Please share the hobby, OP, inquiring minds want to know!

I know that there are people who are either unstable or they somehow bring out the worst in others. They become the outcasts and those who oust them may not always act their best in the process.
However that same group can be perfectly normal for someone without the unstable or “kick me” tendencies.

I gotta know what the hobby is. I am into horses which you would think would be the height of drama but I can’t think of any way it could be this extreme.

I had a friend group in college, and one woman (the "leader") was my best friend for all of those years. Then, the summer after graduation, I called her out on some mean and hurtful behavior and she stopped talking to me. And somehow got our whole group to stop talking to me too. There were signs; I just ignored them because, of course she would never do that to me, her best friend. I was wrong.

Afterward, I did fall into a depression, because I'd lost most of my friends...these were people I cared about and trusted, and they all dropped me because I didn't want to be treated like crap. I don't care as much about the best friend-whatever-but I do think about the other women sometimes. Why did they believe and follow her? I thought they cared about me too? What do they tell themselves now, years later, to justify Best Friend treating me like crap and them saying and doing nothing? It used to bother me a lot, but not anymore, especially now that I have friends who are lovely and caring and supportive. 

But OP, I would definitely look at your role in this and think about the type of person you want to be moving forward. You don't have to do what the group does. Who says you can't reach out to Kelly and start your own hobby group?

This is why I don't do big gal group things. There is always going to be some drama and mean girl behavior. I stick to 1-1 and very small group. Also, if you know rumors were spread, but you go along to get along, you are a mean girl by proxy or a not innocent bystander.

Every few years I get invited to be part of some large group of ladies and usually I remember and decline. Whenever I decide to give a new "girl group" a chance, I eventually regret it. I am happy to join a large co-ed group, but for some reason no matter how education, intelligent or whatever, get a large group of women together and somebody needs to either be passive aggressive or outright nasty.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Interesting responses. I do hear what people are saying about not endorsing some of this bad behavior by staying in the group. I think I mentioned that there has been some distance between my side of the group and others as a result of this, and I guess part of why it's been weighing on me is that I can feel that distance closing again and I am unsure how I feel about it.

For what it's worth, I don't personally think Kelly overreacted to what happened. I think it was really sad when she left the group. But again, I didn't know her very well and heard about all of this second hand. And now she is not even talking to my two friends who she used to be close to (because they are still involved in this hobby and with these people and she has told them that it's too painful for her to spend time with them).

The whole situation makes me very sad when I think about it but also I'm pretty good at not thinking about it when I'm spending time with others from the group. I think it would be hard to keep doing my hobby without maintaining friendships there too, and I can't imagine not doing it any more.

I wish there was a way to make the situation right, somehow, but now too much time has passed.

The bolded is what it all comes down to. You care more about this hobby and your ability to be part of the group than how badly some members of the group treated Kelly. You're not alone in that, of course, but don't kid yourself that it sucks. I mean, Kelly didn't really have a choice about continuing to do the hobby, did she?

It may not make the situation right, but you might think long and hard about why appallingly sh*tty treatment of another person isn't a deal-breaker for you when it comes to friendships.

Anonymous wrote:Is this horse stuff? I've heard horse girls/women can be VERY cliquish and mean girl-y. When I have the kinds of dilemmas you're having OP, I always remind myself "Even Hitler had a pet dog." Meaning, even the cruelest person can be kind sometimes, to someone, in some way.

If I were you, I would reach out to Kelly and tell her this has been weighing heavily on my heart, and I think how she was treated was wrong and I'm so sorry for how things went down and not sticking up for her at the time.

Unless OP has cut ties with the group, she should leave Kelly alone. Otherwise, it’s just more of the same.

Hi Kelly. Yeah, I feel, like, really baaad about what happened. But not bad enough to stand up for you then and not bad enough now because, you know that hobby you used to love so much? Well, it’s more important to me than you or even my principles. And, like, I can compartmentalize you right outta my mind when it’s convenient for me. Just wanted you to know how really bad I feel so I can feel better at your expense. Again.

Anonymous wrote:OP, it doesn't sound like you or any of your friends actually stood up for Kelly when people were telling lies about her or laughing when she cut ties and nobody "chased her." That's sad. Groups are made of individuals. I wouldn't want to be any more than polite to the people who did this stuff. They don't have to be your friends, even if the distance between the larger groups closes. You know what they're like now.

I think you’re all horrible. Poor Kelly. She lost her friend group, her friends, her social group, and her hobby because you all bullied her or went along with it. I’m glad you feel bad about it. I hope some of the others do too. I see/hear this stuff happening in my neighborhood and can’t imagine deciding it’s worth it to be invited to the parties or whatever and having to worry about when the group will turn on the next person. It’s just not worth it.

What is the hobby, OP?

OP, it doesn't sound like you or any of your friends actually stood up for Kelly when people were telling lies about her or laughing when she cut ties and nobody "chased her." That's sad. Groups are made of individuals. I wouldn't want to be any more than polite to the people who did this stuff. They don't have to be your friends, even if the distance between the larger groups closes. You know what they're like now.

Is this horse stuff? I've heard horse girls/women can be VERY cliquish and mean girl-y. When I have the kinds of dilemmas you're having OP, I always remind myself "Even Hitler had a pet dog." Meaning, even the cruelest person can be kind sometimes, to someone, in some way.

If I were you, I would reach out to Kelly and tell her this has been weighing heavily on my heart, and I think how she was treated was wrong and I'm so sorry for how things went down and not sticking up for her at the time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, of course. I witnessed this at my workplace. I learned from my experience that poor communicators, those who don't understand subtle cues/hints and social undercurrents, are the most likely to get ostracized by a certain type of hyper-sensitive woman, who perceive their faux-pas and occasional awkwardness as intentional rudeness, and try to push them out.

It's hard to mend once it snowballs, because by then both parties have been offended by the other and are objectively guilty of something. But the "one who started it" is usually one or more women who think they've been insulted and become punitive.

It's very important, if you're part of the onlooking majority, to never believe rumors and never take anyone's subjective opinion as truth, otherwise you tend to get sucked into one side and enable the tribalism.

This comment is weird because you are clearly "taking a side" and assigning roles to people, but then you say they important thing is to stay out of it. But you are obviously much more on the side of the "poor communicators" than the "hyper-sensitive women." Even though both of those descriptions sound incredibly simplistic to me also -- I've seen people hide behind "miscommunication" when they've simply been very rude and refused to be accountable for it, and I'm also very wary of the stereotype of a "hyper-sensitive" woman, since that's often code for "woman with opinion" or "woman who feels she deserves to be treated respectfully by friends and colleagues."

Anyway, maybe you should take some of your own advice here.

PP you replied. I am generalizing because I've noticed the same pattern in different situations. I first witnessed this in my research lab, with all women scientists. Then that pattern repeated when I volunteered on a PTA board (all women as well), and has repeated in other situations. Generalizations don't always apply to specific situations, of course. But over the course of decades of my life, this pattern has held, PP. I have seen WAY, WAY more accidental faux-pas committed by clueless but well-intentioned people, than I have seen purposeful rudeness. Most people understand there is a difference and respond accordingly, which leads to apologies or differences being smoothed over with diplomacy. In military terms it's called "proportional response". But it only takes one stubborn person to take offense and have the clout to do something about it, for the whole group to become embroiled in a fight that could have been prevented. It's never a good idea to go nuclear unless the situation really demands it. In situations where the group is responsible for rumors, it's difficult for the initial perpetrator to accept their responsibility, since others contributed as well.

I think you've stakes out an opinion on this category of friend group issue and choose to see it through that lens because if you can make the facts for your theory, then your theory becomes more correct each time.

What about when the people who commit the unintentional faux pas are called on it, and they are the ones who adamantly refuse to apologize? I've seen this many times, as people who lack social intelligence often also resist apologizing, for obvious reasons.

I also think what you describe as hyper-sensitivity is way more complicated. IME, when people get described as hyper-sensitive, like it's an innate trait, there is usually something else going on that undermines that judgment. But you have to actually know people to understand, you can't just be assessing them from afar.

You aren't describing a functional community or friend group. You are describing a way to survive in a dysfunctional setting where people communicate poorly and there may be some relational aggression. It might work for you but it doesn't improve anything, it just keeps you removed from it.

OP here. Interesting responses. I do hear what people are saying about not endorsing some of this bad behavior by staying in the group. I think I mentioned that there has been some distance between my side of the group and others as a result of this, and I guess part of why it's been weighing on me is that I can feel that distance closing again and I am unsure how I feel about it.

For what it's worth, I don't personally think Kelly overreacted to what happened. I think it was really sad when she left the group. But again, I didn't know her very well and heard about all of this second hand. And now she is not even talking to my two friends who she used to be close to (because they are still involved in this hobby and with these people and she has told them that it's too painful for her to spend time with them).

The whole situation makes me very sad when I think about it but also I'm pretty good at not thinking about it when I'm spending time with others from the group. I think it would be hard to keep doing my hobby without maintaining friendships there too, and I can't imagine not doing it any more.

I wish there was a way to make the situation right, somehow, but now too much time has passed.

Anonymous wrote:To answer your Q, OP, yes, a group can be very supportive of most of its members and simultaneously be toxic to certain members and objectively toxic to outside observers. You can easily think of examples (extremely egregious - Nazis, KKK).

Kelly was wronged by people in your group, to varying degrees. People who lie, people who spread the lies, people who don’t call out the lying and stand up for the person being wronged.

You and other members may feel all warm and fuzzy about your group but objectively you all suck, to varying degrees.

Thank goodness Kelly had the sense or was able follow the advice someone gave her to cut ties with your group.

I don’t understand why you are still a part of it, frankly. Doesn’t the constant knowledge of how terrible these people are bug you every time you interact? It would drive me crazy if I had to be around them, knowing what they are. I certainly wouldn’t do it if I had a choice.

+1

To answer your Q, OP, yes, a group can be very supportive of most of its members and simultaneously be toxic to certain members and objectively toxic to outside observers. You can easily think of examples (extremely egregious - Nazis, KKK).

Kelly was wronged by people in your group, to varying degrees. People who lie, people who spread the lies, people who don’t call out the lying and stand up for the person being wronged.

You and other members may feel all warm and fuzzy about your group but objectively you all suck, to varying degrees.

Thank goodness Kelly had the sense or was able follow the advice someone gave her to cut ties with your group.

I don’t understand why you are still a part of it, frankly. Doesn’t the constant knowledge of how terrible these people are bug you every time you interact? It would drive me crazy if I had to be around them, knowing what they are. I certainly wouldn’t do it if I had a choice.