This worksheet gives you a structured way t…

Read more

This is for …

Read more

The Subtle Art of Actually Giving a Fuck On lazy self-help, moral abdication, and what happens when nobody shows up

I need to talk about something that’s been bothering me for a while.

There’s a whole genre of self help content right now built around the idea that the path to peace is caring less. Don’t chase people, simply Let Them. Protect your energy and be unbothered, unaffected, and detached.

I understand the appeal. Especially when you’ve been the person who always showed up, always reached out, always gave more than you got back, then the idea of just stopping sounds like relief. It sounds like finally getting to put something down.

However, I think we’ve confused a healthy boundary with a philosophy of disengagement and I worry it’s making us worse, not just as individuals but as a society. The timing couldn’t be more dangerous.

Let me ask you something, what if Martin Luther King Jr. had read Let Them and taken it seriously? What if after Birmingham, after the death threats, after the FBI surveillance, and after watching people he loved get beaten in the streets, he had decided to protect his peace? What if he had concluded that people who weren’t ready to change simply weren’t his responsibility?

We would not have the Civil Rights Act.

What if Dian Fossey had decided she didn’t give a fuck about the mountain gorillas? That the poachers were going to do what they were going to do, and it wasn’t her circus, not her monkeys… quite literally. She lived alone in the mountains of Rwanda. She was threatened, harassed, and ultimately killed for her refusal to be unbothered.

Fossey’s refusal to let them means there are mountain gorillas alive in the wild today.

What if the people who hid Jewish families during the Holocaust had prioritized their own energy? What if they had decided that what was happening was terrible, yes, deeply terrible, but ultimately not their problem to solve?

Now bring it closer to home.

I heard mothers recently talking about their teenagers drinking. The consensus, delivered with the calm authority of people who had done the inner work, was Let Them. Let Them make their mistakes. Let Them figure it out.

These are children who are still developing their frontal lobes, in a country with one of the highest rates of teenage alcohol related deaths in the developed world. Self help books have convinced their parents that the spiritually evolved response is detachment.

That’s not a boundary. That’s a parent checking out and calling it growth.

If we’re applying Let Them to our own kids, what exactly are we willing to show up for anymore?

I keep thinking about this because we are living through a moment that requires the opposite of detachment. Nazis, actual Nazis, not a metaphor but actual Nazis are making a comeback. In Europe and in the United States, places that watched it happen once and buried the dead and said never again. Apparently never again meant about seventy years.

In the middle of this, we are selling people books about not giving a fuck.

I want to be fair here. The original Subtle Art argument wasn’t actually about caring about nothing, it was about being intentional about what you care about and not squandering your finite emotional resources on things that don’t matter. That’s a reasonable point. Not everything deserves your energy and selective caring is healthy.

However, somewhere between that nuanced argument and the Let Them movement, we lost the thread entirely. Let Them has become a permission slip for moral laziness dressed up as emotional intelligence. It tells people that the highest form of self respect is indifference. That caring is weakness and that showing up for things beyond yourself is something you should only do if it doesn’t cost you anything.

I hate to break it to you but it always costs you something. That’s the beauty and the pain of living a full and wonderous life.

Every person who ever changed anything had to pay something, their time, safety, comfort, relationships, and sometimes their lives. Dian Fossey paid with her life. MLK paid with his life. The people who hid families in their attics paid with the permanent possibility of losing everything.

They gave a fuck. They gave a beautifully enormous, costly, inconvenient, and dangerous fuck… So enormous our future generations were impacted and our lives improved.

The self help industrial complex wants to sell us the idea that the evolved version of personhood is to stop doing that.

I think about the patients in clinical trials who can’t access the medication that was working for them once the trial ends, because companies decided it wasn’t their problem anymore. I think about the women who don’t report assault because they’ve been told it’s more evolved to protect your peace than to demand accountability. I think about every time a community was allowed to suffer because the people who could have helped had learned that caring was codependent.

Apathy has never been a virtue. It’s always been a choice about who gets to matter.

I’m not saying burn yourself down for everyone who asks. I’m not saying you owe the whole world your entire self all the time. Boundaries and rest are real. You cannot pour from an empty cup and we know that’s true but there is a profound difference between a boundary and an abdication. Between choosing carefully what you fight for and deciding that fighting for anything beyond yourself is beneath you.

We need people who give a fuck right now. We desperately need people to give a fuck about democracy, about truth, about the people being disappeared and detained and denied, about the gorillas and the glaciers and the kids in the clinical trials and the women who still can’t walk home alone at night without fear.

The world has never been changed by people who refused to be bothered.

Be bothered.

Give a radical unapologetically huge fuck.

It’s the only way things might change.

Read more

I have been a woman in clinical research for twenty years. I have sat in rooms where I was the only woman. I have watched men with fewer credentials, less experience, and no particular self awareness hold the room hostage, while I waited for a gap in the conversation that never came. I have learned, the way all women learn, how to make myself visible without making anyone uncomfortable. How to take up exactly the right amount of space. How to be present without being too much.

So when someone I know from the industry posted that women who share photos of themselves on LinkedIn are being unprofessional, that it cheapens their personal brand, that it’s not the place, I didn’t get angry.

I just got tired. And then I started writing.

Here’s what he doesn’t know he doesn’t know.

Women have always had to negotiate visibility differently and not because we wanted to. The room was designed without us in it and getting inside required understanding exactly how the door worked even when the door had no doorknob and was bolted shut from the inside. It’s exhausting work and it doesn’t end.

Posting a photo on LinkedIn isn’t vanity, it’s strategy. It’s saying I am a real person, I am here, I exist in this industry, look at me directly. It’s refusing to be an anonymous name on a resume that gets filtered out before anyone reads the second line. It’s understanding that in a world where women are routinely talked over, passed up, and made invisible, visibility itself is a professional skill.

It’s also brave, in a way that women know and men rarely have to consider. Posting your photo doesn’t protect you from judgment. It invites more of it. The moment a woman puts her face on a professional platform she enters a gauntlet that has nothing to do with her credentials. Is it too sexy? Not sexy enough? Does she look approachable? Does she look too approachable? Does she look smart? What does smart even look like and who decided that?

We navigate that calculation every single time, with every photo, every post, every conference headshot and panel bio and speaking announcement. We are always being assessed on an axis that has nothing to do with what we actually know or what we’ve actually built.

Men don’t carry that weight. Half the men on LinkedIn are still using their college photos even though they are currently bald. No one is writing think pieces about it.

Marilyn Monroe understood this before most of us had language for it. She is still talked about as though she was a passive object, something that happened to people, rather than who she actually was: a woman who could read the room with extraordinary precision and used every tool available to her to navigate it. She wasn’t naive. She was strategic.

The critique of women who play the game well almost always comes from people who never had to learn the rules. People for whom competence alone was enough to open doors. People who didn’t need a photo because their name already sounded right, their handshake already landed correctly, their presence was already assumed to belong.

Here’s the thing about public criticism as a career move, it’s easy. It requires almost nothing. You don’t have to build anything, learn anything, or risk anything. You just have to find someone doing the work and tell them they’re doing it wrong. It gets attention. It positions you as an authority without requiring you to actually be one. It is, in its own way, the laziest possible strategy and it works just often enough that people keep doing it.

Meanwhile the women being criticized are out here building. They are showing up, posting the photo, speaking on the panel, and writing the think piece. They are doing the actual work of constructing a career out of passion and strategy while also juggling the exhaustion of having to be twice as deliberate about everything just to be considered half as credible.

No one is asking anyone to post photos. You don’t have to. You never did but maybe consider that your ease in professional spaces is not the standard. It’s the exception.

The women navigating these professional spaces aren’t being unprofessional. They’re being smart, they’re being brave and they’re building something.

Which is more than criticism ever did for anyone.

The only critics worth paying attention to were Siskel and Ebert and they gave The Big Lebowski two thumbs down. We all know how that turned out.

Post the photo.

There’s a quiet experiment happening in my life right now that I didn’t plan for.
I spent years in high level roles. I’ve worked my way up from mailroom to Director in the clinical research industry. My thought leadership consisted of conferences, panels, and speaking engagements. Industry people sought me out, wanted to connect, and wanted access to my network. Then my department was eliminated in a restructuring, without warning or fault, it was just gone.

Along with a new operational role, I now bartend.

I pour drinks at events sometimes attended by my former industry colleagues. What I’ve witnessed from behind that bar has taught me more about human character than two decades in boardrooms ever did.

Here’s what I can say without a doubt, how people treat someone who can do nothing for them is the only true measure of their character.

Character is not reflected in their title, their keynote bio, or their LinkedIn connections.

When I held the title of Director I was valuable, at least in some people’s eyes. Today I’m in an operations role, working multiple jobs, and in the background building something slowly on my own terms. The same people that thought I was valuable a short time ago now look straight through me.

That’s not my loss, that’s their revelation.

What I’ve learned about myself is I can handle a belligerent drunk with more grace than most executives handle a bad quarter. I can read a room, pivot instantly, hold space for a stranger’s hard night, and still show up the next morning for a full time job and three kids and a life I’m rebuilding.

That’s not a lessened version of who I am, that’s the version of myself that I am proud of. I couldn’t have learned this lesson about myself any other way, I’m more confident in my actual value now than I ever was with a title. I know what I’m made of without the institutional scaffolding. I know I can survive. I know I can adapt. I know I can walk into rooms where I’m underestimated and still be the most capable person in them.

That knowledge doesn’t come from a title. It comes from living through the loss of one.

What the industry doesn’t say out loud is that this experience hits women differently. Not just anecdotally but structurally. Women sit between job searches longer than men with identical titles and backgrounds. Women looking to return to director level or higher positions after a restructuring face longer searches, more scrutiny, and more hoops. In client facing roles, which make up the backbone of this industry, women are evaluated on criteria that have nothing to do with their competence. Women are often judged by appearance, age, and if they are appropriately authoritative without being too much, and the definition of too much is defined by whoever holds power.

I’ve felt all of it.

I’ve walked into rooms where I was simultaneously overqualified and yet somehow still having to prove my worth. I’ve been assessed on how I look before anyone asked what I know. I’ve watched male counterparts with thinner track records move faster through doors that stayed heavier for me.

Corporate restructuring doesn’t land equally. When companies eliminate departments and flatten hierarchies, women in midcareer absorb a disproportionate share of the fallout and face a longer, harder road back.

That’s not a personal failing. That’s a structural reality we need to stop tiptoeing around.

The clinical research industry has a long memory. I’ve seen CEOs lose their roles overnight. I’ve watched Directors disappear in restructurings just like mine. I’ve seen the person nobody noticed in operations become the VP everyone suddenly wants access to. I’ve watched it happen repeatedly.

I was recently watching a fireside chat with Jeff Hargroves, founder of ProPharma, and something he said really made an impression on me. He talked about the people he wanted on his team, the ones he’d given equity to throughout his tenure as founder and CEO. They weren’t necessarily the ones with the most impressive titles or the longest list of credentials. They were the ones who stuck around during the downturns. They showed up anyway even when things were hard and uncertain.

That’s exactly it. True leaders don’t place weighted value on what you can do for them in a moment of visibility. They value what you’re made of when nothing is guaranteed and nobody is watching.

I’m interested in people who show up the same way regardless of what you can do for them. The ones who treat the bartender and the CEO with the same basic human decency. People that understand where someone stands today tells you almost nothing about where they’ve been or where they’re going.

Resilience seems to be largely misunderstood. It isn’t a buzzword. Resilience is built in the moments nobody’s watching. It’s the third job you take to protect your kids’ stability. In the conversation you have with a stranger at last call. In the slow, unglamorous work of building something real when the title that used to open doors is temporarily gone. I know what I’m made of now in a way I didn’t before.

The people who can’t see me because my title changed were never really paying attention to begin with.

Careers are long and change is inevitable. The people who treated me well when I had nothing obvious to offer them are the ones I want in my corner when the tide does turn and it always does.