Everyone wants to go viral these days, especially on TikTok. And it’s hard to know what will capture the public’s attention because top-performing videos are so random. But here’s my story of having a TikTok hit 44.5+ million views.

This past fall, my horse Ollie was put out to pasture in a new field. This field had clover, which is sometimes covered with a harmless toxin that can cause horses to salivate excessively. I have seen this on horses before, but in those instances, it was only little spit bubbles that formed around the mouth. In Ollie’s case, he turned into a Niagara Falls of spit - horse slobber everywhere. It was gross and interesting, so on September 4th of 2025, I took a video and posted it to TikTok. No overthinking, just pick and post.

From there, it slowly and steadily gained traction. It had gotten a few thousand likes in the first day or so, but I wasn’t checking all that regularly to monitor its progress. I remember when I realized it was actually going viral. My friend and I were walking around the Sunnybrook dog park, and I pulled it up to show him, and then realized it had, like, 2 million views or something at that point.

As of this writing, the video currently has 44.5 million views, 2.7 million likes, 8,851 comments, and 110.5k saves.

How much money did I make? $0. I live in Canada and cannot participate in the TikTok creator fund. Another Canadian content creator had a video go viral, and she did the math on how much it would have made; it came out to around $20,000. I think my sister and I did the math for my video, and mine would have made around the same, maybe a bit more.

Did anyone I know recognize my horse? No. But I did eventually post the video to my personal Instagram, and people reached out to say they had seen it on their FYP and didn’t realize it was my horse.

Did any cool opportunities come out of it? Not really. A bunch of pages DM’d me for the right to repost and share my video, including LADbible. They never offered money or even waited for a “yes”; they would just include a form to fill out, with a link to the video. The link didn't even work, and they never responded to my message telling them so, so I don’t think the video ever made it to their page.

The most annoying part was people telling me my horse was on the brink of certain death. For months. Even though it only lasted for like 2 or 3 days. Even though I and other people were in the comments telling people it’s normal and harmless. Even though I had consulted a vet and they had nothing to say about it beyond making sure Ollie had access to water. And even though time had passed and Ollie was still very much alive. That’s my least favorite part of being on the internet - the people thinking the least are commenting the most.

As for Ollie, he has stayed humble despite his 15 minutes of fame. I posted the same video to Reels, and I think it got 2+ million likes. More recently, I posted photos of him sitting next to me on Reddit, and they got 106,000+ upvotes. He’s a certified Internet darling and star. As he should be, he is such a sweet horse, and he loves attention.

So anyway, that’s the short and boring story of what it was like to have a TikTok go viral. Not very exciting.

It’s important to remember that public relations (PR) drives much of what makes it to the news and what we talk about. So a good indicator of when someone has hired a PR agency to push their story is when many major news outlets are reporting on it, but engagement is super low. No news outlet is going to continue organically pushing content if it's obvious the public doesn’t care.

And, IMO, we’re seeing that now with Taylor Swift’s wedding. Like this post from People Magazine that has less than 7,000 likes on a page with 14.7 million followers:

By comparison, I posted a photo of my horse on Reddit two days ago, and it got 100,000+ upvotes. Not bragging, just illustrating that my pet gets more attention on an animal subreddit than Taylor Swift’s wedding is getting on the top social media website from the leading celebrity news publication.

When she announced her engagement on August 26 of last year, that did have real hype. And you could see it. Posts about it had high engagement. Lots of people were sharing the news or Taylor’s engagement photos on their stories. People were making Reels and TikToks about it. Now that we see the wedding is actually here, it’s a tiny fraction of the interest we had then. It does not seem like people care that much, which tells me: Taylor Swift has officially fallen from public grace.

Stuff has been piling up against Taylor for years, and her public strategy has always been to play it safe and go with whatever the popular opinion is. And only if she must. She was hounded about her politics for years before she finally showed support for Democratic candidates. And even then, people are skeptical about her politics - I posted a TikTok about her once, and people in the comments were calling her “MAGA Barbie”.

I feel Taylor Swift works incredibly hard and diligently to craft a public persona, but that persona clashes with who she actually is, as evidenced by her actions. She promotes this girl’s girl thing, and she wants the credit for being progressive. But then she’s out polluting the environment with excessive private jet use - which she will not scale back on despite enormous public backlash. And now with her wedding, we see that she has ties to some truly awful people. One of her guests is Steven J. Demetriou, a man responsible for running ICE detention centers.

I also find Taylor to be incredibly disingenuous. She had the surrounding block of Madison Square Garden blocked in the name of “privacy”. But then she does weird shit like having Adam Sandler officiate her wedding (a Zionist btw). Why are you always doing things to get your name in the news and then crying about privacy, Taylor? And why did you invite 1,000 people?? I refuse to believe that either Taylor or Travis is a close friend of Hugh Grant, and yet he is at their wedding?

Shutting down busy NYC streets on the Fourth of July, of all days, has New Yorkers rightfully complaining. This tweet from Maria Figuero encapsulates good points and info:

The Hollywood Reporter also published an article calling out the ridiculousness of Taylor’s wedding. And it truly is ridiculous. What is the point of having a wedding where you force all attendees to sign “ironclad NDAs,” only to host it at a major sports arena in one of the world’s most prolific and busiest cities during a holiday weekend? Contradictory behavior.

This wedding just seems like an elaborate display of Taylor's self-importance.

I was born at the perfect time IMO.

I had just the right amount of technology growing up. We worked on our typing skills with MSN Messenger (RIP diva - NEVER forgotten), our social media was MySpace, and Habbo Hotel was big. There was not a whole lot going on, but it was fun; it was simpler; it was independent; it was parent-free.

Cut to today: everyone is online. And with a culture shift comes new problems. And the one I want to get to today is when a parent wants to become an influencer.

Not all of us are lucky to be raised in homes with considerate parents who are thoughtful about their children and how their actions may affect them. In fact, I would say most people do not benefit from such a luxury. And further to that point, many parents have huge egos, low self-esteem, and/or a lack of self-confidence. And they don’t work on it, so some ugly behavior manifests. For many, it’s content creation coupled with an addiction to attention, praise, and the thrill of performing perfection.

There are so many creators who are so hell-bent on this relentless pursuit of perfection and an idyllic family life that I refuse to believe they are happy. Nabela Noor is one example. She posts these heavily curated videos of her girls in matching outfits “playing outside”. Except the outfits are spotless, which tells me the girls are not actually engaging with the outside and nature. They are there to perform for their mother’s viewers.

Another one is Aubree Jones. She has regularly posted videos of herself and her seven children for years. But what we forget is that those videos are not candid moments. They are obviously staged with cues and instructions so that each child performs to their mother’s vision and expectation. That’s not how children are supposed to spend their time, and I would bet that’s not how children want to spend their time. I refuse to believe that seven children all love making dozens upon dozens of these videos.

There is no other instance where forcing your child to fully participate in your job or hobby is acceptable. Imagine I force my child to play on my rec league or come draft separation agreements with me - I’d be considered a bad mom. So, regardless of whether social media is a hobby or a career for these people, why do they feel okay to make their kids do it with them?

It is your right to show off your home. But consider what happens if your kids’ peers find the videos. They can see their home and hear relatively intimate details of their family’s life. Your children have effectively lost control of much of their privacy. And they have no idea who is watching.

When you become a parent in a place where it’s a choice, you forfeit your right to be completely selfish. You have an obligation to consider your child in all their needs; physically, psychologically, emotionally, everything. You also have an obligation not to coerce them into doing something they don’t want to do if it is solely for your benefit. If you ask and they willingly and enthusiastically want to do it, that’s one thing. But I doubt that’s the case when TikTok becomes your parents’ job, and they now rely on you to get those views up.

Something I cannot wait for is future documentaries featuring the children of TikTokers and social media influencers. I bet it will be sad; I have no doubt we will hear some shocking things. But I’m so interested to see and hear about what these influencers are really like behind the scenes and what comes out of parents with relentless social media obsessions.

I recently started listening to Strangers by Belle Burden on audiobook. Consider this a “beginning of the book” review because I already need to get some stuff off my chest.

Strangers is an autobiography in which the author chronicles her separation and divorce from her husband. As a divorcee myself, I feel like divorce is way too common to warrant a whole book about one person’s experience with it. But Strangers is so popular and well-reviewed that I decided to mute my divorce-book bias and try it.

Always trust your gut.

I’m trying to keep an open mind, but it’s hard to feel sorry for someone dealing with a common problem in the easiest way imaginable. Added to my uphill battle is the fact that Burden has zero resilience and unchecked internalized misogyny, which affects her young teenage daughters. I can’t stand weak-willed adults, and I especially can’t stand thoughtless parenting.

I am really trying to be sympathetic to the author; this separation came out of the blue, navigating grief is hard, and then the fact that women have to fight against their own unconscious biases regarding gender and relationships. But still. There were so many times I just found Belle Burden’s handling of the situation frustrating.

For example, her husband, James, abandons the family, then weeks later, comes back to begrudgingly tell his children that he is leaving them forever. During this visit, he has the gall to ask Burden to make him a sandwich, and then she fucking does. And not just any sandwich - she describes this tremendous effort she puts into making him this amazing sandwich. Meanwhile, she has been relying on her teenage daughter to make all the meals in the house since James left because she is too depressed to cook for her children. Tell that man to make his own fucking sandwich. And this comes after she had their house manager drive a jeep over to the airport so James could drive himself home instead of ordering a cab. Why aren't you catering to this shitty, shitty man?

Speaking of her daughters, this woman is a Boy Mom™. She mentions that another mom had to teach her 17-year-old son how to do laundry for the first time. Meanwhile, her 15-year-old daughter is cooking elaborate meals she learns on TikTok for the family. Just to recap and be 100% clear on this: a 15-year-old girl took the initiative to learn a necessary domestic skill and then performed it above and beyond; meanwhile, a 17-year-old boy is learning laundry for the first time ever after being hand-held through the process by another woman.

If you didn't read the book, the son is staying with friends somewhere (Long Island, IIRC), and the author is quarantined with her two daughters in Martha’s Vineyard. Anyway, the mom has this to say about her concern for her son as the divorce news is breaking at home: “I was relieved he wasn’t with us, stuck in a house of girls that felt heavy with sadness without any of his friends. Protected for a time from his father, who’s no longer there.”

I found this so infuriating that I paused the book. Let’s break down her internalized misogyny and how it ultimately hurts her children:

1. You are relieved that your son isn’t “stuck” in a house of girls? Why? What is wrong with being stuck in a house full of girls? Your son is going through the trauma and devastation of his father abandoning his family, and the bullshit you’re writing is essentially, “It could be worse - he could be around women!”

2. In a time of heavy sadness, don’t you think your son would rather be among family so he can process his emotions in a safe familial environment instead of being around friends where he’s probably feeling pressure to keep it together? It’s unfortunate that she lets her weird sexism dictate exiling her son, because studies apparently suggest that having sisters in a home is the most emotionally valuable family dynamic. So her son would likely be better off, emotionally, staying home in a house full of girls, especially since these are his sisters, and they are going through the same thing. Instead, he’s probably stuck repressing his emotions in a house of teenage boys. When we talk about how toxic masculinity ruins everything for men and women, this is what we mean.

3. Also, her husband had been “stuck” in a house with girls, his wife and his daughter. It wasn’t a problem for him. Why is it a problem for your son?

4. Her daughters are living without their friends, and they are fine, but the idea of her son being without his friends is unthinkable. Weird double standard.

5. It’s okay that her son is afforded the ignorance of his father not being around, while the daughters actively endure their father's absence.

It’s this kind of thoughtless, unconscious gender bias that keeps men emotionally unhealthy and women forced to bear hardship and responsibility where men are excused from doing the same. Her daughters are in the house, making dinner, caring for their mom, watching their family dynamic implode, but it’s the son that the mom goes on at length about, worrying, even though he is living in as much blissful ignorance as she can afford him.

Obviously, divorce is hard, especially when it is rooted in cheating. But I can’t help but contrast how she handles this versus how an average middle-class woman would. Burden has the luxury of falling apart in her vacation home on the expensive and exclusive Martha’s Vineyard. There is no mention of having to work a job. She writes about having friends call her every day and then spending hours every day talking about what she is going through. Meanwhile, there are women coping with cheating husbands abandoning their families everywhere, but those women still have to work and raise their kids. Burden has this one single tragic thing happen to her and is dealing with it in easy mode, yet feels entitled to document the whole thing in a book.

But I guess this would be legitimately devastating to her because she hasn’t dealt with anything hard in her life. She has zero resilience. She writes about how she wanted to be a writer and had even received writing awards and admission to an upper-year writing course as a freshman in college. Yet one man offered one unsubstantiated criticism of her writing in the class, and she immediately folded, abandoned her writing dreams, and pursued law school instead.

Belle Burden is wealthy. Her family line includes Old Hollywood and the Vanderbilts. She has been to the most expensive and prestigious schools in the United States. Whenever I read autobiographies by rich white women, it’s a real exercise in patience to take them seriously. Yes, their struggle was real, but it becomes such a defining part of them. I read all kinds of biographies. The ones by rich white women, like Burden, centre around a single incident of hardship that, for anyone else, would be just another incident in a series of events.

I’m not saying she isn’t allowed to be devastated - she absolutely is. But she got a book deal out of what didn’t need to be more than an essay on Substack. In fact, her story was first presented as an article in The New York Times. That was the maximum amount of media this story warranted.

I’m gonna hang in there and finish the book. Maybe something happens that changes my mind, and I come to sympathize with Burden. But I am not hopeful at the time of publishing this post.

The movie, Michael, is out, and people are loving it. I haven’t seen it yet, but I am immensely enjoying the TikToks people are making. With Michael Jackson’s name back in the headlines again, the abuse he endured as a child is also being discussed.

The origin story of Michael Jackson is pretty well known. Born in Gary, Indiana, to a large family, a young Michael and four of his brothers went on to become The Jackson 5. Also part of that legacy is the well-known fact that Joe Jackson, the patriarch of the family, would relentlessly beat his children, especially the members of The Jackson 5.

There has always been a long-standing joke around the idea of “Is it okay to beat your child if they become Michael Jackson?” The idea being that copious amounts of abuse can push your child to greatness and is, therefore, maybe worth the sacrifice. This is a joke we need to stop making because many won’t recognize it as such. Many people will, honest to God, believe that abuse can make a child great and use it to justify hurting their children. I guarantee you there are already people doing this.

A point I always want to stress to people, especially as someone working in family law: never underestimate how much abuse exists around you - it’s everywhere.

And on that point: you cannot beat your child into greatness because, if you could, we would have a lot more Michael Jacksons. But we don’t because Michael is an exception, not the rule. Abuse generally has the opposite effect; it demotivates, it makes it harder to learn, and it can cause long-term psychological trauma. Michael aside, how many of the most talented people of our time also come from a background embedded in abuse? Hm?

If you want a child to succeed at something, it’s going to take support and discipline. That’s why whenever people at the top of their fields are getting accolades - in business, science, film, sports, whatever - they always thank their parents for supporting them.

Support and discipline are what create greatness. Imagine what Michael could have become, what he could have been, if the person who shaped his career had also protected his childhood. We’ll never know. But we do know this: the next Michael Jackson won’t come from a household where a parent raises their fists. They’re going to come from one where a parent is raising their child.

So the next time someone makes that joke - “maybe Joe was onto something” - push back on it. Not because it’s offensive, but because someone in that room might be taking notes. Children don’t need to be broken down to be built up. They need someone in their corner.

Abuse doesn’t make children great; it just makes childhood harder. And we owe kids better than that. Michael was owed better than that.

This post is actually based on a paper I wrote in law school.

While writing another Substack article, I mentioned Never Split the Difference and wanted to cross-reference a claim, so I pulled up the paper. Even as the author, I was truly engrossed in reading it. Not because I’m a great author, but the guy who wrote Never Split the Difference, Chriss Voss, is such a bullshitter. And such a bullshitter to the degree where you can use his own work and words against him. Yet somehow, he has amassed a large following.

Getting to Yes I had read twice; once in my Paralegal program in college, and again for an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) course in law school. I had attempted Never Split the Difference years ago but found the writing to be insufferable. I read it in full when I took the ADR course, thinking I would compare two different negotiation styles. But in reading Never Split the Difference, it quickly became apparent that it offered the exact same methods as Getting to Yes. The only difference was that it had extra pages dedicated to attacking Getting to Yes. Other than that, the methods are nearly identical. So why does one get dismissed while the other has a cult following?

The Books, Briefly

Getting to Yes was published in 1981 by Harvard professors Roger Fisher and William Ury. If you’re at all in the North American ADR space, then you know that this is like our Madonna and Michael Jackson. They more or less invented modern negotiation theory. Their approach, called “principled negotiation”, can be distilled down to four elements:

1. separate the person from the problem

2. focus on interests rather than positions

3. generate a variety of options, and;

4. anchor decisions to objective criteria.

They also introduced BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement), which is widely used in business school curricula and in mediation work.

Fisher and Ury weren’t armchair theorists either; they practiced what they preached. Fisher advised the Ecuador-Peru border dispute, was involved in the Iranian hostage negotiations, assisted with the Camp David Accords, and helped guide South Africa’s post-apartheid constitutional process. Ury helped establish the Nuclear Risk Reduction Centres that led to Reagan and Gorbachev signing the first US-Soviet arms control agreement. There is a reason Getting to Yes has sold 15 million copies.

Never Split the Difference was published in 2016 by Chris Voss, a former FBI hostage negotiator. His strategy centres on emotional attunement: mirror what people say back to them, label their feelings, ask open-ended questions, use silence strategically, and demonstrate “tactical empathy.” The book sold 1 million copies and has an intensely loyal following, particularly among “alpha male” type business professionals.

They Say the Same Things

When you lay the two methods side by side, the similarities are, I would argue, fundamentally the fucking same.

Discover interests

Getting to Yes: “As more attention is paid to positions, less attention is devoted to meeting the underlying concerns of the parties. Agreement becomes less likely. Any agreement reached may reflect a mechanical splitting of the difference between final positions rather than a solution carefully crafted to meet the legitimate interests of the parties.”

Never Split the Difference: “The presence of hidden interests isn’t as rare as you might think. Your counterpart will often reject offers for reasons that have nothing to do with their merits.”

Never Split the Difference: “If you can get the other party to reveal their problems, pain, and unmet objectives—if you can get at what people are really buying—then you can sell them a vision of their problem that leaves your proposal as the perfect solution.”

Objective criteria

Getting to Yes: “In short, the approach is to commit yourself to reaching a solution based on principal, not pressure. Concentrate on the merits of the problem, not the mettle of the parties. Be open to reason, but closed to threats.”

Never Split the Difference: “Fair?” you’d respond, pausing to let the word’s power do to them as it was intended to do to you. Follow that with a label: “It seems like you’re ready to provide the evidence that supports that,” which alludes to opening their books or otherwise handing over information that will either contradict their claim to fairness or give you more data to work with than you had previously.”

Variety of options

Getting to Yes: “The third point responds to the difficulty of designing optimal solutions while under pressure. Trying to decide in the presence of an adversary narrows your vision. … You can offset these constraints by setting aside a designated time within which to think up a wide range of possible solutions that advance shared interests and creatively reconcile differing interests.”

Never Split the Difference: “Deadlines regularly make people say and do impulsive things that are against their best interests, because we all have a natural tendency to rush as a deadline approaches.”

Never Split the Difference: “Understanding the “other” is a precondition to be able to speak persuasively and develop options that resonate for them.”

Never Split the Difference: “Great negotiators are able to question the assumptions that the rest of the involved players accept on faith or in arrogance, and thus remain more emotionally open to all possibilities, and more intellectually agile to a fluid situation.”

Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)

Getting to Yes: “Develop your BATNA. Vigorous exploration of what you will do if you do not reach an agreement can greatly strengthen your hand. Attractive alternatives are not just sitting there waiting for you; you usually have to develop them.”

Never Split the Difference: “I tell my clients that as part of their preparation they should think about the outcome extremes: best and worst. If you’ve got both ends covered, you’ll be ready for anything. So know what you cannot accept and have an idea about the best-case outcome”

When you get around Voss’ fluff and cut down to the core of what he says, he makes the exact same arguments that Getting to Yes is centred around.

And I bet Voss, to varying degrees, knows it’s the same stuff. Because why else would he dedicate so much page space to attacking Getting to Yes and principled negotiation? I think it's a tactic to misdirect the reader into thinking it’s a different book. Likely to save face from accusations of copyright and idea-stealing. And, of course, to build a brand where he monetizes off of both other people’s work and the insecurities of weak men.

What irks me is that Voss admits in his own book that the FBI trained its agents in principled negotiation. Voss himself even attended Harvard after retiring to study principled negotiation- the very same school the writers of Getting to Yes developed principled negotiations, I remind you. He is not hiding the fact that all his ideas in Never Split the Difference are built on the exact same information and principles as in Getting to Yes.

What irks me is that Voss admits in his own book that the FBI trained its agents in principled negotiation. Voss himself even attended Harvard, after retiring, to study principled negotiation- the very same school where the writers of Getting to Yes developed principled negotiations, I remind you. So, to recap, he learned about principled negotiation throughout his FBI career, then went to the school where it was founded to learn more, and now makes a career out of talking shit about it while also promoting it. And again, he says all this in his book. He is not hiding the fact that all his ideas in Never Split the Difference are built on the exact same information and principles as in Getting to Yes.

This makes his repeated criticism of Getting to Yes throughout the book rather awkward.

Voss is Not a Good Negotiator

Voss opens Never Split the Difference with a dramatic claim: everything we’ve been taught about negotiation is wrong, compromise is the worst thing you can do, and his field-tested FBI techniques will get you out of any scenario imaginable.

A few chapters later, he writes: “When individuals feel listened to, they tend to become less defensive and more willing to listen to other points of view, which gets them to the calm and logical place where they can be good Getting to Yes problem solvers.”

So: Getting to Yes doesn’t work. Unless the person has calmed down, at which point it works perfectly.

He also cites the Waco and Ruby Ridge standoffs as proof that Getting to Yes fails in high-stakes negotiations. But a closer look at both events complicates that narrative. In Waco, the FBI had successfully negotiated the release of 21 children before an unexpected gunshot derailed everything. In Ruby Ridge, agents couldn’t reach Randy Weaver because the cabin had no phone — they were literally yelling into a forest at a man who (unbeknownst to them) had already lost his wife. These aren’t failures of principled negotiation. They’re failures of logistics and circumstances that no negotiation framework could fully account for.

As for Voss’s two main hostage cases during his time as chief international negotiator, Jill Carroll and Steve Centanni (both American journalists kidnapped abroad), neither ended because of his negotiation “skills”. Carroll’s captors released her later with no explanation. Centanni was released after converting to Islam at gunpoint.

None of this is to say Voss is a fraud. But the dramatic line “our tools had to work, because if they didn’t, someone died” is a bit of an optimistic spin on a seemingly unsuccessful and complicated track record.

So What’s Actually Different?

If the methods are the same, what explains the wildly different reception?

Look at the packaging.

Never Split the Difference has a bold cover with ripped-page aesthetics and a subtitle, “Negotiate as if Your Life Depended on It”, that frames routine business negotiations as life-or-death situations. The writing throughout is urgent and dramatic. The examples involve kidnappers and terrorists. The whole thing is built to feel dangerous. But it’s written for people who work in sales or who want to be better at haggling over knick-knacks at yard sales.

Getting to Yes has a neutral cover. The examples include men and women negotiating ordinary disputes. The tone is clear and methodical without being theatrical. It presents negotiation as something anyone can and should do. It does not frame salary negotiations as a high-stakes arena for specialists - because it isn’t.

One book markets itself as combat. The other markets itself as a skill.

Back when I was reading these books to compare them, I realized the essay wasn’t workable because the two theories were too similar. But I was intrigued by the difference in presentation. And why Never Split the Difference repeatedly attacked the emotional intelligence that it also advocated for. It was clear that it was written for men, and I guess it felt that it had to lean into toxic masculinity tropes in order to get men to listen and try out being empathetic.

My research for the paper confirmed things I had already suspected. Studies into gender and negotiation find that men typically approach disputes more aggressively, making bold offers, asserting positions confidently, and taking risks. Women tend to use more collaborative, empathy-forward approaches, such as being attentive to others’ perspectives and focusing on relationship preservation and mutual outcomes. Getting to Yes reads like the second woman-approved approach. Never Split the Difference is marketed as the more male-centric way to negotiate, but make no mistake: it’s teaching you how to negotiate like a woman.

“Tactical empathy” is just empathy. Voss added the word “tactical” because empathy is too soft and mushy a concept for some people. But the practice he’s describing, which is genuinely trying to understand what the other person is feeling and reflecting it back to them, is exactly what Getting to Yes advocates. He’s dressed a traditionally feminine negotiation style in masculine clothing, and it worked brilliantly, I will admit. Because it gets rave reviews in the same posts that slam Getting to Yes.

Why Any of This Matters

There’s something worth sitting with here beyond the book drama.

Studies consistently find that men and women are treated differently at the negotiating table, even when they use identical tactics. Women who negotiate assertively face backlash for violating gender expectations. Men who negotiate collaboratively are sometimes seen as weak. The style that both of these books ultimately advocate for (being empathetic, interest-focused, relationship-preserving) is one that women have long been expected to practice, and men have often been discouraged from embracing.

What’s oddly hopeful about Never Split the Difference, despite all its contradictions, is that it gets men to practice that style by convincing them it’s something tougher than it actually is. Anyone who takes Voss’ advice will start genuinely listening to what the other side needs, acknowledging their concerns before they raise them, and resisting the urge to bulldoze toward a predetermined position. These are all things that will help someone negotiate better. It just took a former FBI guy and some fairytale spinning to get them there.

Gender performance is everywhere, but at the end of the day, we are all just trying to be women.

I find the discourse around Emma Grede, her book, her career, and her advice to be fascinating.

A half-Black daughter of a struggling single mom moves to America, marries a wealthy white Swedish man, aligns herself with one of the most visible families in the world and goes on to build a massive empire, all with four kids at home. The discourse is rich with commentary on where we are at with women, race, immigrants, wealth, pop culture, parenthood, and working moms for those who have the eyes to see.

But I just want to address a more elementary element of books in general: no one needs to take all, or even any, of the advice inside one. People responded to Emma’s book, Start With Yourself, as if it were a new act from Congress that they had to abide by. So I guess there is merit in pointing out that this is one woman sharing her advice on how she got to where she is - for those who want to do the same. I am tired of people talking about her advice as if they can’t just choose to ignore it.

That’s my advice for getting advice: remember that it’s optional.

I read Start With Yourself, knowing damn well I would not be implementing all of what Emma Grede had to say. I am loving this book, but I acknowledge that it is not for everyone. But not all advice is. Most of the book’s public discourse has been dominated by low-performance people who get mad at the work ethic and lifestyle required of high-performance people.

I’m a mid-performance person. I‘m a lawyer, I volunteer, I have a great job, I have well-rounded hobbies, and I speak French decently. But I also don’t care to work more than 40-45 hours a week, nor do I care about maximizing my earning potential. I make a salary that covers the life I want to live, and I don’t have an interest in anything more expensive than what I have right now. Maybe I would feel differently if I wanted a yacht, but I don’t. I do not intend to live a high-performance life, so I understand that not all of Emma's advice is something I will listen to. I’m not trying to replicate her level of success.

I didn’t read this book because I want to build a $400 million company. I read this book because I knew there were other things I could learn from Emma Grede. She has been described as a bitch, and, as someone who really admires strong women, that is always the kind of role model I’m interested in. I want to know how strong women handle situations at work and in their relationships. I also read it because, as someone with a demanding career who’s thinking about kids, I wanted to understand the perspective of someone who wasn’t just a working mom but a working mom in a demanding career. Also, even if a life isn’t for you, it doesn’t hurt to learn about how other people live their lives. Expanding your perspectives is always an important learning opportunity.

Speaking of perspective, it’s important to be mindful that advice is often given to address things as they exist. Not how they should be. There is a lot of “as it is” advice in Start With Yourself. I have seen so much pushback from people who take her real-world advice and apply it to what they wish the world were. I think that’s misguided.

Emma Grede advocates for being in the office, and many people said things like, “But I need to work from home because I have a family.” Understandable. But visibility still matters. You’re not going to be top of mind for promotions and new opportunities if the person with the power to give those doesn’t know you. Getting to know people IRL is way different from getting to know people through Zoom and Slack.

Work from home if you want, but understand that you don’t get everything. The comfort of managing your schedule with more flexibility will come at the cost of opportunities. No one said it was fair, but it’s how it is. It’s up to you to decide what is more important.

You can’t stay home and have the opportunities afforded to those who are present. But you can compromise. Go into the office two or three days a week. You still have the benefits of working from home for most of the week, but you’re still building face time with your coworkers. That’s another thing about advice: you can choose what you want and adapt it to your life in your own way.

A Michelle Obama quote to ponder:

“That whole, ‘So you can have it all.’ Nope, not at the same time.”

Some days you stay home. Some days, you suck it up and go to the office because that’s what the reality of getting ahead calls for. Do it or don’t. The choice is yours.

I’m still reading the book, so this isn’t a full review. But as mentioned earlier in this post, I find the discourse surrounding Emma and Start With Yourself fascinating. I think she’s ahead of her time, and she’s presenting new ways of thinking that are forcing many to reconsider how they view being a working woman and/or mom. And people can rarely hear a new idea and simply decide it’s not for them. Instead, they just go on the attack, which is unfortunate. I think Emma has many good ideas and perspectives that would bring peace to many women and working moms across all careers.

TW: brief mention of suicide, abortion, domestic abuse, and drug use

Before I went to law school, I worked at an accounting firm for two years. I handled marketing: redesigned the website, put together marketing materials, coordinated events, etc. It was fine, kind of dull, but I worked with a lot of nice people.

One day, in a meeting, an executive at the firm said something to the effect that accountants hold more public trust than doctors and lawyers. The reason given was that they see a lot of financial information. I always thought that was a terrible take - sorry to the individual who said it.

But it simply isn’t true.

As a lawyer, I would give the distinction to doctors for the following reasons.

1. Exclusivity of Information

That executive based their assessment on access to financial information, but financial information just isn’t that sacred. A lot more people and professions access our financial information than our health information. Think about it: bankers, tellers, mortgage lenders, car salespeople, your H&R free tax software, anyone we’ve submitted a rental application and credit check to, etc.

Don’t get me wrong, financial information is highly sensitive. After all, many companies hire armoured trucks to pick up financial documents for shredding when they’re no longer needed. But still, there is a wider group of people we expose our financial information to than we do with health. Most people’s medical information is limited to a health care provider and pharmacist. Maybe an insurance agent if you’re getting life insurance. A smaller pool of access signifies, in my opinion.

2. Legislation

Medical information has its own legislation, here in Ontario anyway; Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004. There isn’t really an equivalency for lawyers and accountants. We fall under more general privacy and/or practice-specific laws, guides, and regulations. There is no Legal Information Protection Act. Furthermore, I attended a three-hour privacy law seminar last month that included a section dedicated solely to medical information. If something is important enough to be repeatedly carved out, well, it’s probably important.

3. Privacy in Practice

Most of our financial documents are sent by mail, which, technically, most people can open. A paper envelope is not all that secure, but in it go our tax documents, credit card statements, mortgage information, etc. The most I have ever gotten in terms of medical information is a health card or a letter asking me to please call my healthcare provider.

Also, I would argue that financial information is routinely made more available. In the US, you can look up what people paid in taxes. In the state of Illinois, anyway (if the guy I last dated is to be believed). Also, as someone who took Corporate Finance and Securities Law, I assure you that the importance of complete financial disclosure from public companies was pounded into us unrelentingly. And those records are made available to the public.

Oh, and the Sunshine List: if you earn more than $100,000 in Ontario as a public employee, your salary is listed for all to see.

4. The Contents of Information

Not everyone is in a financially embarrassing position. Not to say everyone, regardless of finances, wouldn’t be upset if their information were leaked. But if your savings account is stacked and/or you’re a high-income earner, you’re not as devastated to have that info out there. But we all have something in our medical records we do not want out there. A suspicious mole on your butt, recorded suicidal tendencies, past drug use, any STDs you may have had, abortions, domestic abuse, etc. I would argue that, for most people, a health information leak would be extremely embarrassing or maybe even legitimately devastating if exposed.

Some lawyers have access to some people’s medical information, but it is not widespread in the profession. They definitely have access to a wider variety of sensitive information than accountants, who are strictly limited to financial information. As a lawyer, the sky is the limit. Depending on what the heck happened, you can theoretically request to look into anything: not just health records and finances but also computer records, a personal journal, text messages, etc.

Sidenote: if you are a nosy individual, I cannot recommend law enough. It is a career that rewards curiosity and investigation, A.K.A. being nosey.

If we were to treat family law as a distinct entry in this contest, then they/we would win the whole thing. Easily.

The unique thing about family law is that it exposes you very intimately to the lives and secrets of ordinary people. And y’all: ordinary people are living lives crazier than you can imagine. And they are all around us. Your barista, your boss, your friends and family - they are all doing stuff out of sight that would make your jaw drop.

I have seen disclosures for criminal records, police reports, medical reports, mental health assessments, financial records, text messages, statements from family and friends, like damn near everything. Family law exposes the worst and craziest things you’ve ever heard of, and it pales in comparison to whatever medical issue you can think of. Nudes, sexual abuse allegations, claims you like cross-dressing, niche porn you like, videos of you doing coke; it all comes out in family law.

If this were a race, family lawyers would win this the same way Secretariat won the 1973 Belmont Stakes.

Earlier this month, Kanye West held two sold-out concerts at the SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles. That’s 70,000 tickets per day and a $33 million payday for him, if The Shade Room is to be believed. He also didn’t do it alone. Lauryn Hill, Ceelo Green, and Travis Scott also attended.

My question is: why?

Kanye has a history of saying anti-Semitic things. He tweeted, “death con 3 on JEWISH PEOPLE.” which got his Twitter account shut down. More famously, he claimed, “I can say antisemitic shit and Adidas cannot drop me”. Adidas ended the partnership shortly after. Also, in an unreleased interview with Tucker Carlson, Kanye also said, “I’d prefer my kids knew Chanukah than Kwanzaa, at least it would come with some financial engineering.”

These are not the only controversial things he’s said. There are a lot, including racist comments and stunts like saying “slavery was a choice” and wearing a “White Lives Matter” t-shirt. That’s all obviously derranged, and I can't stress enough how those comments should have also been career-ending. I think he “gets away” with those ones, because “well, he is black” is probably how many of his fans will excuse those comments.

But the anti-Semitic ones, how are those not sticking? He is not Jewish. Yet fans are still turning up for him, and other artists don’t feel nervous publicly supporting him.

I had a much more optimistic view of the world growing up. Until I got to my teens, I really thought things like racism, discrimination, and pedophilia were all things the public was united against. But it turns out a lot of people are racist, every marginalized group is still dealing with a lot of shit, and a pedophile is running the United States. What the fuck is going on.

I’ve accepted that people are just awful, no reason. But I am still mystified about Kanye and his public support. I don’t doubt he will always have fans on some level, but I can’t believe it’s to the point of selling out back-to-back shows.

So why don’t we take his anti-Semitism seriously?

I have no doubt Kanye has some anti-Semitic fans. Personally, I feel like the majority of his fans are people who just do not care. You know those types: they will have Jewish friends, Black friends, and gay friends, whatever, but they are not allies. If we started requiring Jewish people to wear stars again and brought back Jim Crow, they aren’t gonna say anything or advocate in any way, unless it affects them. They just do not care.

I also feel like there are people who will just heavily lean into any excuse. “He’s not really anti-Semitic, he’s mentally ill”. Kanye’s mental illness was never and will never be an excuse. Especially because he never addressed and apologized for it. He said those things during a mental health episode/crisis, okay, but then if he really did not mean it, I feel like the first thing he would have done was speak to it as soon as he was in a right state of mind.

I absolutely hate that Kanye continues to have a career. And I especially hate what it says about our society that he continues to have a career. It says there is a tolerance for anti-Semitism and racism. It says that you can do and say horrible things without consequences. And worst of all, it shows how apathetic people, public figures, and companies are about these things. Why was he able to sell so many tickets? Why did he have a venue willing to host him? Are we really shrugging our shoulders about this in 2026?

Christ. This is so bleak.

If we had to salvage one thing in this, though, it does provide a handy rebuttal to that anti-Semitic talking point of “Jews run the world and all the banks”. They run the world, but they can’t control Kanye? Is Kanye West bigger than banking? Please.

It’s up to all of us to signal what we are okay with. If you really, truly think anti-Semitism is bad, stop listening to his music. If someone you know is going to his show, say something. If his name comes up in conversation, try slipping in a reminder that he’s a terrible person.

People were risking their lives to hide Jewish families in their homes while the Holocaust was happening. It’s truly crazy that we went from that to trying to get people to stop listening to a few songs by one guy.

Spoilers ahead.

I’m moving soon, so I’m on a mission to do as many things with friends as I can while I’m in Toronto. And what better way to spend a Sunday than at a movie with friends?

So I messaged my friend Sam and off we went to see You, Me, and Tuscany, a new rom-com starring Halle Bailey and Regé-Jean Page.

I’ll be honest, I’m not really a huge rom-com fan. But this was a rare time that a mainstream film of the genre would star two Black leads, so I had to support.

The film is about a 20-something woman from NYC, Anna, who quit culinary school when her mom died. She does not have her life together whatsoever and counts on her pregnant best friend to bail her out of problems. In one scene, she gets chased out of a housesitting gig because she was wearing the owner’s clothes, then goes to her friend’s job at a hotel and asks her to sneak her into a room so she has somewhere to stay for the night. The friend, heavily pregnant and not in a position to lose a job, says no and then sends her to sit at the hotel’s bar.

While she is there, she means Mateo, a beautiful man from Tuscany. He tells her he left Italy for NYC a year ago because he fought with his dad. No doubt, this will be the emotional trauma that he never gets over, and every woman he dates is going to have to deal with. He also tells her that he has a villa there that is sitting empty. Coincidentally, Anna’s mom had bought plane tickets to Tuscany for her and her daughter, which aren’t refundable (even in death, apparently), so Anna goes to Tuscany.

Taking a page from every Hallmark movie, this plot centres on a massive annual festival that will make or break local businesses if it doesn’t go right. Of course, this festival books up all the local hotels. And, since this is apparently Anna’s first week on earth, she hasn’t thought to book anything and now has nowhere to go. So she breaks into Mateo’s home. As they say, “If there are no Airbnbs available, then turn what’s available into an Airbnb”.

Of course, the next day, the guy’s mom and nonna come to clean the house. Which does not make sense, because the home has been vacant for a year, so what is there to clean?

Anyway, Anna lies and says she is engaged to Mateo, and his family does not question anything and embraces her. She then falls in love with Mateo’s cousin (the Duke of Hastings himself), saves the family’s restaurant by cooking during the great big festival, and blah blah she ends up with Regé-Jean Page.

For what it is, I liked the movie. I find the character of Anna annoying- I can’t stand people who cause problems and leave it for others to deal with. So I found her unsympathetic and was not invested in her finding happiness, to be honest. The stars of the film are actually Mateo’s family; the sister is hilarious, and the mom is whose happy ending I wanted to see more than Anna’s.

Also, if I can be cynical for a minute, this is not a relationship that’s going to last. Even if we can get past the long-distance relationship thing. She’s homeless, and at the start of the trip, she had only $500, which she has been steadily spending throughout the film. Why would someone who owns hundreds of acres of vineyards and a winery settle for someone with a three-figure net worth? Also, Anna and Mateo almost had sex at the beginning of the movie, and I have not forgotten about that. What in the Randy and Jermaine Jackson is going to happen with that?

The Hollywood Reporter titled their review of the film as “For ‘You, Me & Tuscany,’ the Location Did Half the Work”, which I thought was hilarious. The film will definitely do wonders for Italian tourism - the scenery was amazing, and now everyone else who’s seen this movie wants to go, myself included.

Also, I just need to get this off my chest, but whoever did Regé-Jean Page’s makeup needs to quit their job asap and find something else. It was so bad for the first third of the film that I could not focus on anything else.

All in all, not bad. If you go in expecting a cheesy rom-com, you will enjoy it. Anything else, well, you’re playing yourself.

Do you know who Emma Grede is?

If not, she’s the cofounder of Good American and Skims with a net worth of around $400 million. Her visibility as a major force in the business world has been steadily growing, and she’s attracting a large following of young, ambitious women who admire her perspectives as a businesswoman and working mother. She has four children, BTW. Insane.

Well, her name has been in the headlines recently after she shared that she’s a “max three-hour mum”. She later clarified that she is home every night at 5:30pm for her kids’ bedtime routine. As for the weekend, she has dedicated/focused time with her kids for up to three hours, then takes a break for the rest of the day.

Video below, relevant section starting at 2:23:

Some news outlets are trying to paint this as controversial, but the comment sections that I’ve seen are all supportive. A lot of people spoke from the perspective of how their parents raised them and/or from their own perspective as parents themselves. It seems everyone agrees that a rested mom is the best mom. Many people said it was a practical model of modern parenting in an era where both parents work. One woman wrote about how their mom prioritized self-care and that they appreciated it, then and now, because of what it meant for her mom’s ability to be a better parent when they were together.

Why do we act like prioritizing parenthood is something we are all obligated to do? It doesn’t mean you love your kids less than your job, even if you do choose to prioritize your job. Frankly, as the wealth gap widens and we’re losing thousands, if not millions, of jobs to AI, it may actually be a mark of a good parent to prioritize their career. You love your kid, and the economy is going to shit; focus on what keeps a roof over their head and their field trips paid for. I realize that’s a bleak take, but blame your lawmakers, not me.

But anyway.

What’s more important to Emma Grede: being a parent or being a businesswoman? She didn’t say, and it would be rude to ask. But does the answer matter? Obviously, she loves her kids, and I don’t doubt they are well cared for. So, let’s say she chooses work; does that make her a deficient parent? I argue it shouldn’t.

Kim Kardashian is another woman who comes to mind when it comes to “high performance” working moms (for lack of a better term); high-income earners, constantly travelling, constantly working, etc.

Given how much she shows herself working on the show, I would guess Kim is not a super present mother. Like, she’s busy. But it’s not like she’s working all the time with nothing to show for it. Like Emma, Kim can give her kids access to the best schools, tutors, and extracurricular activities, and open a ton of professional doors for them. Also, in Kim’s case, her family gets together - aunts, cousins, and grandma - way more often than most families. And truly, a strong family unit is the most invaluable thing you can have. After a good hair straightener.

Also, in an episode of The Kardashians, Kim mentioned that she takes each child on a dedicated trip, just the two of them, once a year with each kid. That is a genuinely nice thing to do with and for your kid if you have the means. Also, Kim’s situation is a bit harder given that she’s married to a gotdamn psychopath. So she’s a solo parent to four, plus running a business empire.

As someone who works in family law, I have a very intimate look at the daily lives of everyday people and their everyday families. What we think is normal versus what is actually normal are on two different continents. I can tell you right now: Emma Grede’s kids are 1 percenters. Not just financially. They have both parents present; their mom and dad make time for them; and, obviously, all their basic needs are met. Three hours is more than many parents spend on their kids in considerate, kid-centric activities. Most parents force their kids to come with them to run errands or sit with them to watch TV, and that’s their idea of spending quality time together.

Also, what government agency is responsible for disbursing student loans? Kim Kardashian and Emma Grede’s kids are never going to know. How is that not great parenting?

Also, I grew up with a mom who worked, was rarely around, and did not earn a steady income (to put it lightly). Lemme tell you: a mom who is present regularly and reliably, and who can give their kids a massive financial benefit, is a great mom. And why can’t financial benefit be a quality of a good mom?? It’s a fucking great one if you’re a dad. In fact, if a man only offers financial benefits to his children, he’s like the #1 person to have ever lived. I’ll bet that Emma and Kim can offer financial benefits, and they know their children’s dates of birth. In absolute seriousness, how many fathers can say the same?

The understanding that a parent can prioritize work and still be a great parent is already something we understand as a society. We tell men they’re great dads all the time for providing for their families, even if they never change diapers and have no idea which school their kids go to. If simply providing is good enough to be a good dad, then why not the same for moms?

Let working moms prioritize their jobs in peace, just as we do for men.

As someone who remained amicable with all of her exes (with one exception), I like to think I have a good head on my shoulders about dating. I am by no means perfect, but every person I have ever dated could at least pass the “sounds good on paper” test, and I’ve never had a dramatic breakup. So, with that in mind, here are my personal takes on dating:

1. If you are a woman, there is a lot of dating advice that, on closer inspection, is meant to make you settle. Learn to recognize it.

2. It is unwise to base your relationship on a television show. I’ve heard friends talk about relationship woes and then bring it back to Sex and the City as a point of comparison to find a solution. It’s a great show, but it’s fake; it’s based on one person’s imagination. Don’t base your reality on fiction.

3. Don’t compare your relationships to influencers. They are marketers. They respond to whatever gets them views, which is often staged romantic gestures. They are incentivized to portray an idealized image rather than reality.

4. When you’ve seen a man in love, you’ll know that “if he wanted to, he would” actually is great advice. And the fact that people downplay that advice, in my opinion, is encouraging women to settle for men who don’t show up for them. You can’t be unreasonable in your asks, of course, but if it’s reasonable for you to say, “I want to see you more,” and he does not see you more, then you’re not important enough to him. It’s up to you if you want to accept that.

5. It’s unrealistic to be strict about a list if you cannot bring the same to the relationship. You want to date someone wealthy, but you have debt. You will only date someone taller than 6 ft, but you’re 5’2”. If you want someone who’s emotionally mature, then you should also be emotionally mature. I’m not saying you can’t date from your wish list, but you should be mindful of what the both of you bring to the table.

6. It’s easier to have a healthy dating life when you do not fear being single. If you’re scared to be alone, you are much more likely to hang on to people who, deep down, you know are not meant for you.

7. It’s okay if the first date is casual; you’re feeling each other out and seeing if there is chemistry. Especially if you met online. The second date, though, will speak to the interest in you. It should be substantially nicer and more thoughtful. If it isn’t, I personally would just move on.

8. Your anxiety is often your way of telling yourself the person isn’t right for you. Sometimes you can meet someone and can’t articulate the “why”, but you have a sense of things to end. Listen to yourself.

9. You need a partner to weather the storm of life with. Ask yourself if this is a person you will want around if/when you lose a parent, lose a job, or suffer a bad medical diagnosis.

10. You should also be upfront when something bothers you, especially if you date men. You’ll be surprised how often men crumble when you mention that something they did wasn’t cool. Anyone who cannot reflect on their behavior in a relationship is not fit to be in a relationship.

11. You should also not be in a relationship where you cannot have productive conversations about issues in the relationship out of fear of setting that person off and/or them threatening to leave.

12. Be hyper-vigilant of early warning signs. If they’re inserting themselves and their thing into your moment(s), they’re self-centered, maybe even a narcissist. If they find a way to diminish your accomplishment, they’re insecure, and they’re only going to feel better when they’re tearing you down - and people love to feel good about themselves.

13. Don’t take dating advice from anyone whose love life does not mirror what you want.

14. Be completely yourself. Whenever you hear a particularly moving wedding vow, everyone always says the best part of being in love is that they can be totally themselves with their person. Why would you give that up?

There is a misconception that just because a screen separates you, the rules of polite society don’t apply. I’m here to tell you that they very much do. A good rule to keep in mind: if it would be inappropriate in person, it’s almost always also inappropriate online.

Some of the worst offenders:

People who post images of their injuries online. First of all, how self-important are you that you think anyone wants to see that? It’s gross, and you’re weird for just putting that online. When a graphic image is shown anywhere else, it usually comes with a content warning because everyone else understands that it’s sensitive content and not something most people want to see. And yet, here you are, just putting that on social media, where it will come up without warning to other people. It’s objectively inconsiderate. If they aren’t your attending doctor or paramedic, know that no one wants to see that.

People who film birth content. And by that, I mean the whole process: from labour to aftercare. Having a baby is an incredibly sacred and intimate moment. You’re really prioritizing public attention over just being in the moment and, you know, focusing on your baby? I was scrolling TikTok the other day, and a new mother took the time to set up her camera and then filmed herself leaning on her husband as he helped her to the bathroom. WHAT.

Not to mention, this is still a medical procedure that’s taking place in a hospital with doctors and nurses present. Have respect for the staff working and the seriousness of medicine. Also, it’s not a great note that you’re about to be a parent, and you already can’t focus on your child when it matters most. Post a picture of the baby (cleaned up and neatly swaddled) instead of providing the public with this unrequested documentary.

People who post pictures of themselves kissing. It’s weird and impolite to share an intimate, romantic kiss with your partner in front of other people. That doesn’t change just because you’ve immortalized it in a photo and you’re showing me through a screen. The only exception is pictures from your wedding day. Or if you’re trying to make an ex jealous.

People posting pictures of their grandparents and/or parents suffering and/or dying in a hospital. This one should be obvious, yet I keep seeing people post pictures of their parents coming out of surgery, or of themselves holding their dead mee maw’s hand. What are you doing? This is not an instance where posting photos of a sick and vulnerable person or a corpse is warranted. If you have a loved one in a hospital, simply put out a typed message saying what the situation is, how to get in contact with you if necessary, and maybe a little note asking for thoughts/prayers for you and your family. We do not need the photo of that person at their lowest, and it’s low to do that to a so-called loved one.

Photos of your dead pet. What is wrong with you.

They, the poster, get the personal gratification of attention, and the rest of us are left grossed out.

If I worked in HR, this would seriously be something I would screen for in hiring. Because it does say a lot: do you have a sense of what is acceptable? Can you act appropriately? Do you have critical thought? Can you think of how your actions affect others? It might seem trivial, but I think it actually says a damn lot.

Anyway.

Actually, now that I think about it, there is one exception to the birth content. If you are from Ontario, and you are doing it to replace the birth video that used to play at the Ontario Science Centre (RIP). You know the one; you wander into a little room, no warning, and then suddenly you’re looking at bush. And then eventually a baby. A canon traumatic event if you grew up in the Greater Toronto Area. And future generations are going to miss out. 💔

Many of us never actually take the time to truly understand ourselves. We get into our routines, and we think that simply being us is enough of an understanding. And it’s not; we are all so much more deeply affected by the things in our lives than we realize. Kamala was right: we really do exist in the context of all in which we live and what came before us.

A fantastic tool in understanding the proverbial coconut tree you just fell out of is a journal. I have had my journal since 2017 - a classic black, lined Moleskine. I got it in Berlin, and its first use was to keep track of what I did throughout my 2-week trip. From there, it sat in a drawer for years, briefly coming out of retirement in 2019 to be used as a notebook for meetings. Then in 2023, I started law school and began journaling more regularly. I’m not super consistent. Sometimes it’s one entry a month. Sometimes it’s 3-4 times a week. It kind of depends on my emotional needs to be honest, but I will try to check in even when I am in a good place.

I know everyone talks about journaling, so maybe it’s just abstract background noise to you. But if you get the journal, write in it semi-regularly, and you’re brutally honest about what is happening and how you’re feeling, then you have a written account of who you are and how you react to what’s going on. And you’ll get to know yourself in reading old entries.

I also recommend reading your entries aloud, one after the other, once you’ve been at it for a while. You can hear the patterns and trends. If you have someone you can be vulnerable with, read it to them. I read my entries to my sister, and it was immensely helpful to hear myself out loud. I also loved having someone (who knows me very well) giving me feedback and talking through the entries with them.

I struggle with Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder (PMDD) and, for years, it was misdiagnosed as bipolar disorder. I tend to write in my journal more when I am going through an emotionally turbulent time. So, after years of semi-regular journaling, I have a decent account of what I was going through. I could see the regular patterns and read about experiencing the same feelings on a continuous cycle. Very helpful to have and to relay to my doctor for a more accurate diagnosis.

Having the journal helped me see the problem more clearly. I might not have taken it as seriously or prioritized working on myself without the glaring proof. It might have been easier to think, “whatever, I was just going through something”. But when you’re “going through something” regularly, it’s not a thing, it’s a pattern.

Even if you don’t have anything emotionally messy going on, I still suggest journaling. Write about the mundane, your friends, what you have planned for next week, etc. Get to know yourself by reading your autobiography.

Being an adult is hard and hectic. And even though society is embracing things like self-care and resting, it can still be hard to enjoy time off when it feels like you’re slacking off. But the enduring test of life is to find balance. So in honour of that, here’s my recommendation for progressing when you need a goddamn break: do the bare minimum.

Change does not have to be an immense and sudden effort. You can meet in the middle between you and the ultimate objective.

Don’t feel like running 10kms today? Do 1km.

Said you were going to clean the whole house, but lost your will? Then just clear off one surface.

Trying to read more, but can’t focus? Then just pledge to read a single page every day.

Failure is demoralizing. I’ve shifted my perspective to be okay with some effort instead of focusing on my inability to do the bigger task, and I recommend everyone do the same. It’s not only kinder to yourself, but it also turns your small effort into a win, which is much more motivating and better for your mental health. Starting with a smaller effort is also less daunting, so it’s easier to start. Also, sometimes the momentum builds, and you’re able to accomplish more than you initially set out to.

I’m someone driven by the need to accomplish. I’m also someone who can sometimes experience near-debilitating PMS-induced depression. When you already feel like shit, not accomplishing anything makes the feeling worse. I’ve found it very helpful to make super easy-to-do lists. Things like “brush the cat” or “wipe bathroom mirror”. Sometimes I’ll only brush the cat and/or wipe the bathroom mirror. Sometimes I’ll build off of the momentum and also cut the cat’s nails and/or clean the whole bathroom. More is great, but I’ve learned to find reverence in the bare minimum.

One thing they don’t warn you about when you pluck a kitten off the street is that having a cat is something you will be attacked for. If you’re on the internet and you speak up about sexism or dare challenge a man’s take, eventually one will come at you. But they don’t address your point. Instead, they look at your profile, see you have a cat, then circle back to call you stupid and bring up the fact that you have a cat.

How is having a cat an insult? My cat is awesome; he enriches my life and kills bugs. But I know what they really mean. I’m a woman with a cat, so therefore, what, I’m a loser in some way? I’m a lawyer, I have great friends and family, and I have TWO horses - my life is fucking awesome. When I moved, I had a box dedicated to just the awards I’ve collected over the last few years, and it was for everything from horse shows to best mediator. If that makes me a loser, I’ll take that L any day.

Or maybe it’s something else about having a cat that “cat lady” implies. Like, maybe that I’m single, so therefore I am pathetic? The fact that many men still perceive “single” to be an insult to a woman goes to show how out of touch they are. Not only do women enjoy their independence, but, in most instances, being with a man is burdensome. Why would you take on a burden if the other choice is simply not to??

Insane take that some men think it’s insulting for a woman to exist without a man. But that is exactly what these men say when they use “cat lady” or bring up cat ownership as an insult.

There is so much sexism in the idea that a woman can be insulted simply for not having a man. It also demonstrates how overly inflated many male egos are. What value do most men bring to women? Getting married adds to the amount of time women spend on housework. We also see insane shit like men who don’t know their kid’s birthdays, but that is COMMON. I work in family law - on more than one occasion, I have asked for a child’s DOB, and the dad was like, “I will email their mom”. Why would you want to integrate your life with someone like that?

Men who think it’s offensive to own a cat want a woman to have sex with, bear their children, and run a household. However, in this made-up scenario, their hypothetical wives can’t do that full-time because the majority of these men don’t make enough to afford for their wives to stay at home. Which means she’s going to have to do the work of raising children and running a household in addition to working. And yet these men think a woman is less-than for choosing to spare herself a tiring lifestyle. In their eyes, it’s more important for her to have a man than it is to be happy.

And that is gotdamn crazy.

I believe consistency is the most important factor in success. Actually, let me clarify because, to be more precise, it’s progressive consistency: doing something regularly while always wondering, “Can this be done better?”

Outside of the necessary human habits - showering, brushing teeth, eating- I don’t really do anything with super consistency. I had done 1,400+ days of French on Duolingo, and that was my crown jewel of consistency. But for the past few weeks, I admit that I just needed a break from French, so I switched to playing chess on Duolingo. It still counts towards my streak, though deep down, I know it’s not the same.

I’m currently out of a routine. I was living in London (Canada) until recently, and now I’m staying with family in Toronto with the expectation of moving to Kingston (Canada, still) within a month or two. So it’s not my space, my stuff is in storage, and I now live with four other routines to work around. I’m feeling very unsettled at the moment, so I’m trying to come up with one anchoring activity - that isn’t my job - that provides routine and regularity. I was going to make the effort to write every day, but even that I’m beginning to struggle with. Inspiration isn’t always available, and admittedly, it’s sometimes hard to tear myself away from my phone and focus.

But there is tremendous value in consistently doing something you don’t want to do, unfortunately. It builds resiliency, perseverance, and discipline - all critically important human characteristics. And as a 32-year-old, I’ve seen enough to appreciate how small, consistent work builds into great things. I will become an honest-to-God attorney in two months, and that took a lot of steps and actions over 5, maybe even 6, years (to date). My other big accomplishment was winning an adult equitation class a few years ago (a big deal to only me). But years (and thousands of dollars) went into getting that ribbon. The thrilling moments of life are rarely unearned surprise events, but rather the culmination of years of work and progress.

I very much enjoyed the process of becoming a lawyer and an equitation champion, but it was hard and demanded consistency. I put gruelling hours into studying for the bar every day, for months, often leaving the law building at 1 or 2 am. Driving to ride my horse 6 days a week, usually after work, was extremely taxing on my time and energy (also, to know me is to know I am tired of commuting in almost all capacities).

But was it all worth it? Fuck yeah. I went and got measured for my barrister’s robes today, and I just felt so gotdamn proud of myself. Not just because I’m becoming a lawyer, but because I kept going, no matter how draining it got. And it was really nice to see the culmination of that work when I looked at myself in a mirror with a barrister’s shirt and waistcoat on today.

All made possible by consistency.

The story dominating the internet this weekend is an accusation from soccer player, Jorginho, that Chappell Roan made his step-daughter cry.

You can read other articles that get into depth about what happened. But basically, the girl and her mother were in the same hotel as Chappell Roan. The little girl got up and circled Chappell’s table to see if it was her, then went back to her table, where she was then harassed by security. Initially, people thought it was Chappell Roan’s security, but the singer later clarified that it was the hotel’s, and she was completely unaware of the little girl and what had happened.

Since Jorginho’s post went up, much of the Internet has been relentlessly attacking Chappell Roan. I’ve seen it all over Reddit, Facebook, and Threads. People are bringing up her past interactions with fans, saying she should apologize to the girl and send her a gift, saying that she should not behave that way because she’s famous, etc. It’s not even what people are saying that I find alarming; it’s the volume. This story is everywhere, and a lot of people are stepping in to offer their two cents, which are often quite accusatory and mean.

It just frustrates me that a woman who was unaware of a situation and had nothing to do with it is expected to apologize and take accountability, all while having insults hurled at her as if she killed the kid or something. Sure, Chappell Roann is not known for being warm and fuzzy; she likes her privacy, and she has been very vocal about it. And there is nothing wrong with that. It would be nice if every celebrity wanted to interact with their fans, but they are not obliged to do that. We are not entitled to someone’s time and attention just because we like their work.

Everyone is attacking her, but I don’t think this incident should have happened in the first place because why was the little girl walking around Chappell Roan? Her mother allowed it, which she should not have. That may be a hot take, but see it from the level of Chappell Roan and Jorginho’s tax bracket. They’re famous (albeit I don’t know who he is, personally). They are staying in an elite hotel with other VIPs. As a child of a celebrity, you would think her parents would understand wanting privacy when you are not at work and just trying to enjoy breakfast. I know it’s exciting to see someone famous, but there is a time and place. Eating and/or using the washroom, I thought, were universally agreed-upon times celebrities should be left alone, no matter what.

And yet, some mom let her daughter go circle Chappell Roan in the middle of eating, the hotel security stepped in and told her to leave her alone, the kid cried, and then her step-dad took to Instagram to attack a singer for an incident that, as I understand it, he was not even there for. Like, am I missing something? What did she do that warrants such a huge public backlash?

This just goes to show the sickeningly high standard women are held to. Chappell Roan did nothing but because a man said she made his step-daughter cry, the public is still mad. The sitting US president is a known pedophile and started a war in West Asia to distract from the proof of his crimes. Why would we direct anger at a singer for wanting privacy over that??

And the kicker: Shia LaBeouf was caught on video yelling at a woman on a patio in Rome, and it’s getting minimal news coverage. A man was confirmed to be mean to a woman = minimal coverage. A woman wasn’t mean, but a man was upset anyway = national news.

Christ.

Lately, I’m having a lot of moments where I’m like “oh, this is what that is”, emotionally.

Like the fear of being perceived. I knew the phrase, but I sort of thought it was just a general fear of being judged. But, no, it’s more than that. It can also be a fear of putting yourself out there. I stumbled on a TikTok where the creator was talking about people being scared to post videos of themselves, and the adjoining comment section identified it as “fear of being perceived”. I then looked up further, and I was like, “Oh, hey, I have that”.

Sidenote: I have combed TT to find that video, but alas, cannot.

I’ve always loved creating things and taking pictures of things. And I love social media. I don’t know how other people perceive it, but to me, it’s like a hangout with 900 friends and me. I keep a private Instagram and only let people I know follow me. It’s crazy to think that I know almost 1,000 people. I also have 135-ish more in my requests. A lot of them are people I kind of knew, but for some reason, I just don’t want them looking at my life. Is that weird? Not that I have a super high bar of entry to my IG. One conversation with me was enough to grant you entry. Two conversations = close friends circle. But, still, I just don’t like the idea of so many eyes on my life. I don’t know why.

The thing is, though, when I am perceived, I am perceived super positively. So, my other “oh, that’s what that is” moment is that I have impostor syndrome. I thought that was just for when people felt like they maybe hadn’t earned the right to be in the job/school/space they were in, etc. I've never thought I didn’t belong because I know I work hard for what I have. But I cannot internalize compliments well. Apparently, that’s also a part of impostor syndrome.

For example, I get told I’m super smart and hilarious all the time. I think I’m funny-ish, and I know I’m smart in the sense that I can name every country (or most of them, I get the Guineas confused) and have common sense. But why shouldn’t I think I’m super smart? I have a gotdamn law degree. I was always a top player on trivia teams, often carrying the whole team (RIP Subpoena Coladas). And every essay I wrote in law school - and I wrote a lot - would always get like 85+ (that’s fantastic for law school - we averaged to a 75%). I even had the highest mark for the 1L Constitution essay exam.

But I think I discount my smartness because I’m not good at math or science. So, even though I do a great job of explaining complex legal and social topics in essays, I still don’t consider myself super smart. I also want to add that I’m super smart at strategy, problem-solving, and interpersonal skills; I won my law school’s mediation competition every year. With a different partner every time. Negotiation and persuasion are some of the most difficult human skills to master. People pay thousands to attend seminars to learn how to do it, and I’ve largely come by it naturally (though I'd definitely give Getting to Yes and How to Win Friends and Influence People credit). And I am objectively great at it - the awards are sitting on the shelf behind me. So why wouldn’t I believe I’m smart?! Like, I believe, but I don’t really believe.

I’m a pretty regular cannabis user (I grew up Catholic, so that is not something I ever thought I would say lmaooo), but it has really allowed me to open my eyes to my behaviours, feelings, and actions in a genuinely real and meaningful way. Stoners are not a respected people, but they (well, we now, I guess) were right about how weed helps you discover yourself. I feel like a lot of stuff has been coming to the surface, and I’m much more in tune with what drives me and my behaviour.

I never want to be the person with glaring flaws I don’t work on. One of my parents is that way, and let me tell you, it’s exhausting. So I follow the advice I would give myself. That includes reflecting on my actions, going to therapy, being absolutely honest with myself about my shortcomings and accepting I have them, and then actually committing to working on them.

I’m currently watching Louis Theroux’s new documentary on Netflix, “Inside the Manosphere”.

The film centres around the rise and prominence of alpha male culture online. In the documentary, Theroux meets several popular influencers in these spaces and gives us an inside glimpse into their lives.

If you’re not super familiar with the manosphere world, here’s a quick breakdown. It’s basically an online community of men who engage in toxic masculinity and misogyny in an effort to better connect with their sense of manhood. The ideas promoted are often that men should take care of themselves through fitness, be high-income earners, and hook up with as many women as possible, but also marry a virgin.

We’ve seen a rapid rise in incels and the “male loneliness epidemic”. The manosphere culture is seen as a solution for many of the men in these communities. The thing is, though, is that this movement is largely predicated on bullshit. It’s driven by a small group of male influencers who exist to make money. How they make money varies; it could be a financial course, teaching men how to be “more masculine”, how to pick up women, etc. But the thing they all have in common is that they count on peddling to male insecurities to sell these courses and/or drive views to increase revenue through viewership.

An important thing to consider is that these men don't appear to have any accreditations to speak of. They’re selling financial courses without a certification, they’re telling you how to treat women despite not having a healthy relationship of their own to point to, etc. So these influencers are building their livelihoods on dishonesty and misrepresentation.

So to summarize thus far: men on steroids and with no technical training are appealing to young boys and men for the purpose of drawing them in to buy courses.

Now, what’s the best way to grow an audience quickly? Get attention. What’s the best way to get attention? Do or say something outlandish. These creators are incentivized to say wild things because it stirs controversy and gets views. Often, their social media accounts are monetized, so they earn money from views. And then they get the attention of vulnerable young men and sell them on their courses. They are financially incentivized to say horrific things because it makes them money.

So if we want to curb the rise of this content, the answer is relatively simple: stop talking about it. That way, attention plummets, and so does their money and livelihood. And then they go away, and their ideology stops spreading. I don’t believe it will ever go away completely, or at least not any time soon, but it can definitely be suffocated.

And yes, I am aware of the irony of saying “we gotta give these people less attention” while also writing a blog post about them. But I refuse to tag any of their stuff. Big media outlets do, and that improves the manosphere SEO in addition to marketing them to broader audiences, and driving views.

People who watch monosphere content “ironically” count too. I was listening to the Sounds Like a Cult podcast’s episode on the manosphere last night. One of the speakers mentioned that manosphere videos occasionally pop up on her boyfriend’s feed, he’ll show it to her, and then they watch them together. Two things with that. One, most social media algorithms are curated to the person’s interests, so despite that speaker’s reassurance that her boyfriend was left-leaning, I’d say keep an eye on that, hun. And, two, those views still count toward the manosphere influencers’ monetization.

Now I’m not saying no one should keep an eye on things. But maybe leave it to one person to scope out the situation and write a full report, provided on a third-party website, so we all know what’s going on and can write our think pieces, while also starving these creators of the viewership they count on. We need to find a way to keep tabs on movements like this and alert the public without also fueling the fire.

Unfortunately, men who say kind and thoughtful things aren’t going to get large media attention. Our media thrives off of what horrifies us, and now this shit is everywhere because we all collectively keep giving it attention. Don’t look at it out of curiosity. Don’t tag their stuff. We need to strike a balance between staying aware of people like this while also being mindful about what kind of attention they’re given and the repercussions of it.