No One Grieves Alone
 December 21, 2023 Beloved Meteor readers, Over the last few months of this year, a question has been kicking around my brain like a Victorian ghost on the Yorkshire moors—and maybe you’ve been asking yourself the same thing: What does it mean to find joy in a time marked by such unimaginable sorrow? I probably don’t need to explain the extent of the global tragedy, but for starters: the ongoing war in Ukraine; the worsening living conditions for people in Afghanistan and Iran; the concurrent humanitarian crises in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and, of course, Gaza; the extreme weather events that have displaced millions. All the while as these tragedies unfolded, those of us who had the privilege of distance were asked to do one thing: bear witness. It was the least we could do, and yet, I felt guilty every time I chose to look away and take a “break” from the endless barrage of devastating news. But it was a personal tragedy this year that forced me to face a grief I couldn’t avoid. While walking home one night in July, my dear friend Anthony Gonzalez had a verbal altercation with a young man. After a heated exchange, the young man pulled out a gun and shot Anthony in the head. I learned about the shooting the next morning. I remember that day with haunting clarity. My five-month-old hadn’t slept all night, and I had spent the early hours irritated, arguing with my husband while he was at work. When he got home, all he could manage to say was, “They shot him.” Anthony had been rushed to the hospital. No one seemed certain of his condition, and visiting hours wouldn't start until late afternoon. Even if we could get in to see him early, we lived in a different state; we needed to know what was happening immediately. I called my mom, who still lives in the Bronx and could get to the hospital sooner. She was on her way to work. “There’s been an accident. Don’t get on the train,” I told her.  (FROM LEFT TO RIGHT) ANTHONY, MY MAMA, ME, MY HUSBAND AT AN OBSTACLE COURSE RACE IN 2016. ANTHONY HATED RUNNING BUT HE HATED MISSING OUT ON SOMETHING FUN MORE. Hours later, baby in tow, we made it to the hospital where my mom was waiting along with hundreds of Anthony’s family, friends, and co-workers from Local 28, the Tin Knockers union. The lobby was so crowded, I heard a nurse ask if someone famous had been admitted. Anthony was so annoyingly charming—of course he would draw a crowd. “Wait ‘til I tell him how many people are down here,” I remember thinking. A family friend who worked at the hospital (the Bronx can be small) took me to see him. “It’s not good, mami,” he told me quietly in the elevator on the way. And he was right. There were so many tubes and wires coming out of Anthony’s body—and the dried blood on his bandaging was deep blackish-green. A few days later, the call came in from a friend who was at Anthony’s bedside—he was medically brain dead. His organs were to be donated and the machines keeping his heart beating would be turned off. We didn’t want to believe it. To anyone following the local news, Anthony was just another faceless victim of gun violence. He was a statistic. But Anthony was a person. He was a son, a father, a brother, a friend—the type of guy who went out of his way to take care of others. He and my husband had been a dynamic duo for 20 years. When I first met my husband, Anthony was there. When we got married, Anthony was there. He was so much a part of us that I called him my sister-wife. (Or, as I joked on Instagram once: Anthony was first wife in the streets, but I was first wife in the sheets.) When I got pregnant, Anthony would ask, “How’s my niece?”  (FROM LEFT TO RIGHT) ME, MY ARCH NEMESIS WHO I LOVE AND DEPLORE WITH THE FIRE OF 1000 SUNS, MY HUSBAND, FREDDY, AND ANTHONY AT MY ENGAGEMENT PARTY IN 2018. After his death, I pushed my grief as far down as I could manage, piling everything else in my life on top of it. I was a new-ish mom in the middle of buying a house and trying to focus on the “more important” work of covering the bigger things going on in the world. It felt selfish to be caught up in my own sadness when there are things that feel so much worse happening in the world—mass killings, mothers holding their babies for the last time, families separated, houses destroyed. In the face of all that, my pain felt insignificant. But the more room I made for others in my heart, the more empathy and anger I felt for their injustices, the more apparent it became that I was a fool for trying to minimize my own personal loss. There is nothing bigger than the loss of life—even if it’s just one life. When we read the headlines about masses of people losing their lives and homes, we become blind to the reality of a single person and what their life meant. The news cycles can obscure a person’s humanity. Turn them into a number. Anthony’s obituary couldn’t capture who he truly was, how much his mother and child loved and depended on him. But those things were true, just as they are true for every one of the millions of people taken too soon this year. It took the world imploding to make me understand that mourning one person was just as valid and necessary as mourning thousands. And pushing away my personal grief in exchange for communal grief meant I was also pushing away from another feeling, one that I needed to make sense of Anthony’s loss: joy. Anthony oozed joy. (He also oozed Hennessy, and I never missed an opportunity to tease him about it.) He wanted to make people laugh. He loved all of us so fiercely, even when it was hard. He was simultaneously the most dependable and flakiest person on earth. He’d be the first person to bail you out of jail, but if you asked him to show up on time for Christmas dinner? You’d have better luck seeing a flying reindeer. It can feel impossible to find joy in this moment—especially if, for one reason or another, you feel like you don’t deserve to be happy. In a piece about how the war in Gaza has been documented on Instagram, Zaina Arafat wrote in New York Magazine that she searches for signs of normalcy amid the destruction. Her uncle's Gazan wife once told her, “During Gaza’s many wars, people would often go to the beach after a bombing to celebrate the fact that they were still alive. Joy is its own form of resistance. It allows people to sustain.” I echo her sentiment. My sorrow was debilitating, and there are moments when it still is. But then, I see the pictures on my refrigerator of me, my husband, and Anthony embracing each other and making silly faces at a wedding, and I feel grateful to have that memory.  ONE OF THE PHOTOS ON MY FRIDGE OF THE THREE OF US AFTER [REDACTED] SHOTS. There’s a line in the Quran that says, “Verily with hardship comes ease.” And a similar line in the Bible: “Weeping may endure for a night but joy cometh in the morning.” Many of us have not made it to our ease. I know I haven’t. But joy? It can find its way to us every time we open our eyes. So, with a hurting heart, I ask you to join me in the toughest end-of-year challenge: choose joy. Choose the joy of fighting instead of the sorrow of defeat. Choose hope over hopelessness. Choose joy so often that it emanates from within you, and you can share it with others. Beyond all of the horrors we’ve seen is a day of healing. A day of telling our stories and ending them with something good. I hope to meet you all there. -Shannon  FOLLOW THE METEOR     Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend?
|
The Pope's Declaration May Feel Late...But It's Still Important
  December 19, 2023 Ho, ho, ho, Meteor readers, Only a few more days ‘til Christmas, and I, for one, am very much looking forward to cooking my family’s ancestral holiday dinner, passed down to me by generations of Puerto Rican women: lasagna. In today’s newsletter, Phill Picardi helps us make sense of Pope Francis’s latest announcement—plus, a new bill to save books and a touch of, yes, good news. No-boil noodles for the win, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S IT REALLY MEAN?Yesterday, Pope Francis issued a declaration stating that priests are now allowed to bless same-sex couples. There is, of course, a caveat: The blessings must be in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church. This means that while those couples can be blessed, they still cannot receive the sacrament of holy matrimony, and their marriages cannot be formally recognized by the Church. Still, this is a bold step forward for Francis, who has been fending off conservative attacks from within the Vatican walls and, in the U.S., the overall influence of the political right. How happy should or shouldn’t we be about this? We knew exactly who to ask: Meteor collective member Phillip Picardi, who is both the CMO of the LA LGBT Center and a graduate of Harvard Divinity School. What does this new document from the Vatican mean for the LGBTQ+ Catholic community? Phillip Picardi: This is the rare headline about Christianity and LGBTQ+ people that doesn’t involve violent protests, book bans, or the rollback of basic civil rights. Instead, this is the Pope—who’s believed by Catholics to be the divinely ordained Head of the Church—telling his global clergy that they can bless LGBTQ+ couples. This is a massive turnaround, considering the Church’s hard-nosed stances on gay adoption, same-sex marriage, trans rights, and even safe sex practices around HIV/AIDS. Now, while a blessing isn’t going to solve the issues facing our community, it can’t hurt. Religious-based discrimination is a huge issue for the LGBTQ+ community—in fact, many of the youth who end up seeking housing with the LGBT Center [have been] kicked out of their homes for reasons related to religion. If this starts to change some of that harmful rhetoric, it can be significant. The declaration makes a point to distinguish between allowing same-sex couples a blessing rather than allowing them to receive the sacrament of matrimony. What’s the difference between these two things? Sacraments are the ways a Catholic moves through their journey within the church throughout their life. They’re liturgical sacraments, which means that they hold a certain rigor within the structure of the Church. Catholicism is very big on making sure Catholics have been educated and prepared before receiving these sacraments because, in a sense, they’re also a reception of God. A blessing is a much more casual acknowledgment by a clergy member; it doesn't hold the same liturgical rigor. Pope Francis, with this order, is trying to make it so that Catholic priests feel comfortable giving blessings to folks, even though they may not know about their moral litmus test. Before, getting a blessing from the Church was something that the Vatican said you needed to be somewhat morally pure or prepared for. So, he's removing this idea that there needs to be a moral exam for someone to receive a blessing or acknowledgment from the church. Is this a big step forward? Or not big enough? I think that depends on your own relationship to faith. If you are not Catholic, a move like this from the Pope can seem inconsequential or rudimentary—a small spiritual concession to make. And I think that can be a fair assessment considering how far other faith traditions have come on LGBTQ+ issues. On the other hand, if you are Catholic and know about the history of the Church, this can feel massive. Pope Francis is breaking with centuries of tradition that have seen the Church further marginalize and harm LGBTQ+ people. He’s also issuing this sort of “spiritual executive order” at a time when the Catholic church is, unfortunately, tilting even farther towards the right. The Pope has the power to change how Catholics look at their neighbors or how a parent looks at their child. Even for LGBTQ+ Catholics—because it’s estimated that at least half of our community is religious!—this is significant. It can feel like an opportunity for healing or reconciliation after a lifetime of religious-based trauma, after feeling abandoned by a church community or even by God. And if this is the beginning of that change—then this is a positive step in the right direction. ALSO IN THE NEWS
 TELL ME SOMETHIN' GOOD 🎶
  CLICK THE LINK ABOVE TO GET YOUR UNIQUE SHARE CODE TO SEND TO A FEW FRIENDS. IF FIVE OF THEM SIGN UP FOR THIS NEWSLETTER, YOU GET A METEOR TOTE! ALREADY HAVE A CODE BUT CAN'T FIND IT? NO WORRIES, IT'S WAITING FOR YOU DOWN BELOW ⬇️
 1 Any promises of children being exchanged for goods and services are not legally binding. 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.
|
Where the abortion fight is headed
  December 14, 2023 Felicitations, Meteor readers, ICYMI, yesterday was a national holiday, and if you did not receive paid time off from your employer, make sure to send your HR department an email letting them know you’ll be OOO tomorrow to make up for the missed observance. (It was Taylor Swift’s birthday.) In today’s newsletter, journalist Susan Rinkunas gives us an in-depth preview of what we can expect in the fight for abortion for 2024. Also, Oprah’s weight is once again a national conversation, I stress some small stuff and, of course, a little weekend reading. Waiting for Taylor to watch the Marilyn-Monroe-style Happy Birthday video I sent her, Shannon Melero  EYES ON 2024Why legislative decisions will matter more than ever in the second year since Roe was overturnedBY SUSAN RINKUNAS  THIS PROTEST SIGN IS A YEAR OLD AND YET STILL RELEVANT. (PHOTO BY JEENAH MOON VIA GETTY IMAGES) It has been nearly 18 months since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and the impact of the laws that have come to life since have had devastating consequences for pregnant people. One after another, we’ve read awful stories of patients being rushed to the ICU with sepsis, nearly bleeding out in bathrooms, or having to go out of state for abortions when their fetuses don’t have skulls. Amid all this news, it can be hard to pinpoint a bright spot, but there is one: Support for abortion has repeatedly won elections. In what would have otherwise been a sleepy off-year of races, voters were so furious about their rights being taken away that they re-elected a Democrat as Governor in Kentucky, codified abortion in Ohio, and flipped a chamber in Virginia, blocking a ban there. Republicans know their plan to ban abortion in every state is toxic with voters, so they’re trying to deceive people from their end goal. It’s why we’ve seen conservative hand-wringing over the label “pro-life,” attempts to deflect with transphobia, and, yes, even backing away from the word “ban” in favor of “limit” or “minimum standard.” But, according to Ryan Stitzlein, vice president of political and government relations at Reproductive Freedom for All, voters have shown a sustained fury over the abortion access crisis, and it stands to reason that they’ll keep it up. A major problem, however, is that our democracy isn’t the most democratic, and the majority doesn’t always prevail. (See: 2016.) Amid all the righteous anger, there’s a lurking threat that a Republican president could ban abortion nationwide. “This is not us being ‘hysterical.’ This is real,” Stitzlein says. “They're not going to stop until they've completely banned abortion.” As we close out another year of egregious cutbacks to abortion access, here’s what we can expect in 2024.  IN OTHER NEWS
SWEATIN' THE SMALL STUFFSometimes it's the other news that sticks in your craw. Or maybe it's just me?
   CLICK THE LINK ABOVE TO GET YOUR UNIQUE SHARE CODE TO SEND TO A FEW FRIENDS. IF FIVE OF THEM SIGN UP FOR THIS NEWSLETTER, YOU GET A METEOR TOTE! ALREADY HAVE A CODE BUT CAN'T FIND IT? NO WORRIES, IT'S WAITING FOR YOU DOWN BELOW ⬇️
 WEEKEND READING 📚
 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.
|
Kate Cox Should've Had a Choice
  December 12, 2023 Greetings, Meteor readers, I know that it’s not cool to scold people, but some of y’all deserve it. Stop sending money to George Santos on Cameo! It was funny when he was lying and scamming his way around Congress, but this man should not be profiting off his nonsense to the tune of $174,000. Honestly, if you want to pay that much to have someone sassy insult your friends, I’ve got a Venmo account, way better lighting, and have never been expelled from Congress. In today’s newsletter, we read between the lines of Texas’s Supreme Court ruling against Kate Cox. Plus, a ceasefire in the Congo and a reprieve for children apprehended at the U.S. southern border. Reminding you Santos Cameos are not in your budget, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONAn inhumane ruling: The story of Kate Cox, a Texas woman who sued, won, and then eventually lost her fight to obtain an abortion in her state has dominated the headlines over the last few days. So what makes this case such a huge story? Let’s start from the top. Kate Cox found out in November that her pregnancy was doomed. During an NIPT screening (between 10-13 weeks) meant to determine the sex of the fetus, Cox’s doctor found markers that the fetus was at high risk for Trisomy 18, “a condition with a very high likelihood of miscarriage or stillbirth and low survival rates.” Despite these initial results, Cox remained hopeful and underwent further testing, which only revealed worsening conditions for her fetus, including irregular skull and heart development, a twisted spine, and a neural tube defect. A specialist told Cox that in the best-case scenario—if the fetus managed to survive labor—it would only live for a week. Cox was devastated. Not only was her pregnancy not viable, there was a chance carrying it to term would impact her ability to conceive in the future. And yet, she was told by her medical professionals that she didn’t meet the legal threshold to obtain an abortion because of the extreme ban in Texas—a story shared by many other women in the state (and across the country) since the Dobbs decision. With the support of a doctor who was willing to perform the abortion, Cox quickly sued the state to request an exemption, given the dangerous medical circumstances surrounding her pregnancy. Last Friday, a lower court ruled in her favor—but shortly after Attorney General Ken Paxton appealed the decision, and the case was sent to Texas’s Supreme Court. On Monday, the highest court in Texas, much to the shock of medical professionals and advocates, overturned the lower court's decision. They ruled that Cox was not eligible for an abortion under the state’s guidelines. (Instead of waiting for her condition to worsen, Cox sought an abortion out of state just before the ruling was issued.) What is truly baffling about the ruling issued by the court are the linguistic gymnastics used by the justices to explain the decision. They place most of the blame on her doctor, writing that the physician had failed to meet a standard from the Texas ban that allows an abortion “if the pregnant female…has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.” Let’s pause here. At the point in which the suit was filed, Kate Cox’s life was not in immediate danger, and (ostensibly) potentially not being able to conceive again falls under “impairment to a major bodily function.” The fact that these laws are written in such a way that doctors have to hesitate in making the decisions that are best for their patients for fear they might have their licenses revoked or prosecuted is anything but “pro-life.” It’s a double-edged sword that even the Court was forced to acknowledge in its ruling: “Under the law,” the justices wrote, “it is a doctor who must decide that a woman is suffering from a life-threatening condition during a pregnancy, raising the necessity for an abortion…A pregnant woman does not need a court order to have a lifesaving abortion in Texas.” Unfortunately, Justices Devine and Blacklock, under your state’s law, she does. But she absolutely should not have to. AND:
 MORE FROM THE METEORIf you’re in New York this weekend: In Love and Struggle, Vol. 3 is happening at the Minetta Lane Theatre! Come hang out with us on December 14, 15, or 16 and see performances from voice actor Cree Summer, comedian Zainab Johnson, poet Mahogany L. Browne, musician Nona Hendryx (she was one of the singers on the original Lady Marmalade!!!), and many more. You can get your tickets (and a sweet discount) here.  If you’re looking for a podcast: Last week, In Retrospect revisited the “most hated woman in America,” actress Robin Givens. If you don’t know the story: In 1988, Givens and her husband, Mike Tyson, gave a television interview to Barbara Walters, addressing persistent tabloid rumors that their marriage was violent. In a stunningly honest moment, sitting next to Tyson, Givens admitted that her husband's abuse tormented her. But Givens’ honesty about her violent marriage to Mike Tyson wasn’t met by massive public empathy for her. Instead, she was vilified—even as additional evidence of his abuse emerged. (Givens ultimately endured, filing for divorce and rebuilding her life despite the vitriol.) In a comprehensive two-episode story, hosts Susie Banikarim and Jessica Bennett examine the cruel public reaction and what it teaches us about America’s misunderstanding of domestic violence at that time; plus, guest Dr. Salamishah Tillet weighs in on what happens when a Black woman comes forward about her abuse.   CLICK THE LINK ABOVE TO GET YOUR UNIQUE SHARE CODE TO SEND TO A FEW FRIENDS. IF FIVE OF THEM SIGN UP FOR THIS NEWSLETTER, YOU GET A METEOR TOTE! ALREADY HAVE A CODE BUT CAN'T FIND IT? NO WORRIES, IT'S WAITING FOR YOU DOWN BELOW ⬇️
 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.
|
An "Education Crisis" in Afghanistan
  December 7, 2023 Evening, Meteor readers, Did y’all see who TIME voted person of the year? Not to sound like a hipster, but she has been my person of the year since 2012 when the spirit first moved me to jump up on a coffee table and jam out to a burned copy of RED my friend gave me. (Thank you, Brittany, for showing me the light all those years ago.)  In today’s newsletter, we learn of a new crisis unfolding in Afghanistan. Plus, a little unsportswomanlike gloating, and our weekend reading list and a special feature on an inspiring young activist. Balancing it all, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONLost boys: Since the Taliban’s return to power in 2021, the harrowing conditions faced by women and girls in Afghanistan, including their loss of access to education, have been widely shared. But a new report from Human Rights Watch is shedding light on a new group of victims who may have been overlooked: school-age boys. The report has discovered an “alarming deterioration in boys’ access to education” —what HRW describes as an education crisis that could create a “lost generation.” Before the Taliban’s return, most schoolteachers were women; now that they’re barred from teaching, boys are attending classes led by unqualified male teachers, and in some cases, there are no teachers at all. One student who spoke with the researchers said, “The newly hired teachers have highly aggressive behavior toward the students, so the school environment is full of fear.” The report found that many students have stopped going to school altogether to avoid the sharp uptick in corporal punishment. Another student recounted to HRW that he had been whipped on his feet during a morning assembly and had his head shaved in front of his classmates because his hairstyle was “too Western.” A common thread among all the students interviewed is how deeply they feel the absence of the women who once taught them—including those with specialization in subjects like physics and biology, subjects that are no longer being taught in some schools because of a lack of qualified educators. The long-term effects of the education crisis, coupled with Afghanistan’s current economic crisis, will reverberate for generations. When boys and girls are denied access to education, they are more likely to experience heightened rates of discrimination, poverty, and violence. The future of an entire nation is being determined at this very moment, and unless the Taliban can be convinced to function in their country’s best interests, it will be a dark one indeed. AND:
 MORALES (CENTER) SURROUNDED BY FELLOW SURVIVORS AND SUPPORTERS IN HER YOUTH NETWORK. (PHOTO COURTESY OF ABRIANNA MORALES)
 TRINITY RODMAN STRIKING A WINNING POSE AT TRAINING CAMP. (IMAGE BY BRAD SMITH VIA GETTY IMAGES)  WEEKEND READING 📚
 FOLLOW THE METEOR    Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend?
|
To No One's Surprise, Millennials Aren't Looking Forward to Motherhood
NEWSLETTER
If only there was something we could do about that…
By Shannon Melero
Around this time last year, I was waddling around my baby shower, taking pictures, and picking food off people’s plates (pregnant privilege) when a friend of a friend came up to me and whispered, “I hated my baby shower, too. But at least it’s almost over.”
I gave a non-committal smile and pretended I had to use the bathroom. Exchanges like this were a regular occurrence throughout my pregnancy; everyone I talked to projected their own experiences onto mine. Never mind the fact that I actually loved my shower and happily ruined my elaborately secured headpiece by doing the dutty wine in the middle of the dance floor, belly and all—my pregnant body was just a placeholder for the feelings of others that they now felt comfortable voicing.
And what struck me is that so many of those feelings were negative. Horror stories about all of the bad things that would happen to me before, during, and after childbirth. It seemed like not a soul had anything positive to say about motherhood.
It turns out this doom-and-gloom narrative surrounding all things mommy is unique to millennials, as Rachel M. Cohen laid out last week at Vox in the now-viral “How Millennials Learned to Dread Motherhood.” Cohen dissects the many, many ways non-moms have been conditioned to think about motherhood:
“College-educated millennial women considering motherhood — and a growing number from Gen Z too — are now so well-versed in the statistics of modern maternal inequity that we can recite them as if we’d already experienced them ourselves. We can speak authoritatively about the burden of “the mental load” in heterosexual relationships, the chilling costs of child care, the staggering maternal mortality rates for Black women. We can tell you that women spend twice as much time as men on average doing household chores after kids enter the picture, that marriages with kids tend to suffer. We’re so informed, frankly, that we find ourselves feeling less like empowered adults than like grimacing fortune-tellers peering into a crystal ball.”
Add to this the absolute barrage of mommy content that Cohen details, from self-help parenting books to idyllic momfluencers warning millennials about the highs and mostly lows of having a child—and it makes sense that the birth rate in the U.S. is on the decline.
Cohen’s overall thesis wasn’t that millennials hate kids, but that we are being inundated with so much negative information about motherhood that it’s practically in the air we breathe. And she’s right. If I didn’t already have a kid myself and was going off what I read, I’d think it was the worst possible choice I could make in life.
But what I find frustrating about the mountains of think pieces around motherhood is how much time is devoted to the over-intellectualizing of The Decision and its pitfalls rather than mothering itself. It’s the navel-gazing on who-what-when-where-and-why people are deciding to have kids that distracts us from the larger issue: addressing the massive structural hurdles that have been placed in front of mothers for decades.
Consider the lack of affordable childcare, soaring costs of food, diaper shortages, and crumbling social safety nets for children in America. Add to that the absence of post-partum care, unless you pay for it out of pocket—the decision to skip motherhood is practically made for you. But all this constant talk about how hard motherhood can be isn’t giving way to what we as a society can actually do about it. Part of the structural problem is America has such an individualistic culture that we don’t think other people’s children are our problem. Whereas, for example, many Latine cultures emphasize the “village” approach to raising children. (Cohen also gets into how politicians, particularly Republicans, actually weaponized family-first values in such a way that made progressive millennials feel they were falling into a GOP trap if they voiced wanting a family.)
Once I gave birth to the world’s cutest baby (this has been fact-checked), people were notably less interested in having theoretical discussions about my decision to have a child. In their minds, by going through with that choice, I’d already done the hard part; I’d signed up for my miserable mommy fate and must endure it on my own. All that intellectualizing about why I would want to have a baby only to have my experience as a mom, like many other moms, boiled down to internet memes about sleeplessness and clueless partners. It is incredible how moms are so seen and discussed as theoretical figures, but in practice, we are invisible, obscured by our very own creation.
Now that I am a mom, I’ve been asked if motherhood is “worth it.” To that, I can only respond: Worth what? What thing do I hold up as a measuring stick to the experience of being a mom to determine its worth? There’s nothing that comes close, nothing that can really quantify the feeling I get when my kid laughs her screechy laugh. It’s also an incredibly insidious question because what we’re really asking moms is: Is your child’s life worth the money and resources that you’re demanding from the government?
That we spend so much time parsing and studying and surveying why people do or don’t want to have kids would be helpful if it actually went a step further and informed policy. Millennial mom-dread can be an interesting talking point we argue over for the next decade…or we can finally stop asking how to improve mom’s lives and just do the damn thing.
32,000 more births
 November 30, 2023 Darling Meteor readers, Exciting news! If you click the button below, you’ll get your first annual Meteor Wrapped highlighting how much time you spent reading, what you clicked, and which Meteor events were your favorite. Just kidding! We don’t jive with creepy algorithms that put all your business out there (as entertaining as it is to see what everyone’s been listening to). In today’s newsletter, we check in with the abortion lawsuit in Texas, see dead things come back to life, and share our long reads for the weekend. Don’t need a Wrapped to know I only listened to Taylor, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ON32,000 more births: On Tuesday, the Texas Supreme Court heard testimony from some of the 22 plaintiffs in a lawsuit arguing that the medical exceptions in Texas’s abortion ban are too narrow to protect women with complicated or nonviable pregnancies. The testimonies, from women whose lives were threatened by the denial of an abortion, ranged from horrific to unspeakable: last-minute travel plans after heartbreaking ultrasounds; sepsis; purple limbs from severe blood clots; and giving birth to a fetus missing parts of its skull. Writer Jessica Valenti pointed out on Xwitter that when asked by a judge if acrania (the condition that prevents the skull from fully forming) qualifies as an exception to the state’s abortion ban, the lawyer representing Texas admitted she didn’t know what it was. Yet another reason why non-doctors shouldn’t have final say over medical decisions. While some of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs were eventually able to obtain abortions, a new data analysis from the Institute of Labor and Economics sheds light on pregnant people who weren’t. The data estimates that a “significant minority”—between one-fifth and one-fourth—of women living in ban states who may have otherwise gotten an abortion did not get one. That means that in the first six months of this year, 32,000 more people than were expected based on past trends gave birth in those states. One of the authors of the paper says this reflects an “inequality story”: Women in their 20s and Black and Latine women—all of whom tend to be lower-income and are less likely to have the resources to travel—were disproportionately among those who gave birth. Ultimately, this study paints a far broader picture of who is affected by abortion bans than the Texas lawsuit is able to. The stories from the Texas plaintiffs—most of whom are white, married, and wanted to be pregnant before they were faced with medical emergencies—are terrible and dehumanizing, and demand justice. But if you widen the lens, you find a number of invisible victims, who may or may not fit the “good victim” stereotype. People of color are most affected by bans like the one in Texas (where the population is 40% Latine) and yet they remain underrepresented. Perhaps some of those 32,000 pregnant people were also diagnosed with fetal abnormalities—but the rest of them likely would have sought abortions for all kinds of individual reasons. Those reasons don’t matter. The right to bodily autonomy is not conditional; we have to be in it for every last person. AND:
   JUST CLICK THE LINK ABOVE TO GET YOUR UNIQUE SHARE CODE TO SEND TO FRIENDS. IF FIVE OF THEM SIGN UP, WE'LL SEND YOU A METEOR TOTE! ALREADY HAVE A CODE BUT CAN'T FIND IT? NO WORRIES, IT'S WAITING FOR YOU DOWN BELOW. ⬇️
 WEEKEND READING 📚
Correction: An earlier version of this piece stated that the students in Vermont had been killed instead of injured. We regret the error.  FOLLOW THE METEOR  Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their unique share code or snag your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays.
|
Who gets to be called "child"
  November 28, 2023 Salutations, Meteor readers, If you’re reading this, it’s time to toss out your Thanksgiving leftovers. I’m sure it all still tastes great, but is five-day-old potato salad really worth the risk to your gut health? In today’s newsletter, we look at the media’s coverage of the temporary truce in Gaza, a staggering report out of Puerto Rico, and as much good news as we can muster. Clearing the fridge, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONWar of Words: What do you call a 13-year-old taken from their home and held against their will by an armed group? Well, it depends. After more than a month of siege warfare, a humanitarian pause was established between Hamas and the Israeli government. As part of this pause, each group agreed to an exchange of hostages and transport of aid into Gaza, the first positive thing that’s happened in weeks. While Israeli children have been accurately described as “child hostages,” Palestinian children captured by the IDF and held for years without trial are being referred to as “detainees,” “minors,” or “prisoners under the age of 18,” which is a lot of words to avoid saying “children.” (Keep in mind that many of the people Israel released have not been tried or convicted of any crimes and include teenagers who were arrested years ago without formal charges.) As the Gazan activist Bisan asked in a social media post last week, “Are our children less children than theirs?”  A 17-YEAR-OLD RELEASED FROM ISRAELI JAIL REUNITES WITH HIS FAMILY. (PHOTO BY SAEED QAQ/ANADOLU VIA GETTY IMAGES) The choice to use such varying descriptors for children is not unique to the current news cycle. We can see it in the way Black boys routinely face “adultification” in the media: Michael Brown wasn’t just a teenager shot by a cop; he was “no angel.” Children captured at the U.S. southern borders aren’t innocents held and transported against their will; they’re “detained migrant minors.” White children and teens, on the other hand, are often described in terms that elevate their youth and victimhood—sometimes even if they’re the ones committing the crimes. They’re not terrorists; they’re troubled; they’re mentally ill; they’re “volunteers.” It should not need saying: Both Israeli and Palestinian children are victims of horrific violence. No child asks to be born in an oppressed territory or to live under an oppressive government. And all children deserve accurate, thoughtful, and fair reporting from our news institutions. As James Baldwin famously wrote in The Nation in 1980: "The children are always ours, every single one of them, all over the globe; and I am beginning to suspect that whoever is incapable of recognizing this may be incapable of morality." AND:
 TELL ME SOMETHIN’ GOOD
  FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend?
|
The women keeping femicide on the front page
|
No images? Click here  November 16, 2023 Darling Meteor readers, A group of Swifties in Brazil, where Taylor Swift is scheduled to perform on the next leg of the never-ending Eras tour, wants to project her “Junior Jewels” t-shirt onto Rio de Janeiro’s Christ the Redeemer statue. If I were a Christian, I would absolutely jump at this opportunity to have Taylor Swift put Jesus on the map. I mean if she can do it for the NFL…  In today’s newsletter, Mariane Pearl writes about the network of citizen journalists tracking the staggering number of femicides across the globe. Plus more news out of Ohio, a very strange blast from the past, and a special Red Cup Day “celebration.” Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ON
 Femicide on the Front PageMeet the global network of activists and citizen journalists determined to document violenceBY MARIANE PEARL PORTRAIT OF ACTIVIST AND RESEARCHER HELENA SUÁREZ VAL. (IMAGE BY SOLEDAD MORAGA) On a sunny, crisp, fall weekend, Dawn Wilcox sits in front of a computer in her suburban Dallas home with her cat perched on her lap, building her database. She scours news reports and police records for details about Ashli Ehrhardt Wonder, a 29-year-old woman allegedly killed by her estranged husband in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 22, 2023. The details are horrific, down to the fact that the assailant wrote his last name in blood on Wonder's leg. Wilcox, 60, marks Wonder as the 729th known femicide in the United States this year. A couple rows below, #731 is 26-year-old tech founder Pava LaPere, a beloved Baltimore CEO who was named in Forbes’ 30 Under 30 list earlier this year. A man followed her home and strangled her in late September. And LePere and Wonder were far from alone; femicide—the killing of women and girls because of their gender— increased by 24% in the U.S. between 2014 and 2020, according to a 2022 report by the Violence Policy Center. In the United States, often “people think femicide only occurs in Afghanistan and other so-called ‘developing’ countries, but this is happening right here on an unimaginable level,” Wilcox says. “Each death isn’t a cold number or a statistic, but a human being…a woman with hopes and dreams.” A few hundred miles away, north of Little Rock, Arkansas, 52-year-old Rosalind Page is adding an entry to her own grim database. On October 3, Sian Cartagena, an 18-year-old woman whose mother described her as “victim to a domestic abusive relationship” died two days after being shot in Allentown, Pennsylvania. “At least five Black women and girls are killed each day in the U.S.,” says Page, noting that Black women are disproportionately impacted by intimate partner violence and femicide. “This is an epidemic and it’s only getting worse.” Wilcox and Page aren’t professional journalists. They’re both full-time nurses who, driven by passion and frustration, have become investigative reporters in their spare time. Wilcox, a domestic violence survivor, has spent the last seven years building Women Count USA: Femicide Accountability Project, a database that has recorded 12,500 women murdered since 1950. Page, who has spent the last three decades working at a hospital, launched her database, The Black Femicide Prevention Coalition, after she noticed a pattern: More than half of the Black women she treated were victims of male-perpetrated violence. Wilcox and Page are part of an unlinked but growing global army of activists and journalists, from Uruguay to Algeria, who are taking it upon themselves to track femicide, one of the most extreme forms of gender-based violence. Exasperated by what they see as government inaction and inadequate media coverage, they are committed to honoring victims, pushing the news industry to do better, and providing the kind of vital data that can actually catalyze change. “We’re doing this work hoping that it becomes obsolete,” said Helena Suárez Val, who in 2014 started Feminicidio Uruguay, a public database tracking femicide in her country, where gender-based violence is the second most reported crime behind theft. Val has since collaborated with similar women-led data efforts throughout South America through a collective she co-founded called Data Against Femicide. As she describes it: “Our data is our activism…one of the tools that will hopefully bring down the misogynist master’s house.”  This series is a collaboration between the Gender, Ethic, and Racial Justice - International program at the Ford Foundation and The Meteor.  MEET US AT THE THEATERWe are thrilled to announce that In Love and Struggle Vol. 3: The Future is Around Us will be live at the Minetta Lane Theatre in New York December 14-16. Come enjoy live performances from Cree Summer, Zainab Johnson, Mahogany L Browne, Amanda Seales, Nona Hendryx and more. Each night promises to be a magical experience with storytelling, music, and comedy.   FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their unique share code or snag your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
Love, Actually is bad, actually
|
No images? Click here  November 14, 2023 Dear Meteor readers, This past weekend, we had the pleasure of hosting our annual event, Meet the Moment, at the Brooklyn Museum. As we sit in the middle of global crises—regular attacks on our rights, rising antisemitism and Islamophobia, war and conflict—the whole idea of meeting the moment has never felt more crucial. Amidst all this grief, we focused on hope. As Dr. Ayana Elizabeth Johnson said in conversation with Ilana Glazer, “I wake up every day and think, ‘How can I be useful?’… and pace myself with bad news, because it doesn’t change what I need to do.” A lesson to us all. In today’s newsletter, we offer a bit of that bad news, some not-so-bad news, and writer Scarlett Harris’s unsentimental thoughts about the 20th anniversary of Love, Actually. Ready to meet the moment with you, Samhita Mukhopadhyay  WHAT'S GOING ON
 MORE ON “MEET THE MOMENT”At the intersection of advocacy, representation, culture, and politics, we heard from leaders like:  ALLIE PHILLIPS ADDRESSES THE CROWD (PHOTO BY MONNELLE BRITT)
 12-YEAROLD SPORTS JOURNALIST PEPPER PERSLEY (PHOTO BY MONNELLE BRITT)
Our final conversation, between Dr. Ayana Elizabeth Johnson and Ilana Glazer, brought a levity I’ve taken with me, including this tidbit:   ROM-COMS OF CHRISTMAS PASTLove, Actually is Bad, ActuallyTwentieth-anniversary thoughts about the much-memed rom-comBY SCARLETT HARRIS Love, Actually, which celebrated its twentieth anniversary this month, became a classic for its star-studded cast, British sentiment, and Christmas vibes. Over the years, it has inspired endless memes and spoofs. But the bloom has been off the rose for some time now. Sure, plenty of rom-coms don’t hold up when revisited in the stark light of the 2020s—the catfisher’s playbook You’ve Got Mail and the statutory-rapey Never Been Kissed come to mind—and even modern takes like Happiest Season, Sierra Burgess is a Loser, and Marry Me sometimes rely on lazy stereotypes and outdated tropes. Still, when it comes to gender roles and relationship dynamics, Love, Actually is in a cringeworthy class of its own.  The 2003 British anthology rom-com, directed by Richard Curtis, follows an assortment of lovelorn Brits making the worst relationship decisions imaginable. Everyone, take a deep breath: Harry (Alan Rickman) is cheating on his perfectly nice wife Karen (Emma Thompson) with his vampy assistant, Mia (Heike Makatsch). Mark (Andrew Lincoln) is in love with Juliet (Kiera Knightly), the new bride of his best friend Peter (Chiwetel Ejiofor, one of only two people of color in the entire cast). The recently-jilted Jamie (Colin Firth) falls in love with his Portuguese housekeeper Aurélia (Lúcia Moniz), with whom he can’t communicate due to their language barrier. And the Prime Minister (Hugh Grant) engages in sexual misconduct at his workplace when he pursues his young, naive aide, Natalie (Martine McCutcheon). This behavior looks saintly compared to his professional rival, the United States President (Billy Bob Thornton, doing his best Bill Clinton), who sexually assaults Natalie later in the movie. To quote the Black Eyed Peas: Where is the love? Many of these supposedly romantic scenarios occur in the workplace, but even if they don’t, little airtime is given to the power dynamics involved. Whoever decided it was dreamy for Mark to show up at Peter’s house to accost his wife with placards spelling out his true feelings was seriously disturbed. Ditto to Jamie proposing to a domestic worker he employs without ever having exchanged a word. The least problematic relationship could have been cold, rigid Harry cheating on long-suffering Karen were it not for Harry’s sketchy workplace romance. When the female characters aren’t getting fat-shamed, they’re being objectified. Most of their storylines center on how hot they are, or aren’t. Jamie falls for Aurelia based on physicality alone. There’s not much to Mia besides luring Harry to cheat through her feminine wiles. Since Mark spends the movie avoiding Juliet, one must conclude that he’s primarily drawn to her looks. The same goes for elementary school student Sam (Thomas Brodie-Sangster), who’s apparently had so little interaction with his crush that he’s surprised she knows his name. Sam’s stepfather, Daniel (Liam Neeson), is dating his own crush, played by thee Claudia Schiffer. (Why wouldn’t he be, when every over-50 and/or schlubby guy in Love, Actually gets the girl?) Laura Linney’s Sarah pining after Rodrigo Santoro’s Karl is one of the only connections that gives a woman agency and a sense of desire—though, it must be said, they’re still colleagues. The movie’s most egalitarian relationship is that of two body doubles filming a sex scene, John (Martin Freeman) and Judy (Joanna Page). I’m guessing their scenes are an excuse to incorporate some nudity and sex gags amidst a cast with the least sexual chemistry in rom-com history. Still, the actors’ meet-cute is surprisingly effective. Even while naked in front of the cameras, they talk to each other like respectful, normal human beings. If only the rest of the movie could have taken a cue from their dynamic. Watching Love, Actually now seems particularly jarring given the evolution of the romantic comedy over the last 20 years, both in its depiction of relationships and its stars. There’s still a long way to go, but rom-coms like Rye Lane; Red, White & Royal Blue; and Good Luck To You, Leo Grande are paving the way Love, Actually wishes it could have. If you’re itching for some simple Christmance spirit this year, throw on a Lifetime or Netflix movie instead of Love, Actually. It might be just as problematic, but at least it won’t be pretending to be something it’s not.  Scarlett Harris is a culture critic, author of A Diva Was a Female Version of a Wrestler: An Abbreviated Herstory of World Wrestling Entertainment, and editor of The Women Of Jenji Kohan.  FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their unique share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays.
|
