A woman who cannot soothe a man when he is mad, does not deserve a man who can soothe her when she is sad

Men refrain from crying, women refrain from raging

Simple rules.

A man must be a rock, and a woman must be a comfort.

Sounds unfair, but it's actually quite complementary
A woman doesn't want to see her man falling apart unable to handle things, even if he feels genuine suffering. He has to soldier through.

In the same breath, getting mad at a man who's angry with you even if you feel it's unjust only makes him worse. She has to soldier through.
No woman who is sad and crying wants a man there who is also sad and crying.

No man who is angry and argumentative wants a woman being angry and argumentative with him.

Men have to suppress their pain, women have to suppress their anger.

This is how we care for each other.
Sometimes women get sentimental or sad about something, and her man is there for her. Sometimes it irritates the man, sometimes it upsets him too. Doesn't matter. He handles it. He comforts her. He makes her feel better.

This is him playing peacemaker, being her comfort.
Sometimes men get mad or intolerant about something feeling disrespected in some kind of way. Sometimes this irritates the woman or makes her sad. Doesn't matter. She has to handle it and comfort him. She makes him feel better.

This is her playing peacemaker, being his comfort.
Essentially, it's this simple:

Whenever a woman is sad, her emotions take priority.

Whenever a man is mad, his emotions take priority.

Do not dismiss and neglect a sad woman.

Do not infuriate and aggravate an angry man.

Both are suffering.

Know your role and help them.
Men don't have the right to sadness that women have.

Women don't have the right to anger that men have.

Men don't get to mope around being sad and needing comfort.

Women don't get to fly off the handle angry all the time and be soothed.

That's a role reversal of energies.
If you're a woman who expects her emotions to take priority when she's sad

But also expects her emotions take priority when he's mad

What you are conveying is that your emotions always take priority.

There is a lack of sufficient give and take in peacemaking.

Won't end well.
There is an art to handling a sad woman and an art to handling an angry man.

Each sex should learn these things. Both require patience and empathy. Both require prioritising someone other than yourself.

You can't monopolise all of the emotional priority all of the time.
Even if it's not exactly 50/50, and the woman gets upset more often than the man gets mad, or the man gets mad more often than the woman gets upset, as long as you're there for each other when the other is in need - you're doing it right. Never expect 50/50. Unrealistic.
After they have calmed down, and you have got over any irritation their outburst may have caused you, share your concerns and probe gently. Why is she getting upset so easily? Why is he getting mad so easily? Approach it with the lens of trying to understand the underlying cause.
Don't approach it directly *WHILST* they're feeling what they feel. You will just make it worse. They don't want to be challenged or dismissed when they're in that state. They want comfort, and their feelings are legitimate even if you didn't appreciate them.
Only ever approach it once those intense feelings have passed.

And don't resent them for inconveniencing you. Forgive them for their shortcomings. This is the price you both pay and the burden you both face if you wish to appropriately care for one another.
Finally men, you are allowed to get angry.

Nobody doubts the legitimacy of a woman's emotions, but many will mischaracterise a man's anger as abuse or some other nonsense.

This is false.

Any woman worth a crap knows its her duty to bring you comfort in your worst moments.
Some men anger more easily than others, and generally one should not be quick to nor prone to anger over the trivial. A certain degree of stoicism is necessary to be an effective leader. But male aggression and intolerance has its place too. Never let anyone tell you otherwise.
On the flipside, some women are more prone to sadness than others. Some people are more high maintenance than others.

A man prone to anger + a woman prone to sadness are both emotionally high maintenance.

But men prone to sadness and women prone to anger are both to be avoided.
A man prone to sadness is too much in his feminine energy, and a woman prone to anger is too much within her masculine energy

Neither will make effective, robust spouses you can cooperate with in life. They will fail to deliver when you need them most.
Well, I think that about covers all the bases!

I hope you enjoyed reading this thread, and that it gave you pause for thought, or helped you make some vital distinctions that help you better understand your relationships.

Thanks for reading!
Find more threads like this at


• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with 🇬🇧 Illimitable 🇬🇧

🇬🇧 Illimitable 🇬🇧 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @TellYourSonThis

26 Nov
Women more than anything hate being excluded, which is why ostracism is one of the main psychological tools they use to hurt each other.

This is why western culture is obsessed with inclusion - because although its women aren't very feminine, its values are incredibly so.
Poetically, the most masculine patriarchal cultures produce the most feminine women, and the most feminine liberal cultures produce the most masculine women.

Probably something to do with the fact that when women have to fend for themselves, life's harshness masculinises them.
Women's unchecked chaos is the battering ram of civilization.

Once their values become primary, standards fall. Competition lessens with participation trophies for all. All kinks, fetishes and deviant behaviour must be destigmatised, and all cultures are invited in.

Read 5 tweets
24 Nov
If you get handed off a girl from parents who didn't do a bad job, you're blessed. They've saved you a ton of hassle.

Men realise they have to get it together before looking for love. Women think some man will come along + solve all their problems for them so do none of the work
Obviously generalising here.

Women who do the work (minority) are worth looking at despite their issues - because they're already set themselves apart from the majority by making a commitment to their own self-betterment.

And this is something all men can appreciate and admire.
But yes, average woman does zero work + expects him to handle her baggage and invest a ton of time and energy into making her a quality woman. Yet if she's too egotistical, she'll also complain he's controlling/trying to change her (by leading).

No good deed unpunished. Avoid!
Read 5 tweets
23 Nov
Women leverage perceived vulnerability into self-gain

Men look pathetic when they self-victimise

But when women do it, people feel bad for them and help them which incentivises more self-victimising

Poetically then, women's perceived vulnerability is a source of great strength
Male weakness elicits disgust, whilst female weakness elicits pity

Disgust leads to a loss of face which cannot be leveraged into assistance and protection, whilst pity can be leveraged into acquiring both of those things

Hence why women are more likely to scam with sob stories
Women can be openly and indulgently pathetic, to an absolutely theatrical and inauthentic extent, and get rewarded with help for it.

Whilst men with genuine deep struggle are often dismissed and told to man up. So stay silent

Women have no idea how privileged they are like this
Read 19 tweets
23 Nov
If you were a woman, you would use your looks to get ahead too. It's what they do. It's instinct to them. Because it works, and it's effective. And with all due respect, a lot of men are pathetic and prone to simp. They are easily seduced, and thus easily leveraged.
What I'm saying is, if the average man was a bit more cunning, a bit more disciplined, and a little less desperate - they wouldn't be as easy to take advantage of.

Many women have nothing but their looks to leverage. Absolutely zero. So they have to get something out of it.
So no point resenting them for leveraging one of the only assets they have. It's what everybody does. Yes, it's foolish to rely on only one thing and not diversify, and yes, beauty is a form of power and thus prone to corrupt with narcissism - but they're just playing the game.
Read 4 tweets
22 Nov
Whilst she may condemn violence, she would sooner apologise for a brute than fall in love with a pacifist.

Truth be told women are in fact great lovers of violence, just only when it is employed in service of them, be it for their sexual pleasure, or their bodily protection.
Women are averse to engaging in violence themselves, and of course, afraid of being subjected to it - given their small frames and lack of musculature. It is for precisely this reason they seek to benefit from it by proxy.

And so a man incapable of violence is no man at all.
Men aren't solely violent, but must possess a capacity for it

To be otherwise is to be rendered domesticated.

And in case you think this absurd

How does a man "make her feel safe" with zero destructive capability?

To neurotically neuter man is to eradicate your own protection
Read 7 tweets
22 Nov
Contemporary politics is proof that neuroticism driven hysteria - literal insanity - is a more powerful force of volition than testosterone.

The right may be more masculine, but the left is more zealous, more dogmatic.

And rationality has less force of intensity than insanity.
Dogmatic people hinge themselves to fences and scream their sacred platitudes as both a theatrical display of aberrant piety, and as a means of intimidating the non-believers through the sheer brutality of their insanity.

Sensible people don't exhibit this level of commitment.
This is why they always have a place in any dogma.

Because whilst the leadership disavows them, it tacitly supports them even if it doesn't entirely agree with them, because such crazies are useful - shock troops loyal to the cause that encourage conformity through intimidation.
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!