I didn’t look at the name or gender of the author until the end. I defaulted to the androgynous, leaning masculine, voice in my head while reading. My takeaway from this post was an adult, emotionally mature self-evaluation. Up until the cavalier call-to-action at the end.

Part of vulnerability, and what makes it what it is, is the fact that it’s something you choose to do knowing others can and will choose not to. To call out to others and ask them to choose to be vulnerable with you is contradictory to the act of making oneself vulnerable. You are removing the risk.

It’s like choosing to take the risk of standing on a stage and performing, then calling to the audience to come up and join you so performing isn’t as frightening and vulnerable an experience. That is where this went from androgynous to gender typical. “Another female wishing people could be more in touch with their feelings,” and not considering what vulnerability means in a competitive world. It can be advantageous, but it is not without peril.

To ask people to join you in vulnerability for vulnerability’s sake is like asking all companies in your industry to be more transparent because you think it will be advantageous for your company, but you don’t want to take the risk, so you want them to join you and to invest in your good intentions. Unfortunately, good intentions are not a foundation for success. And I’m sure you’ve already learned as much.

You are right to illustrate the advantages of being vulnerable and encourage people to look into it. But I think the choice to be vulnerable is for them to decide for themselves, not a call to respond to. Not a criticism to be open to. Not body language to genuflect, nor advice to abide.

Vulnerability can’t be a religion you sell to rationalize your own beliefs but claim you are spreading to help others find theirs. If it is, you are being dishonest and, in truth, you are not being vulnerable at all.