After receiving the email from Wayne I initially wrote this reponce on this link:

My Draft initial response

But after doing some further investigation, I have decided to write a different response. But please also read my initial response.

A very good friend told me that he was going to a mens table, and explained briefly what it was all about.

I went to the Mens Table web site, read about it, and thought it was worth trying. I attended a Online entree followed bya physical entree.

What I missed in all that was this concept of a “safe place”. I thought it meant a physical safe place as in meeting at a pub or the like.

The main thing I took about it was the concept that men typically do not talk about ther feeling, because to do so was some how a sign of weekness. That the mens table were trying to reverse that idea. A concept that I agree with.

The mens Kitchen addresses the cultural expectation that “men don't talk” and are “reticent help-seekers.” By encouraging men to share their “highs and lows,” they are directly promoting vulnerability as a strength rather than a weakness.

I did not understand that. Most likely because I dont feel vulnerable and so see no need for an emotional safe place. Perhaps I am vulnerable but dont no that I am. I have some way of covering it up.

After I had attended a number of sessions I discovered that some of the men where quite vulnerable. However because we are not ther to fix anybody, I cant see how those vulnerabilities where being addressed

The Mens Table is not a place for guided theoropy nor is the Mens kitchen. Hence I understand the no fix concept.

Some experts in psychology might debate the adequacy of peer-led “safe places” versus environments facilitated by trained clinical professionals, particularly when individuals are dealing with significant trauma or severe mental health challenges.

I wanted to write to offer some context on my recent contributions and to clarify where I am coming from regarding the table’s dynamics.

My professional background in programming and sales has strongly shaped how I naturally interact. My default approach to conversation relies on logic, analytical discussion, and direct debate when faced with ideas or rules that seem inconsistent to me. In many settings, engaging in that kind of back-and-forth exchange is standard and expected.

Through our recent interactions, I have come to recognize that my conversational framework conflicts with the intended design of The Men’s Table. While the website does not explicitly prohibit debate, the emphasis on emotional vulnerability, active listening, and “no fixing or advising” creates an environment where back-and-forth argument does not fit.

When I pushed back on a topic of my initation or over-talked during our discussions, it was driven by my natural inclination toward debate, rather than an attempt to cause disruption or disregard anyone’s perspective. However, I recognize that introducing an argumentative dynamic into a space designed for emotional safety changes the nature of the environment for others.

I wanted to outline this so you understand my perspective and why I engaged the way I did. I respect the boundaries and purpose the group has established for this space.