uncertainterms

[uncertainterms]

The problem with being supportive

Amidst the mental perils of the COVID-19 lockdown that commenced in 2020, I found myself revisiting a long forgotten treasure of my past. Against all odds and resisting all urges to the contrary, I decided to watch the 35th anniversary ‘island’ week-long special of Neighbours. To date all I can say to redeem myself is “At least I don’t watch Home & Away”, not that this really redeems me in my already limited social circles. 

Naturally, once the 35th anniversary special was over I decided to continue watching the show. And I recall when the new troublemaker, Nicolette, entered from stage left, things started to get interesting. At one point Nicolette decided to offer (a rather impromptu offer) to carry a child for her gay married roommates. As there had been no context for such an offer, the people in her life were rather surprised. And what stuck with me was when her mother tried to point out some of the complexities of this new arrangement, Nicolette gave her mother an ultimatum that went something like this (I’m proud to say I cant recall the exact quote) “That’s it mum, either you support me, or we’re done!” and the episode came to a predictably dramatic end.

And this kind of interaction isn’t limited to a Neighbours cliffhanger. In fact many of our modern relationships involve a lot of these predicaments. As essentially what Nicolette is suggesting, is that a relationship with her mother will only continue if her mother suppresses her concerns for the more important cause of supporting her daughters decision. Now I’m not here to weigh in on this modern family issue, but rather to demonstrate how a lot of young people approach their decisions and how they demand others to respond to them. 

If you’re unsure what I’m getting at then think about this one: Your friend Michelle starts seeing a guy named Trevor who seems to be a bit of a slacker. He has little ambition, a penchant for angry video games and says that women now have total equality so what’s all the whinging about? In other words, he’s not someone you feel your friend should spend more time with. However what is baffling is that your friend thinks he’s still worth the effort. She has no plans to end their tinder fairytale, and also plans on bringing you along to their next dinner date to meet him, and who knows, maybe this guy will have a friend for you too! 

Here we reach what could be loosely described as a nightmare. You see how badly this could go, yet there is no end in sight for your dear friend Michelle. And after meeting this yahoo (and you thank your lucky stars that his equally-dud friend didn’t make an appearance), good old Michelle asks the age old question “So, did you like Trev?” Aside from being unsurprised that he goes by the name Trev, you are doing some mental gymnastics as to whether to be truthful or lie, which ends up being irrelevant as you answer with an uneasy “Yeah! He was, cool yeah! Yeah.” And from here suddenly things take a turn for the worst. At best your friend may be receptive to your points but maintain their allegiance to their new man, but generally this doesn’t last. 

Eventually, similar to Nicolette and her mother, you end up being asked to be ‘supportive’ once the relationship takes a more serious turn. But what does it mean to show support? Does it mean you will privately hold dire thoughts but also wish them the best? Or does it mean you tell them how you feel and then say “you’re on your own but as your friend I’ll gladly be here to pick up the pieces when it all goes down the toilet!”? I’d say the modern expectation of Michelle and Nicolette, is that we are to simply discard our objections into the void, to then change our opinion to match that of our friend. This is unsustainable for very obvious reasons. For us as the friend, our frustrations will come to boiling point whenever our friend complains about Trev, and we will begin to wonder why we’re rolling the boulder up the hill. And this is a problem both men and women face, it seems to be a very egalitarian social dilemma. 

I think as the friend we tend to give in out of fear of being labelled ‘judgmental’, as surely we only want to encourage our friends, not tear them down. But at what point does encouragement become enabling? On the one hand we don’t want Michelle to talk about Trev for 10 seconds for us to then write him off with an off the cuff “oh he’s a dickhead! Drop him!” - as we’ve all done that when a couple break up only to see them arrive to the dinner party back together the following weekend...

So what is the answer? I honestly don’t know. I’ve had enough experiences where I’ve disagreed with the romantic behaviours of my friends/colleagues/acquaintances where I’ve spoken up and achieved nothing. Likewise remaining silent and defeated means I’m being an enabler. Supportive, sure. But at what ultimate cost? Surely it is our role to guide people towards truth even when they may loathe us for it. I say ‘surely’, as I would hope we all hope that in our own lives when we find ourselves unknowingly walking into a lions den, that these friends will do the same thing for us.