Just guessing: smaller and broken families, more time behind screens, less male-only and female-only spaces, more mobility.
Worse for males because women are more social-oriented.
Worse for males because women are more social-oriented.
Besides... "most tribes" bury their people in their late 40s on average. The belief that they have it all figured out is called the naturalistic fallacy.
Massai (men eat separately from women)
Victorians (yeah. White people.)
Trobianders (you know, because I'm supposed to be a credentialed anthropologist)
Amish (they still exist!)
Roma (DW has a nice documentary)
Then I googled for a list of Amazon tribes, took the first name I found ("Aweti"), and looked them up in Wikipedia. Immediately, "Culture" section:
> A men's hut is also located in the center of the village, and is used for holding ritual flutes which are not allowed to be seen by women.
What are the odds?
Look: You know how I know this? Because all these tribes are composed of people no different from you and me. This is just how people are.
For the first two: the US divorce rate was at its near peak around the time that the linked article's poll shows that male friendships were at their high mark[1]. The average US family size has also not changed significantly since 1990[2].
Put another way: there were more "broken" families in 1990, at a time when the poll says that more men had closer friendships, and the average family size hasn't swung in any direction that would suggest any relationship.
[1]: https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-us-divorce-rate-has-hit-a-50-...
[2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/183657/average-size-of-a...
The ones responding to the polls then were divorced men who had been raised in stabler 1960's families.
Maybe being divorced isn't the problem, being raised by broken families is.
It's possible that some of those factors matter (I'd think smaller families would increase availability for socialization) but, to provide anecdote, my circle of friends expanded after my breakup, which makes sense.
In my (limited) experience many stereotypes are accurate.
> I'd think smaller families would increase availability for socialization
It really depends, but I don't know. Large families are correlated with certain activities, beliefs, etc which might be what help increase social interaction. I know a lot of parents who have big families and their kids basically introduce them to half a dozen families who they're friends with and it exponentially increases opportunity for socializing as the children age and dynamics change.
This is also well proven -
https://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/stereotype-accuracy-re...
This surprises me. Usually breakups cost friends, as some are associated more with the partner you're leaving.
> I'd think smaller families would increase availability for socialization
I dunno, there can be a lot of socialization within the extended family. It has a lot to do with culture though. In some there'll be a WhatsApp group full of cousins and aunties, plus three generations actually living together in a big compound, and all the socialization you could need (and then some). And if you travel you'll never need a hotel. Lots of cultures like this.