probe and explore some of these claims about how women's friendships are "more fragile" and contain "more drama." (There's literally a whole section about an interview subject who's apparently some sort of Chill Girl and talks about how she won't be friends with women at all because of "the drama." This is presented without any sort of critique or further exploration.)
There were a few positives about this book--some of the research presented was interesting and new to me, such as the studies showing that women with breast cancer have better health outcomes and survival if they have more friends. Some of the stories and anecdotes were interesting too, especially the one at the very end about friendships between Black and white women. But overall, I cannot recommend this book whatsoever and wish this important subject had gotten the nuanced treatment it deserves.
bellevue's review against another edition
2.0
I love the idea of this book, and the book started off so well. The first few chapters went smoothly but it drones on for a while and didn't keep me engaged.
leorahm's review against another edition
2.0
While there is some interesting science cited throughout, this book suffers heavily from a strictly white, American perspective and disorganization of content. If you’re looking for an intersectional book about female friendships this is not it. And as other reviews have mentioned, a lot of the book is about friendship generally, not about female friendship specifically.
The first chapter sets this book up to be Western (mostly American) and white, without a shred of the intersectionality that the phrase “the true nature of female friendship” promised. Chapter 1 is meant to be a brief historical overview of the context of female friendship. Instead, it’s a weird laundry list of examples, mostly English and colonial/white American. It doesn’t even touch on matriarchal systems (Africa, Asia or Latin/South America). No mention at all of indigenous women. Blows past friendships between slaves and says nothing about the power, strength, and necessity of Black female friendship in any decade. Talks about Quakers, witches and Victorian white women and then switches weirdly to specific famous friendships, including “Mrs. Lincoln and a Former Slave” instead of using Elizabeth Keckley’s name in the subtitle. There is one random section about female communal living in a specific part of China that includes a problematic phrase about a Chinese (do you mean Mandarin? Cantonese? Specific dialect?) word for “female” being “slave,” when really it’s more the other way around if you’re going to try to use that linguistic quirk as evidence for something. I cannot believe the lack of exploration and representation of a topic that is billed as being so broad and universal. The chapter begins with female friendships in the context of Ancient Rome and Greece, the Bible, and nuns. Are you really telling me that female friendships were not important or that you did zero research in nomadic societies, in Africa, the birthplace of humanity, or in any indigenous cultures where child rearing alone is highly shared??Women weren’t friends (or you you didn’t look for evidence) until convents the Middle Ages?! No buying it.
The chapter on the evolution of friendship mostly focuses on animals, but at one point in a paragraph about lions there’s a random sentence about “young girls in Africa” also grooming each other. Which begs the question of why this is included here? The implication being that these human girls are comparable to non-human animals. The chapter on men vs. women is full of gender generalizations that I find questionable given my own experiences, and lots of reinforcing negative gender stereotypes.
There’s a whole chapter on friendship in “other cultures” which reaffirms the fact that, although not stated or clarified in the book’s description or introduction, it’s about white, American friendship. One section at he very end of the book addresses race, but it’s not exactly comprehensive and it’s something that would have been better threaded throughout.
There is definitely some interesting material throughout the book, but for me it’s eclipsed by the white, colonial lens and the disorganization of the writing. There is a bibliography at the end, but no footnotes or endnotes to clarify support for any of the statements made. And there are random tidbits shoved into sections that don’t make sense, like the author couldn’t figure out where else to put them. There are tons of redundancies and repetitive ideas, as well as the use of names and anecdotes that are either hard to follow (who is this person again?) or don’t add much to the concepts being discussed. While some of the science cited is definitely fascinating and I feel very grateful for my friends and the experiences that I’ve had that are different from those described in the book, I found myself questioning the author’s interpretation of these studies a lot.
The first chapter sets this book up to be Western (mostly American) and white, without a shred of the intersectionality that the phrase “the true nature of female friendship” promised. Chapter 1 is meant to be a brief historical overview of the context of female friendship. Instead, it’s a weird laundry list of examples, mostly English and colonial/white American. It doesn’t even touch on matriarchal systems (Africa, Asia or Latin/South America). No mention at all of indigenous women. Blows past friendships between slaves and says nothing about the power, strength, and necessity of Black female friendship in any decade. Talks about Quakers, witches and Victorian white women and then switches weirdly to specific famous friendships, including “Mrs. Lincoln and a Former Slave” instead of using Elizabeth Keckley’s name in the subtitle. There is one random section about female communal living in a specific part of China that includes a problematic phrase about a Chinese (do you mean Mandarin? Cantonese? Specific dialect?) word for “female” being “slave,” when really it’s more the other way around if you’re going to try to use that linguistic quirk as evidence for something. I cannot believe the lack of exploration and representation of a topic that is billed as being so broad and universal. The chapter begins with female friendships in the context of Ancient Rome and Greece, the Bible, and nuns. Are you really telling me that female friendships were not important or that you did zero research in nomadic societies, in Africa, the birthplace of humanity, or in any indigenous cultures where child rearing alone is highly shared??Women weren’t friends (or you you didn’t look for evidence) until convents the Middle Ages?! No buying it.
The chapter on the evolution of friendship mostly focuses on animals, but at one point in a paragraph about lions there’s a random sentence about “young girls in Africa” also grooming each other. Which begs the question of why this is included here? The implication being that these human girls are comparable to non-human animals. The chapter on men vs. women is full of gender generalizations that I find questionable given my own experiences, and lots of reinforcing negative gender stereotypes.
There’s a whole chapter on friendship in “other cultures” which reaffirms the fact that, although not stated or clarified in the book’s description or introduction, it’s about white, American friendship. One section at he very end of the book addresses race, but it’s not exactly comprehensive and it’s something that would have been better threaded throughout.
There is definitely some interesting material throughout the book, but for me it’s eclipsed by the white, colonial lens and the disorganization of the writing. There is a bibliography at the end, but no footnotes or endnotes to clarify support for any of the statements made. And there are random tidbits shoved into sections that don’t make sense, like the author couldn’t figure out where else to put them. There are tons of redundancies and repetitive ideas, as well as the use of names and anecdotes that are either hard to follow (who is this person again?) or don’t add much to the concepts being discussed. While some of the science cited is definitely fascinating and I feel very grateful for my friends and the experiences that I’ve had that are different from those described in the book, I found myself questioning the author’s interpretation of these studies a lot.
More...