CW: Though we will be discussing the Lindsay Clancy case only in broad strokes in this episode, this events are extremely disturbing, and we will be referencing child murder and severe mental illness. If you choose to listen, please do so with care.

Last week, following a month of wall-to-wall media coverage and feverish social media discourse, the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy ended in a mistrial. Clancy was charged in the deaths of her three young children; her defense team did not contest that she had committed the acts, but argued that she was not guilty by reason of insanity. Her trial became a site of consciousness-raising around the terrifying condition of postpartum psychosis, from which Clancy and her team claim she suffered, but also wild conspiracy theorizing. The debate over one woman's culpability also metastasized into a debate about the validity of postpartum mental health diagnoses, the perceived crimes of feminism, and whether women should be stripped of the vote.

To be honest, neither of us wanted to pay close attention to the trial or the social media firestorm around it. The killings were horrific; the suffering of the children, and now their family and loved ones, is agonizing to contemplate. But as the discourse heated up and quickly grew politicized, we began to feel that we could not look away. Ignoring a massive news story that has not only exemplified most of the toxic tendencies of our current media and social media ecosystems, but has fueled a disturbing movement to strip women of our civil rights, seemed impossible. That's why we eventually decided to discuss the Lindsay Clancy case here: Not to dig into the details of the investigation or the trial, but to examine the public conversation that has raged around it.

In this episode, we discuss the salacious true-crime fascination that immediately surrounded the case, how social media algorithms fuel this fascination and incentivize creators to grow or monetize their brands by making content around it, and how conspiracy theories and fake news spread rapidly in our fractured media ecosystem. We also discuss how many women related to what they learned about Lindsay Clancy's postpartum mental health struggles and her repeated attempts to get the right help – and we discuss why this specific white, affluent, educated mother has garnered widespread empathy and support, while others charged with similar crimes have not. We also get into how politicized this discourse has become, as right-wing hacks have taken it as an opportunity to argue for the repeal of the 19th Amendment.

Below, for reference, is a selection of the reading we did prior to taping this episode.

If you choose to listen to this episode, we hope it helps you process the upsetting state of the public frenzy around the trial, just as it helped us to talk it through together.

"The Women Obsessed With Lindsay Clancy," by Stephanie McCrummen, The Atlantic

"Why People Want To Believe The Lindsay Clancy Conspiracy Theories," by Jessica Winter, The New Yorker

"The Patrick Clancy Conspiracy Theories Are Rooted in the Harsh Realities of Motherhood," by EJ Dickson, Wired

"What If Doctors Missed My Postpartum Psychosis, Too?" by Erica Schwiegershausen, The Cut

"The Lindsay Clancy Conspiracy Spiral," by Eren Orbey, The New Yorker

"Lindsay Clancy admits to killing their children. So why is there an online groundswell blaming her ex-husband?" by Rebekah Riess, CNN

"How ‘forensic fandom’ in Lindsay Clancy trial threaten postpartum psychosis awareness," by Christopher Mathias, The Guardian

"Not Skinny But Not Fat Podcaster Responds to Backlash for ‘Grossly Inappropriate’ Betting Ad About Lindsay Clancy Trial," by Toria Sheffield, People

"The Meaning of the Lindsay Clancy Mistrial," by Elizabeth Bruenig, The Atlantic

"Lindsay Clancy's case is a Rorschach test," by Moira Donegan, The Guardian

"I Understand Why a Jury Could Not Convict Lindsay Clancy," by Jessica Grose, The New York Times

"The Real Stakes of the Lindsay Clancy Gender War," by Jessica Valenti, Abortion, Every Day

"The Lindsay Clancy Fan Club," by Caitlin Flanagan, The Free Press

"The Lindsay Clancy Trial Is Sparking a Political Divide on the Right," by Nikki McCann Ramirez, Rolling Stone

"Lindsay Clancy Truthers Are The Best Argument For Repealing The 19th Amendment," by Rebeka Zeljko, The Federalist

"Lindsay Clancy Democrats," by Ann Coulter

"Feminism should also be on trial in the Lindsay Clancy case," by J.P. De Gance, Washington Examiner

If you liked reading this, click the ❤️ button on this post so more people can discover it on Patreon!

Give us feedback or suggest a topic for the pod • Subscribe • Request a free subscription

In honor of the "Love Island" USA season 8 reunion, we are making our July episode featuring Anna Peele, author of "Enter the Villa: The (Unauthorized) Reality Behind 'Love Island,'" free for all Rich Text subscribers.

By the beginning of July, I have entered my now-annual "Love Island" fugue state. I fall asleep watching new episodes, and I wake up and immediately reach for my phone to scroll social media reactions. I try to recap the major plot points to my husband, who is usually baffled by the onslaught of details and my feverish emotional state. It's all I know how to think about about at the moment. So I was thrilled to get a chance this week to chat with, Anna Peele, contributing editor at Vanity Fair and the author of "Enter the Villa: The (Unauthorized) Reality Behind 'Love Island.'"

As a relative newbie to the "Love Island" universe, I'm always looking for more insight about the show's history, influences, and impact, and Peele's deeply researched and reported book is the motherlode. She analyzes the show's forerunners and how executives put together the show that has evolved into an international mega-franchise, and breaks down that franchise's rocky introduction to the American market. She offers insight into how producers actually shape – or don't shape – storylines and character arcs, and into how contestants perceived their experiences.

In our conversation, we discuss the evolution of the "Love Island" format, what made it tricky to bring to America and how it contrasts with "The Bachelor," the significance of the show's hosts and inimitable narrator Iain Stirling, how contestants experience being in the bubble of the show's set, our takes on the most recent "Love Island" USA seasons, and much more.

Hope you enjoy! xo

If you liked reading this, click the ❤️ button on this post so more people can discover it on Patreon!

Give us feedback or suggest a topic for the pod • Subscribe • Request a free subscription

Recently, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez revealed that she was freezing her eggs during the August recess. In fact, in a very AOC move, she documented the entire process on Instagram, and used her videos to speak directly to her followers about her decision, the experience of freezing eggs, and policies she believes could provide childbearing people with more options for planning their families. Predictably, MAGA mockery and backlash ensued. AOC was accused of using her fertility for a campaign stunt – and, still worse, tricking normie women into believing they could put career first and still have kids.

Meanwhile, Anne Hathaway hit the red carpet in a Prabal Gurung crop top that showed off her baby bump. The 43-year-old is currently expecting her third child with husband Adam Shulman. And this, too, drew mockery and backlash. Hathaway was not only criticized for conceiving a child at such an advanced age, but scrutinized for evidence that her bump was an advanced prosthetic for a fake pregnancy.

In this episode, we discuss the contours of these two backlashes and what they say, individually and together, about the right's view of fertility, pregnancy, and women's rights. We talk about the puritanical disgust for women's bodies – and pregnant bodies – evinced by the freakout over Hathaway's bump photos, and the reactionary belief that pregnant people are inappropriate for public view. We also get into the frequent conspiracy theories about celebrity women's baby bumps, and the underlying attitudes about what kind of woman can be a mother. And, of course, we dig into the far-right pronatalist outrage at women having children after 35 – at least, women who aren't tradwives and don't already have 10 children. Plus, we look at how the increasingly punitive and rigid pronatalist ideology being advanced by male conservatives is deepening a rift between men and women on the right.

Hope you enjoy! xo

If you liked reading this, click the ❤️ button on this post so more people can discover it on Patreon!

Give us feedback or suggest a topic for the pod • Subscribe • Request a free subscription

CW: Pregnancy and childbirth are discussed in detail in this episode.

It's a big week on Rich Text, because Emma is back in the (metaphorical) building! On the two-month birthday of her daughter, we recorded her first postpartum podcast, and it was such a pleasure to be back to our old tricks. (She will be taking more time before returning to Love to See It, so don't be alarmed to see that Leigh is still manning the cohost mic in the coming weeks.)

Given the huge event that just took place in Emma's life, what topic could be more natural, more fitting, than her birth story? In this raw and personal episode, Claire asks all of her burning questions about the labor and delivery, how Emma got through the hormonal rollercoaster of the first few weeks postpartum, her feeding journey, and what her daughter's personality is like (so far? mostly ravenous) – and Emma shares the ins and outs of her wild couple of months getting acquainted with parenthood.

Plus, we get into the unbidden arrival of mom guilt, the still-more unbidden arrival of hospital bills, and all of the structural supports that would make this life-altering experience easier and healthier – like universal healthcare and childcare, home health visits, and subsidized pelvic floor therapy – which our country refuses to provide for birthing people and new parents. Hope you enjoy! xo

If you liked reading this, click the ❤️ button on this post so more people can discover it on Patreon!

Give us feedback or suggest a topic for the pod • Subscribe • Request a free subscription

In the opening scenes of the new (certified fresh!) Netflix movie "Don't Say Good Luck," Sophie Birenbaum (Sunny Sandler) is abuzz with pleasurable nerves. She's rehearsing her audition song for her high school's production of "Waitress," helping get her twin brothers off to school, giggling with her best friend. By the end of the day, she has learned – thanks to a poorly timed butt dial from her dad's cell phone – that her mother's cancer has returned. Shaken, she gives such a raw and vulnerable performance in her callback for a secondary part that, in a shocking upset, she lands the lead role.

It's an overwhelming scenario for any teenage girl to face, with excitement and anxiety and fear all jumbling together with the already potent adolescent blend of hormones and budding independence. And it's one that I had heard a version of before, because it's based on the real experiences of my dear friend Laura Hankin, the novelist and screenwriter behind the original screenplay.

I had been eagerly anticipating this movie for years; Laura had been at work on the script, her most personal project yet, for half a decade. As a devoted reader of her books, I knew that the story would be thoughtful, tender, and funny. But now that I've actually watched the movie, I'm bowled over by it. The script, co-written with Jordan Horowitz and Julia Hart (who also directed), is big-hearted, nuanced, and at times hilarious. The performances, from a truly stacked cast (including Melanie Lynskey as Sophie's mom and Max Greenfield as her dad), are touchingly real. It may be a cliché to say that I laughed and I cried, but there was nothing cliché about how loudly I was snort-laughing through my sobs by the final third of the film.

So I was thrilled to get to sit down with Laura to talk about the winding path that led to this movie being made, the joys of collaboration, the details from her own life that made it into the final movie, the finer points of high school theater culture, the thematic resonances between "Waitress" and Sophie's story, how becoming mothers has changed our perspectives on losing our own, and much more. In the 20 years that Laura and I have known each other, we have shared many long conversations about loss, grief, motherhood, ambition, and art, and this is by far the most personal, and emotional, one we have ever recorded. (Though I remain partial to our 2023 conversation about "The Lizzie McGuire Movie"!)

I hope you enjoy – and I hope you stream this gem of a movie.

If you liked reading this, click the ❤️ button on this post so more people can discover it on Patreon!

Give us feedback or suggest a topic for the pod • Subscribe • Request a free subscription

The Bravo and Bravo-adjacent cinematic universe has been in full swing in recent weeks, and I needed to talk to an expert. So this week, Gibson Johns (entertainment writer and host of Gabbing With Gib) joined me to discuss ex-"Vanderpump Rules" star Stassi Schroeder's return to reality TV with her Hulu series "House of Stassi," the back half of "In the City," and the finale of "The Valley."

First, we got all the way into Stassi's comeback show. Gibson came to the show with years of prior knowledge of her as a reality TV character, whereas I had never seen Stassi in her element. The long-time "VPR" star was fired in 2020, along with Kristen Doute, after a racist incident in which they reported a Black castmate to the police for crimes she had nothing to do with. Like Kristen, she has now made a full comeback from what Stassi terms "cancellation." This time, she is the undisputed center of the show – and clearly sees herself as The Big Boss. The creators of "House of Stassi" are certainly trying to do something different with this show; the visual language of the series, with lush cinematography and ornate title cards, draws more from prestige scripted TV than it does from the Bravo-verse, and the tone (played up by winking on-screen annotations) is darkly comic. Though we rarely see cameras, Stassi and her crew are very forthright about their awareness that they're making a reality show; the fourth wall is discussed so often it's practically a character in its own right. But has Stassi herself changed? The show frames her as an almost monstrous antiheroine – controlling, narcissistic, hypocritical – though the hangers-on who surround her are nearly as unlikable. We discuss all this, plus the flipped gender-role conflict between Stassi and her reluctant stay-at-home husband Beau that anchors the season.

Next, we caught up on the end of "In the City," a first season that gathered momentum and ended with an explosive fight about Friendsgiving room assignments and Whitney's claim that Lindsay always pulls the "single mom card." We got into our takes on the standout moments of drama, as well as overall assessments of the show's freshman season and its rookie castmembers.

Last, we dipped into "The Valley" for a brief chat about the finale, Luke's comments about putting pregnant Kristen in a "coffin," the Solo cup bonk heard round the world, and Danny and Nia's future on the franchise. Where can the show go from here, after yet another season relitigating drama that the cast shows no interest in resolving and moving forward from? This is a TV genre about conflict resolution! Let's see some, people.

Hope you enjoy! xo

If you liked reading this, click the ❤️ button on this post so more people can discover it on Patreon!

Give us feedback or suggest a topic for the pod • Subscribe • Request a free subscription

CW: This episode will contain discussion of domestic abuse. Please listen with care.

The fourth season of "The Ultimatum: Marry Or Move On" has limped to a miserable conclusion – and we're finally caught up and ready to talk about it! This week, Bachelor in Retrospect cohosts Carrie Rosen and Annemarie Navar-Gill joined me to discuss the depressing finale, which saw all four of the remaining couples get engaged, and the wretched reunion.

From the outset, this season of "The Ultimatum" had a darker aura than seasons past. During the dating period, men openly leered at the new women they were meeting, and couples berated each other verbally and via clandestine note. As the episodes went on, the toxic behavior escalated, especially between Hayley, Blake, Ashley and Killian. Castmembers openly swapped alarming conspiracy theories, weaponized therapy buzzwords to win arguments, and relied on ChatGPT for relationship advice. It all culminated in a car crash of a finale and reunion. First, four couples who should all have broken up instead got engaged on TV. Then, in the reunion, the psychological terrorism only escalated, with Nick and Vanessa Lachey standing by ineffectually as rampant emotional abuse (largely from the men) was given a massive platform.

By the time the reunion taped this summer, a year after filming wrapped, three of the five engaged couples had split up (as had Alex and Jebin, the only couple to leave without a proposal). The two happily engaged couples beamed from their loveseats, sharing wedding plans and smartphone video footage of their past year; David and Casey even got Nick Lachey to legally marry them onstage in anticipation of their Amalfi Coast nuptials in September. But all four of the other couples were haunted by claims of abusive treatment. Jebin, unprompted, admitted to having written Alex an even nastier note than the one she read aloud on camera. Jessica Grace accused Edris of having subjected her to "humiliation rituals" during the end of their relationship, a claim he then gave credence to by trying to humiliate her onstage. Ashley described Killian smashing her phone during one altercation, and he blamed her for "triggering" him. And Blake and Hayley lobbed allegations back and forth, each claiming the other got violent with them.

Alarmingly, Jessica Grace and Edris have since gotten back together, and in a joint appearance on the Viall Files, she took blame for trying to "vilify" Edris on the reunion and tried to rationalize his nasty behavior. Ashley and Hayley have become friends, as have Killian and Blake, and all of them are now making the podcast rounds, getting their stories on the record. They have all alleged emotional and physical abuse, though Ashley, Hayley, and Blake have given the most specific and detailed accounts. (Since we taped this episode, Jebin has leaked a recording he made of Hayley admitting to slapping Blake during their relationship, and she has released a statement confirming that this happened.) The season has devolved entirely into a melodrama that mines entertainment out of abuse. That these ex-couples were even put onstage together for the reunion, given the gravity of the accusations they've made – and the fact that Blake was arrested for assault following an altercation with Hayley last year, though charges were dismissed – is shockingly irresponsible.

In this episode, we discuss each proposal, each beat of the horrific reunion, the Netflix reality dating show aesthetic and political slant, the Lacheys' reunion performance, production's culpability, and what made this season of "The Ultimatum" so dark (and so much worse than "The Ultimatum: Queer Love," RIP). We focused primarily on what took place onscreen, though we touch on some of the post-show media interviews. In some relationships, the truth of what happened remains murky. One truth is clear: production made choice after choice to put their cast in unsafe situations for the sake of explosive TV.

If you liked reading this, click the ❤️ button on this post so more people can discover it on Patreon!

Give us feedback or suggest a topic for the pod • Subscribe • Request a free subscription

This week, the brilliant Ali Barthwell – author of the forthcoming book "Reality TV for Snobs," Emmy-winning "Last Week Tonight" writer, recapper extraordinaire, and dear friend of the pod – joined me to discuss episodes 5-8 of "The Ultimatum" season 4! And we had as much fun as we could recapping these episodes, which are brutal to watch. (I haven't watched the finale and reunion yet, but from what I hear, they will be even more soul-shredding. Recap coming next week!)

Out of the eight people who remain in the experiment, perhaps two are likable; most of the relationships seem not just dysfunctional but abusive. Even when Killian engages in demeaning and sexually threatening conversations about his trial marriage partner, he is allowed to remain and continue the experiment with her. We watch as Ashley quickly rationalizes his disrespect and verbal abuse, to which she has clearly become accustomed during their relationship. But they're far from the only couple enmeshed in a deeply toxic dynamic. The cast this season is so bleak that our most crushable man wants to lead his wife in a Biblical marriage – at least it's in a kindhearted way!

In this episode, Ali and I discuss the rancid conservatism of this season, the underreaction to Killian's group chat, Hayley and Blake's fixation on love languages and therapy buzzwords, David's control issues, and much more. Hope you enjoy! xo

If you liked reading this, click the ❤️ button on this post so more people can discover it on Patreon!

Give us feedback or suggest a topic for the pod • Subscribe • Request a free subscription

Season 4 of "The Ultimatum: Marry or Move On" has dropped, just in time to help fill the cavernous void left by the finale of "Love Island" season 8, and the vibes are worse than ever. "The Ultimatum" has an inherently fraught premise: It brings together six established couples who disagree about whether to get married. They "break up," date the other people in the experiment and choose one to have a three-week "trial marriage" with, and then return to their original partner for another trial marriage. The show ends with each person deciding whether to get engaged, leave alone, or leave in a relationship with someone they met in the experiment. It's never a feel-good show, given that it carries so much deeply rooted pain and disappointment from each relationship – and the potential for such a great betrayal – but this season is taking it to another level.

Tess Higgins, aka Reality Scholar on Instagram, joined me for a lively recap of the first four episodes of this season (the first half of the first drop). We have so many questions about this season, starting with casting: Where do they find these people, and specifically, where do they find these men?

Reality dating shows have reflected an overall cultural shift toward rigid gender roles in the last few years, as women seek "protectors and providers" so they can "lean into their feminine," while men search for bubbly and nurturing "homemakers" with taut bodies. This season of "The Ultimatum" is a prime example. But it's not just reactionary values on display this season – it's the wedge that those values drive between heterosexual couples, who are buckling under the pressure to perform gender for each other. And can we blame the manosphere for why almost all of these guys are emanating absolutely noxious energy, or is that just a quirk of casting? This motley array of two-faced, manipulative man-children is enough to convince any rational woman to choose a life of celibacy. And yet here these ladies are, considering a lifelong legal partnership with them.

We discuss all of this, as well as the risks of casting 23-year-olds on a marriage show, appropriate date conversations and behavior, disrespectful group texts, and much more.

Hope you enjoy! I will be back next week to recap episodes 5-8 with another special guest.

If you liked reading this, click the ❤️ button on this post so more people can discover it on Patreon!

Give us feedback or suggest a topic for the pod • Subscribe • Request a free subscription

We laughed, we cried, we gawked at leaked wedding photos! This week on the pod, I'm joined by the wonderful Kelsey McKinney, co-owner and journalist at Defector Media, for a two-part conversation: first, a general chat about Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce's epic wedding at Madison Square Garden, then a recap of the Netflix rom-dramedy "Voicemails for Isabelle."

Though neither of us particularly wanted to pay attention to l'affaire Swift-Kelce, this splashy event has a gravitational pull on the discourse. We chatted about how Swift's choice of wedding venue clashed with many people's expectations and assumptions about her taste – including ours – and what it means that the word "tacky" has been thrown about so liberally. We also got into the spectacle of billionaire weddings and conspicuous consumption at this particular moment, as well as what it signifies that the couple made massive charitable donations in conjunction with the wedding.

Then, we turned our attention to a Netflix romance that we both liked much more than we expected: "Voicemails for Isabelle." We unpack how deeply creepy the concept of the movie is, and how many unsettling choices the male lead makes... and why we found ourselves getting on board anyway. We got in our feelings about how the movie captures the joy of sisterhood and the devastation of grief, and we recapped the whole thing – the silly moments, the millennial-core details (a gourmet dessert nacho food truck? hell yeah), the satisfying physical comedy and goofy side characters, and every moment that made us cry.

Hope you enjoy! xo

If you liked reading this, click the ❤️ button on this post so more people can discover it on Patreon!

Give us feedback or suggest a topic for the pod • Subscribe • Request a free subscription