Gratitude: The Quiet Strength That Grounds Us

Thanksgiving gives us a reason to pause. We stop, we gather, we notice what’s good. But gratitude isn’t just for a holiday — it’s one of the most grounding forces we can experience, especially for men.

While many emotions pull us into the past or the future, gratitude brings us home to the present. Depression lives in the past — the regrets, the losses, the “if onlys.” Fear and anxiety live in the future — the “what ifs.” But gratitude? Gratitude lives in the now. It opens our eyes to what is still right, still working, still worthy of thanks.

In that sense, gratitude isn’t soft. It’s strong. It steadies the mind and slows the heartbeat. It’s one of the few emotions that can stop our racing thoughts and remind us that, for this moment, we are safe enough to notice the good.

Men’s Quiet Language of Gratitude

Men often express gratitude differently. Many don’t talk about it much, but they live it. You see it in a father fixing a leaky faucet before anyone wakes up. You see it in a husband warming the car on a cold morning. You see it in the man who takes the time to teach his son how to change a tire. You see it in the neighbor who quietly mows the lawn for someone recovering from surgery. They show thanks not in words, but through small acts that say: I’m here, I care, and you matter.

Where women might share their feelings through words, men often express theirs through action. Gratitude, for many men, is a verb — something done rather than said. It’s built into service, protection, provision, and care.

That difference isn’t a deficiency; it’s a different language. When a man says little but does much, that’s gratitude in motion. It’s a form of love that asks for no credit.

Gratitude as the Antidote to Fear and Regret

Modern life pulls men toward two poles — regret for what’s behind and fear for what’s ahead. Gratitude interrupts both.

When we take time to feel thankful, we’re forced to stop scanning for what’s wrong and notice what’s right. Our attention shifts from scarcity to sufficiency. From threat to trust.

Psychologically, that shift is powerful. The brain can’t hold gratitude and fear in full strength at the same time. When one rises, the other fades. Gratitude quiets the amygdala — the brain’s alarm system — and activates the prefrontal cortex, the part responsible for calm focus and good judgment.

For men, who are often wired and trained to stay alert, to fix, to anticipate, gratitude gives permission to pause. It doesn’t remove responsibility, but it lets the nervous system rest for a moment in appreciation rather than vigilance.

Gratitude says: You don’t have to solve everything right now. Some things are already okay.

Transforming Pain Into Meaning

Gratitude isn’t denial. It doesn’t mean pretending everything’s fine. It means seeing what’s still worth cherishing even when life hurts.

When a man looks back on a loss and says, “I wish it hadn’t happened, but I’m grateful for what it taught me,” that’s not sentimentality — it’s transformation. It’s the same movement described in The Way Men Heal — the act of turning pain into purpose, of transforming ashes into wisdom.

Gratitude becomes the bridge between grief and growth. It allows men to integrate their suffering into a larger story — one that includes both loss and meaning. That’s how gratitude strengthens the soul.

The Daily Practice of Gratitude

We often think of gratitude as something spontaneous — something that happens when life feels good. But the truth is, gratitude grows strongest when it’s practiced deliberately, even on ordinary or difficult days.

Psychologist Martin Seligman’s famous “Three Good Things” exercise is a perfect example. Each night before bed, you simply write down three things that went well that day — and why they went well. It might be a small kindness, a quiet walk, or the way the sunlight hit the trees.

Research shows that after just a week of doing this, people report higher happiness and lower stress — benefits that can last for months. It’s not magic; it’s training the mind to notice goodness instead of danger.

You might say it’s rewiring the brain for appreciation — something men can do as naturally as fixing what’s broken. It’s a kind of inner craftsmanship.

And maybe that’s the message of Thanksgiving itself: gratitude doesn’t belong to one Thursday in November. It’s a daily practice, a quiet rebellion against cynicism and complaint.

Gratitude as a Rebellion of the Heart

In a culture that tells men they’re the problem, gratitude can be an act of defiance.
To stay grateful in a world that often shames or misunderstands men is to say, “I still see the good. I still know what matters.”

Gratitude grounds a man in meaning. It restores moral agency — the sense that he can still give, still love, still appreciate the gift of being alive.

Maybe that’s why gratitude feels so steady: it reminds us who we are beneath the noise.

A Thanksgiving Reflection

So this Thanksgiving, maybe we can remember that gratitude doesn’t need to be loud.
It can be quiet, steady, and strong — like the men who practice it through their actions every day.

Gratitude doesn’t erase hardship, but it reveals the light still shining through the cracks. It draws us out of the past, away from fear of the future, and into this very moment — the only place where love and goodness can be lived.

Try ending each day this week by writing down three things you’re grateful for. They don’t have to be big. Just real. Let your mind begin to look for what’s right.

Because men are good. And gratitude reminds us that the world, for all its flaws, still is too.

Men are good, as are you.

Every now and then, a simple classroom exercise reveals something profound about human nature. Jane Elliott’s famous “blue-eyes/brown-eyes” experiment did exactly that. Many of you will remember it: the day after Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, Elliott, a third-grade teacher in Iowa, decided her students needed to understand prejudice in a way a lecture could never accomplish.

So she divided the children by eye color.

One group was told they were smarter, kinder, and better behaved. The other group — their own classmates and friends — were told they were not. Nothing about the children changed except the message they were given.

That was enough.

Within minutes, the “favored” students stood taller and spoke more confidently. They completed work more quickly and volunteered answers with pride. The disfavored group wilted. Their shoulders rounded. Their test scores dropped. Some withdrew, others grew angry. A few even began to believe the negative things said about them.

Elliott hadn’t created new children. She had created a new context — one in which the adults in power defined who deserved approval and who didn’t.

The experiment showed something we often forget: children are exquisitely sensitive to the attitudes and expectations of the people who guide them.

Even subtle cues from authority can become destiny. A raised eyebrow, a dismissive tone, a slogan on the wall — all of it shapes who children believe they are allowed to be.

Elliott’s students went through only a single day of being “favored” or “disfavored,” and it changed their behavior, confidence, and even cognitive performance.

Imagine, for a moment, what would happen if one group of children lived like this not for a day, but for years. Imagine if the message they heard — from teachers, media, curriculum, and culture — told them that something essential about them was wrong.

Imagine if they were boys.

That’s where we’re headed. But before we get there, we need one more piece of the puzzle.

Because psychologists later discovered that what Elliott demonstrated dramatically in a classroom is also happening quietly inside children every day. They even gave it a name.

It’s called stereotype threat.

And it explains far more about our boys’ struggles — and our cultural blind spots — than most people realize.

What We Learned From Girls and Math

Stereotype threat is a simple idea with enormous consequences.

It refers to what happens when a person fears confirming a negative stereotype about their group. That fear — often subtle, often unspoken — increases anxiety, reduces working memory, undermines confidence, and lowers performance.

It is not about ability.
It is about expectation.

And most people first learn about stereotype threat in one particular context: girls and math.

For decades, girls were surrounded by the quiet cultural rumor that “girls aren’t good at math.” Teachers didn’t always say it directly. They didn’t have to. It floated around in a thousand small ways: textbook examples, facial expression, who was called on in class, who was encouraged and who was consoled. Girls absorbed it the way plants absorb light.

Researchers found that when girls were subtly reminded of this stereotype—even by something as small as checking a gender box at the top of a math test—their scores dropped. Anxiety went up. They second-guessed themselves. They disengaged.

The story was not about intelligence.
It was about identity under pressure.

The response from the educational system was swift and well-funded. Millions of dollars flowed into programs designed to counteract the stereotype threat girls faced in math:

• teacher trainings

• new curricula

• role model programs

• classroom redesign

• mindset interventions

• special grants

• girls-only STEM groups

• national awareness campaigns

All created to make sure young girls never again felt that mathematics was “not for them.”

And let me say this clearly: I support that work completely. No child should carry the weight of a negative stereotype when they’re simply trying to learn.

But something interesting happened.

As we were rallying national resources to eliminate a relatively narrow, subject-specific stereotype affecting girls in one academic domain….we failed to notice a far larger, far more toxic stereotype spreading over boys.

A stereotype not about arithmetic or algebra, but about their very nature.

A stereotype not whispered quietly, but broadcast loudly.

And unlike the stereotype about girls and math, this one has no funding, no programs, no protections, and no advocates in the institutions that shape boys’ lives.

That brings us to the part of the story almost no one wants to discuss.

The Stereotype Threat No One Will Name: What Boys Hear Every Day

If stereotype threat can undermine a girl’s confidence in math, imagine what happens when the stereotype isn’t about a subject…but about who you are.

Unlike girls, boys today aren’t navigating a single academic stereotype. They are navigating a cultural identity stereotype — one that targets their character, their intentions, their value, and their future.

And it’s everywhere.

Walk into almost any school, turn on almost any youth-oriented media channel, look at the messaging in teacher trainings, HR seminars, political slogans, and popular entertainment. The language aimed at boys is unmistakable:

• “Boys are toxic.”

• “Masculinity is inherently dangerous.”

• “Men are oppressors.”

• “Patriarchy is your fault.”

• “You are privileged, even when you’re struggling.”

• “The future is female.”

• “Believe all women”

• “We need fewer men like you and more women in charge.”

• “Boys don’t mature, they get socialized into violence.”

Imagine hearing messages like this from every angle: teachers, counselors, the news, college brochures, viral videos, and political speeches. Even prime-time awards shows repeat the same theme: something is wrong with boys and men.

This is not a stereotype about ability. This is a stereotype about identity, morality, and worth.

And boys absorb it​, like plants absorb the light.

Even the well-behaved ones.
The gentle ones.
The kind-hearted ones.
Perhaps especially the kind-hearted ones.

Because they are the ones who listen most closely to adult expectations. They care what adults think. And when every signal suggests there is something wrong with being male, boys begin to feel it in the same way Jane Elliott’s “less favored” children did:

• some withdraw

• some grow angry

• some become depressed

• some try desperately to prove they’re “safe”

• some silence themselves around girls

• some tune out and give up

Many learn to walk on eggshells.
Many learn to mask who they are.
Some feel ashamed before they even understand why.

This is stereotype threat on a scale our culture has never been willing to examine.
It undermines boys’ confidence not only in school, but in relationships, leadership, belonging, and moral value. It doesn’t hit one subject — it hits the entire self-concept.

And here’s the tragic irony:

When girls faced a stereotype affecting a single academic domain (math), our entire educational system mobilized. But when boys face a stereotype that frames their entire identity as suspect, dangerous, or defective…we look away.

Worse — we call it “progress.”

No grants.
No programs.
No protective messaging.
No teacher training on “encouraging healthy masculinity.”
No funding streams labeled “male resilience,” “male identity support,” or “boys’ psychological development.”

Nothing.

And yet we know from the psychology: stereotype threat doesn’t care which direction it flows. It hurts anyone subjected to it. Girls. Boys. Adults. Elders. Anyone.

The difference is that girls’ stereotype threat is treated as a national emergency, while boys’ stereotype threat is treated as an inconvenient truth best left unmentioned.

But the boys feel it.
They feel it deeply.
And it is reshaping an entire generation.

When you place a child in the “disfavored” group in Jane Elliott’s classroom, the effects show up almost immediately: withdrawn posture, lowered confidence, anger, sadness, and declining performance. Now imagine that same dynamic stretched across a childhood—not for a day or two, but for years.

That is what today’s boys are living through.

We’re watching the results play out right in front of us, but we rarely connect the dots. The signs are everywhere, yet hidden in plain sight:

Boys are falling behind academically.

Not by a little.
By a lot.

They earn:

• lower grades,

• fewer honors,

• and far fewer college degrees.

Reading and writing gaps—never small—have now grown ​in size.

But we don’t ask whether constant negative messaging about male identity might be a factor. Instead, we say boys should “step up,” “apply themselves,” or “be less lazy,” as though shame has ever been a motivator.

Boys are disengaging from school.

Teachers say boys participate less. They’re more likely to tune out, act out, or withdraw. When a child believes he is viewed with suspicion, he stops coming forward.

This isn’t a mystery.
It’s textbook stereotype threat.

Boys are struggling socially.

A boy who believes his masculinity is problematic becomes hesitant. He won’t take risks socially. He won’t lead. He won’t assert himself. He won’t approach others. He is more likely to isolate or escape into online worlds where he is not judged simply for being male.

Boys are avoiding leadership roles.

They know one wrong move can be labeled “toxic,” “aggressive,” or “harmful.” So they hold back—especially in mixed-gender settings.
They self-limit long before anyone else has to.

Boys are losing their sense of belonging.

When you’re told repeatedly that your group is the source of society’s problems, you don’t imagine yourself as part of the community’s solution.
You imagine yourself on the outside.

Boys are suffering emotionally.

Rising rates of depression.
Rising rates of anxiety.
Rising suicide rates among adolescent boys.

And yet we never ask whether telling boys they’re dangerous or defective might be harming them psychologically. Just imagine telling any other group that the world would be better with less of them in it.

And then… boys stop asking for help.

Because why would you ask for help from a system that tells you that you’re the problem?

Boys, who already face the biological challenges of testosterone, the additional social push from precarious manhood, and the resulting male hierarchy, now carry an added layer of identity threat that undermines their confidence across every domain of life.

This isn’t subtle.
It isn’t accidental.
And it isn’t without consequences.

But here’s the part that should trouble us most:
We would never tolerate this treatment for girls. Ever.

If any institution—even unintentionally—sent girls negative messages about their identity, we would demand reform, new funding, and a national conversation.

But with boys?
We call it “accountability.”
We call it “progress.”
We call it “teaching them to be better.”

No.
It’s teaching them to disappear.

Part two will examine what creates and maintains this double standard.

Men Are Good.

This is a post I wrote in 2015 about a courageous 2009 journal article by Murray Straus, PhD, that exposed seven ways that feminists researchers twisted/distorted their data in order to maintain their narrative. It’s an important article for us all to see and understand.

_____________________________

There are millions of compassionate and loving people in the United States who have been given erroneous information about domestic violence. Over the years the media and academia have offered a steady stream of information that indicates that women are the only victims of domestic violence and men the only perpetrators. We have all been deceived. What most don’t know is that a part of that deception has been intentional and has come from the scientific community. As hard as it is to believe it is indisputable. Most of us had no idea of this deception until recently. More and more is now coming out about the symmetry of victimization in domestic violence between men and women.

One of the breakthroughs that have helped us identify this deception was the journal response of Murray Straus Ph.D. Straus has been an acclaimed researcher of family and interpersonal violence for many years. In his article he unveils the ways that this misinformation has been intentionally spread via “research.” He shows the seven ways that the truth has been distorted. It is a fascinating yet sobering article that shows how, without actually lying, the researchers were able to distort things and make it appear that it was something that is was not. We all know that once a research study is published the media will latch on and print the results as gospel truth, so the media became the megaphone to spread the misinformation once it was inked in the scientific journal. I would highly recommend your reading the full report by Straus which can be found here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228350210_Gender_symmetry_in_partner_violence_The_evidence_the_denial_and_the_implications_for_primary_prevention_and_treatment

Let’s go through the seven ways one by one.

1. Suppress evidence.

The first type of deceit that Straus describes is suppressing evidence. The researchers would ask questions about both men and women but only report on the answers from women. The half-story would leave readers with the impression that it was only women who were victims even though the researcher had the surveys of male victims on hand they simply didn’t report it. The data on male victims was simply buried while the data on female victims was reported. Straus discusses the Status on Women report from Kentucky in the late 1970’s that was the first to use this strategy. They collected data on both male and female victims but only the female victims were discussed in the publications. Scientific method is dependent upon creating a hypothesis and testing it. If you get data from your test that is contrary to your original hypothesis this is just as important as getting data that affirms the hypothesis and can be used to adjust your original hypothesis. To ignore ones own data that contradicts the hypothesis is the epitome of disregard to the foundations of scientific inquiry. It leaves the realms of research and enters the realms of propaganda and shaping the outcome to mislead.

2. Avoid Obtaining Data Inconsistent With the Patriarchal Dominance Theory.

The second method described by Straus was that of simply not asking the questions when you didn’t want to hear the answers. The surveys would ask the women about their victimhood and ask men about their perpetration but failed to inquire about women’s violence or men’s victimhood. If you ask questions that address only half the problem you are certain to conclude with only half the answers. Straus highlights a talk he gave in Canada where he evaluated 12 studies on domestic violence. Ten out of the twelve only asked questions about female victims and male perpetrators. If you don’t ask the questions you will never get the answers. Publishing half the truth is intentionally misleading.

3. Cite Only Studies That Show Male Perpetration

Straus reveals a number of situations where studies or official documents would cite only other studies that showed female victims and male perpetrators. He uses the Department of Justice press release as just one example where they only cite the “lifetime prevalence” data because it showed primarily male perpetration. They omitted referencing the “past-year” data even though it was more accurate since it showed females perpetrated 40% of the partner assaults. Straus shows journal articles and names organizations such as the United Nations, World Health Organization, the US Department of Justice and others who used this tactic to make it appear that women were the primary victims of domestic violence and men the primary perpetrators.

4. Conclude That Results Support Feminist Beliefs When They Do Not

Straus showed an example of a study by Kernsmith (2005) where the author claimed that women’s violence was more likely to be in self defense but data to support the claim didn’t exist. Apparently he had made the claim even without any supporting evidence. Straus shows that the self defense category was primarily about anger and coercion and not about self-defense at all but this didn’t stop the researcher from claiming the erroneous results which of course could be quoted by later studies as proof that such data does indeed exist.

5. Create “Evidence” By Citation

The “woozle” effect is described by Straus as when “frequent citation of previous publications that lack evidence mislead us into thinking there is evidence.” He lists the Kernsmaith study and a report from the World Health Organization as examples. Both made claims (without evidence to back it up) that women’s violence was largely in self-defense. The claims were quoted repeatedly and people eventually started to believe that the claims were correct.

6. Obstruct Publication of Articles and Obstruct Funding Research that Might Contradict the Idea that Male Dominance is the Cause of Personal Violence

Straus mentions two incidents that illustrate this claim. One was a call for papers on the topic of partner violence in December of 2005 from the National Institute of Justice where it was stated that “proposals to investigate male victimization would not be eligible.” Another was an objection raised by a reviewer of one of his proposals due to its having said that “violence in relationships was a human problem.” He also stated that the “more frequent pattern is self-censorship by authors fearing that it will happen or that publication of such a study will undermine their reputation, and, in the case of graduate students, the ability to obtain a job.”

7. Harrass, Threaten, and Penalize Researchers who Produce Evidence That Contradicts Feminist Beliefs Straus provides details of a number of incidents where researchers who found evidence of gender symmetry in domestic violence were harassed or threatened. He described a number of instances such as bomb scares at personal events, being denied tenure and promotions, or “shouts and stomping” meant to drown out an oral presentation. He relates being called a “wife-beater” as a means to denigrate both himself and his previous research findings.

Straus concludes that a “climate of fear has inhibited research and publication on gender symmetry in personal violence.” His words help us to understand the reasons that our public is so convinced that women are the sole victims of domestic violence and men the only perpetrators. It has been years and years of researchers telling only half the story and when we get only half the story and consider it the whole truth we are likely to defend our limited version of the truth and ostracize those who may offer differing explanations. The matter is further complicated due to the media having acted as a megaphone for the half story that has emerged so the “common knowledge” that has emerged from the media for many years has been half the story and due to its not telling both sides of the story, it is basically misinformation. What this tells us is that we need to stay on our toes when it comes to social science research. Straus’s paper has helped us immensely in seeing how research can be set up to appear to tell the truth but fail miserably in doing so. While the researchers are not technically lying, the end product is similar since it produces only a partial image of the reality of domestic violence and leaves people without the details to fill in the reality of the situation. It is likely a good idea to have a look at the way each study gets its data, the exact nature of the people being used as subjects, and the conclusion drawn and if they are congruous with the data that was gathered. Next we will look at a study that uses Straus’s first example, ignoring ones own data.

Men Are Good