A historic day for the pill
  July 13, 2023 Hello again, Meteor readers, We are officially less than ten days away from the Barbie movie opening, and I don’t know about you, but I’m stoked. My boyfriend and I got matching outfits for the premiere, and today’s newsletter will actually be a 50,000-word essay unpacking the feminist significance of everyone’s favorite plastic doll.  Kidding! Today’s newsletter actually features a monumental step forward for reproductive rights, studio executives exhibiting “Christmas Carol” levels of villainy, trans people winning (what else is new?), and Justice Clarence Thomas’ latest ethics issues. Trying on every shade of pink I can find, Bailey Wayne Hundl  WHAT'S GOING ONA huge birth-control victory: For the first time ever, the FDA has approved a birth control pill for all-ages use without a prescription. Opill, a progestin-only pill to be taken once daily, is set to be available for over-the-counter purchase by early 2024, according to Perrigo, the pill’s manufacturer.  How did this feel for contraceptive experts? “Like Christmas!” said Dr. Heather Irobunda, an OB-GYN and one of the founders of Obstetricians for Reproductive Justice. “I’m very happy this happened. It’s an important step in destigmatizing reproductive health meds.” And it’s hardly a radical step: Birth control pills are already sold over-the-counter in over 100 other countries. But this victory serves as a powerful message that birth control is safe and popular—at a time when conservatives are beginning to target contraception, both culturally and politically. As the director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Dr. Patrizia Cavazzoni, pointed out, Opill is “safe and is expected to be more effective than currently available nonprescription contraceptive methods.” This decision does, however, raise questions we don’t yet have answers to:
And putting the pill—varieties of which have been safely used for five decades—on store shelves makes sense, says Dr. Irobunda. Keeping it prescription-only, she notes, signaled that “they didn’t trust us to know how to take it. This is a safe drug and can be easily managed, but ‘behind the counter’ made it something that we needed to consult with someone ‘who knows our bodies better’” in order to take. But as reproductive rights advocates have been saying this whole time, who knows our bodies better than us? AND:
 WEEKEND READSOn abortion rights: Last election cycle, all six states with abortion on the ballot scored a win for abortion access. This cycle’s game plan: Do it again, but even better. On (un)fair pay: “Orange is the New Black” was huge for Netflix—so why wasn’t it huge for all the people who worked on it? On positive masculinity: Toxic male gender roles can be like quicksand for young men. But there’s a way out. On “doing the work”: The Meteor’s Samhita Mukhopadhyay explores how social justice organizations can be as active in supporting their staffs as they are in supporting their causes.  FOLLOW THE METEOR    Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend?
|
The cops are sliding into your DMs
  July 11, 2023 High vibrations, Meteor readers, It’s 7/11! All my numerology girlies just nodded while the rest of you are wondering why I feel the need to state the date. But ~mystically speaking~ when those two numbers appear together, they become a powerful and affirming “angel number,” which numerologists say can serve as a reminder to move forward within your intuition and a sign that the universe is open to providing you with new opportunities.  Meanwhile, here on earth: we’ve got a troubling update on a Nebraska abortion case, an AI lawsuit, and a fond almost-farewell to Megan Rapinoe. Reading the stars, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONPrivacy: Last week, a mother in Nebraska pled guilty to helping her daughter obtain an illegal abortion and discard the fetus after it was expelled. Now Jessica Burgess and her daughter Celeste, 18, are both looking at jail time for their actions. You may remember Jessica and Celeste’s case from last August, shortly after the overturn of Roe v Wade, when charges were first filed against them. What made the case unique was not simply the fact that two women were going to be tried for acquiring and using abortion pills in a state where it was newly illegal—but also the questions the case raised about data privacy. A refresher: After Celeste found out she was pregnant, she and her mother communicated via Facebook messages and came up with a plan to end the pregnancy and discard the fetus so as not to leave behind any evidence. Because Celeste was already 20 weeks pregnant and Nebraska bans abortion after 12 weeks gestation, the two knew they could not go to a medical provider to do any of this—hence the secrecy. They thought the messages they shared about the ordeal were private. But Facebook’s parent company, Meta, turned over their correspondence to the police after being served with a search warrant (pertaining to a different investigation)—and the police had what they needed to charge the mother and daughter. The case was among the first to highlight just how vulnerable abortion seekers, many of whom rely heavily on online searches for care, had become in the immediate aftermath of Dobbs. As Shamira Ibrahim wrote for The Meteor last year, apps that use location data and cookie tracking “help law enforcement investigate and prosecute abortion-seekers and their respective networks of support.” That’s exactly what happened in the Nebraska case. Now the women face up to two years in prison, and a man who helped them bury the fetus was also charged and given probation. If you or someone you know lives in an abortion-ban state and needs care, Ibrahim suggests visiting the Digital Defense Fund, which provides steps for protecting your abortion-related data privacy—from Facebook, the phone company, and anyone else you don’t want to know your business. AND:
  FOLLOW THE METEOR    Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend?
|
Are legacy admissions inherently racist?
  July 6, 2023 G’day mates, It’s been a busy few days this week. First off, Wimbledon is underway. I’m trying to turn my infant into a tennis prodigy by osmosis, so we’re really getting into these matches together. Once it’s over, we’ll be hitting the court to see what she’s learned.  Also having a busy week: Mark Zuckerburg, who launched his latest offensive in the battle of the billionaires in the form of a new social media platform called Threads. Elon clapped back by threatening a lawsuit. Keeping all of the social media managers I know in my prayers tonight. If you’re one of the 10 million people who signed up for Threads in its first hours of life, give us a follow! In today’s newsletter, we’re chatting about college admissions, the attack on Jenin, and checking in on Greta Thunberg. Working on my forehand, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONOut of your (Ivy) league: The Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate affirmative action in college admissions is only seven days old. But Harvard, one of the schools at the center of the decision, won’t be getting any breathing room. On Monday, three civil rights groups came together to file a complaint with the Department of Education (DOE) against the school, challenging its use of legacy and donor-based admissions. The groups are arguing that these practices are in direct violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and “are not justified by any educational necessity.” Quick refresher on what legacy admissions are: If Biff Moneysworth graduated from Harvard in 1999, then that means Biff Jr. will get special consideration when his application hits the admissions desk. Because Jr. is more likely to get in, that means one less spot for someone like Joanna, a first-generation applicant who has the grades but not the family connections. Considering that people of color weren’t allowed to even apply to Harvard (let alone any other Ivy league school) until after World War II, who is most likely to benefit from the maintenance of legacy admissions?  Harvard’s response to the SCOTUS decision and this latest complaint leaves much to be desired: “The University will determine how to preserve our essential values, consistent with the Court’s new precedent.” Yes girl, give us nothing. Obviously, this doesn’t mean that people of color will never get into Harvard, but the barriers just got a lot higher. And while affirmative action was an imperfect Band-Aid to the institutional racism that spawned legacy admissions, it was something. The groups behind the complaint are asking the DOE to investigate Harvard’s use of legacy admissions and decide whether or not it violates Title VI. They’re also asking the DOE to cut federal funding to Harvard unless the school removes legacy and donor considerations from the admissions process. If successful, this could once again change the landscape of college admissions—or at least force the courts to treat all forms of “preference” equally. But in such a secretive and subjective process, racism will always find a way through. As Dr. Anne A. Cheng told us last week, “The problem with college admissions is that it is itself such a vague process; it takes into consideration many factors, and every factor itself has the potential to hold racial and gender bias.” AND:
 WEEKEND READSOn immigration: How Trauma Migrates tells the story of migrant women’s journeys across America’s southern border and the untreated trauma that lingers once they make it. On SCOTUS: Did the Robed Ones quietly legalize stalking? Sort of. On sports: The iconic Venus Williams was defeated in the first round of Wimbledon this week, but her legacy reaches beyond even her 11 previous title wins. On parenthood: Diaper legislation? It’s a thing. And with the loss of abortion access, the once invisible problem of “diaper need” is more glaring than ever.  FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend?
|
SCOTUS v. Affirmative Action
 June 29, 2023 Greetings, Meteor readers, It’s an unfortunate day for higher education. This morning, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling that will effectively end affirmative action in the college admissions process, rolling back what Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissenting, called “decades of…momentous progress” and presenting yet another barrier for students of color. As a Latina from one of the poorest counties in the state of New York, the process of getting into college was grueling—years of Latin to help me perform better on the SAT, endless extracurriculars, the pressure to get high grades, the money my mother shelled out for an exorbitant prep-school tuition bill. All based on the understanding that I would only succeed if I was extraordinary. Only to finally make it and get called a “spic” by a stranger who wrote it on my dorm room door. It’s laughable that affirmative action was seen as preferential treatment when, for many of us, it was simply a way to gain access to a historically white institution and then spend four years proving you earned your way in. In today’s newsletter, Samhita Mukhopadhyay talks to Princeton University professor Dr. Anne A. Cheng about the ways students of color have been pitted against one another in this debate. Thinking of all the multicultural student unions today, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ON
 SCOTUSCutting Race-Based Admissions Will Not Help Asian American Students“Why do we assume that if you keep down the number of Asian Americans, you'll get more African Americans?” BY SAMHITA MUKHOPADHYAY  (IMAGE BY BILL CLARK VIA GETTY IMAGES) Today, the Supreme Court struck down the practice of affirmative action in college admissions. In two cases—one against Harvard and another against the University of North Carolina—the plaintiffs argued that considering race in the admissions process was a discriminatory practice, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The decision has been looming for months, but its implications are yet to be seen. That’s partly because the cases themselves are complicated, bringing to the surface core tensions in affirmative action—who it includes, who it leaves out, and why we ultimately need it. I spoke to Dr. Anne A. Cheng—a scholar of Asian American and African American literature and cultural theory at Princeton University—about all of it. Samhita Mukhopadhyay: What were your thoughts when you first heard the Supreme Court would be looking at race-based admissions in colleges? Dr. Anne A. Cheng: It is very complicated. Affirmative action is an imperfect and yet still necessary solution to a very broken social system in America. I am stunned by how persistent the debate is around affirmative action. I remember a long time ago, when I was a graduate student at Stanford, I was stopped on campus by someone wanting to take a photo of me because they wanted it to go with an article about some scandal about Asian American admission at Stanford and other elite institutions. That was several decades ago, and it's like we are still there. The thing that I've been trying to parse out in understanding the implications of this case are narratives like the myth of the model minority and how often immigrant communities are pitted against the African American community. Some of the plaintiffs in this case are Asian American students who believe that Black and Latine students were picked above them. Do you think there is validity to that anxiety? There are two different anxieties that I always see around this issue. One is Asian Americans feel like…there's a quota on them. [The Harvard case argued that Asians were discriminated against because race-conscious admissions led to Asian applicants scoring lower marks on traits like likeability, whereas the UNC case argued that Asian and white students were denied admission, their spots taken by Black and Latine students]. But there is [an] anxiety about Asian Americans overrunning American universities. And so, you're right...Somehow, affirmative action—at least race-based affirmative action—always seems to imply that it can only benefit African Americans, not also Asian Americans. College admissions, as you can probably guess, is an extremely closely guarded practice, and faculty are kept far out of it. We know nothing about undergraduate admission. The admission office [doesn’t] ask us for counsel. They don't ask for opinions. They don't even tell us anything. Would I be surprised to find out that there is a quota? No, I would not be surprised. It’s such a complicated process. Even if you say something like, ‘We're not looking at race at all, we're looking at a well-rounded individual.’ Well, what constitutes well-roundedness, right? Some Asian American or Asian students might say if you are an applicant and you are Asian American and, let's say, you are interested in science—you are immediately pegged as this nerd that's not well-rounded. There are all these stereotypes at play. And so I think that part of the problem with college admissions is that it is itself such a vague process; it takes into consideration many factors, and every factor itself has the potential to hold racial and gender bias.  BLACK AND ASIAN STUDENTS PROTESTING ON DIFFERING SIDES OF THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DEBATE JUST THIS MORNING. (IMAGE VIA ANNA MONEYMAKER VIA GETTY IMAGES) I think that's why this case is so complicated. One of the things the plaintiff is arguing is that Asian American students were more likely to be ranked as not being well-rounded or having lower marks in personality or certain softer skills, which is a type of implicit bias. Yes, it's a very, very, very stubborn and old bias. There's a psychology study done by a psychologist called Susan Fiske. It's called a warm competency test, where she interviewed a bunch of people about their perceptions of Asians and Asian Americans in America along two vectors. One is, are they warm or are they cold? Like: likability. The other question is, are they competent? As you can exactly guess the answer, most people—that is to say, most non-Asian people—found Asians to be competent but unlikeable. This unspoken, unconscious bias is not just Asian Americans, but African Americans and Latinos, too. When you talk about a well-rounded person, we're also talking about, in many cases, the question of class. If you're from a middle-class family, then yes, you had the opportunity to take cello lessons and play soccer and do whatever. But if you come from a lower-income household, there's much less opportunity for you to be a tennis player and a chess player. That kind of well-roundedness has a class dimension. How do I say this? From my reading, there may be validity to the idea that Asian American students applying to Ivy League schools experience some kind of discrimination. But the solution is not to strike down affirmative action—it could also be to expand affirmative action implementation so as also to include Asian Americans. Because ostensibly, it's supposed to, right? Well, there's been a lot of debate about that. I think that [sometimes] affirmative action does not include Asian Americans because they're not considered minorities in certain places. The other thing that's sort of very vexing is that there's a sense often that the so-called “too many Asian Americans” [are] taking spots away from other racial minorities, rather than the fact that they're taking spots away from whites! Why do we assume that if you keep down the number of Asian Americans, you'll get more African Americans? It's weird. Right. I mean, that's why it's a red herring. It's not real. It's a total red herring. All it does is, I think, drive the wedge between Asian Americans and other racialized minorities. It doesn't actually acknowledge that when it comes to elite institutions, I think the anxiety should be much less about how many Asians there are and much more about how they are treated once they are here. That’s true for African American students and Latine students, too—admissions is only one part of this. Yeah, absolutely. It's not just about letting them in. It's about creating a culture in which they can thrive. What do you think is the best strategy for universities to retain the most diverse talent they can? I wish that institutions would think about diversity as a genuine intellectual project and not as a numbers game. Because if they thought it was a genuine intellectual project... The number games mean that you try to get the numbers up so you look like you are an anti-racist institution. But if you're serious about it, it means not only making sure diverse people get in, but also that you are ready to foster these diverse people. You're ready to meet them where they are and then nourish them and help them grow. Do you feel anxious about the outcome of this case? I do…Young people, what they really need is a chance, an opportunity. That's what affirmative action does: give an opportunity to someone who may not otherwise get it.
 FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
Brittany Packnett Cunningham Talks to Vice President Kamala Harris After a Year Without Roe
  June 21, 2023 Good morning, friends! Coming to you with something big today, so let’s get straight to it. Kamala Harris’s vice presidency was always going to be historic—she is, of course, this country’s first Black, first AAPI, and first female vice president. But a year ago this week, when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the administration she represents was also faced with history of a different kind: millions of its citizens stripped of their bodily freedom after an unprecedented Supreme Court decision. How has she responded? What does she plan to do next? And, in the words of podcast host Brittany Packnett Cunningham, “Are you mad? Because I'm mad, so I know you gotta be mad!” To find out, Brittany sat down with the Vice President last week. Their conversation comes to you today as a special episode of UNDISTRACTED (listen here); in it, they talk about everything from the urgency of this moment to the advice Shyamala Gopalan Harris would have for her daughter now. Here, Brittany tells us all about their sit-down. 
First things first—why did you want to talk to the Vice President for this particular anniversary? Brittany Packnett Cunningham: We’ve been intentional at UNDISTRACTED to speak to people from all angles on this issue—people who’ve had abortions, organizers, folks who defend the clinics…I wanted to talk to a person who has more power than most to do something about this. And to have a woman in the VP role—I thought it was especially important to hear from her. I’ve known the VP for a long time…when she was in the Senate, she would call to hear my POV on issues of policing, of race, of gender…I’ve been very candid with her. What I heard in our conversation in the podcast is similar to what I’ve heard in private conversations with her: a lot of justified concern, and frustration, and a very clear fight. Yeah, there’s a moment when you say to her, I feel like I’m seeing that Senate Judiciary Committee fire from you. You’re talking about the questions she asked in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. Why was that on your mind? I remember her bringing such a real clear-eyed drive to get at the truth in those hearings. That energy is what people saw from her even before she became the VP nominee, and it’s something that even people who don’t agree with her politically appreciate about her. I wanted to see how she was bringing that fire to this fight. Of course, everybody does not like the way fight and fire look on Black and Asian women—and the stereotype that goes along with that, especially for Black women, can be undermining to the work that she’s trying to do and the people she has to persuade to do it. She spoke to having to navigate that, and it was revealing to see behind the curtain a bit. There’s a science to it that she’s had to figure out that no one else has had to in that job. So how do you measure up what the administration is actually doing on abortion? The Vice President was pretty honest that the Women’s Health Protection Act is not going to pass this session. Listen, especially knowing the history that Joe Biden has of wanting to work in a bipartisan manner, I’m realistic about how far he is willing to go. But on a number of issues the filibuster is going to continue to be a thorn in the side of the American people, and there is no way forward unless we get rid of it. I don’t get the sense that [President] Biden is willing to upset his Republican colleagues in order to do that—even though they would not give him the same consideration. So, while we work long-term to get a filibuster-proof congressional majority, we still have to push him on the filibuster and court reform. What else would you like to see the administration doing on this issue, especially as we head into 2024? They should be following the Vice President’s and organizers’ lead in being unafraid to say the word abortion—and to destigmatize this medical procedure. The administration should be getting behind candidates up and down the ballot who are pro-bodily autonomy. And they need to be pushed to be unafraid to explore all options, including expanding the Supreme Court. Speaking of 2024: Republicans are already coming at Harris hard with racism and misogyny. How can we all counter that? We need to not fall for the bait. The bait is going to be the perpetuation of culture wars, including banning abortion and banning gender-affirming medical care, and banning Black history. And the bait is also going to be a messaging strategy that tries to convince us that that’s not happening. We’re gonna continue to be gaslit. It’s going to be up to candidates who want to stand on the right side of history and who, as my mother would say, won’t fall for the okeydoke. And it’s going to be up to voters to remain on fire. The challenge is that Republicans have dispersed [the abortion] fight, so it’s happening locally and at state levels and it’s easy to get distracted and forget how important this is, this year and next year. Listen to the interview with Vice President Kamala Harris now.  THIS EPISODE OF UNDISTRACTED IS SPONSORED BY:  Hey Jane is health care, on your own terms. As the most-trusted virtual clinic offering telemedicine abortion care, we’re proudly putting the power back in people’s hands by providing care that’s private, safe, supportive, accessible, and convenient—for less than the average in-clinic cost of a medication abortion. Learn more about our services here, and how you can support Hey Jane here.  FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend?
|
A Year of Abortion, Every Day
  June 20, 2023 Dear Meteor readers, When I think about culture-shifting moments of the past, I always wonder if the people living through them actually knew how profound the change was. In the case of June 24, 2022, I think many of us did know. That morning, when the United States Supreme Court published its decision in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and in a single day undid five decades’ worth of hard earned abortion rights, I heard the news from my husband in the simplest of sentences, “They did it.” This week we’re suspending our regular programming to take a step back and reflect on what has happened in the year since they did it. Leading up to the one year anti-versary on Saturday, we’ll be bringing you daily stories from the front lines, and the reality of what birthing people have been forced to endure in A Year Without Roe. Today, we hear from a journalist who’s covered all of it; tomorrow, one of the most powerful leaders in the world reflects on what’s next. And we’ll also be thinking about the future and the possibility of making history once again in the fight to win back our reproductive freedom. To paraphrase The Beatles, there’s nothing they can do that can’t be undone. Taking it one day at a time, Shannon Melero  REPORTER'S NOTEBOOKA Year of Abortion, Every DayJournalist Jessica Valenti has published over 300 abortion stories since Roe v. Wade fell last year. Here’s what she’s learned. BY SAMHITA MUKHOPADHYAY  Jessica Valenti has been doing feminist work for over two decades. She was one of the founding editors of the blog Feministing and has written or edited seven books on feminism, sexual consent, and more. But this year, she has been relentlessly focused on one topic: abortion. Her daily newsletter, Abortion, Every Day, has become an essential resource for anyone who cares about the issue, and the title doesn’t lie: She has taken only one day off since she began publishing last summer. I wanted to talk to my friend about what she's learned—but first, we had to reminisce. Samhita Mukhopadhyay: We've known each other for a long time—25 years! I remember the first thing we worked on together was the Vagina Monologues in college. You were making T-shirts. Jessica Valenti: That's right! That's right! The bedazzled clitoris. …that we wore to watch the Vagina Monologues, and then probably also to Take Back the Night. Oh my God. True nineties. Well, I share this to establish a little context here. You've been doing feminist work for a long time. It's your way of calling me old. I understand. Well, if you're old, I'm old too. Do you consider yourself a feminist journalist or an activist? Both—but if I had to choose one, I would choose activism, especially now. For me, feminism and journalism [are] natural allies because of the way that journalism is supposed to be about making things accessible to people, telling the truth, and holding powerful institutions and people accountable. 
Like most feminists, I have felt like this for at least the last 10 to 15 years because even with Roe existing, the attacks were ongoing, and restrictions were being implemented. Abortion has not been available in many parts of the country for a very, very long time. But, obviously, now that it's nationwide that folks have lost the right, there's a different kind of attention being paid, rightfully so. And it's always been really frustrating. I'm sure you feel this way, too, when you're like, "Hey, look at this thing. Look at this thing. Look at this thing!" And to you, it's this very clear picture, and you're pointing it out over and over again, and you're constantly being patted on the head and told not to worry. We were told we were delusional. So take us back to a year ago. Where were you when the Dobbs decision came down? That day is almost blocked [for me] because my moment was after the decision was leaked [in May 2022]. I was sobbing. And I just kept saying, “My daughter.” I just kept thinking about her. It hit me in the pit of my stomach. By the time the decision was actually released [on June 24, 2022], I was far gone. I had switched from denial to anger. How have things changed for you in the last year? I just naturally started writing about abortion all the time. I just couldn't stop tracking things, and researching things, and looking at things. It made me feel more in control of a generally uncontrollable situation. What’s your goal with Abortion, Every Day? We're trying to put out comprehensive reports that track everything but also provide a throughline of information because one of the biggest strategies for the anti-abortion movement is to make us feel completely inundated and overwhelmed into inaction. And so the hope is that if people understand what is happening, they'll feel like they're informed and empowered to do whatever they have to do. Have you learned anything new from just being in the weeds this much in the last year? I have learned that the anti-choice movement actually gives away the game constantly. They are laying [out] what they're going to do, in all sorts of ways, if you know where to look and how to listen. They are so much more ignorant than people realize. And they say the wildest stuff and put their strategy out there in this very explicit way. It's just that it's not being seen, and it's not being reported on. You’ve broken a lot of stories. What’s been the most shocking thing you've reported so far? It's all shocking. It's all awful. I published something last week about a young woman in Texas who couldn't get an abortion even though her fetus had no head. And in Texas, they are manufacturing abortion complication data. Everything that they're doing is shocking. What is it actually going to take to get these stories to penetrate the mainstream in some way? I think we're going to be at a point soon where you're not going to find a single person in America who hasn't been touched by an abortion restriction or an abortion ban in some way. Whether it's themselves, a family member, or a member of their community, it is not going to take long for this to impact everyone. And I think part of what we need to do, and what Democrats need to do, and the mainstream media needs to do, is to start treating the issue for what it is—which is a winning issue. It's something that Americans are not split on, not polarized about. Americans overwhelmingly support abortion rights, and it's just a small group of extremist legislators who are imposing their will on the majority of voters. And the more that we talk about that, the better off we're going to be. It sounds like you're hopeful. I am hopeful in the long run, but that doesn't take away from the everyday suffering that's happening. That's the hard bit. It's like, yeah, we probably will win this, eventually. But in the meantime, a lot of people are going to be hurt. 
Samhita Mukhopadhyay is a writer, editor, and speaker. She is the former Executive Editor of Teen Vogue and is the co-editor of Nasty Women: Feminism, Resistance and Revolution in Trump's America and the author of Outdated: Why Dating is Ruining Your Love Life, and the forthcoming book, The Myth of Making It. (Photo by Heather Hazan)  THIS TIME LAST YEARA year ago today, Renee Bracey Sherman spoke with Samhita on what people could do after SCOTUS ruled on Roe. Her prediction: “It’s going to be fucking chaos.” She was right.  FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
Gabrielle Union on Trauma, Healing, and Her “50/50” partnership
By Rebecca Carroll
Let me tell you what Black folks are going to do: survive. And no one knows that better than actress Gabrielle Union, who has spoken very openly about the 30-year battle with PTSD she’s experienced since being raped at gunpoint when she was 19. Union’s trauma came to a head last year while filming the true crime series “Truth Be Told"—and on the eve of her 50th birthday, she decided it was time to lean in to her family and friends for a life-changing, revitalizing experience. That experience became “Gabrielle Union: My Journey to 50,” a two-part BET+ series that follows Union and her family, including her 4-year-old daughter, Kaavia, across four different African countries—a profoundly intimate narrative of discovery that I had the joy of discussing with my friend, Gabrielle Union.
Rebecca Carroll: You experienced a breaking point while you were filming “Truth Be Told”—it re-triggered your trauma. How did that happen?
Gabrielle Union: We were filming a story about the sexual brutality of Black and brown teenage girls in the Bay Area—I don’t think it's a spoiler alert at this point—and the courthouse where my character is shot is the same courthouse I testified in for the grand jury [for my rape]. And it was like every episode broke something in me, and revealed shit. Everything became crystal clear over the five months of filming, and by the time [my character] dies, I died. I was not myself. I was not well by any stretch of the imagination…When you are empty, trauma takes hold, it takes root, and that becomes the center. It becomes your nucleus.
I’m not a crier, but every day I would walk in—it still makes me emotional now—I would walk into my husband’s side of our room, and he would just be there with his hands out, and I would just sob for 19-year old me, and what I had actually survived. And even when I would tell the story [over the years since], it was telling it from a place of disassociation. I was completely separate from it.
Are you able to give yourself the grace for that disassociation?
Yes. It was necessary to make it. You know what I mean? No hyperbole, no cap. I would not have made it. It's too much. It was breaking me at 49. I can't imagine at 19.
In your new BET+ series, there is this palpable sense of rebirth, liberation, and renewal. But because I know you, I know that this is not the first time you have experienced these feelings—how does this particular milestone feel different, and what made you want to capture it on film?
I was so depleted emotionally, and by the time I was getting on the plane [to Africa], I was just dust. I didn’t even have large enough pieces [of myself] to fake it at that point. But I knew I would get my bearings the second we landed, because that has always been true to me. I had been there before, but I used to have no idea what to expect. Each country was new. But as the trips started stacking up, I was like, “Boy, every time I set foot on the continent, my shoulders unclench, I feel seen and acknowledged as a whole person, and I can get back to myself.” It’s different being somewhere where you are acknowledged as a human being, and not necessarily extraordinary or deficient. It’s nice not having to feel like you always have to flex. I could just exist as one of millions who look like me, and it allowed me the time and the space and the grace to look even further to what I didn't even know existed.
At one particularly emotional point in the series, Dwyane [Wade, Union’s husband] is talking about how you are evolving together in real time, which made me think a little bit differently about this silly dust-up a few weeks back, when you shared in an interview that you two split the household bills 50/50. People on social media couldn’t believe that you were paying half when your husband is an NBA star with a multi-million-dollar net worth. But what I saw in this series is that you two truly are 50/50—not just financially, but in all ways.
Yeah. That’s my potna and my partner.
I know that’s right. The other thing, though, is the scarcity mindset that I think a lot of Black folks experience—if you don’t come up with money or financial security, the anxiety of not having it never goes away, no matter how much you make as an adult.
We come from a people where it’s like, you are your brother's keeper. You are everybody’s keeper. And if you have it, then we have it. And I subscribe to it. I am an active participant in that. I have three separate households that I’m a hundred percent responsible for. D has even more. There is exactly one person in each of our lives who has ever met the other halfway, and that is each other.
That is amazingly powerful.
And the most loving, joyous thing! I like working, I like contributing. I like going half on a dream home, because it's our dream. I like going half on our baby, because that was our dream. I'm not chasing him around for 50 cents if he buys some Doritos. It's not like that. I certainly used all his points and miles to pay for this Africa trip, I will gleefully say that. But knowing what it feels like to be met halfway, and how good and reassuring and how protective that feels—it’s also a lot easier to go into a 50/50 situation knowing somebody can easily pay for a hundred percent.
And he knows that as well. Now, is my money long? No, but can I hold us down. Are we losing this house or are our kids going to be pulled out of private school? No, I got it. Because that’s how I’ve lived my life. I have it. I will have it. I'll find it, and we'll be okay. So it's easier to get into a 50/50 situation knowing that if push comes to shove, nobody's totally fucked. If it's different in your house? You like it, I love it. I'm not saying that this is what's great for everyone. But I'm definitely not stupid or deficient because I like to pay for half of my life and the children that I have created.
Speaking of family—you’ve always emphasized family and friends, many of whom joined you on this journey to Africa. Why is that so important to you?
I come from both sides of big families. And my family don't play about each other. We just don't. We call ourselves the dozens of cousins for a reason. If I need to fight, say the word. Nothing brought [my parents] more joy than delivering for their family. And I grew up seeing that. Nothing makes me happier than providing for my family and my community, and I wouldn't have been able to say that 20 years ago.
Even though you were gaining enough financial stability of your own to help them?
Even though I was giving financially, I didn't feel worthy of the position. I felt like I was unseen and unloved in my industry. And it took me probably until 40 to really revel in it, and to be outspoken about this joy and how hard fought it was, because before that I still [thought], “If the God of white supremacy and the white gaze don't see me, then nobody can.”
[But] nobody ever let me fall—not in my industry family, not in my personal family. I tell the story about Regina King literally saving me from the riptide. That's true as fuck. I talk about Tisha Campbell paying for therapy—I’m still seeing [that therapist] to this day, 25 years later. I've just been very lucky that people were not interested in watching me fail. And I'm not interested in watching me fail. And now I feel worthy.
When you were in Ghana, you visited the Last Bath river, where enslaved people were bathed before being loaded onto slave ships for America. It was intense; tell me about it.
As I said [in the series] when I came out of that river, “Oh, this is my superhero origin story.” Right. Holy shit, I am unstoppable. And I fucking believe. Holy fuck. Oh, it's on. It is on like Donkey Kong, and I can't fucking wait. I wish a motherfucker would, because I'm ready.
You said earlier that all of this started because you had arrived at a place of feeling depleted—how do you feel now?
Whole. There’s still some cavernous spaces that can be filled, but I want to try to leave myself open to what's to come and what I don't know—which is a lot. We know as African-Americans what happened on the other side of the Middle Passage, but we are less secure in our knowledge of who was left behind and what our collective mass absence did for generations. It left a gaping, festering wound all across the diaspora. And we just aren’t as familiar with that.
It's always amazing to talk to you, Gab.
I live for our talks, and I thank you, because I needed something different today. I've been doing [interviews] all day, but this is the first real one, so I appreciate you.
Right back at you.
A Seat at Audie Cornish's Table
“The goal isn't to make people feel foolish or dumb.”
BY REBECCA CARROLL
Veteran journalist Audie Cornish does not come to play. The former co-host of NPR’s All Things Considered has long been considered a serious interviewer (at CNN, where she moved last year, she recently took now-former chief Chris Licht to task for platforming Trump). Now she has a new podcast on CNN called “The Assignment.” And whether it’s questioning a parent activist on their true motivations or talking to an OnlyFans star, she knows exactly what she’s doing and why she’s doing it. As a fellow interviewer who is slightly obsessed with the process, I was eager to hear more about Cornish’s own style—and what stays with her after it’s all said and done.
Rebecca Carroll: You’ve long emphasized your commitment to amplifying the voices of “regular people” in your work. In this social media-crazed landscape—I think I’ve heard you refer to it as the attention economy, where people are not really interested in regular folks unless they go viral—my question for you is, how do you make regular folks interesting?
Audie Cornish: ...There wouldn’t be social media if we weren’t all interesting and interested in each other, and it wouldn’t have changed the celebrity journalism landscape. We have a system that rewards what we call “stars”—people who we think have a singular magnetism and talent who are cultivated as such, and put on a pedestal for much of their lives, until we tear them down. I think what I'm saying is…We also can share our actual knowledge, share the wisdom that we've learned in our lives, and I'm finding that to be really deeply engaging.
I went all the way back to listen to the first episode of “The Assignment” in preparation for this interview. And in that episode, you are engaged with two parent activists from Florida whose primary concern, it seemed to me, was that teachers in schools are teaching their children with the bias that America is a racist country. But America is a racist country. You navigated the conversation deftly, but I wondered if you ever felt, specifically during that interview, like saying, “Actually, you’re wrong. That’s just not factually correct”?
I think what you’re asking for is a different kind of show. And I don’t mean to be obtuse here, but you saying with such certainty that it’s a racist country—there are very many people who would say the exact opposite with complete and total certainty! And I think that in that first episode what I wanted to introduce to the audience was that this is a show where you're going to get heard all the way out, and if people dislike you, it’ll be for your best take, not your worst take. The goal is not to make people feel foolish or dumb; it's to find people who are in the middle of a maelstrom of some kind, who are in the middle of a story that's changing rapidly, and to find out what it's like for them.
I think what I wanted to do with that first show is to get everyone situated, no matter what your political beliefs are—to say, “Okay, this is how we're going to talk at my table.” And there are plenty of places for you to go where people will be like, “You're racist, please leave.” But this table is not that.
What is it that you’re really trying to do with the show? And how you are feeling as you do it in a climate where we are grappling with divisive news outlets and audiences, and an industry that is under enormous scrutiny in general?
Every single episode is through the lens of: This is a weird corner of the world [where] something's going on, and what really is it? Is it really a fight about school boards, or is it about your fundamental vision of this country and how you seek to 'rectify' a story that's been told about it? I think [the existing news landscape] makes it really hard for people to understand the scope of problems sometimes. Everything is just kind of something on the internet that makes me mad. I just think not knowing is not helping.
What drives your curiosity, and how do you keep the faith that an interview is going to yield that unique conversation?
I have no such faith. No audience is given unearned. Nobody is owed anything. This is the news. This is journalism. This is actually how my brain works: I want to know, “What are you really getting at? What's your motivation for being here? Why are you here and not there?” And to me, that’s everything, that’s life. It’s the root of us.
Say more about that.
I just approach everything like a listener. I have questions, and I think that's really it. That's not a catchphrase. I think if I had more answers, I'd be an activist. Because then my job as an activist is to imagine the world as it could be and try to convince people to get there. What drives me is question, question, conversation, question, question, conversation. That's where I live and breathe. I keep going because there's more stuff to ask, because there’s more to tease out and pull apart to help find clarity.
So who helps you find the clarity?
I mean, my guests? I pick my topics for a reason. I think everyday people do have answers and common sense. They want the same things. They want to take care of their kids. They want to take care of their families. And in general, they don't want to hurt other people to do it, ideally. I think my nature, as I learned from one of our episodes, as a Libra, is to try to find some kind of balance. I want to find the person who really knows the answer. And I'm just going to keep booking guests until I find them.
And what does it feel like when you find the answer?
Imagine that feeling you had as a kid, that high. Like the moment when you learn something you didn't know, or you heard something you didn't know. You never feel that?
But I’m asking you, because you do have a tendency to answer questions with questions.
I mean, it's real. It's not a shtick. That's my high, that's my drug. And now I've learned something new—this conversation is going to transform how I think of you and us, because we had this moment. And that's very different from the relationship we had before, which was at a distance. I mean technically, I know what you think, I've read your work, but I didn't really know you. I think that people sometimes mistake those online personas as knowing people and what they're all about, and being able to say, “Fuck off.” I will never be able to say that to you, because we had our moment of intimacy and dialogue, and that’s amazing. I could do that all day.
I wonder about these moments, and both the connections made between you and your guests, and the connection your guests make with each other. Do you miss them after the conversation is over?
Oh my god, I hear their voices in my head all the time. Whatever they felt, I feel for days after. But I don't regret having [the conversation], and I've exchanged lovely notes with them since. But all my notes are pretty much the same, which say, “Thank you.
Get Ducked, Greg Abbott
 June 6, 2023 Howdy, Meteor readers, I’m going to start this newsletter the same way I’ve been starting every conversation I’ve had since Sunday: Have you seen the new Spider-Man? Okay, hear me out before you scroll down to the adult conversation! This is not your average comic book superhero film. It is a moving, thoughtful, visual experience and an absolute feat in physical and racial diversity. I don’t want to spoil anything for anyone, but the Spiderverse literally has a Spider-person for everyone. I can honestly say that I haven’t left a theater on such a high since I saw Black Panther. Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way: In today’s newsletter, we’ve got more bans than we know what to do with—and, finally, some happy news from our AI overlords. (No, it’s not that they’ve thought twice about killing us). Spidey-sense tingling, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONWhen transphobia backfires: I regret to inform all of you that Greg Abbott has Greg Abbott-ed once again: On June 2nd, the Texas governor signed into law a bill that bans gender-affirming care for trans kids, making Texas the 18th (and largest) state to do so. On its heels quickly followed a similar ban in Louisiana, once presumed dead but resurrected by Republican shenanigans. And it won’t be the last: seven other states are considering bans just like it. However, some recent court cases suggest that these bills’ rhetoric may work against them in the long run. US District Court Judge Robert Hinkle issued a preliminary injunction today against Florida’s brand-new ban, likely precluding its enforcement. Hinkle’s ruling directly cited “bigotry” (yes, he used the actual word! In a court document!) as part of the decision. He claimed the ban had “no rational basis” and referenced the moment when Rep. Webster Barnaby (R) called trans people “mutants” and “demons.” That kind of language actually pops up frequently in right-wing legislation: A recent ACLU lawsuit challenging Idaho’s gender care ban references several examples of bigotry from Idaho lawmakers, including likening trans people to “Frankenstein.” Journalist Erin Reed, who records many of these statements, tweeted that getting Republicans to “say the quiet part out loud” can be an effective tool for dismantling these bans in court. So keep telling us what you think lawmakers—it may be your undoing. As civil rights attorney Alejandra Caraballo pointed out, “Twitter talking points don’t hold up in court.” AND:
  THE METEOR IRLPlanning to be in New York soon? We'd love to see you at our next live event Say the Word: A Night of Art and Action for Trans Liberation on June 15th. Tickets are on sale now! Just click the image below to secure your seats.  This newsletter was brought to you by Shannon Melero and Bailey Wayne Hundl who would really love it if you filled out this reader survey. Thanks!  FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend?
|
The AI Overlords Are Coming For Us
 May 30, 2023 Happy Monduesday, Meteor readers, For some of us, today is a particularly tricky day. We are now two days removed from the series finale of “Succession” and, according to TV etiquette, it is allowable to discuss spoilers (apparently things are bad for the eldest boy??). However, some of us (me) are still a few episodes behind and would like for everyone to stop running their mouth like cousin Greg!  If you’re wondering why I’m so behind on the biggest show in town, it’s because I did something else this weekend: I went to an actual movie theater to watch The Little Mermaid. Reviews have been mixed, but when I tell you that Alan Menken put his whole menkussy into revamping this movie!! Halle Bailey’s performance brought me to tears three separate times. You must go see it. And if, like me, you have very strong thoughts about that one Lin-Manuel Miranda addition to the soundtrack, my DMs are open. In today’s newsletter we’re turning our attention to a surge in racism against athletes, the coming AI overlords, and the hawt summer we’re about to have. Still humming “Under the Sea,” Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ON“Something I will continue to deal with”: During a post-match press conference yesterday, tennis star Sloane Stephens commented on the growing racism facing athletes, saying, “It has never stopped. If anything, it’s only gotten worse.” The data backs her up, alas: While racism in sports isn’t exactly a new phenomenon, a 2021 study showed a 200% increase in acts of racism in sports from 2019-2020. The most notable recent occurrence of this involved Spanish soccer team Real Madrid’s Vinicius Junior, who this month reported his tenth incident of racial abuse before the league he plays under (LaLiga) actively got involved—a move that only came to pass because of the immense success Vinicius has had since he started playing. But that let’s-try-to-fix-this energy isn’t as present in women’s sports, where there are only hundreds of thousands of eyeballs being drawn, vs the millions Vinicius commands. Despite the efforts of Althea Gibson (in the 1950s), the Williams sisters (in the ‘00s), and Naomi Osaka (now), the next generation of Black tennis stars are still fighting a Sisyphean battle. “Obviously it's been something that I have dealt with my whole career," Stephens said during the press conference. “It’s only continued to get worse…and something I will continue to deal with, I'm sure. That's that.” (If you're looking to show some support, Stephens' next match is tomorrow at 8:15 AM ET.) AND:
 THE METEOR IRLPlanning to be in New York next month? We'd love to see you at our next live event Say the Word: A Night of Art and Action for Trans Liberation on June 15th. Tickets are on sale now! Just click the image below to secure your seats.  Can't make it to Joe's Pub? No worries! Why not let us know where you're from and where you'd like to see us put on an event by filling out this reader survey? You could win a Meteor tote!  FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend?
|
