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://twitter.com/UnmodernM/status/1318457753275305984?s=20