Men need to know when to take responsibility.

They also need to know when to refuse it.

Thread.

The word responsibility is being used as if its a mandatory quality for men to possess.

It's not. The conditions that make up the responsibility is what determines whether it should be upheld or not.
If a man is to take responsibility, he should first determine which domain it falls under.

If its family, unless they reached a level of disownment, responsibility meets no conditions.

It's a mans duty to carry as much as responsibility to alleviate his family's burden.
Outside family, responsibility should have at least one of 3 elements in exchange for upholding it:

1. An incentive
2. Authority
3. Leverage

Ideally you want responsibility to beget all three. Most of the time, you start off with only one.
Your new found duty must be rewarded in one way or another. Theres no reason to uphold anything unless you are rewarded. Its a waste of your time, effort & devalues your worth.

You might learn a thing or two, which can be valuable, but overall, it is value exchanged for nothing.
Responsibility should give you authority. Authority to control, delegate & make calls on what you are responsible for.

If it doesn't, then you're not disagreeable enough to negotiate conditions that fairly exchanges value.

Authority is valuable. It turns you into a leader.
Responsibility must be negotiated for an incentive or authority. If fails to return either, its exploitation.

And you should reject it. Being exploited in this way is a good indicator that you're too agreeable,

and people end up easily extracting value out of you.
Only one condition merits upholding responsibility despite the absence of incentives/authority;

If the responsibility given, is very valuable in of itself, & can be leveraged against the person giving it.

This is the cunning method that forces a return in value.

See thread ⬇️
https://t.co/xMym5nVoA8

More from ᴜɴᴍᴏᴅᴇʀɴ

More from Life

You May Also Like

Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇

It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details):
https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha

I've read it so you needn't!

Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.

The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.

Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?