Book a free phone call

Tag: compliance

  • Compliance trauma and the explosive anger it creates

    Empty chair pulled back from a shared table, suggesting distance within a relationship

    I’ve sat with a lot of couples where one partner’s anger doesn’t fit the moment. The row is about something small: dishes left in the sink, a plan changed at the last minute, and the reaction is enormous. The partner on the receiving end genuinely can’t work out what just happened. Often, neither can the person doing the shouting.

    I’ve come to recognise this as one of the clearest signs of compliance trauma showing up in adult life.

    What compliance trauma actually is

    Compliance trauma comes from growing up having to fall in line, not because you agreed, but because the alternative was worse. Maybe that was outright punishment. Maybe it was a parent going cold and withdrawn until you fell back into line, or a household where the mood could tip without warning and the only safe move was to comply before it did.

    It doesn’t need to look dramatic from the outside. Plenty of people carrying this grew up in homes that looked perfectly ordinary. What made it compliance trauma wasn’t the severity of any one incident, it was that saying no, or even just having a visible reaction, was never really an option.

    Where the explosiveness comes from

    A child in that position doesn’t stop having a reaction. They just stop being able to show it. The anger, the protest, the “this isn’t fair” doesn’t go anywhere; it gets swallowed because expressing it was too costly.

    What gets swallowed in childhood doesn’t stay swallowed forever. It tends to surface later, in adulthood, often with the people who feel safest, which is usually a partner or close family. That’s why the shouting can look wildly out of proportion to the dishes in the sink. The dishes aren’t really what it’s about. The nervous system has been carrying an old, unresolved protest, and something small has finally tipped it over the edge.

    What it’s like on the other side of it

    If you’re the one living with this, it can be genuinely disorientating. You raise something minor and get a reaction that feels like it belongs to a different, much bigger argument. Over time you start managing around it: choosing your moments, softening how you say things, sometimes staying quiet altogether rather than risk it.

    That’s a form of compliance also. Two people can end up in the same pattern from opposite directions: one complying as a child and exploding as an adult, the other complying now, in the relationship, to keep the peace.

    This isn’t about blame

    I want to be clear that understanding where the anger comes from isn’t the same as excusing its impact. Both things are true at once. The explosive reaction has a history and a logic to it, and it still lands on the person in the room, who didn’t cause it and doesn’t deserve to carry it.

    Relational therapy holds both of those at the same time. It doesn’t ask you to forgive the anger before you’ve named what it’s actually costing you, and it doesn’t ask the person doing the exploding to just try harder without understanding what’s actually happening.

    Where change actually happens

    The work isn’t about learning to suppress the anger better, that’s just compliance again, dressed up as progress. It’s about building the capacity to notice the reaction as it’s rising, understand what it’s really protecting, and find a way to have the protest, the no, the disagreement, without it needing to detonate.

    For the partner or family member on the other side, the work is often about recognising where they’ve been complying too, quietly, out of habit, and finding their own way to say what actually needs saying.

    If this sounds like your relationship, or your own reaction to things that shouldn’t set you off the way they do, it’s worth talking it through with someone who can see the pattern from the outside. That’s exactly the kind of work I do with couples and individuals, in Bude and online.

  • The Garbled Handbook

    What boys are actually given, and what men are left holding

    A watercolour cartoon of a young red-haired boy sitting on the floor with building blocks, asking 'Who should I be, what should I do?' while a group of bewildered adult men look on unable to answer.

    After several sessions with a man I’ve been working with, I found myself thinking it’s like talking with a seven-year-old boy who just wants to do his best but doesn’t know how he’s supposed to be or what he’s supposed to do. He didn’t fail. He was never taught.

    That thought has stayed with me. Because it’s not just him. I see that boy in almost every man I work with.

    They come in presenting as failures. Failing in their relationships, with their children, in their work. And what I actually see is something quite different. I see men who are trying their best with the equipment they were given. Men who are lost not because they’re broken, but because the map they were handed was unreadable.

    The handbook no one mentions

    Every boy receives a handbook on how to be a man. Nobody passes it over formally. It arrives through a thousand small moments, in what gets praised and what gets shamed, in who cries and who doesn’t, what fathers do with their anger, what they do with their tenderness.

    The trouble is that the handbook is garbled. Pages are missing. Others are coffee-stained and half-legible. Some are in the wrong order entirely.

    I once heard a man in a group describe his father with genuine love. The fishing trips. The football matches. The sense of being chosen, being included, being seen. And then, in the same breath, the unpredictable rage. The physical violence that arrived without warning.

    He couldn’t reject that father. There was too much love in him for that. But he couldn’t follow him either, because the model didn’t hold together. So, he was left, as so many men are left, holding a document that couldn’t be read straight through, trying to assemble something coherent from contradictory instructions.

    That’s not absence of love. It’s the presence of love alongside something that makes the love impossible to build on.

    What the handbook actually says

    The pages that are legible tend to say the same things. Don’t show weakness. Produce. Perform. Be useful. There’s a consistency to that message across most of the male role models boys encounter, whatever else might vary.

    The cruel twist is that most of the role models boys actually witness are men failing to meet that standard. Because the standard is unachievable. So what boys learn, in practice, is not how to be the thing the handbook describes. They learn what it looks like when men fall short of it. They learn the shame that follows.

    The missing pages, or those obscured by coffee stains, are the ones about vulnerability, emotional expression and tenderness. The instructions on how to be warm without it being reframed as weakness or something worse. They’re difficult to find, written in the margins.

    When the instinct itself gets pathologised

    It isn’t only that boys aren’t taught how to handle warmth and closeness. It’s that the instinct itself gets taught out of them.

    I remember being a boy, perhaps seven or eight, with female cousins I adored, a decade or so older than me, who lived next door. I loved being around them. I was physically affectionate, naturally so, because that’s how I was with people I felt close to.

    One day I overheard a conversation between one of my cousins and my mother. The way I was with my hands was being discussed. Not with cruelty, exactly, but with a kind of discomfort, a suggestion that it was too much, that it crossed a line into something that needed reining in. The implication was faintly sexual, though I had no framework for that at the time. I just felt the shame of it.

    What I’d lost wasn’t knowledge I’d never had. It was trust in something I’d already known how to do. That feeling, of not knowing how to be around women whose company I enjoyed, of second-guessing warmth, of keeping my hands to myself in ways that felt like self-betrayal, followed me for years. It took a long time in therapy to find my way back to it.

    That’s what the garbling does. It doesn’t just leave gaps. It plants doubt in the places where you were most naturally yourself.

    The boy is still in the room

    The men I work with are carrying that boy with them. The one who wanted to do his best and couldn’t work out how. The one who felt the love and couldn’t make sense of it alongside everything else. The one whose natural expressiveness got redirected or shamed before he had the language to defend it.

    By the time they reach a therapy room, these men often experience themselves as failures. In their relationships, with their children, at work. What I see instead is someone still trying to follow instructions that were never coherent to begin with, still measuring themselves against a standard that was always going to be out of reach.

    The shame sits right at the centre of it. Not the shame of having done something specific, but the ambient shame of not knowing how to be. Of sensing, somewhere deep down, that everyone else received a readable copy and yours was the damaged one.

    On crisis lines and culture change

    There’s a lot of conversation at the moment about men’s mental health, about male suicide rates, about what the NHS should be doing. The funding question is real. But even fully funded crisis intervention addresses the problem at the wrong end.

    What produces a man in crisis at forty is usually something that began at seven. An education system that pointed boys towards compliance, performance, and emotional suppression rather than curiosity, creativity, and genuine self-expression didn’t help. A culture that handed boys an unachievable model of manhood and then expressed disappointment when they couldn’t meet it did real damage.

    What might actually help is something much slower and less measurable: men who’ve done their own work being honest about it, in front of boys. Not performing vulnerability as a technique, but actually modelling what it looks like when a man doesn’t know something and says so. When he gets it wrong and acknowledges it. When he’s moved by something and doesn’t cover it over.

    What the work actually is

    When I’m working with a man who’s carrying that seven-year-old, I’m not trying to teach him what the handbook should have said. I’m trying to help him locate what he already knew before the handbook arrived and started doing its damage.

    That’s usually still in there. The warmth. The expressiveness. The instinct towards closeness. It got covered over or redirected, but it didn’t disappear.

    If you recognise the boy in yourself or the garbled handbook you’ve been trying to follow, that recognition is usually the beginning of something. Not a fix. Not a solution. Just the start of being able to read what’s actually there, rather than what you were told should be.

  • The manosphere didn’t come from nowhere. We helped build it.

    A Guardian report this week shows misogynistic abuse of female teachers rising sharply. The response from the Department for Education is more guidance.

    Misogyny in schools is getting worse. A union survey of 5,000 teachers found that misogynistic abuse of female staff has climbed from 17.4% in 2023 to 23.4% this year. Nearly a quarter of female teachers, in a profession that is over 70% female, report being targeted. Called “love.” Told to “calm down.” Sexualised. Mocked. One teacher had nude AI images made of her by a student. This week, The Guardian reported on the crisis, and the Department for Education responded with more guidance. That’s not going to be enough

    The Department for Education’s response was to say that misogynistic views are not innate, they’re learned, and to point toward updated relationships and health education guidance. They’re not wrong that these views are learned. But they’re looking in the wrong place for where the learning happens.

    The school created the problem it’s now trying to solve

    I was a boy who didn’t fit in. In the 1960s, that was very clearly defined. Boys did woodwork and science, girls did cooking and needlework. I was more interested in music and art and was, quite literally, not permitted to pursue them. So I stopped trying to comply. I found my sense of belonging elsewhere, in pop culture, in rock music, in the Woodstock generation. Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan, and a culture grounded in the language of peace and connection.

    The culture boys are swimming in online today is very different from what it was. But the school experience that drives them toward it isn’t.

    OFSTED, the national curriculum, and the relentless pressure of assessment-driven learning all create a culture where personal passion, creative expression, and emotional authenticity are, at best, an afterthought and, at worst, a distraction. Emotional support, where it exists at all in schools, is frequently used as a tool to return pupils to compliance with the system rather than to genuinely meet them where they are.

    You can’t squeeze out everything that makes a boy feel like himself, offer him nothing real in its place, and then be surprised when someone else steps in to fill the vacuum.

    The manosphere borrowed its language from us

    In the 1990s I got involved in the mythopoetic men’s movement. Robert Bly had published Iron John, and something in it resonated. Men and women gathering in fields, sitting around fires, drumming, singing in four-part harmony, finding what Bly called the wild man, the deep self that modern life had buried. It wasn’t macho. It wasn’t about dominance. It was about recovering something authentic that the world kept asking you to suppress. I recognised that hunger immediately.

    Later, I drifted into the business coaching and self-development world. Same language, different destination. Boundaries, accountability, inner work, potential, healing: all of it is still there, but now in service of personal success, financial freedom, and breaking through your limitations to get what you want. I never quite bought it. There was always something hollow at the centre of it. But I watched a lot of men buy it completely, and I understood why. It sounded like the real thing. It used all the same words.

    What the manosphere did was take that already-drifting language and push it further still. The message became clear. The therapy world, the self-development world, the whole culture of emotional intelligence and healthy relationships, all of it has been lying to you. We’re telling you the truth. The truth being that dominance is natural, that women respect power, that your softness has been manufactured to serve someone else’s agenda.

    It’s a con, but an effective one. I can see the path that leads a young man toward it, because I walked a version of that path myself. If no one’s ever offered you something genuine, the counterfeit is harder to spot.

    I know what boys actually need, because I’ve seen it work

    In the 1980s, I worked in a residential therapeutic community for fifty boys who had nowhere else to go. These were boys whom the system had completely failed. What they responded to wasn’t more structure, more targets, more guidance. It was space.

    I remember one twelve-year-old who couldn’t manage relationships with his parents or foster carers, who sat in his seat staring out of the window each day. One day, he started drawing the tree outside the window. It was very accomplished. Then I let him take his sketchpad outside. Then to the farm, to draw the buildings and the animals. He began to engage with education for the first time in his life. By the time he was sixteen, he’d found pottery, done it entirely on his own terms, and got a GCSE in it. It was the only one he got. It was his.

    That’s what genuine support for boys and men looks like. Not forcing them into a role. Not offering them a different version of the same compliance. Seeing them for who they actually are, and allowing them to develop, from the inside out, a real sense of themselves and their responsibility to the people around them.

    Boys don’t need to be told to earn more, dominate more, or control more. They don’t need a better curriculum on healthy relationships delivered by a teacher who’s been given half a day of training. They need someone to sit with them in their actual experience and take it seriously.

    So what now

    I married at nineteen with no real model for intimacy or a relationship. I had no idea what it meant to actually be present with another person. It took years, therapy, a different kind of culture, and a great deal of my own work to begin to understand it. I was lucky. I found people and spaces that offered something real.

    Most boys today aren’t finding those spaces in schools. They’re not finding them anywhere that matters. They’re finding Andrew Tate.

    If we want to change what boys are learning about masculinity, we need to look honestly at what we’ve failed to offer them: creative expression, emotional authenticity, genuine belonging, and the experience of being seen as an individual rather than a compliance problem.

    More guidance from the Department for Education won’t touch it. Less government pressure on schools to perform arbitrary assessment targets might begin to. Adults, parents, educators and practitioners who are willing to be genuinely present with boys rather than managing them. That’s where the real work is.

    The manosphere is filling a vacuum. The question is who created it.