Friends-in-Law

There exists profound differences between the modi operandi in which the fairer and the unfairer sexes socialise and exchange thoughts between themselves.

The male method is simple, straightforward and robust. The process consists of the collective absorption of alcohol or caffeine or both, interspersed with a few infrequent, random views on the traffic, weather and the general well being of the substance being imbibed. There are times when highly animated conversations do throw up thorny and controversial comments regarding the comparative merits of different rock bands, the ailing form of a particular cricket team or the dodgy knee of a particular footballer, but such occasions are extremely rare. If one stumbles upon a normal version of such a session, one is expected to be greeted with warm, amicable silence.

The female method, in sharp contradistinction to the above explained racket, is one fraught with fervent vocal activity. The topics in the fray range from the Absolutely Nothing to the Utterly Insignificant. The frugal content of the exchange however, never translates into the paucity of volume. Large helpings of ideas are exchanged on the topic of linen and the colour combinations for various things. Voluminous exchange is also observed on other miasmic topics like literature, social trends and Oprah Winfrey, but I would not be able to comment on them and neither do I intend to draw the attention of the peruser towards that direction. The remarkable quality towards which I intend to draw the attention of my scant readership is the sheer volume of stuff that is actually exchanged during the whole affair. This trend is certainly admirable for the purpose of creating and nurturing the bonhomie thingy, but suffers from one serious flaw -- One runs out of things to say.

Whereas men are not encumbered by the superfluous desire to converse or talk for the maintenance of a relationship, women for some strange quirk of character deem it a necessity. This quirk combined with the exhaustion of topics (as already explained) to discuss between two girlfriends result in what could be termed as churning. Women flit from friend to friend after all mutual topics of interest have been discussed at length.

The astute reader, much accustomed to my informative posts at this juncture would raise extremely pointed questions regarding the general direction of this banter. Therefore, without much ado, I would now like to broach the core topic. As a result of the diligently described process of churning, the individual involved in a marriage thingy in the capacity of a husband is exposed to a rather variegated selection of friends-in-law. As a result I, in my capacity of dutiful husband coupled with the character of an intrepid researcher, have finally come up with a list of categories of friends-in-law. I would like to clarify that this research is far from exhaustive and can certainly be added upon.

Type: The Sappy Nitwit
Marked by the inexplicable tendency to hallucinate. Will find the strangest of things beautiful. Will startle one with unexpected and sudden ejaculations of oohs and aahs upon chancing upon any sort of animal (including buffaloes). The animals are generally not found to reciprocate the gesture. Will suggest the worst movies and holiday destinations to the wife.
Pros: None.
Cons: The wife at times will drag one to the suggested movies and holiday destinations. Also, sudden oohs and aahs tend to distract one when driving in heavy traffic.
Husband/Partner: The husband or partner of the sappy nitwit posseses the admirable trait of unleashing blank grins to accompany the perspicacious observations on the part of his loved one. Privately, this person is generally found gnashing his teeth.

Type: The Pseudo Women's Libber
Posseses a rather unexplicable malevolence for men in general and the bald ones in particular. Professes the equality of sexes but somehow holds the opinion that men are blots in the landscape of their angst ridden life. Strangely this variety gets unusually perturbed when not given any attention by these very men. Even the bald ones. I have found this contradiction a trifle mysterious.
Pros: Due to the utter disdain with which one will be treated in one's house, one may dispense with all social graces and merrily attach oneself to the television and the beer.
Cons:Being subjected to basiliskesque glances within the confines of one's own happy home gives me the heebie jeebies.
Husband/Partner: Nonexistent.

Type: The True Women's Libber
Brevity of expression marks this particular species. Realizes the redundant excrescence that one is. Keeps the interaction to the minimum. One never gets to know the traits of the person.
Pros: As already stated, one is treated very much like a piece of furniture. Rather perfect.
Cons: None.
Husband/Partner: The company of the husband or partner is never thrust upon one.

Type: The Shopper
Appearence cannot be discerned due to the fact that the subject shall be smothered by shopping bags most of the time. Will make frequent appearences to pick up the wife to go shopping.
Pros:Conspiciously agreeable by the absence.
Cons: Severly degrades the doubloon abundance in one's life.
Husband/Partner: Seen in shopping malls with a demeanour which may be termed as dazed. Generally very well dressed.