Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Passionate about modern feminist issues? Want to learn more about how today's political, academic, and cultural leaders strive for a future of universal equality and justice?
Join NOW in a podcast dedicated to intersectional feminist discussions in American society with leaders in entertainment, sports, politics, and science. From conversations on constitutional equality, to economic justice and reproductive rights, listeners will find new ways to learn, engage, and get empowered.
Listen for new episodes released every other Wednesday.
Rachel Louise Snyder (00:02)
It is a feminist issue, but it's also a men's issue. The problem is coming from men. And men need to be allies and supporters in the feminist struggle, I think, know, led by feminists, but allied with us.
Kim Villanueva (00:26)
and welcome to Feminism Now. I'm Kim Vilanova, the president of the National Organization for Women. In some ways, women seem to have more power in our country than ever before, with more college degrees and visibility. Women have gone to space, won Nobel prizes, and sit on the Supreme Court. But we all know equality is not here yet. One of the places where our inequality shows up is in violence. That's why one of Now's core issues is ending violence against women. The people of Now are grassroots members,
and our Legal and Defense Fund worked tirelessly to pass the Violence Against Women Act, which was reauthorized in 2022. But it's not enough. One in four women have experienced physical violence from their partners, and 40 % of women's homicides are committed by a current or former partner. Unfortunately, a lot of the efforts society has made to help have fallen short. That's why we're talking today with Rachel Louise Snyder, a professor of literature and journalism at American University, a contributing writer for the New York Times, and the author of the book
No visible bruises. What we don't know about domestic violence can kill us. Do you know someone impacted by domestic violence? Have you yourself confronted violence in your home? If you're comfortable sharing, we'd love to hear your story. You can call now at the number in our show notes and send us a voice message or email us a voice memo at feminismnow at n-o-w dot o-r-g. And of course, as we go into this interview, please note that we will be talking about domestic violence. Take care of yourself as you listen.
Rose and I are so happy to have Rachel Louise Snyder with us today. She's a professor of literature and journalism at American University, contributing writer for the New York Times, and the author of numerous books, including a deep, very difficult, and extremely important book on domestic violence called No Visible Bruises, What We Don't Know About Domestic Violence Can Kill Us. So Rachel, thank you for joining us today. First question is that I'd like to get at some of the language choices.
Rachel Louise Snyder (02:21)
Thank you for having
Kim Villanueva (02:26)
Because you note in your book that domestic violence is really not an agreed upon term. But it's the term that we most know about. Is it controversial?
Rachel Louise Snyder (02:35)
It's controversial because it really softens the experience of domestic violence. know, whenever you put domestic on something, domestic policy, sounds less urgent than, for example, what I call it, which is intimate terrorism. Because I think that terrorism is really more of a reflective representation of what it's like to live the reality of domestic violence, particularly the most dangerous.
domestic violence.
Rose Brunache (03:05)
Your book is really direct and very open about how domestic violence results not just in harm, but the killing of women and children. You in fact cover several specific cases where domestic violence led to the killing of the entire family. But one of the things that people often say when you are confronted with this terrible violence is why didn't she leave? Why can't women just leave? Can you talk about that?
Rachel Louise Snyder (03:30)
I mean, that's such an important question that I really devote the first third of the book to answering it as comprehensively as I can. And the first thing I'd say is we need to flip the question. Instead of asking why didn't he or she leave, we need to be asking two other questions. One, why was this person violent in the first place? And two, what did the victim do? Not what didn't she do? Because
The fact is, victims leave all the time, but leaving is a process. I mean, really a years long process. I write about one woman in my book, Michelle Monson-Mojure, who is eventually killed with her children. Her husband kills her, the two kids, and then himself. And she had done all kinds of things in the years leading up to that homicide or formalicide. She was going to school to get a nursing degree so that she could afford.
to raise her children. She had secretly put their house, which they were renting from her father, in her name in a kind of land contract. She was really putting things in place. But the fact is, bureaucracies don't allow victims to just up and leave, right? You can't just like take your kids, leave your pet or your sick parent or your mother's china or whatever behind and move.
to a shelter with other destabilized families for some short period of time. mean, it's really the only crime that I can think of where the impetus for change is on the victim. And I really think that needs to flip. And then the last thing I'll say about this question of what did they do or what did she do is all of the data points to the most dangerous time for victims as when they try to leave those abusers.
It's when abusers realize that they're losing control over their families or their quote unquote loved ones and they have to up the ante. They have to up their level of control. And so it's very often when people are killed.
Kim Villanueva (05:44)
It's interesting to talk about reframing the debate from the victim or survivor to the abuser. We recently talked with another author, Cynthia Miller Idris, who's one of your colleagues at American University. Yeah, she had a wonderful book, such as yours is. And she drew a connection between men and masculinity and violent extremism. And you also draw that connection in your book, Between Men and Domestic Violence. So we know people of any gender can be violent, but
Rachel Louise Snyder (05:57)
⁓ my gosh. Wonderful.
Kim Villanueva (06:14)
Men really do perpetrate the majority of these incidents. can you tell why is that?
Rachel Louise Snyder (06:19)
Yeah, Cynthia, she, I'm a fellow in her lab, the polarization and extremism lab. ⁓ It's so funny. just, she's dear, so dear to me. And we have these conversations all the time over dinner and whatever, we live near each other too. ⁓ You know, what is the link between, first of all, domestic violence and political violence, and then also how is masculinity or a certain type of masculinity, toxic masculinity?
playing into that. And I think one of the important things to talk about when you talk about violence is that there are different categories of violence. it's true. And believe me, on my social media, every time I write an article, I get a flurry of men who are like, not all men, not all men. like, know, women can be violent too. Yes, it's very true. But first of all, let's just be clear that women tend not to have the physical strength of men. So they're just at a physical disadvantage in that way. But also,
The violence perpetrated by women tends to be far, far less dangerous. It hits far fewer of those levels of lethality. And I'll give you one really important example, which is strangulation or choking. Those terms are different, although they're used synonymously in the field. You know, it takes 11 pounds of pressure to actually cut off somebody's airway or someone's carotid artery. And that is a level of hand strength that most women just simply don't have. It's also
one of the dangerous markers for lethality. It's very often the penultimate act before a homicide. So it is different categorically than like a punch or a kick or throwing something against the wall. And it tends to be perpetrated largely by men.
Rose Brunache (08:07)
Of course we talk about men as perpetrators, people rarely talk to them once they have perpetrated the domestic violence. One of the most admirable things about your book is that you spoke to the perpetrators, men who were in treatment. Can you talk about what you learned from them?
Rachel Louise Snyder (08:22)
Honestly, I learned so much. still continue to learn so much. think, first of all, I think it's very easy to say, my gosh, only a monster would do this. And the problem with calling them monsters is that then that's what we're looking for. We're looking for monsters. And abusers are not monsters. They're very normal people. They don't stand out in the crowd.
There's particularly noteworthy about them in terms of like, ⁓ someone's saying I can read, I could read someone, I could tell someone. And so I feel like it's really important to remind people that this runs across socioeconomics, cultures, races, ⁓ ages. Anybody can be someone who uses violence to control another person.
So that's one thing. The other thing is that like we're going to be forever addressing this in a post violence context if we don't talk to abusers. And perhaps even more importantly, if we don't convince them that a life where they're not using violence is actually going to be a better life for them too. To me, it's a little bit like addiction. It's I don't like, I find that a somewhat problematic parallel, but it's convenient in this one context, which is that
for someone to really address addiction, they have to see the benefit in their own life. None of that can come from an external source. Doesn't matter how much a parent loves a child who might be struggling with addiction if that child doesn't see the benefit in their own life. And I think it's the same for people who use violence, that they have to see the benefit of living without using violence in their own life before they can really change. After I wrote this book,
I listened to, I did a big story for the New York Times, a cover story on an anti-violence hotline in the UK called the Respect Hotline. And it's for people who are using violence. So it's like the opposite of the domestic violence hotline, although I will say about 15 % of their calls are from people who are using violence. And this hotline, they let me listen in for like two or three months to these phone calls and they were all anonymous. So.
The people who were calling, was 85 % men, the people who were calling didn't have to worry about being outed or being identified. And so there was a level of authenticity and honesty. And it was incredibly moving to hear them on the phone. I remember this one man, this father, was crying when he called and talking about how he had just had a fight with his son. He had just been hitting his son in the hallway of their home.
And he had gone outside and was walking around the neighborhood to call the hotline to try to help him calm down. And he was so distraught. Like he was just crying, saying, I don't want to be, I don't want to model this for my son. I don't want to be this person to my son. And I think we have to give space to those really difficult conversations or we make no headway. We're forever in the wake of this.
Kim Villanueva (11:42)
Right, that's sort of the cycle of violence that perpetuates if it's not addressed. With the UK hotline, was there any decrease in domestic violence by allowing abusers to call and...
Rachel Louise Snyder (11:46)
Absolutely.
Yeah,
interestingly, the UK is so different than the US. For starters, they have a national certification for their abuser intervention programs that all kind of run through the parent organization of this hotline. And again, for listeners, it's called the Respect Hotline if you want to look it up and find out more about it. In the states, we have 50 different states with 50 different certifications and no umbrella organization.
One of the things that they, the hotline was really intentional about their role. And so they, really saw themselves, they would stay on the phone. mean, these phone calls lasted sometimes 45 minutes or an hour. So these were not quick five minutes, your heart rate is down. Let's do some meditative breathing, right? And one of the things they did was make sure that every time they hung up with one of the callers, they would have a plan of action for that person so that he, I'm going to be
gender specific in my pronouns for a second, so that he wouldn't get off the phone and get riled up again. His attention would be on, I need to make this phone call to this group. I need to sign up for this program. they didn't do a lot of follow-up because they left that to the programs. But one interesting little point of fact or statistic is that the number of perpetrators
who sign up voluntarily for the abuser intervention programs in the UK is much, much higher than in the US. Most everyone in the US who goes through an abuser intervention program is court ordered, or maybe probation or parole orders them into some sort of abuser intervention program. But they're not going voluntarily. In the UK, I can't remember what the percentage is. do have it in my New York Times piece, but I don't remember. Off the top of my head, but something like.
over half of them are signing up voluntarily. That's a really incredible marker.
Kim Villanueva (13:56)
it is. think that the fact that they're volunteering to seek help sort of says that they are willing to put the effort into, you know, working towards resolving whatever issues are causing them to commit violence.
Rachel Louise Snyder (14:08)
Yeah, I mean, one of the things that I had a researcher say to me when I was working on No Visible Bruises was, we have to remember that the perpetrators of violence, by and large, are deeply unhappy people. They're not happy about being in a bad relationship where everybody fights all the time. They may be the root of those fights, but it doesn't mean that they find that relationship satisfying. Right? And I think that's a point that gets kind of lost in our discussions.
they're probably deeply, deeply unhappy, and they probably don't have a very full range of emotion, or they haven't been taught to kind of tap into the constellation of their humanity.
Kim Villanueva (14:51)
Okay, Rachel, this is such an important conversation and we've got more to go, but we're going to take a quick break to hear from one of our chapters.
Mickey Belosi (15:02)
My name is Mickey Bellossi and I am the second vice president of the Central New York Chapter of the National Organization for Women. I'm proud to be a member of the Central New York Chapter of NOW because it was formed in September of 1967. It was the second chapter to be formed in New York State following New York City. And our chapter is still here.
We're still working and we're moving forward. In 2024, we worked to help pass the New York State Equal Rights Amendment. Last year, we were very hard workers on passing the New York State Medical Aid and Dying legislation. The issues that are important to central New York now are reproductive rights.
saving democracy and ⁓ constitutional equality. Many of our chapters are very active in campaigns. We have three congressional districts that our chapter covers. And in the 2024 election, we had two congressional candidates that were endorsed by NowPAC be elected.
And this year, that third congressional district, we're going to be working on flipping that seat. In 2026, we are working on reproductive rights by participating in a reproductive rights film festival. This will be the fourth year that we've partnered with a group in Ithaca, New York called End Abortion Stigma. The reproductive rights film festival.
happens over a weekend, and we usually have five or six films. We also have a couple Zoom sessions. The films and the Zoom sessions have talkbacks. So it's a real community-wide kind of effort. People can find out more about Central New York Now on Instagram under CNYNOW. We also are on Facebook.
and on Blue Sky. On those platforms, we are CNY-National Organization for Women.
Kim Villanueva (17:41)
you
And we're back with Rachel Louise Snyder, the author of No Visible Bruises, What We Don't Know About Domestic Violence Can Kill Us. You've said you've worked a lot with people who are trying to stop domestic violence, know, in law enforcement, social work, housing, and some of them are researchers who are able to point out some specific risk factors for domestic violence. Could you walk through some of those with us?
Rachel Louise Snyder (18:08)
Yeah, absolutely. This is so important. And this has been around for so long and is still just like this incredibly useful tool. So for anyone listening, it's called the Danger Assessment. And you can look it up on the web by yourself, you know, in your free time, dangerassessment.org. And it's 22 high risk indicators that are weighted. So they're not all, you know, given the same weight. And they are things like strangulation, which is one of the top three.
Is there strangulation? Is there access to a gun, regardless of who owns it? So if a victim buys a gun for her own protection, it actually puts her in profound danger. And I would like to talk about guns in a second, but let me stay on this for a minute. Things like economic instability is a marker. Children in the home that are not the biological abusers' children is another marker. Past signs of abuse.
So there's a lot of different struggles with addiction. Threats of suicide is a big one. I'm going to kill myself if you XYZ, ⁓ which I think a lot of victims of domestic violence don't realize that that is a manipulation and a marker of dangerousness to them, to the victims. So a woman named Jacqueline Campbell developed this danger assessment, gosh, back in the 80s for use with healthcare workers, like in emergency rooms.
And it really wasn't until the early aughts that researchers in Massachusetts said, wait a minute, we have this that's being used in some form or other in different kind of avenues. Can we use it to try to build protections around victims and stop a potential homicide from happening? In other words, predict homicide before it happens, which is mind blowing and turns out to be incredibly effective.
because you can do things like, wait a second, is he stalking her? They've broken up, is he stalking her? Well, if he is, we can ask the police to do extra drive-bys. We can inform the neighbors that this car shouldn't be in the neighborhood. We can install video cameras or change locks. Like there's all kinds of things that we can do as a community to keep victims safe.
Rose Brunache (20:31)
One of the points I like to make is that everything is feminism. Domestic violence is obviously a feminist issue, but oftentimes guns are involved, the majority of the time, matter of fact. Can you talk about how gun violence places in domestic violence?
Rachel Louise Snyder (20:45)
Yeah, guns just make me crazy. I, by the way, I, I wanted to address something that you just said a second ago about it being a feminist issue. I, I agree with you. I both agree and disagree with you because I had Eve Ensler who goes by V now who famously wrote the vagina monologues. I've done a couple of events with her. She's so outspoken. I love her. And she says like, this isn't a women's issue. This is a men's issue. We're not beating and raping ourselves. And I do think that's
that's an important thing to point out. Like it is a feminist issue, but it's also a men's issue. The problem is coming from men and men need to be allies and supporters in the feminist struggle, think, know, led by feminists, but allied with us. Let me get to guns for a second here. Guns are
So there's a very famous statistic that comes, again, from the research of Jacqueline Campbell, who's at Johns Hopkins University, really one of the great researchers on domestic violence. And she says, based on her research, that when there is a gun present, it increases the chance of lethality or dangerousness fivefold. Now, that sounds really incredible, except
That research is from a paper that was published in 2003. just talked to her about this like two weeks ago, actually. I said to Dr. Campbell when I was talking to her about this, like, why can't we get updated numbers? I bet those numbers are actually more like 20-fold. And she said, absolutely, we're working on it, but people don't answer their phones anymore. So I guess it makes it challenging.
Rose Brunache (22:33)
have data from, I mean, you've looked at UK data, a place where guns don't really exist, you very few. In what ways do you think that their domestic abusers would intimidate women? Was it like through knife crime or through other means?
Rachel Louise Snyder (22:49)
Yeah, I mean, it's definitely, they certainly have their share of domestic violence, although proportionately it's lower than here. yeah, it's knives. I mean, when you think about the home, anything can be a weapon, right? A hammer, a tool, but it's often just their own hands and fists and brute strength. One thing that's interesting about the UK is that they have a law against coercive control.
So my book is called No Visible Bruises because we tend to prioritize physical injury. Courts prioritize physical injuries. Certainly law enforcement prioritize physical injuries. Again, there's a racial aspect here because people with darker skin tones, black and brown women, you don't often see bruising in the same way that you do on white skin. So there's a racial component to it.
Kim Villanueva (23:45)
Now, you've talked before that when women end up in violent situations, it's often on them to get out, you know, leave their house, their community, you know, take their kids out of school, lose their jobs when it's, you the man who's doing the violence. So why does it often fall on women to leave?
Rachel Louise Snyder (24:03)
It's so crazy, right? It's like somebody comes and robs your house and the police come and say, my God, that's so terrible. Well, they're going to live here now. I mean, I just feel like that's sort of what we're saying in a way, you Or like, you you rob a bank and the bank tellers have to move locations. Like, it's just like, doesn't make any sense. I I think its roots really are in the idea that women and children were once owned by their husbands, by their men.
Absolutely, they were property. ⁓ So I mean, think that's probably where it originates. today, and I think that's still a feature of the patriarchy, right? I think that's still like this kind of we haven't really wrestled with how to upend the origins of that. I think it's going to take a lot of education. think judges want to believe that this is an adequate solution is that.
she gets out of the way of a punch, both literally and figuratively. Why would you stay there and continue to take it? There must be something wrong with you. Or, God forbid, she tries to defend herself or fight back or says, I've had it with you, and grabs a knife and stabs him. Those women are put in prison all the time.
Rose Brunache (25:20)
Of course, when women do leave, they often go to shelters. Shelters are seen as really a good thing, but you note that they have some issues. Can you talk about what you learned about the shelter system and what we can do to improve it?
Rachel Louise Snyder (25:33)
Absolutely. I really had to be educated about this. I did not appreciate this in any way that shelter is an inadequate response. And shelters have only been around since the 70s. So we're talking about like, I how many years as a generation. We're talking about two generations or something of shelter. So we don't have it quite perfect yet, but it's incredibly disruptive. Historically, women,
couldn't take their sons who were over the age of 12 to shelters. They couldn't take their pets to shelters. So if they had a cat or a dog or a fish tank or whatever, if their kids were in the school play or played sports, that's too bad. They had to live essentially in hiding. They couldn't hold jobs. There has been a movement more recently to have what are called open shelters or shelters where the security is
is so high that it enables people to go out and work in the community. And then when they come back, they're not a danger to themselves. I have visited a couple of shelters where they're trying a different model where the location is very well known. So it's known to the police. The police have come in and toured the shelter so they know the layout of the shelter. They know where the safe rooms are. They tell the neighbors that there are shelters so the neighbors can be kind of looking out for people who might.
be acting suspiciously. So there is a new model. A lot of shelters take pets now, but the fact remains that they are completely disruptive to your life. You may be moving from a home. You're going to have a limited number of things that you can bring. You've got to think about what are the important papers I need? are the, know, who's going to take care of my aging mother? ⁓ Or I work during the day. If I have the kids in shelter, what am I going to do about childcare?
There's all these kind of destabilizing questions that come up with shelter. And then, you know, the biggest one is there's a limit to how long you can stay in shelter. And then you've got to find some sort of housing. And that limit is usually about 90 days for emergency shelter.
Kim Villanueva (27:46)
You know, in addition to the barriers we've been talking about, there is this huge overriding barrier called system blindness, you know, where pieces of the system are not talking to each other, whether it's healthcare, the police or schools. I can share, you know, my wife is a retired police officer and one of the women on the force with her had actually been a counselor at a domestic violence shelter and decided to join the police force because she saw there was no talking among each other between.
shelters and prevention and law enforcement and the judicial system. So why do you think there's barriers to that kind of communication?
Rachel Louise Snyder (28:22)
It's such an important question. I think the barriers exist in part because they're cultural barriers. The police have a certain culture and domestic violence agencies have a certain culture. But if you are in a jurisdiction that has managed to communicate across those systems, those are the jurisdictions I have found to be the most successful. And they're not just with law enforcement and
domestic violence agencies, but they're also with the schools, with social workers in schools, with clergy, because many, many victims of domestic violence, they're going to see their clergy members or their human resources managers long before they ever call the police. And so we really have to bring all of these, really every system that we can think of into our trainings, into our conversations to raise awareness. It's, I mean, it's
Fundamentally, it's like good for a business's bottom line to be aware of domestic violence because they have employees that they lose to injuries, hospital stays, court appearances, et cetera. And those things cost them money. So I always like to say, if you won't do it for moral reasons, maybe you'll do it for economic reasons, The cynical side of it is like, yeah. And I would also say that
When we think about systems, we tend to be thinking about formal systems, law enforcement, courts, the judiciary, whatever, hospitals, health care. But we are all part of less formal systems, just as people walking the planet. We all are in our own family systems. We are in neighborhood systems. Hopefully, we're all in book club systems. Walking groups, whatever, wine groups, whatever those.
groups are that you engage with, like that's also an opportunity to be talking about this, to be reading not just my book, definitely my book and Cynthia Miller Idris's book, but also, you know, other books about this and, and to be just saying, you know, like opening up the space for us to be having these conversations, conversations free of, of judgment and shame.
Rose Brunache (30:39)
So you wrote this book in 2020 during the first Trump administration. Here we are in his second. How do you think things have changed since you wrote the book?
Rachel Louise Snyder (30:48)
Trump administration was really surprising to me in 2016. I first of all, I just want to say that the day before the vote in November of 2015, I was at the White House with my two best friends, my two girlfriends, and we did a tour. And I live in DC. You know, if you live here, you never do that kind of stuff. But we were like, let's go tour.
the White House. First of all, we're all from Chicago, so we were like, let's go. It's Obama, you know, he's wrapping up his tenure. ⁓ And we wanted to like be there in the moment between the first black president and the first female president. And I have a picture of the three of us at the end of the tour outside standing on the drive, and we all jumped up in the air. Like, so we're just like, ⁓ so excited.
Kim Villanueva (31:36)
Mary Tyler Moore throwing her hat in the air.
Rachel Louise Snyder (31:39)
We were like Mary Tyler Moore. And that, I can barely look at that picture now. is, even talking about it, it breaks my heart because we have unleashed, especially in the second term, we have unleashed a level of toxicity and violence that I certainly didn't think we would ever be returning to. I mean, we have people...
who are not tuned in to domestic violence at all saying, I see how abuse works. I see how gaslighting works. I see how an abusive person in your home is an authoritarian figure. This is where, again, Cynthia Miller Idris and I talk about the intertwining of domestic violence and political violence and how it's just not.
discussed enough and that we really need to be talking about it. you look, I've been to, you know, maybe 65 countries in the world and I'm looking at these countries where women had far more rights 20 years ago than they have today. Yeah.
Kim Villanueva (32:54)
That's true, but you've also talked about some reasons that give you hope. mean, you know, talked about your daughter and being able to bring awareness to domestic violence. mean, what else gives you hope? What would you tell the people who listening to this podcast? Why should we have hope for the future?
Rachel Louise Snyder (33:09)
I'm like a real Debbie Downer aren't I?
Kim Villanueva (33:13)
I
love the image of you jumping on the driveway of the White House.
Rachel Louise Snyder (33:19)
We should, we're going to recreate it in 2028. ⁓ I'll tell you a couple of things that give me hope actually. ⁓ So nothing to do necessarily with domestic violence, but the Trump administration is losing a lot of cases in the lower courts. They're, winning in the Supreme court, but the majority of their cases are in lower courts that they're losing. So just as an aside, that's one thing that gives me, it gives me hope. The other
Kim Villanueva (33:23)
That gives me hope.
Rachel Louise Snyder (33:49)
There are things that give me hope. The Violence Against Women Act and the Office of Violence Against Women resisted. They were able to successfully resist being folded into the DOJ as like just an extension. I mean, they are under the DOJ umbrella, but like they were going to be kind of disbanded as an office and put into all kinds of other little offices. They were able to resist that. They actually, they put in their funding request for 2026, you know, the fiscal year.
and the Trump administration gave them way, way less. And then Congress ended up giving them more. And the other thing that gives me hope is that there are, I mean, the people who are on the front lines of this, the shelter workers, the domestic violence advocates, the court advocates who go to court with women, they are really stepping up. There's a lot of immigrant women, for example, right now who are subject to violence and they are not going to be calling any system for help. And there are...
small neighborhood and community organizations really all over the United States that are just organizing and finding ways to hold each other, to protect each other, to be there for each other. And I think at the end of the day, that's the most important thing. The thing that holds us together as a country is our individual communities and how we're linked.
Kim Villanueva (35:09)
Right, absolutely. What a wonderful way to end the conversation, Rachel. So thank you so much for being here with us and for your very, very important work.
Rachel Louise Snyder (35:18)
Thank you. It was a huge pleasure to talk to you.
Rose Brunache (35:21)
Thank you.
Kim Villanueva (35:24)
Thank you so much for joining Rose and I as we speak with Rachel Louise Snyder. I learned so much this episode and I hope that you did too. If you learned something, we'd love to hear about it. Please feel free to give us a call. Our number's in the show notes. You can call and record a voice message or email us a voice memo at feminismnow at n-o-w dot o-r-g. Then keep an ear out for your voice in a future episode. Thanks for listening and stay tuned for our next episode in two weeks.
Rachel Louise Snyder (35:52)
you
you
Kim Villanueva (36:00)
Last topic