Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Dana Killion's avatar

Wonderful piece. The only thing I’d add is that the men (it’s usually men) who veil their harsh words as honesty, can rarely tolerate being receivers of such honesty themselves.

Johan's avatar

Ellen, powerful piece.

I wonder if I could add an observation from analyzing power dynamics globally.

The pattern you’re describing isn’t just interpersonal, it’s structural.

Map global conflict, institutional violence, authoritarian escalation. There’s a consistent variable: male socialization that confuses cruelty with strength and weaponizes “honesty” as domination.

Who starts wars. Who commits mass shootings. Who runs authoritarian regimes. Who threatens allied territory over ego. Who murders partners at exponentially higher rates. The pattern is undeniable.

Boys are taught emotional intelligence is weakness. That filtering cruelty through care is dishonest. So they become men who genuinely believe inflicting pain without concern for impact is virtue.

Then we scale that to geopolitics.

The micro (weaponized honesty in relationships) and macro (weaponized honesty in governance) are identical. Same refusal to consider impact. Same positioning of cruelty as courage.

Your gut feeling that told you something was wrong? That’s the same alarm allies feel watching American foreign policy. Delivery reveals intent. And intent reveals whether someone’s struggling to communicate or using communication as a weapon.

The world is full of problems created by men who mistake emotional brutality for strength.

The best societies are those that are most equal split between men and women like Scandinavia.

— Johan​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

13 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?