Why are women perceived as the most difficult family members to deal with?
February 1, 2024.
Pre-COVID research suggests that humans often have the most toxic relationships with female members of their own intentional family, or family of origin.
In 2018, researchers from the University of California, Berkeley and Bar-Ilan University in Israel used surveys to focus on the relationships of more than 1,100 humans both young and old from the San Francisco Bay Area.
This was a huge study. The researchers tracked some 12,000 or so personal relationships — including both close and casual friends, family members, or colleagues.
The researchers compiled their responses, and honed in on the humans whom the study subjects red-flagged as the humans they “sometimes find demanding or difficult.”
Here’s an interesting finding. It was mothers, sisters, and wives were considered to be the most difficult to deal with in this huge study of over 12,000 relationships.
However, the reason may be that close female relatives are more likely to be emotionally in your face, seeking nose to nose connection under both happy or sad circumstances…
The study subjects labelled relationships ‘difficult’ because they felt that their counterpart demanded support, but did not provide it in return.
I’m sure for some of the study subjects this was true. I would be challenged to inventory the level of solipsism in the Bay area.
But I suspect that for most, it’s likely just a story they tell themselves to gloss over a far more complicated and intrusive interaction with their female family member.
Professor Claude Fischer, the study’s first author, said:
“The message here is that, with female relatives, it can be a two-sided thing.
They may be the people you most depend on, but also the people who nag you the most.
It’s a testament to their deeper engagement in social ties.”
How the study was conducted
The study included over 1,100 humans who described over 12,000 relationships in their lives
The math showed that the study subjects rated about 15% of their relationships as difficult.
And it was also true that the majority of these difficult relationship were either women, or aging parents.
Life cycle plays a role in these perceptions. For example, younger study subjects broke down their most difficult relationships in this way:
The study subjects had far fewer problems with their peeps: only 6% of their friendship circle were deemed to be difficult.
Professor Shira Offer, from Israel is the study’s lead author. She said:
“The results suggest that difficult people are likely to be found in contexts where people have less freedom to pick and choose their associates.”
While workplace relationships could be occasionally also be difficult, those humans tended not intimately engaged with their lives, and consequently were much easier to avoid than a family member.
Professor Fischer summed it up:
“Whether it’s an alcoholic father whom you want to cut ties with, an annoying friend with whom you have a long history or an overbearing boss, relationships are complicated and in many cases unavoidable.”
Final Thoughts
Women are far more invested in social ties and bonds. It’s also true that women see interpersonal difficulty as an intimate exchange, and not an annoying, unnecessarily intrusive conversation.
And it’s also true that while there might be teeming hordes of self-absorbed women in the Bay area, they may have a completely different set of motivations. And, most importantly, there’s only a small percentage of such women in the region. Most humans are not problematically self-absorbed.
On the other hand, this research might also be viewed as a comment on context.
When we’re related by family bonds, and, subsequently unable to escape our ostensible inquisitor, estrangement has become a popular American social remedy. I’ll continue to discuss family estrangement in upcoming posts.
Be well stay kind, and Godspeed.
RESEARCH:
Offer, S., & Fischer, C. S. (2018). Difficult People: Who Is Perceived to Be Demanding in Personal Networks and Why Are They There? American Sociological Review, 83(1), 111-142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417737951
