Hello, I've tried an experiment. The only purpose with this is to show how easy it is to resolve sickness in a debate, regardless if the analysis is correct or off by miles. It proves exactly how appallingly incompetent the culture debates, mainstream media and gynocentric outlets are.

I selected the topic "Men and vulnerability". You don't have to agree with the full message, because I don't. The framing is severely lacking. No the point is how I can take a few minutes, infuse a couple of my own, actually rather basic bits of knowledge, and have an AI spit out a text which is vastly superior to anything HuffPo or Guardian ever wrote on Men and vulnerability.

One thing I should mention. I'm accepting their narrative without question. It's part of the experiment.

What my text has is analysis, call to action with respect, and a message aimed to inspire and resonate.

Tell me if this doesn't expose how truly awful they really are?

Are you tired of being told to “show vulnerability”? I understand you.

That message often comes with no clear guidance on what it actually means. Most people interpret it as a call to reveal their darkest secrets or deepest emotional wounds. But that’s not quite right. The message is both true and false.

False, because there are things inside you that are yours and yours alone. The demand that others should gain access to your inner world can be an intrusion. Swedish writer Horace Engdahl once said that men carry within them a private room to which neither their wife, nor God, nor the state has access. He was right about that, even if he’s wrong about much else. The key is knowing what belongs in that room and what doesn’t.

If something is unbearably heavy, it probably doesn’t fully belong in there. Let’s set that aside for now.

Let’s talk instead about emotional expression — and how simple it actually is to start.

In fact, I propose we retire the word vulnerability entirely. It contains “wound”, and that confuses the issue. Instead, try thinking in terms of openness, or emotional honesty.

And this is not some lofty task. You can start safely, even playfully, in your everyday life. Try something like:

“You always seem cheerful — that lifts my mood too.”

Say that to a friend. It’s not terrifying, is it?

This small sentence is not trivial. It’s monumental. Because what you’re doing is acquiring a language for emotion, one that is no longer secret or wordless. Once this language becomes part of you, it becomes far easier to express more difficult emotions — when you need to — clearly, honestly, and without self-betrayal.

This is what many women are longing for, even though they haven’t managed to ask the right questions. The original appeal should have been:

“Learn the language.”

Not:

“Show vulnerability.”

But don’t be angry with them. They’ve made the same mistake we often make: assuming your inner map of meaning looks like theirs.

And that, actually, is the blindspot of humanism when it runs up against cognitivism. Humanism assumes a shared experience of the world and of feelings. Cognitivism — especially modern psychology — knows that we construct our inner models differently, shaped by our neurology, habits, trauma, and training. These models are not automatically shared, and communication between them requires translation.

We won’t go deeper into that contrast here — but it’s worth reading about.

Let me instead tempt you with this:

Learning the emotional language will reward you. Not with power, not with status, but with a kind of shared experience — real connection — that brings light to both you and those around you.