As tempting as it may be to paint all women as defenders of the #MeToo movement, and all men as villains against it, that would be wrong and reductive. As most know, #MeToo went global when the story on Harvey Weinstein was broken by Ronan Farrow, son of Mia Farrow and Woody Allen (yes, THAT Woody Allen). He insisted the story get out, even after he encountered resistance at NBC. The story was eventually published in the New York Times. Clearly not all problematic #MeToo articles are written by men, and not all positive articles are written by women.It seems many publications and corporations — including the Miss America Pageant, which will now be hosted by Gretchen Carlson — have bought into the post #MeToo mythology that a nice, warm, comforting heap of misogyny is just fine if it’s served up by a woman.And that is exactly what the normally non-reactionary New York Times got in the form of Daphne Merkin’s “Publicly, We Say #MeToo. Privately, We Have Misgivings.” Merkin’s position is that women publicly support #MeToo, mostly because they are afraid to admit they don’t really agree with it. She states, “In private it’s a different story. “Grow up, this is real life,” I hear these same feminist friends say. “What ever happened to flirting?” and “What about the women who are the predators?” Some women, including random people I talk to in supermarket lines, have gone so far as to call it an outright witch hunt.” Hearing a feminist refer to anything as a witch hunt would be remarkable indeed.Merkin then trods two familiar paths. One is familiar to male opponents of #MeToo — that the movement is puritanical, anti-sex and anti-romance, evoking the imagery of the witch trial, crying, “There is an inquisitorial whiff in the air, and my particular fear is that in true American fashion, all subtlety and reflection is being lost. Next we’ll be torching people for the content of their fantasies.”The other weapon in her hand is wielded almost exclusively by women — the suggestion that #MeToo is bad for women’s agency. She states, “What happened to women’s agency? That’s what I find myself wondering as I hear story after story of adult women who helplessly acquiesce to sexual demands. I find it especially curious given that a majority of women I know have been in situations in which men have come on to them — at work or otherwise. They have routinely said, “I’m not interested” or “Get your hands off me right now.” And they’ve taken the risk that comes with it.”No one should have to risk being fired to say “I’m not interested”, but the reason this argument is so irritating is also the reason it’s so effective. It implies she’s actually on the side of other women, and is simply trying to toughen them up. For the record, there were — and still are — plenty of articles implying civil rights are bad for African American, LGBT, or Native American agency also, and that everything from hate crime legislation to Affirmative Action should be abolished for failing to support minority “agency.” The effectiveness of this tactic lies in the argument’s deception, implying women are just as tough as men, when in truth the argument is a sophisticated form of victim blaming, in which those women who are intimidated or threatened into not speaking up (or fired for their trouble) simply aren’t as tough as women who do.A similar article, “The Other Whisper Network” in March 2018’s Harper’s by Katie Roiphe, compares #MeToo to the 1996 case of a six-year-old boy being suspended for kissing a little girl on the cheek. The rest of the article, reminiscent of Hockenberry’s piece, is largely composed of sour grapes — in this case expressing hurt feelings over how she’s been treated by feminists in the past. She shares with Merkin knowing a great number of women who are comfortable defending themselves from sexual assault, but are too terrified to speak to her on record.On the other side of the spectrum, men do write helpful #MeToo articles, even if they’re flawed. There have been several medium.com. “What Do Men Do Now?” by Tony Goldwyn appeared in the May issue of InStyle magazine, an article he wrote after attending a Time’s Up meeting in Los Angeles, hosted by women. Mr. Goldwyn states he wrote the article to help men understand what they should and should not do to support Time’s Up. He even offers some solid advice: “It takes courage to acknowledge uncertainty” and “The simple truth is that men are better bosses, colleagues, parents, friends, allies, and lovers when we ask instead of assume.” Rather than attacking the movement, this essay deserves credit for trying to be part of the solution.Here on medium, John de Vore’s This is How Men Forget Women tackles the difficult concept of sexual abuse with raw honesty. De Vore imagines the difficulty of a girlfriend watching the Kavanaugh testimony, wanting to initiate a conversation about what her boyfriend may have done in his past. Recognizing the dodge. And dealing with the sanctified silence in which men protect other men, he writes: “As a person who hasn’t had a drink in eight short years, I can tell you that drinking so much that you pass out doesn’t absolve you of anything. The groping. The cruel words and laughter. The sexual boundaries pushed. The sexual boundaries violated. Horseplay. We forget the looks of anger and disappointment. We forget the wreckage. We forget women.”Patriarchy is the system we live in, and the system we live in is predetermined to reward those who reinforce the status quo and punish those who rebel. Every society has done so. Often the quickest path to success for a woman is cooperation and turning a blind eye, while those with privilege can sometimes use it for good.

We’ve all seen them — the plethora of articles about men’s feelings in the aftermath of the #MeToo movement. For every piece written on how #MeToo has affected women, there’s now two on how men feel about it, if it’s made them rethink their sexual habits, if they’re afraid their exploits as young men will get them fired as old men, if they’re concerned innocent men are being accused, if it makes them angry or uncomfortable, and if it’s all “gone too far”.

The Language of Spin

Words are powerful, and so is point-of-view. From the first word, these authors changed the narrative by changing the perspective. Suddenly, the victims became villains and perpetrators- pushy women, blinded by hatred of men, forcing these innocent souls to live in a brave new world they neither condone nor understand. The guilty then become victims of the wicked political correctness police state, their very livelihoods sometimes at stake.

Readers who are students of history, criminal justice, writing, linguistics, racism, or are just familiar with the character assassination that is de rigeur during most rape trials, will probably not too be shocked by this protagonist/antagonist flip-flop. The antagonists re-framed the story, and the media let them do it.

More than half the articles have the same, or a subtly altered title, titles which imply the answer in the question, such as “Has #MeToo Gone Too Far?” or are meant to garner sympathy for the accused, such as “What Do Men Do Now?” All use misogynistic language to send the clear message that women — indeed society — is wildly out of control.

These articles all contain a very specific vernacular that goes to histrionic heights, comparing a women’s rights movement to Salem witch hunts, McCarthyism, the Terror of the French Revolution, and one article even compared the movement to Nazi Germany. Make no mistake, these words are intended to send a message, both direct and subliminal. The terms which also appear with alarming frequency are those with gender-specific etymology meant to enforce the feminization of insanity, suggesting women are simply crazy, such as “lunatic”, “mania”, and “hysterical.” Other terms, such as innocent and innocuous, often appear in male-viewpoint #MeToo articles.

With or without any specific title, the theme of these articles is always the same — “what do men do now?!” implies “what do the REAL victims do now”?

But if the accused are victims, what are they victims of?

The Short Version of the Long History of Witch Hunts

While the term “witch-hunt” itself only dates to 1885, the majority of witch hunts took place in Europe between 1400 and 1800. Persecution picked up after Jacob Sprenger published Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches) in in 1487. The book also set the standard for witchy behavior including the slaughter of babies and wild sex in the forest with the devil (if you’re thinking this sounds more like one guy’s fantasy weekend than a reference book, you’re not alone).

During this time, as many as 60,000 women were brutally murdered for the crime, which often ended in burning or hanging, but first featured such torture as having thumbs or breasts cut off, as well as months of mental torture to induce confession. Men and children have also been charged, and the Salem witch trials in 1692 America, which claimed the lives of thirteen women, also claimed two men, but it was largely a crime believed to be committed by women.

The term itself carries the heavy baggage of hundreds of years of the most brutal, violent, and hateful form of misogyny — the desire to kill women, especially those in the way or those are who are non-cooperative sexually. Admittedly, the term has expanded greatly over the centuries, and now has metonyms, such as “McCarthyism”, but has never lost its misogynistic roots, nor is it possible to ever separate the term from a misogynistic message. It never fails to summon imagery of women out of control.

The Articles

There are far too many to mention them all, but below are a smattering:

“There’s nothing inflammatory or insensitive, or even conservative or liberal, about fearing a modern day Salem”, writes the New York Post Editorial board in the February 10, 2018, article “When The“MeToo Movement Goes Too Far”, immediately evoking the imagery of women out of control and lives lost.

The article focuses on supporting Trump’s quote, “People’s lives are being shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation.” Obviously, every American should care deeply about due process and protecting the innocent. However, the article then proceeds to congratulate Lena Dunham for defending her friend (writer Murray Miller) from rape charges, but neglects to mention Ms. Dunham was forced to apologize when the allegations were proven true. Given its history, it may be no wonder the New York Post got the moral of the story wrong — it’s not how many times #MeToo allegations have proven false that’s shocking, but how many times they’ve been proven true.

September 23, 2018, they published Karol Markowicz’s “Now #MeToo is Coming For Your Thought Crimes” which takes issue with the backlash against Ian Buruma, the former editor of The New York Review of Books, when he published an article by Jian Ghomeshi, in which Ghomeshi attempted to excuse his behavior. Ghomeshi is a man accused of the sexual assault of over 20 women. While Ghomeshi was acquitted of one of the crimes in court, he seems to openly admit guilt of some kind in his printed essay in which he states, “And at some point, when it came to women, I began to use my liberal gender studies education as a cover for my own behavior. I was ostensibly so schooled in how sexism works that I would arrogantly give myself a free pass.” Meanwhile, Markowicz relates in tear-wringing detail the “helplessness, shame, and fear” he felt after being accused.

Markowicz bemoans the backlash against Buruma as equating thought with deed, while ignoring the long ugly history of powerful men standing up for powerful men, no matter what deed they committed, including rape. This type of behavior makes it virtually impossible to prove sexual assault in court, where women often need witnesses (and male witnesses at that) to a crime committed in private. The day before, The New York Post published “#MeToo Has Morphed Into a Career-Destroying Angry Mob”, which likewise takes issue with backlash against defenders of those who commit sexual assault.

The Guardian’s “Michael Haneke: #MeToo has led to a witch hunt ‘coloured by a hatred of men’” is another article that doesn’t even attempt to hide its histrionic language. The article quotes the Australian filmmaker as saying, “This new puritanism coloured by a hatred of men, arriving on the heels of the #MeToo movement, worries me,” he said. “As artists, we’re starting to be fearful since we’re faced with this crusade against any form of eroticism.” Damage to the lives and careers of women in the film industry who have been assaulted apparently don’t merit mention. He’s not the first or the last man to suggest the #MeToo movement is anti-sex. If anything, this demonstrates total confusion, if not willful ignorance, on the part of some writers to understand the very concept of consensual sex.

Andrew Sullivan’s “It’s Time to Resist the Excesses of #Me Too” in The Daily Intelligencer discusses a movement to defend women’s safety in much the same terminology Napoleon used to discuss The Terror of the French Revolution. He describes the movement as “mania”, and states “But I’ll tell you what’s also brave at the moment: to resist this McCarthyism, to admit complexity…to defend sex itself, and privacy, and to rely on careful reporting to expose professional malfeasance.” In Sullivan’s defense, he took the subtler path, referring to #MeToo as “McCarthyism”, rather than a straight up witch trial, though the message is the same: the brave ones are not the women who come forward at great risk to themselves to state what was done to them, it’s those who put possible damage to men’s reputations above everything else, including women’s safety.

The Washington Examiner’s “Danish Psychologist Compares #MeToo Movement with Nazi Gestapo”, on the other hand, eschews subtlety of any kind. While author Nicole Russell is careful to include this line, “While it certainly doesn’t seem like America’s #MeToo movement looks anything like a Gestapo…”, it’s also clear she basically agrees with the psychologist’s premise. Lines like, “That a columnist living in one of the most progressive parts of the world would say this speaks volumes for the trajectory of the #MeToo movement here in the United States” make clear the extreme territory the writer is wading into is perfectly comfortable for her.

And what makes this particular psychologist qualified to compare a woman’s rights movement to the Third Reich? He’s Scandinavian, a culture which has traditionally been more concerned with equality than America. That’s it. That’s the only reason. The psychologist, Finn Korsaa, frames #MeToo as offensive feminism rooting out and demonizing masculinity, to which the author comments “Of course Korsaa would be intimately familiar with this concept of extreme equality, given his geographical location.” This article, which comfortably mixes sexism with anti-Semitism, is hardly alone in discriminating against more than one minority.

No article however more clearly plays musical chairs with victims and villains than John Hockenberry’s “Exile” in the October 2018 Harper’s. Hockenberry recounts the loss of his radio show in the face of multiple allegations of sexual harassment and racism. His rambling 7,000-word defense includes everything from a well-worn reference to the French Revolution (a witch hunt metonym had to be in there somewhere), to a comparison between himself and composers of the Romantic era (echoing other publications which have framed defense of sexual assault as defense of romance and sex itself).

No other personal #MeToo essay has quite as many words, or quite as much nerve. At one point, Hockenberry even suggests he educate women on how to talk about sex in the future, stating “I hope that in offering some kind of context for my misfortunes I can also provide a basis for the beginning of a constructive conversation about sexuality in the twenty-first century”, and you can hear collective eyes rolling with the line, “Had I not been accused of being a sexual harasser I doubt I would have ever looked into the emotional life of Brahms.”

For the record, he doesn’t deny the behavior so much as reframe it as awkward attempts to flirt. But the most astounding moment is when he states, “Even if I conceded the worst possible view of my own behavior, #MeToo does not seem to consider the effect my being tossed out onto an iceberg has on my five children, especially my three daughters….” In this way, he literally accuses his victims of doing the same thing to his daughters that he did to the accusers. In case victims did not suffer from enough guilt, now they are also supposed to worry about the effect their allegations may have on women in the life of their assailant. How much responsibility does he bear for this effect? None that he mentions.

It Was Innocuous Anyway

The word “innocuous” is repeated many times in male-viewpoint articles about #MeToo. In fact, a Google search revealed the terms “#MeToo” and “innocuous” together brought up 31,800 hits. There’s a reason for that. “Innocuous” means innocent, accidental- a mere trifle, if you will. Along with “innocent” the word “innocuous” also means “unimportant.”

The implication of the use of this term in so many articles, of course, is that while these men’s activities were innocuous, the consequences were not. In this crazy new world women have created, how is any man to know right from wrong?

Not for the first time, we’re asked to believe as women these perpetrators did not really understand they were doing something wrong when they harassed, touched, propositioned, imposed, illegally fired, raped, assaulted, and tormented women for most of their lives. #MeToo may be a modern movement, but the implication that women are lying, exaggerating, or being unreasonable in their allegations of sexual violence is old as time itself.

Language is a tool, and it can be an effective, and sometimes dangerous, one in the hands of those who know how to wield it.

Despite the Equal Pay Act, women earn 82 cents on the dollar

Equal Pay Day was March 24 this year; several years ago, it was April 4. While the date changes, the reason for Equal Pay Day doesn’t. It marks how far into the new year a woman is working for free if she were being paid the same salary as a man for doing the same job.

Currently, women are paid an average of 82 cents on every dollar earned by a white male. For African American, Latina, and Asian women, that number is closer to 77 cents. Lots of reasons are offered to explain the difference. Fewer women graduate from college, many women take off years for childcare, and fewer girls go into high paying STEM careers (though a study showed girls and students of color receive lower scores in math than white boys for the same work.)

However, implicit and unconscious bias are also major factors in salary negotiations. Think you’re being paid less than your male counterparts? It’s easier to find out than most companies think.

First, make sure you and a co-worker are actually doing the same job. Sometimes a co-worker is doing other things you may not be aware of, such as working overtime or taking on special projects. But all things being equal, here are five ways to find out if you’re getting paid less than the boys and less than you’re worth.

1. Check out Know Your Worth at Glassdoor. Know Your Worth is a salary calculator that will determine your market value based on education, experience, work hours, and more. After providing your information, Know Your Worth will come up with a number that is approximately how much someone just like you should be earning. Getting paid far less? It may be time to have a conversation with the boss and hire a headhunter.

2. Another salary calculator is available at Salary.com. Input personal information and the program will analyze the market for you and deliver a personal salary report. Salary.com also features a Salary Wizard that determines cost of living and typical benefits to determine both your salary and what extras you should be receiving.

3. Hire a headhunter. This choice is particularly helpful if you think you’ll be looking for a new job soon. Not only can a headhunter help you find new employment, it’s their job to analyze your resume and pull out details like impressive accomplishments, extra hours you worked, educational details, and other great things about you that you may not be putting on your resume. Improving your resume can help you get a better paying job.

They also know exactly what others doing your job are making in your area and can help you with salary negotiations, which are far more important than you may think. Your initial salary and qualifications when you first start with a company can determine if you get raises, how much, and how often you get promoted. We ladies are notorious for accepting the first low ball offer that comes our way.

4. Check out job boards. Job search boards such as Indeed, Monster, and ZipRecruiters are popular places to look for a new job. More than half the time, the company offering the job will state the salary in the job ad. That’s a great way to figure out whether you’re making the going rate in your area. If others doing the same thing are being paid, or being offered, more than you, it’s time to discuss your salary with your boss and/or find a new job.

5. The easiest way to find out how you measure up is simply to come right on out and ask your co-workers. The problem is most people are very secretive about how much they earn. They don’t want their salary to get around and they may be afraid of why you’re asking. And some companies have policies against discussing salaries.

Asking someone you just met or someone you don’t have a strong relationship with at work is probably not going to be productive. If you have friends at work or co-workers with whom you’re very comfortable, asking privately may be the best place to start. Even those who normally would be uncomfortable ponying up that kind of information may do so if you tell them, “I’m asking because I’m concerned there may be gender and racial based disparities in pay at our company.” If you do get an answer, keeping that person’s identity private is your responsibility during negotiations with your boss.

Always talk to your boss first and give the company an opportunity to correct their error. If nothing changes or you’re fired for pointing out the salary difference, you do have legal recourse. How do you go about discussing a raise with your boss? That’s a whole other blog.

For a hundred years we’ve been proving we can do anything, but why do we have to do everything?

From working more than 40 hours a week, to cooking dinner, to cleaning the house, to teaching out-of-school children, do you feel like you do everything? Like you’re overworked, underpaid, about to snap, and that traditional “feminism” is of zero use to you right now? You’re not alone. Women are at our breaking point.

While the pandemic didn’t create the problem, it has made women’s workload heavier, and has shed light on just how unequal most women’s daily lives are.

But the solution is on the horizon. The next wave of feminism we create together must serve over-worked, over-stressed women by putting emphasis on topics like choice, confidence, and the power of the word “no.”

Feminism has traditionally focused on opening up opportunities for women, on enabling us to always DO MORE.

From first wave feminism’s focus on the right to vote, to labor feminism’s fight for equal pay, feminism has always focused on opening doors for women, creating more varied employment, from caregivers to citizens to CEOs.

But with every new opportunity, came a new responsibility, a new job. Rather than dropping or re-assigning past responsibilities, we simply piled more on until we found ourselves dangerously stressed, deeply frustrated, and furious at the men in our lives.

Amanda Marcotte of Salon found that most men, even modern men, still expect women to do nearly all the housework, cooking, and childcare, while holding the same work hours they do. Studies show that even in marriages where the woman is the breadwinner, she still does the majority of housework.

Self-care is vital to the next wave of feminism, but widely mocked as facials and gossip.

Stress is killing American women, literally. According to Sadie Trombetta for HelloGiggles, a woman dies of a heart attack or stroke every 80 seconds, and at least 90% of women have at least one risk factor. Self-care is an absolute requirement for a woman’s sanity right now, and yet it feels like indulgence just to sit down and breathe.

While researching men and self-care, I came across countless articles that encouraged men to get into self-care and relax, or explained why men just aren’t into self-care and don’t really need it to take care of their responsibilities.

I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. If self-care is framed only as a bubble bath with a glass of champagne, I can see why so many men say they don’t take part in it. The truth is that men automatically allow themselves the time and space to de-stress, whether it’s convenient or not.

After a long day at work, when has a man ever hesitated to plunk down on the sofa in front of a video game or a sports channel for a few hours? When has a man ever hesitated to stop for a drink after work? Or call his friends to hang out, or lock himself in an office, study, “the shed”, or the garage, for hours or the entire weekend?

Self-care is so important to men that when they find themselves doing too much and becoming frustrated, they simply stop doing it. The truth is, men practice self-care on a daily basis, they just don’t call it that.

As women out-work men inside and outside of the home, resentment is building. Maddie Savage for BBC writes “a leading British law firm, Stewarts, logged a 122% increase in [divorce] enquiries between July and October, compared with the same period last year.” 76% of new cases are filed by women. Law partner Carly Kinch says, “Women thought, ‘my partner, who’s normally in the city or commuting — they’ll be around and they’ll help more’. And I think the reality for many has been a far cry from that.”

Feminism was never about having it all at the same time or doing everything; it was always about choice.

Men could always choose their education, what type of job to take, what pay was acceptable, and whether to marry, whom to marry, and whether to have children. Feminism guaranteed us the same right to choose.

It’s time for the next wave of feminism to be a tsunami. It’s going to have to change purposes from teaching women to knock down walls to teaching us to set firm boundaries. Be like the French, and make “no” your default answer. Feminism will teach that you can’t give to others unless you have a surplus yourself. To act with confidence planning your own life rather reacting to what happens to you.

I don’t know when it all started, probably when Mrs. Cro Magnon burned her first casserole, but whatever you choose to do or not do as a woman, someone will have something to say about it. Post-Covid feminism will teach the only opinion that matters is your own.

These are the products even celebrities sometimes have to go on waitlists to get

I can say from personal experience there is no self-hatred quite so poignant as what you feel after you spend money you didn’t have on a skincare product that doesn’t work. You feel like ashamed, like a chump, and more helpless than ever, leaving many women feeling like it’s all marketing nonsense and nothing works. Most of it is.

There are a few products however that actually do what they say they will do. The prices vary, though none of them are cheap (none of them are anywhere near the most expensive products in their categories either), but try one, and you’ll be willing to rob a bank to get your hands on more.

If you use these products, even just a couple of them, your skin will change dramatically for the better. I can make that promise with no hesitation. So women and men who are into skincare, these are items you won’t be sorry you purchased.

In the order in which they should be used:

1 — Biologique Recherche P50 Skin Resurfacing Toner, or P50, as it’s known to aestheticians.

If you’re curious, Biologique Recherche is the favorite brand of the wealthy European set.

What it is: a toner that resurfaces your skin like microdermabrasion every time you use it. If you’ve ever taken paint off a piece of furniture with liquid sandpaper, you get the concept

Why does it work: your skin cells are constantly being scrubbed away and replaced with shiny, clean, new ones once or twice daily, depending on how often you use it. If your skin gets irritated, decrease use to a few times a week.

Where to get it: technically it’s only supposed to be sold in salons that carry their products, but it’s available on several websites. I found it on joannaczech.com

2 — SkinCeuticals Vitamin C and E Ferulic Treatment

For the record, Jenna Bush called this the best Vitamin C treatment she ever used.

What it is: a Vitamin C and E treatment that brightens the skin. It should be used first thing in the morning.

Why does it work: Vitamin C isn’t just good for your insides. Its lightly acidic enzymes gobble up hyperpigmentation like Pacman

Where to get it: Their website and a few other beauty sites. Skinceuticals.com

3 — Dr. Barbara Sturm Hyaluronic Acid Serum

Dr. Sturm is facialist to the stars, with a devoted following in Hollywood among both men and women.

What it is: Serum containing hyaluronic acid to intensely moisturize

Why does it work: Hyaluronic acid may be the most moisturizing substance on the planet. It literally sucks water out of the atmosphere, attracting it to your skin like a magnet, which your skin absorbs instantly

Where to get it: A variety of beauty sites, but her own, drsturm.com is your best bet

4 — Dr. Augustinus Bader’s The Rich Cream

This is the product that singularly made the most difference in my skin. For me, it makes 3 months’ worth of botox last a year.

What it is: a skin cream that repairs skin as it moisturizes

Why it works: it contains something called TFC8®. I don’t what that is, but it includes ingredients that have been used on burn victims

Where to get it: various beauty sites, but you can’t beat augustinusbader.com because you get points for every purchase. Instead of silly gifts no one wants, they add up to real money off your next purchase.

5 — Erno Laszlo’s Phormula 3-D Repair Balm

In the 30’s through the 70’s, Erno Laszlo was Hollywood’s choice for skincare. This cream was specifically created for Marilyn Monroe to fade a scar on her face.

What it is: a Vaseline-consistency moisturizer for the terminally dry, distressed, irritated, and red.

Why it works: You’ll know if you need this product or not. If your skin is painful or irritated due to dehydration, you need it. Super moisturizers and rare oils feel like pure comfort to sore skin.

Where to get it: ernolaszlo.com

If you’re ready to try something new and are prepared to cut into the Starbucks budget to make it possible, try one of these highly-coveted products that deliver on their promises.

Mourning the flawed man who first empowered my voice

During the quiet evenings of my childhood, when the silence was broken only by the sound of crickets, I would walk into my father’s study, inhaling the scents that always defined him — the smell of skin that had been in the sun all day, sweat, and old pipe tobacco, mixed with the malty smell of beer and smoky scent of whiskey, his constant companions. I will never forget the creak of his antique desk chair, the soundtrack of my life. I would walk into the room silently and sit down. He didn’t ask me why I was there; he didn’t need to. The desire to talk was unsaid, but crystal clear.

He was always reading, and when I came in, he would put the book down, and we would start to talk, sometimes for hours. There were moments it was like talking to another version of myself, one who understood all the secrets the world had to offer.

Did you ever have someone who simply understood you and who you understood? No one understood me like my father.

Our communication was almost subliminal. We could finish each other’s sentences and would roll our eyes at the same topics on the news, or at my mother’s unintentional silliness. While we could communicate without a sound, it was our “philosophical discussions” I enjoyed most.

These talks will always be among my favorite memories — of both my father and my childhood. There was nothing we couldn’t talk about.

We discussed Dante, Walt Whitman, and The Lord of the Rings. We discussed capitalism and communism, the meaning of life, men and women, freedom and constraint, the evil nature of power, and most often, his dislike of organized religion. I was empowered, even encouraged, to disagree with something he said. We would be at it for hours until my mother insisted repeatedly that I go to bed.

We had many of the same gifts, but many of the same curses as well, such as strong tendencies toward clinical depression, rage, and anxiety, though it took me years in therapy to see it.

When I was young, I only knew there were certain things we vehemently disagreed on and could never discuss rationally, particularly discrimination, sexism, and above all, racism. He was raised with deeply ingrained hatred for anyone who wasn’t like him, and let his rage and fear take control of the discussion.

There were also other times we couldn’t talk — when he was particularly angry, when he was loud, when even I could taste Jack Daniels on every word he spoke. He could be hateful to certain groups of people, but when I was a kid, it was always clear that any condemnation of women didn’t include me. Being his little girl made me special.

As I grew up, it hurt when I felt my special classification slowly disappearing.

Our talks continued occasionally through my college years, but ended entirely when I moved to California a week before my 25th birthday, an adventure that altered me fundamentally and for which he never forgave me.

During my years in the Golden State, the differences between us became much more pronounced, as I stepped into a larger world and he did not.

When I first arrived in L.A., I realized I’d forgotten my wallet just before I blew a tire, only to have a Latino man give me a free tire, free labor, a kiss on the forehead, and put me back in my car to go home safe and sound. On another occasion, a young African American man stepped between me and a white police officer who was sexually harassing me.

When my introverted nature kept me lonely most days and nights, it was a 6’4 black gay bodybuilder (still one of my best friends in the world) who forced me to go out and have fun.

As my mind opened and my childhood teachings were contradicted by my lived experience, the opposite was happening to my father. As he grew older, the fewer differences he could tolerate. His hearing had never been good, but it got gradually worse over the course of those 16 years, little by little.

I came back from California nearly 5 years ago to find a furiously angry, intolerant, hateful man. We’d known he had prostate cancer for years, but refusing to take his medicine had finally caught up with him. His heavy drinking had also damaged his heart. He was sick, miserable, and enraged.

I’d always been a vocal advocate for women’s rights, but now I was equally so for POC and LGBTQ, causing us to lock horns often. We’d watch the news when Trump was at his worst. I’d insist the man was a racist, a misogynist, he hated people like me, he hated everyone, only for my dad to scream “Good, that’s why like him!”

My father turned his viciousness and sharp tongue on many, but nothing in life hurt as much as when I sensed he now classified me as “the enemy.”

It was impossible to speak to him anymore: I no longer wanted to talk and he couldn’t hear what I said anyway. It seemed profound to me that he lost his hearing entirely the moment we had nothing left to say to each other.

Through all this, I never doubted how fiercely he loved me, or my own veneration of him, however complicated and flawed he may have been, but despite being in the same house every weekend, we almost never spoke.

Ultimately, the end came fast. He had a fainting spell, and after that, he faded. I watched my father become a breathing skeleton as he sickened and lost weight.

The talks I’d once taken for granted were now impossible. As we both processed his imminent death and the emotional wall between us, the two people who could never stop talking to each other suddenly couldn’t get past the rocks in our throats.

I hugged him, told him to take his medicine, and whispered “I love you” to him the last time I saw him alive. I don’t believe he heard me, leaving our last words not unsaid as much as unheard.

Iunderstand now that he was my hero and my dark mirror at the same time. He taught me valuable lessons, like to ignore authority, listen to my own voice, and speak my own truth, which I’ll use the rest of my life.

His most valuable warning however was one he never intended to teach- to protect myself against the triple demons of anger, depression, and anxiety that have always come so naturally to us, to refuse to let them rot me from the inside out, to refuse to let fury at my own mortality become the desire to take the entire world with me, or let alcohol slur my own voice until I don’t recognize the sound.

Saying “I love you” loudly as often as you can is one of the takeaways of this story. But the real message is that it’s not only okay, it’s predestined, for the student to learn more lessons than the master intended to teach. My father taught me the power of having a voice, but I taught myself I can choose how to use it