Three Years of Taliban Rule
  August 15, 2024 Howdy, Meteor readers, We’re going on a road trip and we’d love it if y'all joined us—specifically, in Chicago at the Democratic National Convention next week! We’ll be hosting the Power Lounge at McCormick Place, in partnership with Emerge—an organization that trains women to run for office— on August 21st-22nd. We’ll be hosting conversations with trailblazers like Rep. Jasmine Crockett, State Rep. Gloria Johnson (of the Tennessee Three), Brittany Packnett Cunningham, Connie Britton and lots more. You can register for this event by clicking the image below. See you in Chicago!  But before we hit the road, let’s hit this newsletter. Today marked the three-year anniversary of the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan. We spoke with Sahar Halaimzai, the director for the Afghanistan Initiative at the Malala Fund, about what life has been like for Afghan women ever since. Plus, your weekend reading list. DNCya later, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ON
 Three Questions About...Gender ApartheidOn the anniversary of the Taliban’s return to power, an advocate explains what life has been like for women in Afghanistan OLYMPIC RUNNER KIMIA YOUSOFI OF TEAM AFGHANISTAN HOLDS A SIGN THAT READS, "EDUCATION" AND "OUR RIGHTS" AFTER RUNNING THE WOMEN'S 100 METER. POLITICAL AND PROTEST SIGNAGE WAS BANNED DURING THE 2024 OLYMPICS IN PARIS. (VIA GETTY IMAGES) Three years ago today, Taliban forces seized Kabul and restored an oppressive theocratic regime to power. You probably remember the images: people attempting to flee, clinging to airplanes, parents handing babies over fences to strangers. And yet, as quickly as those images came across our screens, they vanished. Over the last three years, women in Afghanistan have lost their ability to work, and girls have been barred from higher education, but in the West, their plight has largely been pushed from the front pages. The Malala Fund, founded by Nobel laureate Malala Yousafzi and her father, Ziauddin, is working to change that. We asked the Fund’s Afghanistan director, Sahar Halaimzai, three questions. What has been the most significant change in the everyday lives of Afghan women since 2021? Women and girls have experienced a total rollback of their basic rights. The Taliban have banned girls from attending school beyond the sixth grade and women from most forms of employment. There are also severe restrictions on women’s freedom of movement and access to public spaces. They cannot enjoy a stroll in a park or go to the salon to get a haircut. This oppression is systemic, institutionalized, and a core part of the Taliban’s governance model; it’s a system of gender apartheid. But as of now, the international community does not legally recognize gender apartheid as a crime despite support from Afghan activists and many global experts, including prominent feminists and legal scholars. Daily life is fraught with danger. [But] there are many brave women and girls who continue to protest, run or attend underground schools, and organize advocacy efforts to fight for their rights. If caught, these women have been subjected to violence and harassment, arbitrary detention, torture, and enforced disappearances. The Taliban have also targeted their families, using coercion and violence to suppress any form of resistance. Despite these risks, Afghan women remain resilient. Has the lack of Western media focus on the plight of Afghan women impacted the movement? Absolutely. Without sustained media attention, it is difficult to maintain the pressure needed to hold the Taliban accountable or support Afghan women and girls. Instead, what we are seeing is a creeping normalization of the Taliban’s atrocities, making it easier to sideline women’s and girls’ rights in favor of other interests. If we could get more media outlets to cover what’s happening in Afghanistan as gender apartheid, it could reignite global solidarity for Afghan women and pressure leaders to take action. What needs to happen to protect the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan—and is there anything the average person can do to help? The international community must recognize gender apartheid as a crime under international law. This recognition would open legal avenues to hold the Taliban accountable for their atrocities. There's a real opportunity to do this: the United Nations General Assembly's Sixth Committee is currently debating the draft language of the Crimes against Humanity treaty. In October 2024, the Committee will resume discussions and vote on whether to advance the treaty to the next stage—a pivotal moment that could solidify international legal frameworks to address and prevent such egregious human rights violations. Everyone can contribute to this push by supporting organizations like [ours] that advocate for Afghan women’s rights, amplifying their stories, and by pressuring their governments to take decisive action during this critical period, first by naming what is happening in Afghanistan as gender apartheid. The situation in Afghanistan is not just a localized issue but a global human rights crisis. The Taliban’s gender apartheid…sets a dangerous precedent. If our elected representatives are happy to engage with a governance system that, at its core, is about enforcing gender apartheid, it signals that women’s rights are negotiable and can be easily sacrificed.  WEEKEND READING 📚On boy things: Are big loud podcast voices like Joe Rogan moving more young men to the right? (The Guardian) On lingering questions: Who is this woman and how did she make it to the Olympics? (The Root) On health: Routine pap smears have been unpleasant and uncomfortable since the dawn of time, but a less intrusive new alternative is right on the horizon. (New York Times)  FOLLOW THE METEOR     Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
Three Questions About Arizona's Abortion Ballot Initiative
With an insider who helped make it happen
By Samhita Mukhopadhyay
Yesterday, the Arizona secretary of state’s office confirmed that over half a million people had signed to certify a ballot initiative that would enshrine access to abortion into the state constitution. According to NPR, that number represents the most signatures for a ballot measure in the history of the state.
And getting abortion into the constitution is crucial. Arizona’s abortion laws have been in the spotlight because of its 160-year-old “zombie” law, which briefly banned abortion throughout the state this spring. Thanks to (mostly female) legislator pressure, the law goes off the books next month, but “without a constitutional amendment another group of politicians can come right back in January and pass another extreme ban or continue to put onerous restrictions on access,” says Arizona for Abortion Access’ communications director Dawn Penich, whose coalition mobilized 7,000 volunteers to collect signatures.
We asked Penich three questions about this huge win, and what comes next.
Samhita Mukhopadhyay: First of all, congratulations and thank you. You surpassed the numbers needed for certification by a lot. What was the process for getting there? And what was the hardest part?
Dawn Penich: We've been working toward this for over a year at this point. It was last summer that we formed a coalition, started writing the language for this measure and forming a campaign and then spent more than nine months collecting signatures all over the state. And if you know anything about Arizona, that means that we were collecting in snowstorms, but also collecting in 115-degree weather.
So I would say that was the hardest part, just asking our 7,000 volunteers to be out there day after day. But I have to tell you, it wasn't hard because people are so driven and passionate about this issue that they said, yeah, it's hot, but I don't care. I need to be part of a solution. I need to be part of righting this wrong. And so getting the news yesterday that our signatures were certified and we are on the ballot just felt amazing and was a huge validation for the amount of work that we've been putting in and we'll continue to put in for the next 90 days.
It just really proves the point that even in Arizona, which is considered a more conservative state on some issues, most voters support access to abortion.
That's right. We totally saw that when we would be in…the red parts of town. More conservative people do come to this issue from a different perspective: They look at it as small government and keeping the government out of their private lives, whereas other people come to it through a women's rights or a reproductive freedom lens. So people have different ways of coming to support access to abortion, and that's why we were able to collect so many signatures. We also think we're going to be the latest in the long line of reproductive freedom wins this November.
Were there any major efforts to push back on the initiative?
There were some feeble attempts throughout the course of collecting our signatures. Folks would show up holding stop signs or try to lie about what our measure does and pass off misinformation. But I got to hand it to 'em: Arizona voters are smarter than that. It did nothing but backfire. They would kind of get the attention of people walking by, and then those people would say, Oh, is that the abortion access petition? Let me hurry up and sign that. We don't take it lightly, but we do know that we are the majority, and that majority will turn out in November as well.
An abortion victory in Arizona
 August 13, 2024 Salutations, Meteor readers, I have returned from my sojourn to the Hudson River Valley region, where my life was changed by a cow named Rosie. Anything interesting happen while I was gone? Rhetorical question; I read this newsletter just like you do, so I know. Today we’ve got a lot to cover—including a discrimination lawsuit, Olympic withdrawal, and three questions for an insider who helped get abortion on the ballot in Arizona. Walking back into the office like this, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONContinued fallout: In the 26 months since the Dobbs decision, hundreds of women have shared their horror stories of trying to seek reproductive care from doctors and hospitals operating in mass confusion and fear. Kelsie Norris-De La Cruz and Kyleigh Thurman are two more names to add to the list. Last week, both Norris-De La Cruz and Thurman filed federal complaints against two different hospitals in Texas that they claim refused to perform abortions in order to treat their ectopic pregnancies. (If you’re just joining us, ectopic pregnancies occur when a fetus develops outside of a uterus, and are almost never viable.) In both women’s cases, their fetuses implanted in their fallopian tubes. The hospitals they went to, Texas Health Arlington Memorial Hospital and Ascension Seton Williamson Hospital respectively, sent both of them home. Norris-De La Cruz sought a second opinion and was scheduled for surgery elsewhere. Thurman returned to Ascension several days later. But as Shefali Luthra of The 19th reported yesterday, it was too late: “By the time both could receive abortions, their pregnancies had ruptured. Both women had to have their affected fallopian tube removed.”  A DEMONSTRATOR AT A REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS RALLY. (PHOTO BY MONTINIQUE MONROE/GETTY IMAGES) Abortion is banned in Texas but, at least on paper, there is a carve out for extreme cases where the life of the mother is at risk. Ectopic pregnancies fall under the category. And yet this isn’t the first time the state has been sued for how the language in the abortion ban has hamstrung doctors in cases where they would normally be quick to act. That’s because if a doctor in Texas were to perform an abortion, they would have to prove in court that their decision was protected by law, and should a court disagree, they could face jail time. It is an impossible decision, and yet it’s still one that states like Texas, Idaho, and Tennessee are forcing doctors to make. It’s also worth noting that a big part of this lawsuit is the hospitals’ failure to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) which states that a hospital receiving federal Medicare dollars must provide emergency abortions when necessary even if its against state law. Perhaps if SCOTUS hadn’t dismissed the Idaho EMTALA case in June, and actually made a full-throated ruling doctors would have a clearer understanding of what they’re allowed to do without having to consult a bevy of lawyers. To learn how you can help those seeking reproductive care in Texas, visit Fund Texas Choice. AND:
 WINNING IS NICE
Three Questions About Arizona's Abortion Ballot InitiativeWith an insider who helped make it happenBY SAMHITA MUKHOPADHYAY  A BIG THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO WEATHERED THE ARIZONA SUN TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. (PHOTO BY REBECCA NOBLE/GETTY IMAGES) Yesterday, the Arizona secretary of state’s office confirmed that over half a million people had signed to certify a ballot initiative that would enshrine access to abortion into the state constitution. According to NPR, that number represents the most signatures for a ballot measure in the history of the state. And getting abortion into the constitution is crucial. Arizona’s abortion laws have been in the spotlight because of its 160-year-old “zombie” law, which briefly banned abortion throughout the state this spring. Thanks to (mostly female) legislator pressure, the law goes off the books next month, but “without a constitutional amendment another group of politicians can come right back in January and pass another extreme ban or continue to put onerous restrictions on access,” says Arizona for Abortion Access’ communications director Dawn Penich, whose coalition mobilized 7,000 volunteers to collect signatures. We asked Penich three questions about this huge win, and what comes next.  WE LOVE A WIN! (PHOTO BY REBECCA NOBLE/GETTY IMAGES) Samhita Mukhopadhyay: First of all, congratulations and thank you. You surpassed the numbers needed for certification by a lot. What was the process for getting there? And what was the hardest part? Dawn Penich: We've been working toward this for over a year at this point. It was last summer that we formed a coalition, started writing the language for this measure and forming a campaign and then spent more than nine months collecting signatures all over the state. And if you know anything about Arizona, that means that we were collecting in snowstorms, but also collecting in 115-degree weather. So I would say that was the hardest part, just asking our 7,000 volunteers to be out there day after day. But I have to tell you, it wasn't hard because people are so driven and passionate about this issue that they said, yeah, it's hot, but I don't care. I need to be part of a solution. I need to be part of righting this wrong. And so getting the news yesterday that our signatures were certified and we are on the ballot just felt amazing and was a huge validation for the amount of work that we've been putting in and we'll continue to put in for the next 90 days. It just really proves the point that even in Arizona, which is considered a more conservative state on some issues, most voters support access to abortion. That's right. We totally saw that when we would be in…the red parts of town. More conservative people do come to this issue from a different perspective: They look at it as small government and keeping the government out of their private lives, whereas other people come to it through a women's rights or a reproductive freedom lens. So people have different ways of coming to support access to abortion, and that's why we were able to collect so many signatures. We also think we're going to be the latest in the long line of reproductive freedom wins this November. Were there any major efforts to push back on the initiative? There were some feeble attempts throughout the course of collecting our signatures. Folks would show up holding stop signs or try to lie about what our measure does and pass off misinformation. But I got to hand it to 'em: Arizona voters are smarter than that. It did nothing but backfire. They would kind of get the attention of people walking by, and then those people would say, Oh, is that the abortion access petition? Let me hurry up and sign that. We don't take it lightly, but we do know that we are the majority, and that majority will turn out in November as well.  FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend?
|
Another Country Fights for Democracy
  July 30, 2024 Ahoy, Meteor readers, I have been watching Olympic rugby sevens since 9:30 this morning. I was initially watching to support social media sensation Ilona Maher—but I got hooked, kept watching, and friends, it was worth it: Today I got to see these women make history:  In today’s newsletter, we travel to Venezuela, where a hotly contested election has drawn hundreds of protestors. Plus, a new abortion ban goes into effect—and, of course, there’s more Olympics. I love sports, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONVenezuela fights for a fair election: Yesterday, thousands of Venezuelans flooded the streets to protest the results of Sunday’s election, in which officials had declared incumbent President Nicolas Maduro the winner. The opposing candidate Edmundo González and government opposition leader Maria Corina Machado are saying they have undeniable proof that the election—which had the highest turnout in years—was actually won by González. Their claims have some backing: Maduro’s government has yet to provide verification for the election results, and the opposition has paper tallies which they claim show they won by at least three million votes. Several countries in the region have denounced the election results. The high voter turnout was motivated largely by González and Machado, who have been harnessing Venezuela’s young voters in an effort to overturn 25 years of authoritarian rule. Millions cannot afford food or medicine and polling showed that if Maduro remains in power, many plan to flee the country. But Maduro won’t go quietly into that long good night—sound familiar?—and the reverberations of that decision could be disastrous. As one expert points out, “[If] Maduro clings to power by fraud and other illegitimate means, Venezuela will have missed perhaps its last best chance at change for a long time. Instability will persist and perhaps deepen, and Latin America and the United States will have no choice but to absorb the consequence.” AND:
 FOLLOW THE METEOR     Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
Emailing from a coconut tree
 July 23, 2024 Dear Meteor readers, Well, folks, he did it. President Biden has hopped off the campaign trail and is holding the door open for someone else. Did you call it? (We did not.) In today’s newsletter, we’re bringing a little bit of optimism to your inbox as we get accustomed to Vice President Kamala Harris’ new role. Plus a little Olympic news, and a life update from Brittney Griner. Existing in the context of all in which we live, Samhita and Shannon  WHAT'S GOING ONThe politics of optimism: It’s been [checks watch] 52 hours since President Biden announced he was withdrawing from the presidential race, subsequently throwing his support behind Vice President Kamala Harris. And during those two-plus days, something remarkable and strangely unfamiliar took hold of text chains and social feeds everywhere: hope. There have been enthusiastic posts and memes: Coconut emojis were used as an endorsement, referencing her mother’s line, “You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?” And Charli XCX gave her the ultimate Gen Z plug, calling her “brat.”  A VERY ENTHUSIASTIC VOTER AT A RALLY IN SAN FRANCISCO YESTERDAY. (VIA GETTY IMAGES) But the joy isn’t just meme-deep. Over the last two days, people have mobilized, and money has followed. In a call led by Win With Black Women on Sunday night, 44,000 people joined and raised 1.5 million dollars. The next night, Win With Black Men assembled and raised another cool 1.3 million. And white women may be organizing their own call next. All told, the first 24 hours of the Harris campaign raised a record $81 million, which her campaign said “represents…the kind of grassroots energy and enthusiasm that wins elections.” None of that erases the concerns many voters may have about Harris—both those based in reality (her past in law enforcement) and those that are more openly sexist (like the argument that she lacks charisma or the horror that she is childless or the claim that her beating Trump is a “fiction”).  HARRIS AT AN ICE CREAM SHOP WITH HER NEICES. DO YOU THINK SHE ORDERED COCONUT? (VIA GETTY IMAGES) But right now, the palpable excitement and energy her candidacy has engendered feels propulsive, whether you agree with her policies or not. After all, Harris has inherited an enormous political mess. She is tasked with saving the party from the brink of disaster—and to win, she has to do something the party has failed to do so far: present a unified message that quickly galvanizes people and alleviates their anxieties. She’ll have to defend her stances on abortion, the economy, student debt, and the war in Gaza. (It’s impossible to look at the position she’s in and not think just a little bit about the “glass cliff” phenomenon, in which women are handed CEO roles only once a company is about to go off the rails.) Against that backdrop, we need a little of this enthusiasm. Optimism and hope are, themselves, political tools, especially when people feel the odds are insurmountable. They give us a reason to believe, a reason to fight. As the climate writer and futurist Alex Steffen writes, “Where no one believes in a better future, despair is a logical choice, and people in despair almost never change anything. But introduce intelligent reasons for believing that action is possible, that better solutions are available, and that a better future can be built, and you unleash the power of people to act out of their highest principles.” It can be easy to forget that in the early days of his campaign, some argued that Barack Obama was a long shot: unelectable, too young, and unprepared. Instead, young people quit their jobs to door-knock, folks phone-banked in earnest, and we saw the greatest voter turnout we had seen in decades. It was a historic campaign and, in the end, a historic eight years. The point isn’t that Harris is Obama or that Obama was perfect. The point is just that hope is a very effective tool against apathy and authoritarianism. As long-time reproductive justice leader Loretta Ross told The Cut about the election, “We can’t be only defined by what we’re against…we have to be defined by what world we build and want.” AND:
 CHAPPELL ROAN REMINDING US THE PLANET IS LITERALLY HOT TO GO
 LISTEN UP 🎧Tomorrow morning we’re dropping the first episode of our brand-new podcast, “America, Who Hurt You?” with Sarah Jones! And since we’re all friends here, you get to find out first that in tomorrow’s episode, Sarah Jones will be in conversation with “On Being” host Krista Tippett. And there may be tears. Click the image below to learn more and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts!   FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
The Party of the Working "Man"
 July 18, 2024 Evening, Meteor readers, I missed you! Thank you for asking, I did indeed have a great six-week sabbatical launching my new book, The Myth of Making It. I’m grateful to the inimitable and absurdly brilliant Julianne Escobedo Shepherd for holding down the fort with Shannon Melero for all of you. But now, I’m back! And what a week to return to: the aftermath of political violence, the continuing pressure for now-COVID-positive President Joe Biden to step aside as the nominee, and the Republican National Convention in full swing. Maybe I need to take another break. Today, we decode what’s happening at the RNC (we don’t include an investigation into Matt Gaetz’s dermatology routine; we’re better than that), cheer for some historic Emmy nominations, and learn what Black women really think about this year’s upcoming election. Save me, Samhita Mukhopadhyay  WHAT'S GOING ON WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE. (VIA GETTY IMAGES) Ah, the Republican National Convention—where the conservative leaders of our time, dedicated to rolling back as many of our rights as possible, come together to discuss how exactly they will get that done (and try to convince us that the youth is for it). As we anticipate former President Donald Trump’s speech tonight, here are a few takeaways from the RNC thus far: They want to convince us they are the party of the working “man.”J.D. Vance took the stage on night three of the RNC to deliver a bold message to Americans: “We need a leader who is not in the pocket of big business but answers to the working man, union and nonunion alike.” (The word “man” is no accident, since the VP candidate apparently doesn’t believe women should be encouraged to work outside the home.) But for the hard-working men of America, the RNC has spent the last few days making pro-union and pro-labor overtures—which is usually something reserved for the DNC, but here we are. But was Vance talking about paid family leave, a minimum wage, or universal healthcare? No—for the most part, the RNC’s discussion of jobs focused on how immigrants are allegedly taking them. On the first night of the convention, Sen. John James (R-Michigan) told the audience, “Black people were sold on hope; now our streets are rife with crime. Our kids can’t read. And illegals are getting better help from Democrats in four days than we’ve gotten in 400 years.” If you’re wondering what 400 years refers to: Well, we’re pretty sure they’re referring to 1619 when the first slave ship arrived in America, but since the GOP discourages the teaching of that, it’s hard to say for sure.  THIS HARDWORKING AMERICAN MAN IS A FORMER VENTURE CAPITALIST WHOSE FIRST BID FOR OFFICE WAS FUNDED BY PETER THIEL. (VIA GETTY IMAGES) They’ve got the Senate in their sights.As far as the RNC is concerned, the White House is theirs come November. But they want more. They want to flip the Senate and, this week, trotted out seven candidates currently running for Senate. (They were Kari Lake of Arizona, Eric Hovde of Wisconsin, Bernie Moreno of Ohio, Sam Brown of Nevada, Hung Cao of Virginia, Nella Domenici of New Mexico, and Mike Roger of Michigan.) If you’re in those states, we highly recommend this link. Trump haters for Trump!Almost every politician who’s taken the stage over the last three days has, at some point before the convention, either vocally spoken out against Trump or been a subject of the former president’s incredibly public ridicule. And yet there they are, smiling and ignoring their quibbles in order to present a united front to voters. But much like The North, I, too, remember. I remember J.D. Vance calling Trump unfit to be president. I remember Senator Ted Cruz calling Trump a “pathological liar” and warning the entire country that “nominating Donald Trump would be a train wreck.” I also clearly recall Nikki Haley calling Trump unqualified to lead. And considering that a number of conservative politicians (Trump included) are trying to distance themselves from Project 2025, the latest GOP bible, that unity is coming off faker than Marco Rubio’s tan. Donald Trump, convicted criminal? Nah‚ he’s just like us.And one final RNC theme: Trump is a regular ol’ person. Not just any kind of person, but a considerate friend (according to Sarah Huckabee Sanders) and a loving grandpa (according to his teenage grandchild, Kai, who said “A lot of people have put my grandpa through hell and he is still standing”. Girl…be for real.) And who doesn’t want to vote for grandpa? We don’t. We don’t want this grandpa. We’ll take the cat ladies. AND:
 EMMY HOEPFUL, NAVA MAU. (VIA GETTY IMAGES)
 FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
Three Questions About Disinformation
 July 16, 2024 Evening, Meteor readers, So, I trust everyone had a relaxing, uneventful, downright mundane weekend void of any alarming or paradigm-shifting news? We wish. Let’s get straight to it. In today’s newsletter, we’re jamming to J.D. Vance’s greatest hits, including his number one single, “Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.” Blast it through the speakers. We’re also asking media critic Jennifer L. Pozner three questions about how to stop the spread of disinformation during violent moments. Is this real life, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ON JAMES DAVID VANCE. OUR COLLECTIVE NIGHTMARE IN HUMAN FORM. (VIA GETTY IMAGES) J.D. Vance (the D stands for “Don’t let this man in the White House”): As you’ve probably heard by now, Donald Trump has chosen author and Ohio junior senator J.D. Vance as his vice president. There’s already been a bit of ink spilled about Vance and his…policies, if we want to call them that. But what are the thoughts rattling around in his anti-abortion, isolationist, anti-LGBTQIA+, conspiracy theorist, far-right head? Well. He certainly isn’t a fan of women or their bodily autonomy: On abortionIn a local Ohio cable news interview in 2021, when asked if abortion bans should have exceptions for rape or incest, Vance said, “It’s not whether a woman should be forced to bring a child to term, it’s whether a child should be allowed to live, even though the circumstances of that child’s birth are somehow inconvenient or a problem to the society.” A year later, Vance (out loud where people could hear!!) also likened abortion to slavery. Ahead of being announced as the choice for VP, Vance conveniently softened his abortion talking points in an interview with Meet the Press. The entire nation calls bullshit. On domestic violenceIn a 2022 anti-abortion forum, Vance said, “The entire idea that you can discard your husband or your wife like a piece of clothing is one of the most dangerous assaults that we’ve ever seen on the family in this country. If we want children to grow up with healthy, happy lives, we should be reminding them that the most important thing that we can do for our kids is make sure they grow up with a mom and dad at home.” In other words: Domestic violence is not a reason to get divorced. His assertion that children are only going to be healthy and happy if a “mom and dad” are present also underpins his anti-LGBTQ+ stances. On gunsAnd since we all have gun violence at the top of our minds this week, what has Vance said about that? “I think that we have to ask ourselves: What is the real gun violence problem in this country, and are we legislating in a way that solves fake problems? Or solves real problems?” This was in response to a proposed bump-stock ban (which he voted against). As far as solving “real” gun problems, Vance has rejected a number of measures that would make it harder to obtain a firearm and said he was in favor of dismantling the ATF, which (you guessed it) seizes illegal guns. Define real problems, James David. TL;DR: This is not a viable vice presidential candidate; this is a nightmare, and a clear sign that the now-formally-nominated Donald Trump has no plans to modify his far-right stances in a second term. AND:
 THE ONE AND ONLY SHANNEN DOHERTY (VIA GETTY IMAGES)
  Three Questions About...DisinformationLast Saturday was a moment of mass panic. One feminist media critic has ideas about what could have gone differently.BY SAMHITA MUKHOPADHYAY  NO COMMENT. (VIA GETTY IMAGES) When the mass shooting at the Trump rally happened on Saturday, I was unclear how to respond. Disbelief and adrenaline coursed through me, and the moment I logged onto Instagram, the content was flying: everything from earnest (“This is not who we are!”) to snark (“This is why Democrats need access to guns!”) to cries of “It’s a hoax!” As a journalist, I knew this should be a wait-and-see moment, but instead, I was faced with the reality of how quickly unhelpful—and downright untruthful—messaging can spread. What gave me solace was a measured list of media literacy strategies posted by my friend Jennifer L. Pozner, a journalist and long-time media educator with an upcoming graphic novel about critical media literacy. So, I called to ask her to elaborate. What was the first thing you noticed when the news broke about the shooting? Jennifer Pozner: The first piece I saw from a credible outlet was on NPR’s website, and the comments under the story included someone telling NPR it was their fault, another implying that it was staged, and a third laughing at Trump’s bloody ear. Legitimate news reporting is a time-consuming process. During chaotic events, ethical reporters have to vet sources, fact-checkers need to do their best to confirm the story, and they all need to work carefully to ensure that they’re giving the public accurate information. You know what takes no time at all? Bullshit. Bullshit is instantaneous. Rumor, propaganda, bots, and bad actors always pop up right away, flooding the zone with disinformation and conspiracy theories to fill every short-term information vacuum. This is a collective societal problem, but we contribute to it individually when we react without thinking critically… That’s dangerous because disinformation is sticky. When disinformation infuses the immediate narrative, it can be hard to convince people of reality even after the facts have been verified. You had a great social post about what to do instead of posting immediate reactions. Can you summarize what you suggested people do in a moment like this and why? It’s important to wait for verified reporting to establish the facts. And we should denounce political violence without condition—even when the target has often encouraged political violence against his perceived enemies. Don’t share false stories, even to mock them: You may think something is so outrageous no one could possibly believe it, but many do…Those potshots could just end up reinforcing the disinformation to others. Outrageous claims need air to multiply; suffocate conspiracies by depriving them of attention. Debunk, don’t distribute: Share accurate information and analysis in plain language and explain how you know particular falsehoods are untrue (without sharing the original lies themselves). Bad actors (including domestic propagandists, Russian and Chinese troll farms, and money-motivated bot operators) use moments like these to pit Americans against one another and foment hate. Don’t fall into those traps. Lower the volume. Don’t debate those who aren’t engaging in good faith, and moderate your social feeds to block trolls and anyone who seems sketchy from poisoning the dialogue. Remember, everything we say publicly can impact other people and possibly contribute to an escalation of violence or conspiracy (and screenshots are forever). Fears, ugly thoughts, and dark humor are deeply human, and it’s OK to express them. But if we want to avoid doing harm, we should really only share them with our “inside voice”: offline in the context of conversations with trusted friends. What is your take on political violence and how we should and shouldn’t talk about it? I thought this was astute in making the case that attacks on politicians are par for the course in the U.S. Looking to the public record and to history can often provide crucial context, as it does here. The Times usefully reminds us that four U.S. presidents have been murdered, along with at least six serious failed additional assassination attempts. What it doesn’t mention is that while this violence has been aimed at both parties’ heads of state, only Trump and the GOP have been explicitly encouraging political violence against “the other side.” Everyone seems to have forgotten that Trump himself made a not-so-subtle assassination threat/dog whistle against his rival, Hillary Clinton, at a 2016 campaign rally. Many journalists, politicians, and historians have accurately situated Trump and the MAGA movement’s policy agendas, statements, and behaviors as consistent with fascism. It’s a routine project for autocratic regimes to threaten violence against their rivals, discredit the press, encourage the public to distrust truth itself (remember “alternative facts”?), revel in mockery and intimidation of minority groups, and paint reasonable disagreement as tantamount to treason—all of which Trump and his acolytes have done. Now, the GOP wants us to believe that acknowledging the history and workings of fascism is so inflammatory and dangerous it must be the reason a 20-year-old lone gunman shot the former President and killed another rallygoer. All their social media posts and press interviews flogging this point aim to distract from clear fact: America is a nation plagued by mass shootings carried out by angry, young gunmen, and Democrats and progressives have not been the ones calling for political violence.  FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
Will He, Won't He
  July 11, 2024 Good evening, Meteor readers, Do you have a moment to talk about our lord and savior, Arlette Amuli? No, but seriously. I know a lot of you are fans of dating shows, and Amuli is the creator and host of the most riveting dating show I have seen since Blind Date (the original, not the reboot). It’s called Pop the Balloon or Find Love. You can catch it on YouTube and thank me later, especially after you’ve gone through the emotional roller coaster that is “Doctor Elom.” IYKYK. In today’s newsletter, we wade gently into the murky waters of President Biden’s campaign. While some Democrats are standing firmly with him, others are looking over his shoulder to see who might be next (we do have a vice president, right?). Plus, Scarlett Harris talks to writer Emma Specter about her new memoir More, Please, and your weekend reading list. 🧷🎈♥️, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONDance of Democrats: The will-he-or-won’t-he saga of President Biden’s 2024 run might feel like a breezy House of the Dragon subplot if only the entire concept of representative democracy in the U.S. weren’t at stake. This week, calls for Biden to step aside for a more viable and virile candidate increased, with multiple Democratic congresspeople weighing in. Even George Clooney, of married-to-Amal fame, wrote an op-ed about how Biden should make way for a new nominee, which is notable since Clooney raised $28 million for Biden just three weeks ago. “We can put our heads in the sand and pray for a miracle in November,” he wrote, “or we can speak the truth.” So far, Biden has doubled down in response to the growing fears over his ability to beat Trump and the Project 2025 army, but there are signs of tiny cracks in his resilience: the New York Times reported today that the campaign is conducting a survey about whether voters might prefer Vice President Kamala Harris at the top of the ticket in a match-up against Trump. And as the Times notes, a lot rests on the (unscripted) news conference Biden is delivering tonight in the wake of the NATO summit: If it goes the way of the debate, party leaders might defect from Biden. (Harris, or Gretchen Whitmer, or Gavin Newsome, or JB Pritzker have all been floated at various times as Biden replacements.) There’s also the question of whether the Democratic Party would have already asked Biden to step aside if VP Harris were white and a man—even though a recent poll showed her chances of beating Trump are better than Biden’s. (Some progressives have even been rallying around the “KHive” on social media, which has been flooded with enthusiastic jokes about loving context and coconut trees.) Either way, the Democratic Party needs to straighten out its shit quick—there are only about 16 weeks until the election, and beating an autocratic rapist felon should simply not be this fraught. Democracy, as the DCCC texts keep reminding me, hangs in the balance. —Julianne Escobedo Shepherd AND:
 SHELLEY DUVALL (VIA GETTY IMAGES)
 BOOK TALKGiving Oneself Permission to Want MoreWriter Emma Specter on her new memoir about binge-eating, coming out, and fat acceptance.BY SCARLETT HARRIS  EMMA SPECTER ENJOYING DESSERT WITH A SIDE OF HER NEW BOOK (SCREENSHOT VIA INSTAGRAM) Landing a culture-writer position at Vogue five years ago was a dream job for Emma Specter. But on their first day, they had to call out sick after a particularly brutal binge-eating session, a disorder they’ve struggled with since childhood. “My eating disorder was so out of control that I’d managed to let it rob me of my first day at Vogue,” Specter writes in her thoughtful, unflinching new memoir, More, Please: On Food, Fat, Bingeing, Longing, and the Lust for “Enough.” Since then, Specter has carved out a niche at Vogue which she calls “the body beat,” helping to bring body-positive content to a publication that has historically been anything but. “I’m glad to say that offering something different has been really rewarding,” Specter tells The Meteor. “I think there is a hunger within women’s media for stories that… speak to a larger range of experiences.” In More, Please, Specter explores how they began “coming around to the idea that more can be good. While Specter is delighted by the early praise for More, Please, she “hope[s] that we get to a point where this book is no longer relevant because it’s not newsworthy that a fat person is vaguely at peace with themselves.” Scarlett Harris: This book is not only the journey of your binge-eating disorder and fat acceptance, but of coming to terms with your queerness. Did you always know you wanted those ideas to be intertwined in the narrative of this book? Emma Specter: Before I started writing, I hadn’t really thought of queerness and disordered eating as being as linked as they were. But it was impossible to move into a phase of my life in which I was dating the people I wanted to date, being aware of my sexual and gender identity…and not also want to investigate why I’m consistently making choices with food that feel bad and hard for me. The [binge eating] behaviors weren’t necessarily new or specific to when I came out, but the desire to understand them more and have them become less frequent definitely felt linked. You write about all the ways you tried to whittle yourself down to a certain mold women are taught we should fit, especially when you were dating cishet men. You’ve since found happiness and acceptance in your body and the queer community, but did you have a similar feeling when you were first dating women? I thought I would be, but when I actually started dating and having romantic and sexual experiences with people whose bodies looked similar to mine or were sorted on the same gender scale as mine, it really was the last thing on my mind. There was plenty of anxiety around coming out for me, but as an out and fat person now, I do feel a sense of relief that I don’t have to sort my life around trying to appeal to men anymore. No queer relationship freed me from that forever—it’s still something I have to negotiate—but it’s an incredible freedom to acknowledge that I was living my life chasing the approval of men and be able to release that. You quote in the book a 2022 study by the Trevor Project that found that members of the LGBTQIA+ community are more likely to experience eating disorders. Did learning about that change how you [thought about] your own eating disorder? I had this wrong idea when I settled into queer identity…that since I was out now, everything else in my life must fall into place, because that was the answer I was searching for my whole life of why I didn’t feel like I fit in in certain places, or why I didn’t feel comfortable in my own body, or why I didn’t have a good relationship to sex. But coming out was just the beginning. I wish it weren’t the case that it’s such a common thing among queer, trans and gender-nonconforming people to feel bad inside your body. Food or exercise or messing with how your body looks and feels is always accessible, and is there for you when it feels like nothing else is. It’s such a common response to a systemic problem. So often when we think of those who suffer from eating disorders, the image we have in our minds is of an underweight person. How important was it for you to highlight that eating disorders come in all forms and particularly how they affect fat people? So important. It’s really hard to see yourself making your way to a place of recovery when you feel like you’re not represented in recovery narratives. There is an erasure of dignity [in] society’s incredulosity that a fat person struggles with an eating disorder. I feel that everyone struggling with disordered eating should be afforded a level of respect for the process of healing that, unfortunately, most of us don’t get. The title, More, Please, and part of the subtitle, “The Lust for Enough,” have multiple meanings. Can you talk a little about that? My editor Rachel Kambury pointed out the many meanings that More, Please could have—not just [about wanting more food] but also wanting more from my personal life, wanting more from my professional life, and giving myself permission to want more. I’m coming around to the idea that more can be good. It’s a celebration of saying: What if I was open about my desires?  WEEKEND READING 📚On broken promises: Ahead of the Olympics, Paris has been much praised for its strides to clean up the city and lessen the carbon emissions from the games. But part of that plan has included busing unhoused people out of Paris, luring them with the promise of housing elsewhere. An investigation found something much different. (The New York Times) On the meaning of words: Why are we still using the word “porn” to describe sexually explicit non-consensual images? (The 19th) On bad influences: The extremist anti-abortion activist whose draconian, self-published book is shifting Republican politics. (ProPublica)  FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
What Is "Fascism Lite"?
  July 9, 2024 Greetings, Meteor readers, Wow, is it hot in here—or is it just the planet’s core temperature rising to levels that are becoming unsustainable for human life? The last few days on the East Coast have been the hottest of my lifetime, and Texas is being battered by Hurricane Beryl. I and the entire Meteor team hope that wherever you are you’re staying cool and, above all, safe. In today’s newsletter, Cindi Leive asks Nelini Stamp, the national organizing director at the Working Families Party, three questions about democracy—and finds out the difference between “fascism lite” and “fascism 5G.” And speaking of important questions, we’re also asking ourselves and the universe why there’s a Gladiator sequel coming out. Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ON
  Political organizer Nelini Stamp breaks down our election reality, and the danger of “fascism 5G”BY CINDI LEIVE  NELINI STAMP ROCKING THE STAGE FOR DEMOCRACY (VIA GETTY IMAGES) It’s been a tumultuous few weeks for anyone who cares about this country’s future. Extreme Supreme Court rulings! That terrifying debate! Fast-flying opinions on whether Biden should step down to avoid a Trump victory, and who’s supporting him or isn’t as he decides. (This, on the Kamala of it all, was especially good.) But one of the few people on my feeds who has seemed calmest through it all is Nelini Stamp, the national organizing director of the Working Families Party. Naturally, I had questions. (Per the rules of this column, three of them.) Cindi Leive: I’ve been following you the last few weeks [since the debate] and noticed you are not freaking out. Why? Nelini Stamp: I guess I sort of feel like: We have what we have. I think that we all knew from 2020 that these would be the two [candidates] that would probably match up. And so as a person who does electoral politics, I've been holding the complexities of this moment for quite some time. To me, the strategy is, we block this awful, awful, awful authoritarianism that is coming down the pathway—Project 2025—and we build infrastructure so that it doesn't happen to us again. Political and electoral infrastructure that allows us to put what I see as the actual future of our society in office: young people in office, more diverse voices in office. More progressive voices in office! We need to build the infrastructure of folks who will fight for working people, LGBTQ people, for reproductive justice, and for the world we want to see. To me, this election is about blocking terrible stuff and finally saying that we have to create alternative [structures]. The Working Families Party is a third party. But we are also pragmatic: It takes a lot of resources and infrastructure to get [a third-party candidate] on the ballot. And we would have to fight secretaries of state in places that are not too kind. Given the terrain that we’re on—the Supreme Court and all that—is that something that I feel uneasy with? Of course. Do I feel uneasy with Biden and Trump both running? Of course. But that is the reality that we’re living in right now. You’re talking about the "block and build" theory. Can you explain that? To be quite frank, pre-Israel/Gaza I was ready to be the most red-white-and-blue I've ever been. Because Biden has been the most worker-oriented president in my entire lifetime….and there has not been one president since FDR that was able to move such a [worker] agenda, with climate at its focus too. And so I was right here, bells and whistles, give it up for Biden, give me that Dark Brandon shirt! And then October 7 happened. It was a tragedy among tragedies, and what we’ve seen unfold as the response to it has been a tragedy among tragedies. At the Working Families Party, we were like—what is our strategic orientation? A lot of us don’t want to be bells and whistles for Biden, but we need to block right-wing authoritarianism so we can build the future we do want to see. Look, I know how many cycles we have been saying, “You have to vote for this person to stop this person.” But now we know, in writing, with Project 2025. We know the agenda. Before it was like, Abortion is at risk. But now it is a full frontal attack on all of our lives. It is an attack on workers. It is an attack on people who can get pregnant, it is an attack on women. It is an attack on LGBTQ rights—everything we’ve gained in my lifetime will be gone in a moment. And in those conditions, on that terrain, what are we going to be able to build? We're going to be on defense mode. We want to be able to block that—and build infrastructure that is not just controlled by the Democrats or Republicans. A lot of people say, “I don’t want to vote for any of these candidates.” But we must use all the tools in our toolbox. A [vote] doesn’t mean that you are endorsing the system. We also need to think about the world that fascism actually brings. I was on a panel with my friend Nadya, who was one of the founders of Pussy Riot….[and it made me think], in the United States, we have “fascism lite.” Like, the NYPD acts like fascists a lot. People who can get pregnant are under fascism. Trans people are under fascism. We all deal with it in certain parts of our lives, but we do not understand what full-blown fascism is like: There is not one single artist in Russia that is not locked up right now! We really don't understand what fascism over every single part of everyone's life is like. I think the people in this country who understand fascism most are incarcerated and formerly incarcerated folks. The government literally has a different set of laws for them. But for most people, right now, we have...fascism lite. We don’t have fascism 5G. We have a beta version. And I do not want to see the fully cooked version. Fascism 5G is a terrifying concept. So last question: What is making you feel hopeful right now, if anything? I’m hopeful about all the gains that workers have made—the UAW workers, auto workers, are continuing to organize new members because they had momentum, and they had a good NLRB [National Labor Relations Board] on their side. I know that that’s very wonky, but they had the terrain on their side to win the most gainful things that auto workers have won in [a long time]. These are things that make me hopeful.
 FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend?
|
SCOTUS Anoints a “King Above the Law”
 July 2, 2024 Hello, Meteor readers, Emphasis on the hell, amirite? The last few weeks have been a horrific look into how far our now exceedingly right-wing Supreme Court will go to decimate the government in service to one aspiring autocrat (and their own billionaire benefactors). So much has happened since even yesterday; the disastrous debate feels like a million years ago.  But! We’ve got you covered, with an explainer on what exactly the Supreme Court presidential immunity ruling means. (Spoiler: its whole point is chaos.) And overseas, Mariane Pearl illuminates the far-right victories in France’s snap elections and why President Macron even called a snap election in the first place. (Spoiler: he is a dumbass.) All you fascists bound to lose, Julianne Escobedo Shepherd  WHAT'S GOING ONKing for a day (or forever): Yesterday, as you surely know, the Supreme Court weighed in on the concept of presidential immunity from prosecution—which, when a convicted felon is running for president, feels quite pressing. In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that presidents have full immunity for “official” acts, but not for “unofficial” acts—and it is up to the lower courts to determine what differentiates one from the other. There’s a lot of talk about the long-term implications of such a ruling and what the “official”/“unofficial” divide even means. But let’s be honest: This whole thing is confusing. So let’s look at it in the simplest terms possible. First, there is the immediate effect of the ruling: Donald Trump is already trying to overturn his hush-money conviction in New York. As a result, his sentencing will be delayed while the courts wait for the appeals process to sort itself out. And his charges related to January 6 probably won’t be brought to trial until after the election—or ever—as Washington, D.C. Judge Tanya Chutkan hears whether he was acting in an “official” capacity when he tried to block Biden’s presidency from certification. Then there’s what this means in the long term. In 2016, Trump infamously said that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it. Let’s apply the ruling to that statement to better understand the fresh hell the Supreme Court hath wrought.  PROTESTORS GATHERED OUTSIDE THE COURT YESTERDAY TO VOICE THEIR THOUGHTS ON THE DECISION. (VIA GETTY IMAGES) If Trump, as president (🤮), shot some guy he didn’t like on Fifth Avenue himself, that would not be an “official act,” and he would be open to prosecution. But if Trump, as president (again, 🤮), called Seal Team 6 from the White House and said, “There’s a man I think is a terrorist on Fifth Avenue, take him out,” that is an “official” act, even if the man on Fifth Avenue was not a terrorist—and it would technically fall under immunity. (I’ll come back to this, stay with me.) But here’s the big hitch in the giddyup: Because the Supreme Court chose to lob this back down to the lower courts, they’ve given any future president something more potent than immunity—and that is cloud cover. Ostensibly, any president will now be emboldened to act in any horrific manner they see fit and simply claim that they’re doing so in an official capacity. And knowing how high the bar is to bring forth a charge, they can rest safely in the feeling of immunity. Bringing back the Seal Team 6 example: Say Trump instructs them to shoot a random guy on Fifth Avenue. Trump is, in the immediate, immune. But say the victim’s family wants to seek justice. Prosecutors would first have to prove the act was “unofficial,” untangle the immunity web, and land a favorable ruling; only then could they bring a charge. That’s months or years of legal work just to BRING FORTH A CHARGE. [The infamous “we’re talking about practice” speech begins to play in the background. IYKYK.] The wheels of justice were never meant to turn this slowly. In other words, as Justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote in her dissent: “In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.” —Shannon Melero AND:
  BONJOUR!Why Are French Women Voting Against Themselves?Ahead of the second snap election, Marine Le Pen's anti-feminist, far-right party gains powerBY MARIANE PEARL  SOME PEOPLE HAVE HUNGRY EYES AND SOME PEOPLE HAVE FASCIST EYES. (VIA GETTY IMAGES) As the U.S. faces an impending election and threats from the far-right, an ally across the ocean grapples with its own extremist resurgence right now. On July 7, France will vote in the second round of its snap parliamentary elections, which President Emmanuel Macron called to try to undermine the success of the far-right National Rally (RN) party, led by the charismatic, fascistic, anti-feminist Marine Le Pen. During the European elections in early June, Le Pen secured a third of the votes—twice more than the President himself. The snap election, then, is a risky gamble through which Macron hopes to reassert his political authority by gaining a clearer majority at the National Assembly—the French equivalent of the U.S. House of Representatives. Unfortunately, it's not going well. The first round of elections on June 30 put the RN ahead with about a third of the votes. (The leftist New Popular Front came in second, with Macron's centrist alliance in last place.) It looks increasingly likely that the presidential alliance will lose its relative majority in parliament to Le Pen's party—and that women voters are a determining factor, with 33 percent voting for the RN in a 2024 poll, compared to 30 percent of men. (That's a 12 percent increase in female support from 2019.) Even if the RN doesn't win an absolute majority, it could still become the largest party in the country—and thus have Jordan Bardella, Le Pen's 28-year-old protegé, become prime minister, a role whose political power is second only to the president. Like Le Pen, Bardella is pushing for the party’s “de-demonization”—a strategy meant to normalize a group traditionally known as fascist insurgents—and he's especially focused on women, stoking anti-immigration and anti-Muslim fears while reframing them as supposedly feminist. His language plays on extreme nationalism and the trope of Western supremacy; in a 2023 speech to the European parliament, he declared, “Our European values will always be outstandingly superior to those which enslave women [and] imprison them behind headscarves." Ahead of the snap elections, thousands of people rallied in Paris against the RN's regressive stance on women's rights—particularly reproductive rights. The National Rally, which has opposed women's rights since its founding in 1972 and more recently opposed enshrining abortion rights in the French constitution, has historically voted to stop funding family planning organizations, moved against gender equity in the workplace, and proposed subsidizing women who want to stay at home to raise their children. In LePen's 2017 political manifesto, she mentions the word "woman" only twice across 144 proposals, and only in reference to family and safety. For feminists, such a fact is revealing enough. As the French philosopher Camille Froidevaux-Metterie wrote this month in Le Monde, “For women, voting for the RN is like pointing a gun at yourself.”  ANOTHER ANTI-FASCISM RALLY IN TOULOUSE AHEAD OF THE SECOND ROUND OF PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS. (VIA GETTY IMAGES) None of this started with Marine herself; in fact, the National Front—the RN’s original name, until it was rebranded in 2018—is a family business. Jean-Marie Le Pen, Marine’s father, founded the party with former Nazis who fought with the extremist Waffen SS during the second world war, as well as former members of the OAS, a far-right paramilitary organization which conducted terrorist operations during the Algerian war. Jean-Marie Le Pen is well-known for his xenophobic, Islamophobic, and misogynistic views; he once stated that the Nazis’ gas chambers were but “a detail” in the history of WWII, and that the idea that women should have ownership over their bodies was “ludicrous.” Marine Le Pen took over for her father in 2012 and has since proven herself much shrewder, particularly in the way she weaponizes her gender. In 2016, for instance, she wrote that “the migrant crisis signals the beginning of the end of women’s rights.” Le Pen regularly demonizes Islam, linking the hijab and burqa with religious oppression; with the RN’s victory on June 30, French women who wear hijab are terrified of what’s next. “Knowing that 10.6 million people voted for a party promoting the ban of the veil in the public space is hurtful,” one 22-year-old told Al Jazeera this week. “I am feeling betrayed by France.” A GLOBAL RIGHTWARD SHIFT France and the U.S. aren’t alone: Hard right governments and parties are advancing around the world. This week alone, Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni has made plans to rewrite the country’s constitution in order to gain more power. In Germany, the far-right AfD—which has mimicked Nazi slogans, excused the actions of the SS, and repressed protesters at its annual conference—came in second in the European Parliament elections. The Netherlands has just ushered in its own far-right government, and last month, Spain’s hard-right Vox Party held a rally with far-right leaders from around the world, including Argentina’s Javier Milei, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, and Israel’s Amichai Chikli. One thing these political parties have in common is their vicious Islamophobia, and, relatedly, their virulently racist views on immigration and regressive approaches to the role of women. History tells us that fascism starts with the demonization of the most vulnerable among us—and that one of the surest antidotes is the political organization of progressive women. “It is not a coincidence that women’s equality is being rolled back at the same time that authoritarianism is on the rise,” wrote Erica Chenoweth and Zoe Marks in Foreign Affairs. “Aspiring autocrats...have good reason to fear women’s political participation: when women participate in mass movements, those movements are both more likely to succeed and more likely to lead to more egalitarian democracy.”  Mariane Pearl is an award-winning journalist and writer who works in English, French, and Spanish. She is the author of the books A Mighty Heart and In Search of Hope.  FOLLOW THE METEOR     Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend?
|
