Speaker 1: There Are No Girls on the Internet, as a production
Speaker 1: of I Heart Radio and Unbossed Creative. I'm Bridget Todd
Speaker 1: and this is There Are No Girls on the Internet.
Speaker 1: On March twenty one, the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court
Speaker 1: Justice nominee Judge Knagi Brown Jackson begins in the United States.
Speaker 1: Her nomination is historic. She's the first black woman ever
Speaker 1: nominated for the Supreme Court, and because she's a black woman,
Speaker 1: her confirmation hearing is sure to be filled with disinformation
Speaker 1: based in racist sexist attacks on our character, not her
Speaker 1: actual record, actions, deeds, or values. And in fact, these
Speaker 1: attacks started before she was ever named as the nominee,
Speaker 1: when she was just a hypothetical black woman that Biden
Speaker 1: intended to nominate to the Supreme Court. On the morning
Speaker 1: that Judge Jackson was named as the nominee, I sat
Speaker 1: down with my friends Sam and Annie from the podcast
Speaker 1: Stuff Mom Never Told You to talk through her his
Speaker 1: storic nomination and how we can fight back against the
Speaker 1: kinds of racist sexist attacks we're sure to hear during
Speaker 1: our confirmation hearing. It is so important that we have
Speaker 1: a digital media climate that allows for everyone to be
Speaker 1: judged by their merits, values and records, not unfair caricatures
Speaker 1: and stereotypes of who they are. Hey, this is Annie
Speaker 1: Samantha and welcome to Steff. I've never told your production
Speaker 1: of I Heart Radio. Today, we are once again thrilled
Speaker 1: to be joined by the amazing, award winning, fantastic Bridgit Todd,
Speaker 1: who we account ourselves so lucky to know and call
Speaker 1: her friends. Congratulations on your recent award for Best Technology
Speaker 1: Podcast at the I Heart Radio Podcast Awards. That's so awesome.
Speaker 1: Congratulations to you and whole team. Oh my goodness, thank
Speaker 1: you so much. Uh yeah, and you know what I'm
Speaker 1: gonna say, it feels freaking good to win. I was
Speaker 1: kind of like, oh, like, you know, just being nominated
Speaker 1: as nice, but I deep down kind of do you
Speaker 1: ever have one of those times in your life where
Speaker 1: you just really need to win? That's where I was at,
Speaker 1: so um I have to like briefly shout out my team.
Speaker 1: Tara Harrison is my producer and engineer. She's phenomenally talented.
Speaker 1: Jonathan Strickland is our EP. Phenomenally talented. Dr Michael A.
Speaker 1: Motto is our chief science officer and uh producer, so talented.
Speaker 1: I could not have one without them. They're so awesome. Yes,
Speaker 1: so thank you. Yes, especially when it's our personal friends. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I said that, I'm claiming its personal friend I know, Bridge,
Speaker 1: thank you. I mean I feel the same way about you.
Speaker 1: I feel very honward to to know you all in
Speaker 1: real life. Yes. Yes, um. And in case you don't
Speaker 1: know listeners, which I'm assuming you do, this is for
Speaker 1: the podcast There Are No Girls on the Internet, which
Speaker 1: is You've got a new season coming right, Yes, yeah,
Speaker 1: I probably should have said the name of my own,
Speaker 1: but I'm trying to get better at like self promotion. Yes,
Speaker 1: the podcast is called There Are No Girls on the Internet.
Speaker 1: We just want an I Heeart Award and we're coming
Speaker 1: back for a brand new season on March one. So um,
Speaker 1: we've kind of been in high on hiatus for a
Speaker 1: bit while we've been retooling, and I'm so excited that
Speaker 1: we're finally launching. So it would mean a lot to
Speaker 1: me if you all checked it out. Thank you for
Speaker 1: mentioning and Annie, I obviously cannot be trusted to remember
Speaker 1: to see the name of the thing I meant to
Speaker 1: be promoting, but yeah, please check it out. We have
Speaker 1: all kinds of interesting conversations about how women and queer
Speaker 1: folks and trans folks and black folks and other marginalized voices,
Speaker 1: how we show up or don't show up online and
Speaker 1: in technology. So uh yeah, please check it out. If
Speaker 1: that sounds like something you're interested in, you absolutely should.
Speaker 1: I'm still waiting for the fan fiction episode. I'm ready, yes, TVs.
Speaker 1: Also just a fun fact about Tar, who's also a
Speaker 1: good friend of ours. She always sings sitcom jingles at karaoke.
Speaker 1: It's the thing I adore about her. H and she
Speaker 1: refuses to see anything else and when someone interrupts her,
Speaker 1: she gets very annoyed. Rightly so, because this is her
Speaker 1: thing and she wants it and exclaimed it and has
Speaker 1: done well with it. How is it about? How have
Speaker 1: I worked with Tari for two years? And if not,
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess covid as hell, but this I
Speaker 1: need to take her out that for karaoke to see
Speaker 1: this in action, or you know what, what's a better bridget?
Speaker 1: We need you to come to Atlanta and hosts a
Speaker 1: big karaoke night. H if. There's several great locations that
Speaker 1: we love, including my favorite spot towards before Highway ran
Speaker 1: by a Korean family who was as Korean as you think,
Speaker 1: and we adored them and they bring us fruit place
Speaker 1: is a delight while we're seeing karaoke to our hearts content. Yeah,
Speaker 1: please put that on the agenda. The last time I
Speaker 1: was in Atlanta, I went to what is that spot
Speaker 1: called Church of Change. There was some karaoke happening. It
Speaker 1: was pretty fun. So yeah, Atlanta karaoke date. Literally anytime
Speaker 1: I am in, I need to see producer Tari in
Speaker 1: action singing these jingles one time and she was like,
Speaker 1: we're singing cheers together. It's okay. I love it. I
Speaker 1: love it, I love it, I love it. Okay. So
Speaker 1: this topic you're bringing to us today, Bridget, is extremely timely.
Speaker 1: We're very excited to talk about it, and we have
Speaker 1: a lot to get into. So let's let's get into it.
Speaker 1: What are we talking about today? So today is Friday,
Speaker 1: February two, and I want to talk about the just
Speaker 1: recently announced new nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Katangi
Speaker 1: Brown Jackson. So I have to admit I was putting
Speaker 1: together all my notes for this episode last night, and
Speaker 1: so the notes were all like, oh, the potential nominee
Speaker 1: like when we have the nominee, it was all very
Speaker 1: like hypothetical, and then this morning news just drop that
Speaker 1: she is indeed the White House's pick to be the
Speaker 1: first ever black woman Supreme Court justice on our Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: So very historic, very important, very exciting. But we know
Speaker 1: that it also comes along with racist attacks, sexist attacks,
Speaker 1: miss and disinformation that women of color who are in
Speaker 1: public office unfortunately tend to face. And so today today
Speaker 1: I really wanted to talk about how we got to
Speaker 1: this place of having this historic black woman being nominated
Speaker 1: for the Supreme Court, and what kind of attacks she's
Speaker 1: likely to be facing, what kind of attacks she's already
Speaker 1: been facing, and how we can sort of all work
Speaker 1: together to create the conditions to have a better conversation
Speaker 1: about her nomination. Yes, and as you said, this is
Speaker 1: very ongoing. We're trying to get this episode out as
Speaker 1: quickly as possible because things are changing very quickly. But
Speaker 1: we've already seen some of these attacks. I know we're
Speaker 1: gonna get into that in a minute, but before we
Speaker 1: do that, can you give us some some history and
Speaker 1: background on what's going on here? Absolutely, So here's a
Speaker 1: little bit of background about the calls to nominate a
Speaker 1: black women for the Supreme Court. Um, I have to
Speaker 1: shout out that she will rise campaign organized by a
Speaker 1: great organization called Sister Scotus UM and their whole coalition
Speaker 1: is full of dynamic black women, women like April Rain,
Speaker 1: who created the hashtag oscar so white sixteen nineteen project
Speaker 1: creator Nicole Hannah Jones, Allencia Johnson, who I love. I
Speaker 1: used to work with her at Planned Parenthood Broadway, multi
Speaker 1: Tony Award winner Audra McDonald. UM. So, just a huge
Speaker 1: coalition of dynamic, badass black women who have been advocating
Speaker 1: to put a black women on the Supreme Court. And
Speaker 1: so in the over two hundred year history of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, not one black woman has ever been confirmed
Speaker 1: or even nominated to serve on the Supreme Court. There
Speaker 1: have been a hundred and fifteen men and women who
Speaker 1: have served on the Supreme Court, and only three of
Speaker 1: them have been people of color. There have only been
Speaker 1: two Black American members of the Supreme Court, Justice through
Speaker 1: Good Martial and Justice Clarence Thomas. And so that's obviously
Speaker 1: not a very inclusive of track record in terms of representation.
Speaker 1: And you know, this idea of I thought this was
Speaker 1: kind of a new precedent, you know, a presidential candidate
Speaker 1: saying like, oh, if I'm elected, I will put this
Speaker 1: kind of person on the Supreme Court. However, there is
Speaker 1: actually a long history and precedent for presidents pedgant to
Speaker 1: pick a Scotus nominee who represents a certain demographic of
Speaker 1: our population. So this is from a really great New
Speaker 1: York Times oup ed by Walter Dellinger, who was the
Speaker 1: acting Solicitor General of the United States under Bill Clinton.
Speaker 1: He writes, there is a long and important tradition of
Speaker 1: presidents taking into consideration the demographic characteristics of perspective justices,
Speaker 1: including geographic background, religion, race, and sex, to ensure the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is and remains a representative institution in touch
Speaker 1: with the very facets of American life. More fundamentally, our
Speaker 1: history shows the process of reaching out to expand the
Speaker 1: personal backgrounds of the justices has often produced stellar jurists
Speaker 1: who make historic contributions to our court and judicial system.
Speaker 1: So he goes on to describe how President Reagan promised
Speaker 1: to nominate a woman to the Supreme Court, and even
Speaker 1: though a bunch of his Republican colleagues were very vocally
Speaker 1: against it and kind of forced him to add some
Speaker 1: man to his shortlist. President Reagan was really adamant about
Speaker 1: picking a woman and eventually nominated Sandra Day O'Connor, making
Speaker 1: for the first ever female Associate Supreme Court justice. Um.
Speaker 1: And so that's some like history that I didn't even
Speaker 1: know about. You know how other presidents have set this
Speaker 1: precedent to make the Supreme Court up more inclusive. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I think, I mean it's kind of a way
Speaker 1: to pract to call a lot of news organizations and
Speaker 1: Republicans perhaps if you're critical, but they would have you
Speaker 1: believe that this is a new thing, like, oh, this
Speaker 1: is never having before and it's ridiculous, right, And this
Speaker 1: is not just an issue of representation, correct, absolutely, so
Speaker 1: representation is important. People often say, like representation matters, and
Speaker 1: it absolutely does. I'm not, you know, disagreeing with that. However,
Speaker 1: it's not just a problem because rep presentation matters. It's
Speaker 1: also a problem because we deserve a representative democracy, a
Speaker 1: democracy with the people who are governing actually are able
Speaker 1: to meaningfully represent the people they are governing on behalf of.
Speaker 1: And you can't have that if your Supreme Court is
Speaker 1: mostly men. Mostly white, because then you have a Supreme
Speaker 1: Court is not actually able to, you know, meaningfully represent
Speaker 1: the people that are meant to be advocating on behalf
Speaker 1: of or working on behalf of. A biographical database from
Speaker 1: the Federal Judicial Center shows that of the three thousand,
Speaker 1: eight hundred and forty three federal judges, less than two
Speaker 1: percent have been black women. And so again it's not
Speaker 1: just the Supreme Court. It really does go to show
Speaker 1: that we have a long way to go and making
Speaker 1: sure that the people who are actually representing us in
Speaker 1: the courts actually are able to meaningfully represent us and
Speaker 1: like look like the population that they're actually meant to serve. Yes, yes,
Speaker 1: And I think right now a lot of us, for
Speaker 1: good reason, I would say, are on edge when it
Speaker 1: comes to the Supreme Court and decisions they're tackling or
Speaker 1: thinking about, including abortion. So this is very, very very
Speaker 1: important that we are representing accurately our country, the people
Speaker 1: in our country. So can we talk a little bit
Speaker 1: about the promise Biden made when it comes to nominating
Speaker 1: a black woman to the Supreme Court. Absolutely, so this
Speaker 1: is one of those instances where Biden made a very
Speaker 1: clear campaign promise. Certainly the administration has made other campaign
Speaker 1: promises and tb d if they will come to fruition,
Speaker 1: but this was a very clear one. So this is
Speaker 1: sort of making good on a very ex iplicit promise.
Speaker 1: You might hear black women referred to as the backbone
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party, and that's because we are reliable
Speaker 1: voters who tend to vote Democrat, and we tend to
Speaker 1: go out there and organize our friends and our family
Speaker 1: and our communities to also vote as well. Uh, if
Speaker 1: you look at the numbers, you know, black women, I
Speaker 1: think it was like less than one percent of Black
Speaker 1: women voted for Trump. So we pretty much we are
Speaker 1: pretty reliable voters for for the Democrats. Help it that way,
Speaker 1: and an overwhelming majority of Black women, I think it
Speaker 1: was supported Biden during his presidential bid. Right before voting
Speaker 1: began in South Carolina, during South Carolina's primary, Biden made
Speaker 1: a very clear campaign promise to nominate a black woman
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court. And so, yeah, this was a
Speaker 1: a very clear promise that he made to a constituency
Speaker 1: that is reliable, that is really did a lot of
Speaker 1: the work and a lot of the ground game of
Speaker 1: getting out the vote and organizing their our communities to
Speaker 1: get out the vote as well. Right, and and going
Speaker 1: back to what you mentioned when it comes to all
Speaker 1: of these sexist racist attacks that a lot of women
Speaker 1: and women of color, and especially black women face when
Speaker 1: it comes to elections like this or nominations like this,
Speaker 1: and then also misinformation and disinformation, It's one thing to
Speaker 1: kind of say that like, Okay, let's elect a black woman,
Speaker 1: and then another to provide the necessary support. Absolutely, so,
Speaker 1: you know, we hear, like I have a shirt that
Speaker 1: says trust black women. You know, we hear a lot
Speaker 1: of slogans about, you know, the importance of electing black
Speaker 1: women and really amplifying our political leadership. And again I
Speaker 1: feel like that that is great. Representation is so great. However,
Speaker 1: it really does need to go along with the work
Speaker 1: of creating the conditions so these these women will be supported.
Speaker 1: That they're not it's going to be, you know, fodder
Speaker 1: for unfair sexist racist attacks purely based on their identity
Speaker 1: who they are. And so I don't want to just
Speaker 1: have black women or women or women of color. I
Speaker 1: don't want to just have us be amplified as leaders
Speaker 1: if we're going to be set up to fail, if
Speaker 1: we're going to be set up to compete in a
Speaker 1: completely unequal playing field. I want to amplify the leadership
Speaker 1: of women, but I also want to create the conditions
Speaker 1: that we actually can thrive. Um And so I think
Speaker 1: that that's really what I want to get into today
Speaker 1: about some of the ways that our media landscape are
Speaker 1: kind of set up to ensure that this person will
Speaker 1: not get a fair shake. I have to say, like,
Speaker 1: I wasn't really thrilled watching Jen Psaki from the White
Speaker 1: House kind of give this tepid acknowledgement of the kind
Speaker 1: of racism and sexism that would go along with picking
Speaker 1: a black woman for the Supreme Court nominee. She said
Speaker 1: that Biden's intention to pick a black woman for the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court presented quote specific challenges, But in my opinion,
Speaker 1: that really doesn't go far enough in naming and lifting
Speaker 1: up the kind of racist, sexist attacks and media climate
Speaker 1: that are setting this person up to face. And that
Speaker 1: can really be tricky because, as I'm sure a lot
Speaker 1: of people listening can probably attest to, it can be
Speaker 1: sometimes difficult to call out the kind of unfair attacks
Speaker 1: that we face as marginalized people. So if you're a
Speaker 1: woman who was facing sexism. Sometimes if you if you
Speaker 1: are the one to vocalize that, that only kind of
Speaker 1: goes against you, because then you're the complainer, you're the nag.
Speaker 1: And so if you're in a climate where you can't
Speaker 1: really call out what you're facing, and the people around
Speaker 1: you aren't going to explicitly call out what you're facing,
Speaker 1: then it's just allowed to fester like uncalled out. M Yeah.
Speaker 1: I found it interesting because as you had brought this
Speaker 1: to our attention, I hadn't realized he had made an announcement.
Speaker 1: We just knew the promises that President Biden had given.
Speaker 1: Finally naming a name and trying to look her up
Speaker 1: and seeing who she was. Of course, one of the
Speaker 1: top things that I saw was a congressman going in
Speaker 1: on attacks and being repeatedly attacking them, just obviously already
Speaker 1: ready to go. Oddly enough, the same congressman was the
Speaker 1: one that had been one of three Republicans who had
Speaker 1: voted her in her federal seat, and we were like, wait,
Speaker 1: so how is she qualified then and not now? But
Speaker 1: we know the answer obviously of why they are very
Speaker 1: upset about this pick. In general, in all of the
Speaker 1: game of politics, we understand that, but as it comes along,
Speaker 1: that is part of that conversation where I'm like, I know,
Speaker 1: I don't even want to mention who it is because
Speaker 1: I don't want to amplify that even more. Instead, let's
Speaker 1: talk about her qualifications and why she is qualified to
Speaker 1: lead us in this type of position. Absolutely so, even
Speaker 1: before Judge Jackson was named as the nominee, people were
Speaker 1: wasting no time lobbying these completely ridiculous, unfair sexist attacks
Speaker 1: on her. Just we don't even know who she is.
Speaker 1: She was just a hypothetical person. Senator John Kennedy he
Speaker 1: told Politico, I want a nominee who knows a law
Speaker 1: book from a J Crew catalog. I want a nominee
Speaker 1: who's not going to try to rewrite the constitution every
Speaker 1: other Thursday to advance a woke agenda. And he was
Speaker 1: saying this, we didn't even know who this person was yet,
Speaker 1: and they were already lobbying these racist, sexist attacks, like
Speaker 1: why do you assume that she's not going to know
Speaker 1: what a legal brief from a J Crew catalog? Like
Speaker 1: that's like reading between the lines. That is obviously meant
Speaker 1: to be a sexist swipe. Because Biden had already expressed
Speaker 1: his intentions to nominate a black woman. Why do you
Speaker 1: assume this person is going to be, you know, pushing
Speaker 1: awoke agenda? And what does that even mean? I think
Speaker 1: when you really pull apart some of these dog whistles
Speaker 1: that are used, it just reveals itself as unfair attacks,
Speaker 1: rooted in identity, or just complete hypocrisy. Like just like
Speaker 1: what you were saying, were you referencing Lindsay Graham? Who
Speaker 1: was you know? And I think it was Literal. So
Speaker 1: so I've been up working on this since like like
Speaker 1: all day right where I watched the announcement come in,
Speaker 1: I watched all the all the responses. Lindsay Graham tweeted
Speaker 1: Literal minute after she was announced, saying, quote, the radical
Speaker 1: left had won over Biden. Yet Graham also voted to
Speaker 1: confirm Judge Jacks into the DC Federal Appeals Court, which
Speaker 1: is the second most important court in the country, just
Speaker 1: eight months ago this past summer. So which is it
Speaker 1: is this win for the woke left? And like what
Speaker 1: was different eight months earlier when you voted to confirm her.
Speaker 1: So it's very interesting at this point, I wouldn't even
Speaker 1: like the hypocrisy is so clear that it's almost sort
Speaker 1: of like not worth plating out. It's like, of course,
Speaker 1: you're only interested in a bad faith assessment. You know,
Speaker 1: you don't even expect people to look back at your
Speaker 1: own voting record to see where you actually stand on
Speaker 1: this issue. You're just counting on people not actually spending
Speaker 1: a little bit of time and thinking about what you're saying. Right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: we're both shaking our head. Was It's true, though. It's
Speaker 1: so frustrating because it's like every time I point out
Speaker 1: something that's hypocritical, it doesn't matter anymore. They're like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, essentially, it's kind of what we were talking
Speaker 1: about when um Amy Barritt Cohen was confirmed as well
Speaker 1: as Kavanaugh, about the ridiculous hYP hypocrisy that happened between
Speaker 1: Obama and administration and the Trump administration. And now we're
Speaker 1: back again. Now we're here again to the same conversation,
Speaker 1: and literally half of the Republican candidates with the in
Speaker 1: servative politicians will agree, yeah, this is hypocritical. This is
Speaker 1: what we do, and they kind of just leave it
Speaker 1: at that and assume that nobody will notice. And typically
Speaker 1: people who are already dugs their hills in don't notice,
Speaker 1: won't notice, because they want what they want in whatever
Speaker 1: agenda it is that they have planted themselves firmly in.
Speaker 1: But yeah, let's talk about the fact this is a
Speaker 1: whole different conversation, but that we have different types of terms,
Speaker 1: and words like woke that have been used as a
Speaker 1: positive has now flipped so hard to a negative that
Speaker 1: everyone is automatically like, oh, he said that, he's right.
Speaker 1: It's bad. Oh my gosh, I could talk all days.
Speaker 1: So I have two things to say about this. One
Speaker 1: is that you are so right. There are so many
Speaker 1: words that have just become meaningless. Right. So, if you're
Speaker 1: talking about a hypothetical Supreme Court nominee and you're like, oh,
Speaker 1: we don't want somebody who's a woke, you don't know
Speaker 1: any This person doesn't is a hypothetical person, so you're
Speaker 1: not You don't know anything about their record, you don't
Speaker 1: know anything about like where they stand on the issues.
Speaker 1: So saying woke it almost just just the only thing
Speaker 1: we know about this person is that she's going to
Speaker 1: be a black woman. They're saying, you don't want someone
Speaker 1: who is woke. Reading within the lines, you're using that
Speaker 1: as a stand in for the word black, right, And
Speaker 1: so I think that we see that time and time
Speaker 1: again where these words become stand ins for identity and
Speaker 1: they also kind of become meaningless, right, Like cancel culture
Speaker 1: is another one I remember reading this is this is
Speaker 1: sort of silly, But there was this story a while
Speaker 1: ago where this um guy who had been running a
Speaker 1: racehorse in the Kentucky Derby. His racehorse had been I
Speaker 1: don't know that, I'm sure there's more details to it,
Speaker 1: but essentially his racehorse had been drug tested and we
Speaker 1: had been like found to have drugs in a system,
Speaker 1: so he was disqualified. And then an interview he was like, oh,
Speaker 1: this is cancel culture strikes again, And I was like,
Speaker 1: what are you even talking about, Like, how is the
Speaker 1: cancel culture? Like in what way? Yeah, don't been your
Speaker 1: horse and your course was disqualified. That's not cancel culture.
Speaker 1: Even like I, I just have a lot of questions
Speaker 1: about the way that these words are being used. But
Speaker 1: I think and that's kind of the second point that
Speaker 1: I want to make about this is that one of
Speaker 1: the reasons why I am so adamant about things like disinformation,
Speaker 1: misinformation and just having a healthier, more honest conversation and
Speaker 1: a media landscape that facilitates those kinds of conversations. Is
Speaker 1: that we are no longer able to have substitutive, thoughtful
Speaker 1: conversations about the issue when our ecosystem is flooded with
Speaker 1: bad faith, clearly hypocritical rhetoric and discourse. And so, you know,
Speaker 1: even if you're someone let's say that you're listening and
Speaker 1: you are very conservative, you know, you probably have hated
Speaker 1: this conversation that we've been having. But you know, like
Speaker 1: even if you're someone who is very conservative, you deserve
Speaker 1: to be able to, you know, talk about your your issues,
Speaker 1: talk have have a substitutive conversation and a sub sort
Speaker 1: of debate about where you stand on the issues. And
Speaker 1: so I believe that when the discourse and the space
Speaker 1: is just flooded with you know, charged rhetoric where we're
Speaker 1: talking where we're talking about race or identity but using
Speaker 1: different words, everybody loses because you're not able to have
Speaker 1: a substitutive conversation about where you might agree or disagree
Speaker 1: with the Supreme Court nominee, right you're the And so
Speaker 1: I think that that's my biggest issue is that we
Speaker 1: have a media ecosystem that really amplifies the most extreme,
Speaker 1: the most over the top statements, or the most nonsense statements,
Speaker 1: and so everybody loses. Democrat, Republican, conservative, lefty, whoever. Everybody
Speaker 1: loses when we have an ecosystem that amplifies the least
Speaker 1: substitutive takes because that takes away from the ability to
Speaker 1: have an actual substitutive, thoughtful debate or conversation about the
Speaker 1: actual issues. And so I don't want to create the
Speaker 1: conditions for Judge Jackson to only be judged by racist,
Speaker 1: sexist tropes or caricatures or unfair attacks, because I want
Speaker 1: to talk about her actual credentials. I want to talk
Speaker 1: about her actual record. I want to talk about her
Speaker 1: actual character. But disinformation and misinformation does not allow for
Speaker 1: the actual issues to take the center stage that they
Speaker 1: should write. You just kind of explained my whole conversation
Speaker 1: with my parents over the holidays, but we won't get
Speaker 1: into that right now. I'm just gonna put that there. Um,
Speaker 1: it was interesting, but you know, and then thinking about
Speaker 1: this because when we talk about these terms and automatically
Speaker 1: just becoming used by media as an ecosystem to bring
Speaker 1: in the shock value. Uh, it makes me also realize
Speaker 1: that in terms of what they're talking about in woke,
Speaker 1: it is a black term that was created by the
Speaker 1: black community to kind of gift non black people with, Hey,
Speaker 1: you woke up. Congratulations, you're finally seeing what we have
Speaker 1: been going through all of our generations. Welcome you have woke, Like,
Speaker 1: that's kind of that term, and I hate that it
Speaker 1: has been weaponized to this point of being used against
Speaker 1: people and when they're using it. When Kennedy used this,
Speaker 1: he was weaponizing this terms to a woman, to an official,
Speaker 1: to a judge, to a professional who didn't need to
Speaker 1: be woke. She was already there. This was her life
Speaker 1: and not only that. If we do look at her
Speaker 1: backgrounds and credentials she has been doing this work, there's
Speaker 1: no conversation of her being woke. She just is. So
Speaker 1: with that. Because I'm angry about this, can we talk
Speaker 1: about some of those qualifications? Oh? Absolutely? So. One of
Speaker 1: the best ways to counter all the kinds of bs, racist,
Speaker 1: sexist attacks that you're definitely going to hear about Judge
Speaker 1: Jackson is to flood the space to counter that with
Speaker 1: accurate information. So I'm super excited to talk about her
Speaker 1: actual qualifications. So a little bit of background information about
Speaker 1: Judge Jackson. She was born in Washington, d C. Shout
Speaker 1: out to d C, where I am also from. She
Speaker 1: grew up in Miami, Florida. Her parents started their career
Speaker 1: as public school teachers and then later became administrators in
Speaker 1: the Miami Dade County public school system. I love this
Speaker 1: little fun fact about her. Judge Jackson was a star student,
Speaker 1: but she was told not to set her sights too
Speaker 1: high by a guidance counselor when she told that guidance
Speaker 1: counselor that she wanted to go to Harvard. And guess
Speaker 1: where she ended up going to college Harvard. That's right,
Speaker 1: So she definitely like shut that guidance counselor right up.
Speaker 1: She studied government at Harvard University and attended Harvard Law School,
Speaker 1: where she was the supervising editor of the Harvard Law Review.
Speaker 1: So her educational credentials are pretty solid. Yeah, yeah, I
Speaker 1: would say so. I love that too. I hope that
Speaker 1: the guidance counselor knows. Oh he knows now. So something
Speaker 1: else about her is that she is absurdly qualified and experienced.
Speaker 1: So this is from Steve Ladek Judge Jackson has eight
Speaker 1: point nine years of prior judicial experience. That's more than
Speaker 1: four of our current justices Thomas, Roberts, Kagan, and Barrett
Speaker 1: had combined. It's also more than four of the last
Speaker 1: ten justices had at their confirmations, nine of the last seventeen,
Speaker 1: and the forty three of fifty eight appointed since nineteen hundred.
Speaker 1: So anybody who tells you she is not experienced, Anybody
Speaker 1: that tells you that she's not qualified, anybody that tells
Speaker 1: you that she only got this position because she's a
Speaker 1: black woman's just missinformed and they're spreading misinformation because as
Speaker 1: we can see, she's very qualified, more qualified than you know,
Speaker 1: some of the current Supreme Court justices, right, which is infuriating.
Speaker 1: But yes, also, as you mentioned, she's already gone through
Speaker 1: a lot of vetting, right, absolutely, So this is something
Speaker 1: else that I think people really need to understand. She
Speaker 1: has been vetted a ton, she has a proven track
Speaker 1: record of attracting bipartisan support in the Senate. She's already
Speaker 1: been confirmed three times on a bipartisan vote, so there
Speaker 1: is no reason to not expect the same now that
Speaker 1: she is being considered for the Supreme Court. Again, Lindsay
Speaker 1: Graham voted to confirm her, Murkowski voted to confirm her,
Speaker 1: and Collins voted to confirm her. Right, So these are
Speaker 1: Republicans who broke ranks with their party to side with
Speaker 1: Democrats to vote to confirm her. And so, having already
Speaker 1: gone through this process, I would really want, you know,
Speaker 1: someone like Lindsay Graham to sit down with me and
Speaker 1: explain what changed over the last eight months when he
Speaker 1: voted to confirm her to the second most important court
Speaker 1: in the country. Uh to now if he is saying
Speaker 1: that she is not an appropriate choice, I'm the same
Speaker 1: with Collins and Murkowski. There's no reason to expect that
Speaker 1: she should not be able to be confirmed by the Senate,
Speaker 1: considering she's been vetted and gone through this process three
Speaker 1: different times before. There are certain people that like thinking
Speaker 1: about talking to them makes my skin curl one of them.
Speaker 1: But yes, I do find it interesting, and this is
Speaker 1: a whole different conversation. Again, you know how I love
Speaker 1: the side track that it is an interesting strategy that
Speaker 1: Biden in his administration has pulled, not only because this
Speaker 1: is obviously telling it's like, Okay, this is one of
Speaker 1: the most qualified people that we could find that we
Speaker 1: think is deserving and has earned a place in this position.
Speaker 1: If you who opposed everything we do, are so gonna
Speaker 1: start arguing, is gonna be a telltale son of who
Speaker 1: you are and what you're doing. So it's an interesting turn. Again,
Speaker 1: that's a whole different conversation because I've always interested in
Speaker 1: good political thriller, and this feels like, you know, I
Speaker 1: have to do everything a little fictional or movie es.
Speaker 1: It's so true because like you know, and thinking I
Speaker 1: was thinking about that this morning. I do think it's
Speaker 1: clear to me that the administration picked someone who had
Speaker 1: already been like gone through this process a few times,
Speaker 1: just so that it would be you know, test sort
Speaker 1: of shut down any kind of you know, const nation
Speaker 1: there might be in terms of like you know, like
Speaker 1: vetting her and all of that. And I think it
Speaker 1: really demonstrates something. I'm not totally sure. This is not
Speaker 1: a completely fleshed out Bob, and I'm not totally sure
Speaker 1: how it fits into this conversation, but I do think
Speaker 1: there is this standard for women, women of color and
Speaker 1: black women where we have to be extra special qualified
Speaker 1: kind of that standard of women have to do a
Speaker 1: D thirty more than men in general. And then when
Speaker 1: you're part of the marginalized community, add on another twenty percent.
Speaker 1: And then if you're a black woman, add on another
Speaker 1: of exceeding the standard, exceeding the qualifications because for some reason,
Speaker 1: you have to be on that level in order to
Speaker 1: be seen as um serious. So that's just in general.
Speaker 1: So let's put that in this federal level where they
Speaker 1: are putting her under a microscope in every way, and
Speaker 1: not only putting her in under a microscope to twist
Speaker 1: and turn truth, they're going to tell flat out. Wise,
Speaker 1: we know of this. It's already happening. That's what they're doing. Uh.
Speaker 1: And we saw this with Kamala Harris, which I really
Speaker 1: found fascinating because Kamala Harris has a track record as
Speaker 1: the Attorney General. They lasted her rightful. It's so for
Speaker 1: her track record in criminalizing people in general. And when
Speaker 1: I found out Judge Jackson comes from the public defender
Speaker 1: of filth, correct, that's right, so super super exciting. Not
Speaker 1: only would she be historic as the first black woman
Speaker 1: on the Supreme Court, but also the first public defender
Speaker 1: to serve on the Court, which is a big deal.
Speaker 1: She has a long personal history of working as a
Speaker 1: public defender. While she was at Harvard, a relative was
Speaker 1: sentenced to life in prison for a non violent drug offense,
Speaker 1: and she helped convince a law firm to take his
Speaker 1: case pro bono, eventually eating to having President Obama commute
Speaker 1: his sentence. And so it is a big deal to
Speaker 1: have somebody on the Supreme Court who has this legacy
Speaker 1: of public service in this way. My brother is a lawyer.
Speaker 1: He got his start as a public defender in Durham,
Speaker 1: North Carolina. I just love the idea of having someone
Speaker 1: who has this history because it's it's important, you know.
Speaker 1: I think that it's often easy to forget that public
Speaker 1: service should be a pipeline into bigger things, you know,
Speaker 1: like I want to see more teachers, public educators, public
Speaker 1: servants be elevated on the nation on a national way
Speaker 1: like this. So I love that aspect of her. Amen,
Speaker 1: former social worker, you a men. We have this attitude
Speaker 1: where it's like, if you choose to serve the public,
Speaker 1: you're some kind of like I don't know, I don't think.
Speaker 1: I don't think we give people who serve the public
Speaker 1: that the like prompts they deserve, and they deserve a lot.
Speaker 1: And you know what, I have been feeling some emotions
Speaker 1: for our people in Texas who are social workers, that
Speaker 1: we know what's happening. They are most people do, I think,
Speaker 1: especially our listeners. And my heart has been breaking because
Speaker 1: I already know how divisive that type of conversation is.
Speaker 1: But going back to Judge Jackson and her public defense, like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I have worked with many public defenders, and a good
Speaker 1: public defender is invaluable in the way that they have
Speaker 1: to advocate and push for truth and justice. True justice
Speaker 1: meaning that we are hearing the side and that they
Speaker 1: are not guilty until proven otherwise. And how oftentimes, especially
Speaker 1: in I'm assuming DC Atlanta was very similar, how often
Speaker 1: it that gets wrong, and that when we would find
Speaker 1: as social worker who worked in the judicial system, when
Speaker 1: I found a good defender, I would and talked to
Speaker 1: them personally to try to get them onto cases for
Speaker 1: my kids specifically to make sure that they got what
Speaker 1: was fair. And that is so huge, So I do
Speaker 1: my heart is soaring to know that we have someone
Speaker 1: in that field coming to this point. Yeah, it's it's
Speaker 1: a pretty historic thing. And yeah, people who serve the
Speaker 1: public like thoughtfully and and meaningfully, they really care about people,
Speaker 1: And so I I applaud you for for you know,
Speaker 1: going the extra mile to create the conditions for your
Speaker 1: kids to get real justice and to have a real advocate,
Speaker 1: because that's not everybody is like that. That's like a
Speaker 1: special thing. Yeah, this is something that's been on my
Speaker 1: mind and I think a lot of our minds lately.
Speaker 1: Which is a separate podcast, but I'll mention it here.
Speaker 1: Is like I feel in this country we have a
Speaker 1: real problem with glorifying like male asspilary as being successful,
Speaker 1: like oh, you manage the system, get your money, like
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter. Kind of like what we're talking about
Speaker 1: here with the hypocritical nature of all these arguments being made,
Speaker 1: and it's more to me, it feels more about the
Speaker 1: show and like, oh, I'm a politician, I'm on TV,
Speaker 1: like it's glorified, Whereas we have people who are working
Speaker 1: for the public, and in a lot of ways, these
Speaker 1: are kind of more gendered as feminine and therefore lesser
Speaker 1: in nature, like not worth the attention, not worth the accolades,
Speaker 1: not worth the money, even though it's so critical to
Speaker 1: a functioning society. But yeah, oh my gosh, I mean
Speaker 1: I could talk all day. The way that we have
Speaker 1: harmed everyone, like a deep, deep societal harm is our
Speaker 1: legacy of not respecting jobs that we code as feminine,
Speaker 1: the traditionally feminine, so care work, you know, social work, education,
Speaker 1: all of these things that we have coded as feminine,
Speaker 1: The de prioritization and just like outright degradation and disrespect
Speaker 1: of those I think that the ramifications we will never
Speaker 1: fully be able to contend with as a society, how
Speaker 1: much that has harmed us. The way that you know,
Speaker 1: people who do care work are are underpaid, if they're
Speaker 1: paid at all, just the just the way that we
Speaker 1: don't even factor it in and it just falls on
Speaker 1: unpaid women, right, Like, this is what I mean when
Speaker 1: I say women are the backbone of our country and
Speaker 1: our society, and oftentimes that work is just completely not
Speaker 1: just unpaid, but unseen, unacknowledged. It's just like the cost
Speaker 1: of society functioning. And so I think that this country
Speaker 1: sometimes the only thing that is standing between our our
Speaker 1: country and like complete collapse is the effort and labor
Speaker 1: of some exhausted women. Right and let's be honest at
Speaker 1: this point in time, is black women like that? I
Speaker 1: think like when we talked about the elections before Biden,
Speaker 1: the Biden administration, the amount of work that has to
Speaker 1: be done, when we talked about cases like Aubrey Ahmed
Speaker 1: and all of those, how women have been forefront in
Speaker 1: protesting and bringing up all of these conversations and the
Speaker 1: continued work that they have to do. But not only that, like,
Speaker 1: not only are they working to do good, but they're
Speaker 1: often having to combat all of the disinformation and harmful
Speaker 1: things that are being said about them because they are
Speaker 1: doing the hard work exactly. I mean, that really leads
Speaker 1: us back to, you know, Judge Jackson. Just so so,
Speaker 1: Judge Jackson, I think I got the email that she
Speaker 1: was going to be the pick at like eight thirty
Speaker 1: this morning, and so we're talking at two pm and
Speaker 1: so already to send in a couple of hours. Here
Speaker 1: are some of the unfair or just completely misleading attacks
Speaker 1: I've seen on her. One is that you know, her
Speaker 1: decisions have been overturned, when in reality, of her roughly
Speaker 1: six hundred decisions that she has authored, she has been
Speaker 1: overruled just two percent of the time, right, And so
Speaker 1: if someone is telling you that in her career as
Speaker 1: a judge, her decisions have been routinely overruled or overturned.
Speaker 1: That's just not true. It's happened two percent of less
Speaker 1: than two percent of the time. Uh, the idea that
Speaker 1: she's an affirmative action higher, that she only got the
Speaker 1: job because she's a black woman, when in reality she
Speaker 1: is clearly absurdly qualified. To the point we're even talking
Speaker 1: about it seems ridiculous. Um, this idea that she's too
Speaker 1: woke or too radical, one thing I would say is
Speaker 1: really be wary of people throwing things like that around
Speaker 1: without being able to point to a specific ruling or
Speaker 1: policy or argument that she makes right, So, just saying
Speaker 1: somebody so and so is too radical and then not
Speaker 1: having it be attached to any kind of actual policy
Speaker 1: that you think demon's strates that. Be wary of people
Speaker 1: who are who are saying that, because, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: nine times out of ten, when someone is saying that,
Speaker 1: what they actually mean is this person as a black woman.
Speaker 1: And then this idea of just sort of kind of
Speaker 1: connecting her to things for no real reason, with no
Speaker 1: real explanation as to like why you are connecting her
Speaker 1: to these things? And so earlier today, miss McConnell, tweeted,
Speaker 1: the Senate must conduct a vigorous, exhaustive review of Judge
Speaker 1: Jackson's nomination to the Supreme Court. This is especially crucial
Speaker 1: as American families face major crises that connect directly to
Speaker 1: our legal systems, such as skyrocketing violent crime and open borders.
Speaker 1: So what does Judge Jackson have to do with open borders? Exactly?
Speaker 1: What does she have to do with violent crime? Exactly?
Speaker 1: You know, the fact that he's just throwing her in,
Speaker 1: you know, connecting her to these these things. I think, really,
Speaker 1: I think this is a moment where we will really
Speaker 1: be rewarded by really thinking critically about what people are
Speaker 1: saying and what they're saying in between the lines. And
Speaker 1: I think that really, to me, demonstrates a tricky truth
Speaker 1: about the nature of racialized and gender disinformation. I think
Speaker 1: most people can tell you that there is misleading or
Speaker 1: an accurate information out there about like COVID or vaccines,
Speaker 1: But misinformation can be a lot trickier to spot and
Speaker 1: talk about when it relies on dog whistles, you know,
Speaker 1: the same way that someone might say like, oh, a
Speaker 1: woman is too emotional to lead, and that's just code
Speaker 1: for being a woman Oftentimes people are using dog whistles
Speaker 1: or coded language to attack women, women of color, and
Speaker 1: other marginalized folks with this kind of like highly coded
Speaker 1: language that can be so tough to to really call
Speaker 1: out and talk about for what it is. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: it's such a again, it's one of those things. It's
Speaker 1: such a double standard and it's so hypocritical. But I
Speaker 1: think back to Kavanaugh. He's like crying these angry tears.
Speaker 1: He's like confirmation, Wait, this is what you're not going
Speaker 1: to call him emotional notes He's being awarded for being
Speaker 1: emotional as a man because that's difficult for them, because
Speaker 1: he's crying because he's being accused of sexual assault. Yes,
Speaker 1: isn't it funny how like we've we've branded anger as
Speaker 1: not an emotion, so like him, they are too emotional.
Speaker 1: It's like, well, men, if men get angry in public,
Speaker 1: is that not an emotion? And how come the two emotional?
Speaker 1: You know, banner is not used to identify that as
Speaker 1: an emotion. Yes, Oh, I could talk about that forever.
Speaker 1: What is the cartoon with all the emotions inside out?
Speaker 1: And well inside out taught me different anger's emotion. I
Speaker 1: saw it. I'm surprised. I just saw that you avoid
Speaker 1: those said so do. I cried, well good. I was
Speaker 1: sad last night. My partner trying to made me watch
Speaker 1: Paddington again. I was like, how dare you know? It
Speaker 1: was Paddington too? I didn't trust them after the first one. Anyway,
Speaker 1: That's fair. Uh. Something else that I has been on
Speaker 1: my mind and has been a source of frustration for
Speaker 1: a lot of as in that we've talked about on
Speaker 1: your segments when you come on bridges, this kind of
Speaker 1: what you mentioned is like, not only is Judge Jackson
Speaker 1: facing all of this like job interview that's very intensive,
Speaker 1: but then there's all of these attacks online that are
Speaker 1: racist and sexist, and I we've talked about it. It's
Speaker 1: not unique to this area, because we've talked about it
Speaker 1: in terms of video games, and we've talked about in
Speaker 1: terms of entertainment. But I feel like that's already a
Speaker 1: term of gatekeeping. This is already an extra thing you're
Speaker 1: asking people and the people that know them, like their
Speaker 1: families and friends, to deal with, and we just seem
Speaker 1: to accept that as the status quo of being a
Speaker 1: marginalized person that exists in our media landscape. Absolutely you know,
Speaker 1: I I I'm so glad that you put it that way,
Speaker 1: because I think we have this understanding that it's just
Speaker 1: the cost of doing business as a marginalized person. And
Speaker 1: if you don't want this kind of thing to happen
Speaker 1: to you, then just don't speak and don't express opinions
Speaker 1: and don't strive, and don't put yourself out there and
Speaker 1: don't become a public figure and don't serve your public
Speaker 1: and don't like it's just a whole list of dots.
Speaker 1: And so I really want to urge people to have
Speaker 1: a shift around their understanding of that and said and
Speaker 1: say like, we deserve to have a media landscape where
Speaker 1: everybody can speak up, everybody can participate, and that you're
Speaker 1: not going to be attacked unfairly based on your identity
Speaker 1: just for putting yourself out there. And so I want
Speaker 1: to quickly talk about some research from the Institute for
Speaker 1: Strategic Dialogue, and they analyze social media abuse of candidates
Speaker 1: and found that women of color candidates are targeted on
Speaker 1: social media at alarming rates. UM. They analyze all these
Speaker 1: different messages that UM these candidates were getting, and they
Speaker 1: found that abusive messages accounted for more than fifteen percent
Speaker 1: of those directed at every female lawmaker they analyze, compared
Speaker 1: with around five to ten percent of the male candidates.
Speaker 1: Women of color were particularly likely to be targeted. Represent
Speaker 1: it of il han Omar got the highest proportion thirty
Speaker 1: nine of abusive messages of all the candidates, and AOC
Speaker 1: got the highest ratio of abusive comments on Facebook. And
Speaker 1: when you're talking about women, uh, the abuse directed towards
Speaker 1: women is much more likely to be about their gender
Speaker 1: than the abuse that's targeting men. Abuse targeting men was
Speaker 1: much more generalized and focus on their political stances, while
Speaker 1: messages directed at women were much more likely to focus
Speaker 1: on either appearance or general competence. And so yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean you, if you are a woman or a marginalized
Speaker 1: person who is putting yourself out there in this way,
Speaker 1: you deserve to be judged on your merits, your record,
Speaker 1: your words, your deeds, your values, not your identity, not
Speaker 1: racist sexist tropes, not you know, nonsense about women or
Speaker 1: women of color not being good leaders, are being unqualified.
Speaker 1: You deserve to really have your record speak for itself.
Speaker 1: And I have to say it's not just sort of
Speaker 1: I talk a lot about you know, online bad actors.
Speaker 1: It's not just fringe extremists. We also see mainstream media
Speaker 1: out that's playing a huge role in legitimizing and mainstreaming
Speaker 1: racist sexist attacks on women of color in public office.
Speaker 1: And so you know, you might see things like an
Speaker 1: article about some complete racist nonsense or a complete racist
Speaker 1: attack being quoted in the headline of an article, so
Speaker 1: that when people share it on social media, it provides
Speaker 1: the impression that this is a legitimate grievance that somebody
Speaker 1: might have instead of just a racist attack. Right, And
Speaker 1: so we are really calling on media to not create
Speaker 1: the conditions for these kind of racist sexist attacks to
Speaker 1: fester and spread. Right. I think that this is a
Speaker 1: time that really requires everybody, whether you are a journalist
Speaker 1: or an editor or just a regular person on social media,
Speaker 1: to really be careful and thoughtful about how you are
Speaker 1: talking about this very visible black woman who is going
Speaker 1: up for this very visible position in the Supreme Court. Okay,
Speaker 1: I feel like you just let us into this. So
Speaker 1: tell us the listeners and us voters and constituents who
Speaker 1: are here to not only look and see and view
Speaker 1: and be the audience, but participate in help stopping this
Speaker 1: harmful disinformation. What do we need to do to make
Speaker 1: sure that we are not only engaging in that, but
Speaker 1: not being a part of that, but not spreading that.
Speaker 1: I'm so glad you ask. So first, it's just you know,
Speaker 1: if you see like a harmful racist, sexist attack or
Speaker 1: a conspiracy theory, first and foremost, don't spread it. Nine
Speaker 1: times out of Tenant you see this kind of thing,
Speaker 1: if you retweet it or like comment on it, you're
Speaker 1: actually just helping it grow and spread because of the
Speaker 1: algorithmic nature of most of our social media platforms, and
Speaker 1: so the platform is going to think like, oh, this
Speaker 1: person is engaging with this, it must be good content.
Speaker 1: I'm going to surface it for more people. So don't
Speaker 1: do that. Focus instead on sharing accurate, timely information about
Speaker 1: the issues and the candidates. Right, So, talk to people
Speaker 1: about Judge Jackson's actual record, talk to people about her
Speaker 1: actual positions and where she actually stands. That that will
Speaker 1: kind of provide a little bit of taking the oxygen
Speaker 1: out of the kinds of racist, sexist, gendered attacks. We
Speaker 1: are shut to see. You can go to we are
Speaker 1: ultra violet dot org and check out our media kit.
Speaker 1: Really asking for the media to create the conditions for
Speaker 1: this person to be you know, fairly judged and fairly
Speaker 1: talked about and and fairly assessed by the American public.
Speaker 1: And also the last one I would say is like,
Speaker 1: just really ask questions and be I think this is
Speaker 1: a time where we will really be rewarded if we
Speaker 1: are interested in being critical thinkers. Right, So when someone
Speaker 1: says like, oh, she's too radical, but can't give you
Speaker 1: a single thing that backs up what they're saying, or
Speaker 1: when someone says like, oh, she's just gonna be really woke,
Speaker 1: you know, really being able to ask, you know, what
Speaker 1: do you mean by that? What is? What? What? What?
Speaker 1: When you say woke? Like, what does that mean? What
Speaker 1: are you trying to say? I have found that to
Speaker 1: be really useful when I'm having conversations, particularly with people
Speaker 1: that may not be aligned with me politically, you know,
Speaker 1: really getting down to what is the substitutive thing that
Speaker 1: you are trying to say. And if the answer is well,
Speaker 1: I just don't like her because she's a black woman
Speaker 1: and I don't like black women, then say that so
Speaker 1: we can so we can you know, address that for
Speaker 1: what it is. Be loud about it, because you know,
Speaker 1: you're already pretty much saying it right like say with
Speaker 1: your chest. If you're gonna say right like, just do it,
Speaker 1: you're already doing it. It feels hypocritical for me to
Speaker 1: ask this, so I apologize from the jump, But as
Speaker 1: non black women and for our male identifying listeners, what
Speaker 1: can we do to make sure because we know we
Speaker 1: already know black women are just the out. But the
Speaker 1: fact of the matter is with this is going to
Speaker 1: come on to so many more attacks is visceral. We
Speaker 1: we know what's going to happen. We know it, and
Speaker 1: it's gonna be harmful and it's gonna be gross. And
Speaker 1: not only should we do all the things that you
Speaker 1: told us to do, but what can we do to
Speaker 1: ease load a but help fight for y'all? In general?
Speaker 1: I love this question. I would say, first of all,
Speaker 1: it's probably a tall order, but I would love to
Speaker 1: see a shift where we understand that this fight is
Speaker 1: all of our fight, like we are the you know,
Speaker 1: the more marginalized you are, the more you are a target.
Speaker 1: But this kind of thing really harms us all. And
Speaker 1: so I think seeing this work as all of our
Speaker 1: work to create a healthy democracy is really key and
Speaker 1: so these kinds of attacks, they don't just hurt the
Speaker 1: women that are subjected to them, they really have a
Speaker 1: meaningful impact on the health and well being of our democracy,
Speaker 1: because we can't have a fully functioning representative democracy if
Speaker 1: everybody is not able to use their voice, if everybody
Speaker 1: is not able to participate. And so step one of
Speaker 1: that really comes with having a healthy media ecosystem and
Speaker 1: a healthy climate for everybody to be able to participate.
Speaker 1: And so I would say really working to see these
Speaker 1: attacks on marginalized people as all of our fight, because
Speaker 1: all of us are invested in having a healthy democracy,
Speaker 1: whether you are a man, a woman, black, white, like,
Speaker 1: it is all of our fight. And so really being
Speaker 1: able to to see this as something that you're meaningfully
Speaker 1: invested in, not just because it's the right thing to do,
Speaker 1: which it is, but because we all deserve to have
Speaker 1: a functioning democracy. Yes, I love it, well said as always,
Speaker 1: bridget any other resources you want to shout out any
Speaker 1: final thoughts, Yeah, I would I I have to just
Speaker 1: again shout out the work of Sister Scotis. They have
Speaker 1: been really doing a lot of the work of building
Speaker 1: this infrastructure to hold by it an accountable for this
Speaker 1: campaign promise that he made so their Their website is awesome,
Speaker 1: The women who run it are awesome, so definitely check
Speaker 1: them out. You can check out Ultra violets work. You know,
Speaker 1: we are doing a lot of the work of trying
Speaker 1: to inoculate folks against disinformation and like help people spot
Speaker 1: it when they see it and identify it. So you
Speaker 1: can check us out at we are ultra violet dot org.
Speaker 1: And of course you can always check out my podcast
Speaker 1: There Are No Girls on the Internet. Check out our
Speaker 1: new season which is dropping March first, and yeah, we
Speaker 1: would love to have there. Yes, yes, award winning podcast.
Speaker 1: You haven't that subscribe button already? Why? Yes? Yes, I agree?
Speaker 1: Why what are you waiting for? What are you doing? Yes?
Speaker 1: Which as this episode releases, that should just be airing
Speaker 1: so perfectly timely, very exciting and we can't wait to
Speaker 1: talk to you again. Bridget Thank you, thank you, thank
Speaker 1: you so much as always for being here. You are
Speaker 1: the best. We love you. Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: having me. It's been kind of fun talking about this
Speaker 1: like very timely issue that is like happening today as
Speaker 1: opposed to looking back on it. So thank you for
Speaker 1: giving me the space to do that. Yes, absolutely anytime,
Speaker 1: and thank you listeners for listening. If you would like
Speaker 1: to contact us, you can our email U, stuff to
Speaker 1: your Mom, stuff that I hurted me you dot com,
Speaker 1: you find us on Twitter at mom to podcast or Instagram,
Speaker 1: and stuff I've never told you. Thanks as always to
Speaker 1: our super producer Christie, we love you. To Chris Data, Yes,
Speaker 1: you're the best. We love you, and thanks to you
Speaker 1: for listing stuffhever told the instruction of iHeartRadio for more
Speaker 1: podcast from my Heart Radio is a diet radio app.
Speaker 1: Have a podcast? Will you listen to your favorite shows?