MenAreGood
Understanding Men
Testosterone, It Starts Early
January 03, 2024
post photo preview

Understanding Men is a series of articles and videos that progressively explain the many natural factors that help us see men in a realistic light.  Today's world is filled with negative spin on men and masculinity and this has done great harm to men and boys.  That harm is amplified by the media and the educational systems ignoring an abundance of research knowledge that reveals what is driving healthy masculinity and healthy manhood.  This series digs into that research and clinical observations and offers it for your consideration. Understanding Men will be open to all subscribers and will not require a paid subscription.  If you would like to support my work that would be great but not a necessity.  Look for it each Wednesday. Men are good!

 We start with Testosterone.

In order to understand men and boys you must understand testosterone. This section will give you a good start in beginning to appreciate the importance of testosterone to boys and men.  It starts before you were born. This is an excerpt from my book for mothers about their boys.

It Starts Early

The differences between boys and girls start very early. In fact they start the first day of life. Research has shown that infant boys are more likely to attend to an object or a mobile while infant girls are more likely to attend to a human face.1 But why this difference so shortly after birth? With no socialization to influence boys or girls at day one how is it that there might be differences? This is where we need to back up about 6 or 7 months.

THE TESTOSTERONE FLOOD


At approximately 8-24 weeks in utero most boys receive what is called a testosterone flood. This sudden increase in testosterone has multiple consequences. One consequence is that these raised levels of testosterone change the brain of the baby. The default brain is the female brain or what researcher Simon Baron-Cohen calls the “relational” or “empathic” brain.2 This relational brain is built to focus more on empathy, nurturing and relationships. Without the testosterone flood we would all have this relational brain, but with the flood, the brain starts to develop into what researchers call the male brain or what Baron-Cohen calls the “systemizing brain.” This male brain has a different set of strengths. It prefers to focus on systems: what makes them tick, what removing one piece might do to the whole, what a simple change in one part might do to another, the joy of building it piece by piece or taking it apart. Think Legos. Can you remember little boys spending hours upon hours with Legos? I bet you can. I would also bet that you might remember a similarly aged little girl that loved Legos in about the same way. And here is where things get interesting. It turns out that a small percentage of females also get an increase in testosterone in utero and develop what researchers call male brains.3 The girls who get this testosterone tend to be much less interested in traditionally feminine sorts of things, they would rather play rough and climb trees and spend hours with Legos. They tend to feel more happy being with the boys and they will often reject ostensibly female things. What we know now is that these young ladies are unique as girls at least in part because they got this extra testosterone and it is this pre-natal testosterone that is playing a part. I’m sure you have known some of these girls before; we call them “Tom Boys.”

It’s important to note that there is also a small percentage of boys who do not get this testosterone flood and therefore have a more “female” brain. These are the boys that are easier for moms to understand. They are more like mom and their way of being in the world is more like mom is used to. If you have a son like this (and if you have a “female brain”) you may be close due to your similarity. This is the young man that makes the mom wonder why her other sons can’t be like that.

Researchers have been able to identify those boys and girls who experienced this extra testosterone and they have studied these boy’s and girl’s behaviors and personalities as they have gotten older. What they have found is that those with greater testosterone levels in utero are more likely to want to play with “boy” toys like trucks and things that move. They are more likely to be more active, aggressive and competitive, less interested in traditionally feminine things and less interested in infants and nurturing behaviors.4,5 Those with lower levels of testosterone are more likely to have more interest in dolls and playing house, to be more interested in nurturing and in sharing secrets and personal data, and to prefer to play with a single friend or two, rather than with a larger group. Of course parents have been seeing these differences for a long time but likely assumed these differences were based solely on socialization, not on biology. Now we know differently. There are many factors that impact our differences.

A good deal of research is being done on the testosterone flood and how it influences children. As of 2020, scientists are confident about four connected differences from this flood. These are the boy-typical play behaviors, the increased chance of early aggressive behavior, influence on the core sexual identity and an impact on sexual orientation.6 There are other differences that are being studied but the strength of connection has yet to be proven for these.

What does this tell us? It suggests that your son, if he had the testosterone flood, will probably like to play in a way that most boys like to play, he may be interested in masculine play and be turned off by feminine activity. He will likely be attracted to females when he matures and he may be aggressive at times.

Our personalities are impacted by our biology even before we are born. This goes against common knowledge that our socialization is the only determinant to our ways of being. This is false. Our prenatal testosterone is just one biological factor and it impacts us in a profound manner. This testosterone flood has what biologists call “organizational” qualities. That is, the testosterone organizes the brain in certain patterns, literally changing the brain’s structure.7 These patterns make up what is being called the male brain. In addition to testosterone’s organizational qualities it also sensitizes receptor cells in the brain to be more reactive so that later in life the bodies of the boys and girls who received this flood will be more reactive to testosterone. This is called testosterone priming. Lastly, testosterone has what scientists call activational qualities. These are more transient and non- permanent effects on an already developed nervous system. This is what most of us think of when we think of hormones and the way they work. We get a squirt of this or that hormone and our bodies react accordingly.

Prenatal testosterone is not the only time when there is a surge in testosterone within boys’ bodies. A second surge of testosterone happens shortly after baby boys are born. Some scientists are calling this the “Mini Puberty.”8 This surge lasts between the first to third month of life (and sometimes longer) and is being studied now to get a sense of what impact it might have on these young boys. This surge is considerably easier to study since direct measurements of the testosterone can be made on a regular basis and do not depend on the blood levels of the pregnant mother or the testosterone levels in the amniotic fluid.

And, of course, there is the flood of testosterone that we are all familiar with, when boys reach puberty and once again their bodies are flooded with testosterone, about ten times the levels of testosterone that their sisters experience.

SYSTEMIZING

Let's take just a minute to examine what is meant by the systemizing brain that seems to result from the testosterone flood. This systemizing brain prefers to focus on systems. But when we say systems, what do we mean? These systems might be about anything with an input and an output. An example might be a machine like a car. It has numerous driver “inputs” like steering, braking, and accelerating. Change one of the inputs and the system changes. Learning how these inputs change the outputs is learning the system. A mainframe computer would be a more complex example. Or take a simpler example like Legos, there are a multitude of ways to attach the pieces, different colors, and different shapes. Learning the system is learning how to manipulate the inputs to get the output you might want. Another system might be swinging a baseball bat. The swing itself is a system. Learning the different parts of the swing, learning how to adjust that swing, and various different ‘inputs” the ball player could use to get the desired outputs is a system. Systems can even be as simple as a phonebook where names and numbers are connected or as complex as a philosophy. Our worlds are filled with systems.

WHAT WE TALK ABOUT

An easy way to get a sense of this difference in the systemizing brain and the empathic brain is to think for a moment about the topics of conversations of your sons and of your daughters. What sorts of things do your sons like to talk about? I would bet that they talk about systems or competing, and sometimes both. Talking about video games is talking about systems: input and output and which inputs bring success. Boys can talk about video games for hours. What was done, what worked, what didn’t, and all the gory details of the experience. (Of course they would prefer to play them and not talk.) I am willing to bet you have heard these conversations before. Discussing sports is another system: who is winning, what Team A needs to do to be more competitive against Team B, and on and on. The other piece is that in both these topics there is a likelihood that the discussion centered around competition. Who is first? Second? Last? Who is a level up and who is five levels behind? And this of course is a part of the system.

Now contrast this with the typical discussion you might hear with girls. Sure the girls might talk about sports or video games but it seems more likely they will talk about relationships. Who is their best friend, what are they doing together? Who will or won’t play with whom? Disclosing this or that personal data. Hearing about others’ relationships. This is what you are more likely to hear from your girls. Some girls, however, will love to talk about sports and some boys will be more interested in relationships. What we are talking about is not a predictor of behavior but is a way of observing it. You can’t say, “Because he is a boy, he will do this or that.” But you can simply observe how your child may or may not fit in with the differences we are describing and build a deeper understanding of their uniqueness. Once we observe we can see how this plays out in the lives of our children.

Excerpt from Helping Mothers Be Closer to Their Sons: Understanding the World of Boys pg 3-8

 

References

1. Connellan, Jennifer, Simon Baron-Cohen, Sally Wheelwright, Anna Batki, and Jag Ahluwalia. "Sex Differences in Human Neonatal Social Perception." Infant Behavior and Development 23.1 (2000): 113-18. Web.

2. Baron-Cohen, Simon. The Essential Difference: The Truth about the Male and Female Brain. New York: Basic, 2003. Print.

3. Ibid.

4. Hines, Melissa, Michaela Constantinescu, and Debra Spencer. "Early Androgen Exposure and Human Gender Development." Biology of Sex Differences 6.1 (2015): n. pag. Web.

5. Eaton, Warren O., and Lesley R. Enns. "Sex Differences in Human Motor Activity Level." Psychological Bulletin 100.1 (1986): 19-28. Web.

6. Ibid.

7. Arnold, A. "Organizational and Activational Effects of Sex Steroids on Brain and Behavior: A Reanalysis." Hormones and Behavior 19.4 (1985): 469-98. Web.

8. Alexander, Gerianne M. "Postnatal Testosterone Concentrations and Male Social Development." Frontiers in Endocrinology 5 (2014): n. pag. Web.

community logo
Join the MenAreGood Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
November 17, 2025
Cancel Culture with a Vengeance

Universities and media love to brand themselves as champions of free speech and open debate. But what happens when those same institutions quietly use legal tools to gag and erase the very people who challenge their orthodoxies?

In this conversation, I’m joined by two of my favorite thinkers, Dr. Janice Fiamengo and Dr. Stephen Baskerville, to dig into a darker layer beneath “cancel culture.” We start from the case of Dr. James Nuzzo, whose FOIA request exposed a coordinated effort by colleagues and administrators to push him out rather than debate his research, and then go much deeper.

Stephen explains how non-disclosure agreements, non-disparagement clauses, and mandatory arbitration have become a hidden system of censorship in universities, Christian colleges, and even media outlets—silencing dissenters, shielding institutions from scrutiny, and quietly stripping people of their practical First Amendment rights. Janice adds her own experience with gag orders and human rights complaints, and ...

00:57:23
October 02, 2025
Father Custody: The Solution to Injustices Against Men?

In this conversation, I sit down with Stephen Baskerville and Rick Bradford to explore a provocative idea: could father custody be the key to addressing many of the injustices men face? Both men are leading experts in this area, and together they examine some fascinating angles. One insight is that the legal contract of marriage doesn’t just unite two people — it’s also the mechanism that legally creates fathers. Yet when that contract is dissolved through divorce, the law often strips fathers of their rights, reducing them to mere “visitors” in their children’s lives. This and much more is unpacked in our discussion.

We also point to Rick’s and Stephen’s books (linked below) and to AI tools that allow you to interact with their work directly. (also linked below)

If you’ve ever wondered why custody is such a defining issue — not just for fathers but for the future of men’s rights and well-being — this dialogue offers insights you won’t want to miss.

Men are good, as are you.

Books...

01:18:10
September 25, 2025
Dr. James Nuzzo Cancelled for Challenging Feminism and DEI

Join me as I talk with Janice Fiamengo and researcher Dr. James Nuzzo about the shocking story of his academic cancellation. What begins as one man’s ordeal soon reveals how woke ideology and radical feminism are undermining science, silencing dissent, and eroding academic freedom. Thoughtful, eye-opening, and at times heartbreaking, this video exposes what really happens when universities put politics before truth.

Dr. Nuzzo's GoFundMe
https://www.gofundme.com/f/ChildStrengthResearch

Dr. Nuzzo's Donorbox
https://donorbox.org/the-nuzzo-letter

https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/

Previous Interviews with Dr. Nuzzo on MenAreGood
grip strength https://menaregood.substack.com/p/childhood-sex-differences-in-grip

sex differences in strength https://menaregood.substack.com/p/sex-differences-in-strength-and-exercise

bias against women in exercise research? https://menaregood.substack.com/p/bias-against-women-in-exercise-research

childhood sex differences in strength ...

01:01:31
February 07, 2023
The Way Boys Play and the Biological Underpinnings

My apologies for the last empty post. My mistake. Let's hope this one works.

Tom takes a stab at using the podcast function. Let's see how it goes.

The Way Boys Play and the Biological Underpinnings
May 13, 2022
Boys and Rough Play

This is a short excerpt from Helping Mothers be Closer to their Sons. The book was meant for single mothers who really don't know much about boy's nature. They also don't have a man in the house who can stand up for the boy and his unique nature. It tries to give them some ideas about how boys and girls are different. This excerpt is about play behaviors.

Boys and Rough Play
November 13, 2025
post photo preview
The Psychology of Collective Victimhood
Part 2 of 3 in the series “The Victim Trap: How a Culture of Helplessness Took Hold”


The Psychology of Collective Victimhood

Part 2 of 3 in the series “The Victim Trap: How a Culture of Helplessness Took Hold”

When the mindset of victimhood spreads from individuals to entire groups, something powerful — and dangerous — begins to happen.

The sense of personal injury becomes a shared moral identity.
Suffering, once private, becomes political.

At first, this can bring solidarity and even healing. A wounded community finds its voice. People who once suffered in silence finally feel seen. But over time, the same force that unites can also divide. The story that once offered meaning starts to reshape how people see themselves, their nation, and even morality itself.



1. The Birth of a Moral Identity

When groups define themselves by what was done to them, they gain not only empathy but a sense of moral righteousness. The logic is simple — and intoxicating:

“We have suffered, therefore we are good. They have power, therefore they are bad.”

This moral binary simplifies a messy world. It provides clarity and belonging, offering the comfort of a single story where virtue and vice are clearly assigned. But it also freezes both sides into unchanging roles: one forever the victim, the other forever the oppressor.

These roles are psychologically powerful because they remove complexity — and with it, responsibility. Once a group becomes identified with innocence, it no longer needs to question its own motives. Its cause is automatically just.

Modern politics thrives on these fixed roles. They provide ready-made moral drama: heroes and villains, innocence and guilt. But like all drama, they require constant rehearsal to stay alive. Without conflict, the script falls apart.



2. The Emotional Rewards of Group Victimhood

Collective victimhood feels empowering at first. It transforms personal pain into a larger moral purpose. What was once chaos becomes coherence.

Being part of a group that has “suffered together” gives life meaning and creates unity. It offers protection from isolation. There’s comfort in saying, “We’re not crazy; we’ve been wronged.”

In social movements, this dynamic can quickly become a badge of belonging — a way to prove loyalty to the cause. Those who display the most outrage, or carry the most visible wounds, often gain the highest moral status.

Psychologists call this competitive victimhood: when groups begin to compete for recognition as the most wronged. The greater the suffering, the greater the virtue. But moral status can become addictive. Once a group learns that pain equals virtue, it begins to search for more pain — and when real injustices run out, it may start to manufacture offense to sustain its moral authority.

It’s a strange paradox: the more a group celebrates its wounds, the less it can afford to heal them.



3. Biases that Keep the Wound Open

Victim thinking doesn’t just change beliefs — it changes perception itself.
It amplifies cognitive biases that keep the wound raw and prevent ​healing.

  • Confirmation bias: Interpreting every disagreement or policy change as proof of oppression. The mind filters the world for evidence of persecution.

  • Attribution bias: Assuming malice rather than misunderstanding — reading intent where there may be none.

  • Availability bias: Because the media highlights what shocks and wounds, stories of cruelty stay vivid in our minds while quiet acts of goodwill fade from view. We remember every injustice, not because it’s most common, but because it’s most visible.

  • Moral typecasting: Once a group is labeled “the victim,” society struggles to see it as capable of harm — while the supposed “oppressor” becomes incapable of innocence.

This last bias deserves a closer look.

Social psychologists Kurt Gray and Daniel Wegner discovered that people intuitively divide the world into moral types: those who act (moral agents) and those who suffer (moral patients). Once someone is cast in one role, our minds tend to freeze them there.

That means when a group is seen as a victim, their actions are interpreted through a moral filter that excuses wrongdoing. Their pain becomes proof of virtue — and even when they cause harm, observers tend to explain it away as justified or defensive.
Conversely, those seen as oppressors carry a kind of permanent moral stain. Even their good deeds are reinterpreted as self-serving or manipulative.

The tragedy is that this bias prevents genuine empathy in both directions.
It denies accountability to those labeled as victims and compassion to those labeled as villains. In the end, everyone’s humanity gets flattened into a single moral role — and the cycle of grievance stays alive.



4. When Empathy Becomes a Weapon

Empathy is one of humanity’s most precious traits. But when victimhood becomes sacred, even empathy can be weaponized.

Claims of harm begin to override discussions of truth. Feelings become the final arbiter of morality. The question shifts from “Is this accurate?” to “Does this offend?”

The result is what might be called moral coercion: when guilt replaces persuasion and compassion becomes a tool of control. People censor themselves not because they’re wrong, but because they fear being seen as cruel.

You can see this dynamic almost anywhere today — in classrooms, offices, or online. A teacher hesitates to discuss a controversial historical event because one student might feel “unsafe.” A coworker swallows an honest disagreement during a diversity training, not because they’ve changed their mind, but because they dread being labeled insensitive. On social media, someone offers a mild counterpoint and is flooded with moral outrage until they apologize for the sin of questioning the narrative.

In each case, guilt ​ or shame ​becomes a weapon. The emotional threat of being branded heartless silences discussion more effectively than any argument could. And so compassion, meant to connect us, begins to control us.

Ironically, the groups that appear most powerless often become the most influential, because they wield the moral authority of suffering. When pain becomes proof of virtue, disagreement starts to look like aggression.

It’s a subtle but devastating inversion: empathy, meant to heal division, becomes a tool that enforces it.



5. The Emotional Toll on the Group

Living inside a collective grievance feels purposeful, but it’s emotionally draining.
Righteous anger brings a surge of meaning — a sense of clarity and mission — but like any stimulant, it requires constant renewal.

A group addicted to outrage cannot rest. It needs a steady supply of offenses, real or imagined, to keep its story alive. When none appear, it begins to see insult in the ordinary and oppression in mere difference.

Without new conflict, the group’s identity weakens. This is why peace, paradoxically, can feel threatening to movements built on pain. Reconciliation robs them of their reason to exist.

The emotional cost is high: anxiety, exhaustion, paranoia, and isolation. The group’s members live in a permanent state of alert, bonded by fear rather than love.



6. How Collective Victimhood Divides Society

The tragedy of group grievance is that it unites within but divides between.
Shared suffering bonds members of the in-group, but it hardens their hearts toward outsiders. Empathy becomes conditional — reserved only for those who share the same scar.

Once compassion is limited to “our people,” understanding dies. Dialogue collapses. Each side becomes trapped in its own moral narrative, convinced that it alone is righteous.

The cultural result is polarization — a society where everyone talks about justice while practicing vengeance, and where reconciliation feels like betrayal.

In such a climate, even kindness can be misinterpreted as manipulation. Every gesture is filtered through suspicion. Healing becomes nearly impossible because the wound has become the identity.



7. Toward a Healthier Collective Story

The way out is not to deny injustice but to transcend it.
Nations, communities, and movements can honor their suffering without making it their defining story.

That transformation begins with language.
Saying “We have suffered” keeps us anchored in the past.
Saying “We have endured” honors the same pain but adds strength.

The first sentence describes injury; the second describes resilience.
The difference seems small, but psychologically it’s immense — one keeps the wound open, the other begins to heal it.

Healthy cultures, like healthy people, move from grievance to growth. They tell stories not just of what was lost but of how they rose. They stop competing for sympathy and start competing for excellence.



Final Word

Victimhood once served a sacred purpose — to awaken empathy for the mistreated. It was meant to open our hearts, to remind us of our shared humanity and the moral duty to protect the vulnerable. When a culture witnesses suffering and responds with compassion, something profoundly good happens: justice grows, cruelty is restrained, and dignity is restored.

But somewhere along the way, that sacred purpose was replaced by something transactional. When victimhood becomes a currency, empathy turns into a market, and suffering becomes a brand.

You can see it in the way public life now rewards outrage and emotional display. A single personal story of harm, once told for healing, can now become a platform — drawing attention, sympathy, and sometimes even profit.
Organizations compete to showcase their pain as proof of virtue; individuals learn that expressing offense earns social status; corporations adopt slogans of solidarity not from conscience, but because compassion has become good marketing.

Imagine a town square where people once gathered to comfort the wounded. Over time, the square becomes a stage. The wounded are still there, but now they must keep their wounds visible, even open, because the crowd has learned to applaud pain more than recovery. The very empathy that was meant to heal now demands performance.

When compassion becomes currency, its value declines. What once flowed freely from the heart is now rationed, manipulated, and traded for attention or power.

The true mark of strength is not how loudly we proclaim our pain, but how gracefully we move beyond it. Real empathy — the kind that changes lives — begins when we stop spending suffering and start transforming it.

Our challenge now, as individuals and as a culture, is to remember that compassion and accountability must grow together — or both will die apart.

In the next and final part of this series, we’ll explore how modern institutions — academia, media, and politics — have learned to reward and monetize victimhood, and what that means for the future of honest conversation and human resilience.

Men Are Good.

Read full Article
November 11, 2025
Thank You to Our Veterans


Thank You to Our Veterans

On this Veterans Day, my deepest thanks go to all who have worn the uniform. Your courage, discipline, and quiet sacrifices have given the rest of us the gift of safety and freedom. Many of you carry memories that the rest of us will never know, and yet you’ve continued to serve your families, your communities, and your country with strength and grace. We honor you today — and every day — with gratitude and respect.

Men Are Good. As are Veterans!

Read full Article
November 10, 2025
post photo preview
The Perils of Seeing Yourself as a Victim
Part 1 of 3 in the series “The Victim Trap: How a Culture of Helplessness Took Hold”

The Perils of Seeing Yourself as a Victim

Part 1 of 3 in the series “The Victim Trap: How a Culture of Helplessness Took Hold”

Something powerful happens when a person begins to see themselves as a victim. It doesn’t just shape how they interpret the world — it shapes who they become.

In therapy, I’ve watched people recover from immense trauma once they reclaimed a sense of agency — the feeling that they could influence their own lives. I’ve also seen others sink deeper into despair when they made victimhood their identity.

The difference isn’t what happened to them. It’s how they understood what happened.



1. The Loss of Agency

The first casualty of victim thinking is agency — the belief that your choices matter.

When someone becomes convinced that their suffering is entirely someone else’s fault, they begin to feel powerless. Over time, that belief solidifies into a mindset. Life starts to feel like something that happens to them rather than something they participate in.

Psychologist Martin Seligman called this learned helplessness: after enough experiences of uncontrollable pain, the mind simply stops trying. Think of an animal that has been shocked in a cage with no escape. Even when the door is later opened, it doesn’t leave — because it has learned that effort is futile.

Humans do the same thing psychologically. Even when their circumstances change, the sense of helplessness remains. People stop acting not because they can’t, but because they’ve learned that trying doesn’t work.



2. The Seduction of the Victim Identity

Victimhood can feel strangely comforting. It offers a simple, satisfying story: “I’m suffering because they wronged me.”

That story brings sympathy and moral clarity — two powerful emotional rewards. It can even give life meaning for a while, especially when pain otherwise feels random or senseless. The problem is that, over time, this identity replaces growth with grievance.

When the victim role becomes part of one’s personality, it begins to demand constant confirmation. Every slight, disappointment, or setback becomes further proof that the world is unjust. In relationships, this can look like chronic mistrust — interpreting neutral behavior as betrayal.

It’s a trap that trades short-term comfort for long-term paralysis. The more we tell the story, the more we become it.



3. Blame as a Refuge from Responsibility

Blame is a refuge. It protects us from guilt, uncertainty, and the anxiety of freedom.

If we can point to someone else as the cause of our pain, we don’t have to face our own part in it. Yet this comes at a heavy price. Without responsibility, there can be no empowerment.

Responsibility doesn’t mean self-blame; it means reclaiming authorship — the power to choose how to respond. In therapy, progress often begins the moment a person stops asking, “Why did this happen to me?” and starts asking, “What can I do with what happened?”

That subtle shift — from passive to active, from blame to authorship — marks the true beginning of healing.



4. The Emotional Cost of Victim Thinking

Living as a victim is emotionally exhausting. It keeps the body in a constant state of alert — scanning for unfairness, injustice, or disrespect.

Each time we perceive ourselves as wronged, the body releases stress hormones like cortisol and adrenaline. Over time, this constant vigilance wears down the nervous system. Sleep suffers, digestion falters, the immune system weakens.

Psychologically, the effects are just as corrosive. Chronic resentment hardens the heart. Cynicism replaces curiosity. Trust becomes dangerous. Eventually, life starts to feel like a battlefield where every encounter carries the potential for harm.

When that happens, even joy feels suspicious — as if it could be taken away at any moment. Gratitude becomes nearly impossible.



5. Gratitude as the Antidote

Gratitude and victimhood cannot occupy the same space. One looks for what’s been taken; the other notices what remains.

Practicing gratitude doesn’t mean pretending injustice never happened. It means refusing to let it define you. It’s an act of quiet rebellion against despair — a way of saying, “You may have hurt me, but you don’t own my perspective.”

Even small acts of gratitude — writing down three good things each day, thanking someone sincerely, noticing the ordinary kindnesses that surround us — begin to loosen the grip of grievance.

Gratitude shifts the focus from what’s wrong to what’s possible, reminding us that healing begins not with fairness, but with perspective.



6. The Loop of Confirmation Bias

Once victimhood takes root, the mind begins to filter reality to fit the narrative.
Every perceived slight becomes proof. Every kind gesture from “the enemy” is dismissed as insincere.

Psychologists call this confirmation bias: our natural tendency to seek evidence that supports what we already believe. It’s how belief becomes identity — and identity becomes destiny.

This loop can be hard to escape because it feels truthful. The more you look for injustice, the more you’ll find. Eventually, you stop seeing anything else. The mind edits reality until it mirrors the wound.



7. Reclaiming Agency

Freedom begins with the quiet realization: I can choose my response.

That one insight breaks the spell of helplessness. It doesn’t erase the past, but it reclaims the present.

When people rediscover agency, they stop waiting for justice before living again. They stop making peace conditional on apology or fairness. They act from strength instead of grievance.

We cannot rewrite the past, but we can decide what story it tells about us — tragedy or transformation. The choice is ours.



Closing Reflection

We live in a time when victimhood is often rewarded — socially, politically, even financially. It’s praised as awareness, celebrated as moral insight. But the personal cost is enormous.

It steals joy, isolates the heart, and locks people into a story that keeps them small.

The truth is, pain is inevitable; helplessness is optional. And the moment we reclaim our authorship, even suffering can become a source of strength.

In the next part of this series, we’ll explore how this same mindset expands beyond the individual to entire groups and movements — how collective victimhood becomes a kind of moral currency that shapes modern culture.

Men Are Good.

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals