Another concise and constructive tutorial for your readers (and fans), Tom. I especially felt affirmed by #4 about healing through action. Nothing does more for my spirits than a boxing workout and some laughs with my coach. I also feel much better after cutting the grass or raking or doing other yard work. When I am out there sweating, or sweating in the ring, I don't feel vulnerable (except, of course, to a sneak shot from the boxing coach). You often remind us that men can do for ourselves what nobody else can do for us. It has taken me a while to learn that I cannot look to others to measure how well I am doing. Physical well-being has a lot to do with mental health. If I'm working hard, I'm feeling good. Thanks for some great reading.
Yeah - go ahead. Show your "vulnerability" and "emotional availability" - whatever that is. Your woman will then decide that you are weak and dump you as fast as she can find a Chad Thundercock who will have her.
I've decided that Joshua-the-WOPR was right: these days the only winning move in this "strange game" is not to play.
The "double bind" could spawn a whole library of articles though as it explains why men are pressure tested to destruction by gamma bias, female supremacy, and demonization in the conquered woke institutions.
Gregory Bateson's three essential "ingredients" for a double bind situation are:
1. Primary Negative Injunction: A command given under threat of punishment, such as "Do X, or I will punish you".
2. Secondary Contradictory Injunction: A conflicting command given at a more abstract or non-verbal level that negates the first, effectively saying "Do not do X".
3. Tertiary Injunction (Meta-communication Lock): A final "trap" that prohibits the victim from escaping the field or making a metacommunicative statement to point out the absurdity of the contradiction.
This explains shit testing, family court, DEI in hiring and firing, education access, and life outcomes under gynofascism.
Statistically speaking, I agree with everything you said, Tom, and at the same time, I must say that I've seen and heard men constantly communicate emotions in their daily lives (at least here in Argentina, but I suspect it's the same for men throughout the Spanish-speaking world).
They don't usually name the emotions (to me, that's nonsense), but they describe the emotional situations they experience: they communicate pity, fear, love, hate, etc. Therefore, the idea that men in general don't express emotions is mostly false; it's an absurd feminist myth. (The same is true for women: I personally know that women hide their emotions just like men do all the time; and I heard women saying that many times they wanted to express something but didn't. It is evident to me that many of them find it hard to cry and do it in rare moments only. Women aren't as expressive as we tend to imagine, except for some who cry more, and the visible emotional attitudes some adopt.)
Men often express their emotions through music, poetry, and sometimes their profound love for the divine (as felt by mystics and the architects of ancient cathedrals). I know a young man who went to therapy to express himself, despite telling me, "I'm a man, I don't express my emotions" (in the context of his relationship with his girlfriend).
The story of Gilgamesh and Enkidu (two men) is very moving and deeply touches me. It describes the profound friendship that bound them and the deep depression Gilgamesh suffered after Enkidu's death.
Texts as ancient as the Hebrew Scriptures reveal a similar pattern: highly emotional men are mentioned in the Book of Job, the authors of the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. There are men who weep for their loved ones (friends, children, etc.) and for their nations. It seems to me that they weren't ashamed of their feelings, which is why culture and religion are so important when assessing men's mental health.
So men and women express and hide emotions constantly, but the broader narrative has an unjustified lack of recognition of men's emotions in daily life, at least in the Western world, and therapy has to adapt to expressive and non-expressive individuals, respecting what they need to open themselves.
Yes, agree. Most of my writing has focused on the various creative ways men have used to work with emotions. Creative acts, practical acts, thinking acts, or solitude.
(This is true for most women as well in the context of revealing past negative experiences: although women ask for help more and use more services, most women and men don't do it).
Honestly, sir, that wasn't my experience. I can't relate to that. The women in my life, along with the men in my life, went through very difficult things and cried about them. Otherwise, they've rarely cried.
However, I understand that female manipulation is a common experience for many people (including you, I suppose, unless I'm wrong), just as many have experienced male manipulation in particular.
My point was that both men and women communicate and conceal emotions in their daily lives, and that the idea that men don't communicate them (and therefore, that women don't conceal them) is a common myth, often used by feminism to demonstrate nonsense.
Book of Job is right. Feminist jurisprudence is a rite of passage. A circumcision of the soul.
Professional victimhood is the basis of the family law in the Anglosphere.
Gamma bias yields state sponsored slavery of men to reward legal kidnapping or killing of children by the mother under a regime where men are the only group that are met lifetime tax payers.
Men face a rite of passage as serious as Dante's inferno. It's an alchemical process involving the lacrimation or tears to dissolve to calcification of the psyche after it's been heated in the testum of the double binds of the extended system abuse, where a BPD woman triangulates using all parties and the state against the man, as in Book of Job.
Only Job was returned his property after the bets with the Devil. That ending isn't added materially to men here. Maybe spiritually and psychologically after men either commit suicide and purge or integrate their shadow and withdraw anima projection from woman.
I hadn't thought about the Book of Job that way; it's interesting. What I did think is that it accurately portrays the divine abuse against Job and his wife, but particularly Job, because he was the primary target of a cruel game between God and the Accuser.
God knew that Job was a righteous and innocent man, so He had no need to prove to the Accuser that Job wouldn't curse Him (some say that God allowed this because Job was proud, but nothing in the text indicates this, since God Himself said that Job was righteous; it seems to me that the proud one in the story was someone else).
But God allowed the Accuser to act. He was the primary aggressor against His most faithful servant and his wife. He betrayed him vilely, like a prolific psychopath.
(And when his wife told him to curse God, Job was so manipulated by his religious system that he defended God by calling her "foolish," even though she suffered as much as he did).
And then God had the nerve to confront Job for expressing his pain, appearing to him in a whirlwind and telling him, "Be a man" (a very common form of abuse against men, and on top of that, Job was suffering because of everything God had done to him). And instead of being honest with Job and confessing that he had made an absurd bet with the Accuser without needing to prove anything, he simply told Job that he didn't know anything, that who was he to question him, that he created everything, and all sorts of nonsense that had nothing to do with Job's arguments, which were correct.
Then he told Job's friends (who were accusing him of being punished for having done something wrong) that he had spoken correctly about God. In other words, God himself admitted that Job was right about him: that God laughs at the suffering of the innocent (it says so in one of the verses of the book).
In summary, God punished the emotional expression of an innocent man whom He Himself had harmed (while there is no trace that the woman was shamed for being angry with God). Religious abuse, divine abuse, satanic abuse, all over a man as the primary victim.
It came from Hillary Clinton claiming that women are most affected by war because they lose their husbands and sons.
Job's wife was not most affected by God and the opponents bets.
It's an absurd inference derived from gamma bias, the strongest measurable psychological bias by far, so strong the unholy trinity of postmodernism, critical Marxist theories, and feminism all united like the serpent's bets against modern man.
They claim equality but it's privilege for women and destruction for men per family law.
It's unconstitutional, enforces unconscionable contracts, and silences men whether they survive or live on enslaved with first amendment violating amendments to the orders made.
The best interests of the child reads like albeit macht frei because divorce, abortion, and parental alienation are quite the opposite and the result of the family law constitutional exemption.
My true friend used fix water meters. His wife got sick with daibties and serous complications. The city who employed told him he had to retire because of his wife sickness. He needed to talk and someone to listen and I did. He did want to work but the city did force him into retirement. Also when his son kept on asking for money he couldn't any but his son kept on asking. He told me about and I gave him the solution.
Btw my father couldn't tell me he loved me and I struggle to tell my step niece samething. The mental health field is a money making machine. It is not designed to help most people let alone men. Still it's not bad to go to therapy if you can find the right one.
Another concise and constructive tutorial for your readers (and fans), Tom. I especially felt affirmed by #4 about healing through action. Nothing does more for my spirits than a boxing workout and some laughs with my coach. I also feel much better after cutting the grass or raking or doing other yard work. When I am out there sweating, or sweating in the ring, I don't feel vulnerable (except, of course, to a sneak shot from the boxing coach). You often remind us that men can do for ourselves what nobody else can do for us. It has taken me a while to learn that I cannot look to others to measure how well I am doing. Physical well-being has a lot to do with mental health. If I'm working hard, I'm feeling good. Thanks for some great reading.
Thanks you Allen. Glad you found it useful. And yes, doing things is helpful to men in a unique way isn't it? Good examples.
Yeah - go ahead. Show your "vulnerability" and "emotional availability" - whatever that is. Your woman will then decide that you are weak and dump you as fast as she can find a Chad Thundercock who will have her.
I've decided that Joshua-the-WOPR was right: these days the only winning move in this "strange game" is not to play.
A wonderfully written piece.
You're a most empathetic chap.
The "double bind" could spawn a whole library of articles though as it explains why men are pressure tested to destruction by gamma bias, female supremacy, and demonization in the conquered woke institutions.
Gregory Bateson's three essential "ingredients" for a double bind situation are:
1. Primary Negative Injunction: A command given under threat of punishment, such as "Do X, or I will punish you".
2. Secondary Contradictory Injunction: A conflicting command given at a more abstract or non-verbal level that negates the first, effectively saying "Do not do X".
3. Tertiary Injunction (Meta-communication Lock): A final "trap" that prohibits the victim from escaping the field or making a metacommunicative statement to point out the absurdity of the contradiction.
This explains shit testing, family court, DEI in hiring and firing, education access, and life outcomes under gynofascism.
Feminismus delendus est.
Statistically speaking, I agree with everything you said, Tom, and at the same time, I must say that I've seen and heard men constantly communicate emotions in their daily lives (at least here in Argentina, but I suspect it's the same for men throughout the Spanish-speaking world).
They don't usually name the emotions (to me, that's nonsense), but they describe the emotional situations they experience: they communicate pity, fear, love, hate, etc. Therefore, the idea that men in general don't express emotions is mostly false; it's an absurd feminist myth. (The same is true for women: I personally know that women hide their emotions just like men do all the time; and I heard women saying that many times they wanted to express something but didn't. It is evident to me that many of them find it hard to cry and do it in rare moments only. Women aren't as expressive as we tend to imagine, except for some who cry more, and the visible emotional attitudes some adopt.)
Men often express their emotions through music, poetry, and sometimes their profound love for the divine (as felt by mystics and the architects of ancient cathedrals). I know a young man who went to therapy to express himself, despite telling me, "I'm a man, I don't express my emotions" (in the context of his relationship with his girlfriend).
The story of Gilgamesh and Enkidu (two men) is very moving and deeply touches me. It describes the profound friendship that bound them and the deep depression Gilgamesh suffered after Enkidu's death.
Texts as ancient as the Hebrew Scriptures reveal a similar pattern: highly emotional men are mentioned in the Book of Job, the authors of the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. There are men who weep for their loved ones (friends, children, etc.) and for their nations. It seems to me that they weren't ashamed of their feelings, which is why culture and religion are so important when assessing men's mental health.
So men and women express and hide emotions constantly, but the broader narrative has an unjustified lack of recognition of men's emotions in daily life, at least in the Western world, and therapy has to adapt to expressive and non-expressive individuals, respecting what they need to open themselves.
Yes, agree. Most of my writing has focused on the various creative ways men have used to work with emotions. Creative acts, practical acts, thinking acts, or solitude.
(This is true for most women as well in the context of revealing past negative experiences: although women ask for help more and use more services, most women and men don't do it).
Women use weakness as a manipulative resource extraction and responsibility evasion technique.
The damsel in distress attracts a Prince.
If she's cryin' she's lyin'.
The tactics of a child.
Honestly, sir, that wasn't my experience. I can't relate to that. The women in my life, along with the men in my life, went through very difficult things and cried about them. Otherwise, they've rarely cried.
However, I understand that female manipulation is a common experience for many people (including you, I suppose, unless I'm wrong), just as many have experienced male manipulation in particular.
My point was that both men and women communicate and conceal emotions in their daily lives, and that the idea that men don't communicate them (and therefore, that women don't conceal them) is a common myth, often used by feminism to demonstrate nonsense.
I guess gamma bias is the operative difference.
Women demand vulnerability, then punish the weakness if a man displays it, and viciously escalate aggression if you point it out.
Double bind: 1) primary injunction, 2) contradictory injunction, 3) meta communication lock.
It is a vast, inflated shit test, of vindictive reviling and covert relational aggression. Poison in the well.
Acta non verba!
Feminismus delendus est.
I understand. Doing that is evil as hell, or at least, it comes from lack of wisdom.
And game theory.
If manipulation is better to achieve goals then double down on state sponsored gamma bias or be replaced by bitches with better genes.
This is why women have internal mind blindness and no identity or personalities.
Book of Job is right. Feminist jurisprudence is a rite of passage. A circumcision of the soul.
Professional victimhood is the basis of the family law in the Anglosphere.
Gamma bias yields state sponsored slavery of men to reward legal kidnapping or killing of children by the mother under a regime where men are the only group that are met lifetime tax payers.
Men face a rite of passage as serious as Dante's inferno. It's an alchemical process involving the lacrimation or tears to dissolve to calcification of the psyche after it's been heated in the testum of the double binds of the extended system abuse, where a BPD woman triangulates using all parties and the state against the man, as in Book of Job.
Only Job was returned his property after the bets with the Devil. That ending isn't added materially to men here. Maybe spiritually and psychologically after men either commit suicide and purge or integrate their shadow and withdraw anima projection from woman.
I hadn't thought about the Book of Job that way; it's interesting. What I did think is that it accurately portrays the divine abuse against Job and his wife, but particularly Job, because he was the primary target of a cruel game between God and the Accuser.
God knew that Job was a righteous and innocent man, so He had no need to prove to the Accuser that Job wouldn't curse Him (some say that God allowed this because Job was proud, but nothing in the text indicates this, since God Himself said that Job was righteous; it seems to me that the proud one in the story was someone else).
But God allowed the Accuser to act. He was the primary aggressor against His most faithful servant and his wife. He betrayed him vilely, like a prolific psychopath.
(And when his wife told him to curse God, Job was so manipulated by his religious system that he defended God by calling her "foolish," even though she suffered as much as he did).
And then God had the nerve to confront Job for expressing his pain, appearing to him in a whirlwind and telling him, "Be a man" (a very common form of abuse against men, and on top of that, Job was suffering because of everything God had done to him). And instead of being honest with Job and confessing that he had made an absurd bet with the Accuser without needing to prove anything, he simply told Job that he didn't know anything, that who was he to question him, that he created everything, and all sorts of nonsense that had nothing to do with Job's arguments, which were correct.
Then he told Job's friends (who were accusing him of being punished for having done something wrong) that he had spoken correctly about God. In other words, God himself admitted that Job was right about him: that God laughs at the suffering of the innocent (it says so in one of the verses of the book).
In summary, God punished the emotional expression of an innocent man whom He Himself had harmed (while there is no trace that the woman was shamed for being angry with God). Religious abuse, divine abuse, satanic abuse, all over a man as the primary victim.
Women most affected is a meme.
It came from Hillary Clinton claiming that women are most affected by war because they lose their husbands and sons.
Job's wife was not most affected by God and the opponents bets.
It's an absurd inference derived from gamma bias, the strongest measurable psychological bias by far, so strong the unholy trinity of postmodernism, critical Marxist theories, and feminism all united like the serpent's bets against modern man.
They claim equality but it's privilege for women and destruction for men per family law.
It's unconstitutional, enforces unconscionable contracts, and silences men whether they survive or live on enslaved with first amendment violating amendments to the orders made.
The best interests of the child reads like albeit macht frei because divorce, abortion, and parental alienation are quite the opposite and the result of the family law constitutional exemption.
My true friend used fix water meters. His wife got sick with daibties and serous complications. The city who employed told him he had to retire because of his wife sickness. He needed to talk and someone to listen and I did. He did want to work but the city did force him into retirement. Also when his son kept on asking for money he couldn't any but his son kept on asking. He told me about and I gave him the solution.
Btw my father couldn't tell me he loved me and I struggle to tell my step niece samething. The mental health field is a money making machine. It is not designed to help most people let alone men. Still it's not bad to go to therapy if you can find the right one.