Men don't like sharing their pain with women for the same reason parents don't like sharing their pain with children.
They don't think you can handle it, and they think they'll look lesser in your eyes.
And the thing is, they're usually right about both of those things.
Why would a man share these things with a woman? What is she going to do about it? Save him? Respect him more? No. She'll worry about him, but she'll also begin to lose confidence in him.
That's the thing about being a leader. You don't keep the job if you're not cut out for it.
And when a man opens up like a mother sharing her most intimate anxieties with her 8 year old, there's a sense of regret and shame with having burdened a weaker soul with horrors not meant for them. There's a type of disgust with one's self for failing to contain the suffering.
And of course the very best of women, like a child, would most earnestly want to help. They would. They hate the idea you suffer alone, and would love to help you feel better. It's not that they don't care. They do. It's just that this pain isn't meant for them.
Even when men are hurting, they're putting you first, protecting you, shielding you from burden.
Remember that next time you say a man isn't in touch with his emotions.
He is. And that's why he does his best not to subject you to his most personal horrors.
If something is up with him, don't ask him what it is. Let him protect you and maintain his dignity. Do sweet little things for him. Be his ignorant comfort. He will appreciate it and be vitalised with the morale he needs to defeat his demons.
The first time a pretty woman who cared for you breaks your heart, and the full undiluted scope of her cold unapologetic selfishness takes centre stage and you see quite clearly how mercenarily she has chosen herself over you or any concept of "us" this illusion should shatter.
Perversely in this culture which has no rites of initiation for men anymore, amongst all the dysfunction and chaos occurring around all us, heartbreak seems to perform that function.
Men who've never been heartbroken are incredibly ignorant about what women are capable of.
Society will dismiss your experience and say you chose wrong, you're bitter, not all women are like that and you can't generalise, that there's no universal truth to what you've observed and you can't extrapolate from it even if you can corroborate it with thousands of other men.
They think if the man is good enough, they will magically fall into line because he's worthy. I even hear men repeat that sentiment. But that's not the case. Women who haven't followed a man in a long time develop bad traits.
Thinking in such simplistic terms allows them to shift responsibility away from *her being a good follower* onto *him being a good leader.* Therefore she never has to self-evaluate if she's a good follower, because if she isn't she can just blame it on his lack of manliness.
Stated another way: when you believe the only reason you're *bad at something* is because someone else is *bad at something* and that you being *good at something* is contingent on them being *good at something*, you never improve. No self-analysis. It's never your fault.
Women are chaos (emotionalism) neurotically seeking order (protection/provision), men are order (rationality/authority) seeking chaos (thrill of adventure).
So poetically even though the woman is chaotic, she takes man away from adventure through her need for order from him.
Nietzsche said men love danger and play, which is why man loves woman as his most dangerous plaything.
In reality, probably only true within the context of a mistress or "fun woman" - but not within the marital context where she represents more obligation than indulgence.
This is why woman constantly wants her man's attention and is prone to "clinging" (craving order), whilst men like time and space away from their woman to engage in their hobbies.
He wants a break from his obligation to pursue adventure.
No man should stay in a marriage or relationship where it is not expressly and unequivocally respected that he is in charge, and his word is final. This doesn't mean he shouldn't consider his woman's views. It means she must accept his decision even if she disagrees with it.
You cannot expect people to agree on things all the time, and regardless, a decision must be made.
Who do you think will make the most effective decision maker, that is willing to bear the responsibility for the consequences of their choice - man, or woman? Who's more emotional?
People always say things are unfair, but they only look at that unfairness within a specific narrowband context. For example, my detractors would say "so a woman should just always do what a man says no matter what, even if she doesn't like it?!" that's so unfair!
And she does not appreciate him, because deep down despite all he does for her she does not believe he deserves her.
She resents the fact she had to "settle" for a calibre of man beneath what she believes she deserves.
Such a wretched creature knows no gratitude - only respect.
Imagine actively resenting someone who deals with your problems and takes care of your bills because they are not, in your eyes, dominant, successful or high status enough. And you believe you deserved more. Yet instead of being principled and remaining alone, you use them anyway