Welcome to Unruly Season 2
A podcast from Flamingo and Audacy’s Pineapple Street Studios
At Flamingo, we know that women deal with a lot: the expected, unexpected, and everything in between. That’s why we created Unruly. Season 1 was all about navigating a world that loves to categorize, analyze, and discuss women’s bodies; Season 2 has the same spirit but a different bent. Instead of talking about regulation, we’re talking about conversation.
Because we believe that if women are talking about it, it’s important. Whether we’re discussing dating in a recession, the way TikTok is shaping girlhood, consumer capitalism, or how to survive that annual girls trip, we’re giving women the opportunity to be their truest, most flamboyant selves. New episodes drop on Wednesdays.
INTRO:
Anna: All right guys, we're back with Unruly. I am here today with Dr. Jess Carboneau, brilliant sociologist, relationship expert who has worked with Tinder and Bumble. She has been referred to as the Dr. Ruth of the Swipe Right generation and we're so happy to have you here today.
Jess Carbino: It's my pleasure.
Anna: I mean we're here to talk about what? Dating relationships how all that is like going on nowadays. Um And there's been a lot of chatter about people dating less Nowadays from your understanding What's going on with that?
Jess Carbino: So historically, people dated in order to form unions that were going to prosper their families. They were either land deals or economic deals. As the Industrial Revolution occurred, people started to partner more independently, although there were definitely other parties mediating it, whether it was parents, other institutions in their realm, like neighborhoods, churches, synagogues, etc. Today, partnerships have changed dramatically, you know, we don't have as much mediation from these institutions that historically connected us like our friends, our family, etc. You know, were connected by mediums and institutions that are technological, like dating apps primarily. That's the number one way. Individuals have met their romantic partners for the past five years. And I think that people want relationships. People are fundamentally lonely. If you examine all of the data out there, people do want relationships, the question is, how are they going about finding it and doing it? And we see that younger age groups, like Gen Z, for example, there are individuals who are either 13 or 14, depending on when they're measuring it, now to like age 27. Whereas millennials are now approximately 20 to 44. So millennials who are 28 to 44 are largely partnered. People within the Gen Z generation, a third of them aren't even eligible to date from an illegal age perspective. So thinking about dating and relationship formation can be complicated, but we see people turning away from relationship formation in all contexts, like socially, and I think that this is just one other iteration of it.
Anna: That's really interesting. So you think, do you think the divestment from the dating culture is more prevalent in Gen Z then? Or is it just, I don't know, what do you of that? Sure.
Jess Carbino: I think that Gen Z is trying to reimagine what relationships look like. I think they're far more open to other types of relationships than generations prior non-monogamous relationships. And also, I think, that relationships historically have been based on these very discrete transitions to adulthood, like graduating from college, leaving the parental home, having all of these markers that were once attainable for people and have become increasingly unattainable for individuals. So individuals who don't necessarily have those markers to point to may feel less confident as being a dateable partner per se.
Anna: That's really interesting, I think to that point, a lot of things that happen from a sociological perspective in this country can be related back to the economy. Do you think that is affecting how people are approaching dating?
Jess Carbino: The economy absolutely affects how individuals approach dating. There is absolutely zero doubt about it. If you look at all of the data related to marriage rates, cohabitation rates, all of decisions related to relation to formation are largely a function of the economy and decisions thereafter as it relates to family formation are largely influenced by the economy. So no, I think that you can't extract the two. It's interesting to think about it, A lot of sociologists. And economists have thought about dating as a market in the same way individuals think about the job market. And they do a lot of models trying to understand the similarities between the two. But they're very different markets. With an economic model in the job market you have more certainty. There's risk, but there's more certainty You also don't have an optimal wage for a partner because those things are theoretically discrete. How do you quantify emotional intelligence for that type of capacity? And also What's really interesting is that you're making this forecast about what somebody may be like in the future, whereas the job is a present job. You're accepting a present-job value. Whereas in a partnership that's romantic in nature, you're forecasting about what will happen moving forward for years to come.
Anna: And that's somewhat different from for example, in the industrial revolution age when we were, partnerships were created based on creating a relationship between two families or to have financial security. You're seeing that that is less the case now and that because of it, those romantic notions are. Like almost like those romantic notions are more important or because of the economy or less important? Does that make sense?
Jess Carbino: So pre-industrial revolution, everything was about land, monetary, et cetera. Post-industria revolution, because we weren't as tied to the land, we were able to make a bit more of a free choice on the basis of romantic love. That doesn't mean, however, that families and other institutions didn't still largely mediate it, because there was still. Great deal of dependence individuals had on these institutions which doesn't exist in the same way that does now so economics has always been the through line and it continues to be the through line because people have to be able to create households and individuals perception of whether or not someone is a good partner or a good mate is largely tied to their economic status so I think that. All of these things have been there. It just depends on what iteration or how economics may have looked, depending on the time period. Romantic love, however, became more operative over time because people were less tied to those institutions that historically have connected us. At the same time, though, I think that we've surpassed this idea of just romantic love is like, I love this person. I feel like we're a good couple to now this all-fulfilling relationship that many other social scientists have talked about, whereby we expect our spouse or our boyfriend, girlfriend, partner, what have you, to fulfill every single need that we have, whether it's spiritual, sexual, emotional, et cetera. And then we find them deficient in some way if they're not able to do that. But at the same time, ironically even, Reliant on those other institutions to provide us with those sources of support historically like educational institutions Religious institutions familiar institutions neighborhoods. We were able to get support and feel fulfilled through those other mechanisms. But now we don't and we have to rely on our partners more or we believe we need to rely in our partners Well, because of the erosion of these institutions. Like, people. Institutions meaning? Churches, synagogues, neighborhoods, families. So there's like a dependency on that partner that was previously spread out amongst other groups but is now very like centralized on your romantic partner potentially. My poor husband, by the way.
Anna: Well, we'll pour one out for him.
Jess Carbino: Whiskey is his. Drink of choice or to martini,
Anna: You know, I thought we have some of that in the office. Okay, we'll make a whole ceremony of it. Okay, great and do let him know. Okay To all to all those points wonderful points. You've just made One thing interesting to me is when you were talking about, again, like the forming of families, forming of these, I guess, entities, like that being kind of further along in the dating process. But if you think about dating now, even just like jumping into dating is expensive. I mean with the economy going on, do we want to go on these dates and blow dinner and drinks on someone who we don't like, inevitably? I feel, I think that's what's interesting to me is of course, once we get later on in these relationships, that's where a lot of finance comes in, but this is just the first step, and people aren't even seeming to be wanting to do that.
Jess Carbino: I imagine economics certainly do come into play. I know that from the data. Yeah But I think it's interesting to think about what does a first date look like I don't think from the Data I've seen the overwhelming majority of individuals are not going to dinner and drinks in first date They're largely going to drinks or coffee And I think that's the way to consider it in a more Economical way and I women have to think of other things like getting their hair done their nails done dry cleaning for both Men and women these are all real considerations. So I've long proposed that people try to stack dates on the same evening I've heard you speak about this before, and I love that concept. Because that way you are economizing, you're wearing the same outfit, you are doing your hair and makeup once, and you can also go out that same night with friends if the dates don't end up working out, but if they do you can stay on the last date. And moreover, if you are going on multiple dates a night, you can drink seltzer water. And you know, seltz water is a perfectly acceptable beverage, and if you're having Take your time. Order alcohol if you drink alcohol, or order a mocktail if you want to stay and enjoy yourself. And then invest more as you're learning more about the person.
Anna: I love that. One thing that brings me pause is that I think about all the things I've achieved as an individual, and how that can't stack up against potentially this gold standard of being married. Do you know what I mean? Whereas like, I mean, I feel like I have like, I have friends getting engaged, I have friends potentially making down payments on houses and. Marriage is maybe within that kind of same group of life moments and how those feel far off and unattainable in some ways and so it's like if that is the gold standard and it doesn't feel…
Jess Carbino: Well I think you're speaking to something really interesting here which is related to our identities and you're talking about your identity as an individual and all the things that you've accomplished independently whereas marriage is often thought about as a joint accomplishment or as an individual accomplishment trying to think about it in that way and the fact of the matter is it doesn't detract from all those other accomplishments which is interesting to consider in light of the fact that you see women largely keeping their names at higher rates that they have historically. I absolutely want to do that. I have done that.
Anna: And you should, doctor.
Jess Carbino: Thank you. Well, I got it before I met him or I got a well I got it before we married sorry I met I had met him before that a year before but I think what's what's largely interesting to consider here is that among all groups and we can we can get back to all of these issues but among all groups so socioeconomic racial etc they law marriage because it's considered a covenant of sorts whether it's legal religious what-have-you and It's something that is perceived as being a promise, something that's supposed to be forever, despite the fact that we have a lot of data saying that it isn't always forever, although I must say divorce rates have been stabilized for quite some time since the 80s. We've observed that. But at the same time, if individuals feel like they can't attain a marriage that is stable and believe that the partners whom they are living with, having children with, et cetera, are not capable of doing so. They might partner, but they may not marry, which is why you see these disparate rates of marriage among individuals who are more educated and wealthier relative to individuals who aren't as wealthy because they don't want to be married to individuals who they don't deem to be marriageable by virtue of all these economic markers.
Anna: That makes a lot of sense. How does that trickle down to, again, what I mentioned earlier, how does that trickle to the very beginning, even with dating? Or do you think that comes into play later?
Jess Carbino: Well, I think that individuals who are not... In a place where they feel as though they are marriageable or desirable on an economic basis, they're sitting it out. They're staying out of the market. They don't perceive themselves to be marriageable. They do not perceive themselves to be interesting. They don't receive themselves as being desirable. But the overwhelming majority of the population isn't at the level socioeconomically or educationally of the individuals we observe marrying at later ages. So I think that people are moving themselves from the playing field without having a real understanding of the fact that partnership can look different. Moreover, you know, it's about rethinking what is it that needs to be there for marriage to exist. Do you need to have the capacity to purchase a home? Do you need the capacity to do all these things? Obviously, you know ideally you will have the ability if you choose to have children to support them economically. That would be a decision that people would consider very much so. But like the idea of getting married legally and like just living together, you know, do you need all the other bells and whistles? To be able to make that happen. It's a question. It is an open one. And I think it remains to be seen, but the direction certainly suggests that until individuals feel like they have achieved the markers of adulthood that have historically been associated with marriage and desirability as it relates to being a romantic partner, they're not comfortable doing that. So I'm wondering if people are going to start rethinking this as people age or, for example, we see home ownership rates have declined dramatically. People are still marrying. They're not buying homes. They're renting. Or they're delaying. Home purchases. So I guess the question is are we gonna start rethinking all of these other markers as people are starting to develop new markers of adulthood and there's a lot going on in the literature psychologically about emerging adulthood and how people think about young adulthood and emerging adulthood differently because they can't achieve those markers financially.
Anna: These new markers you mentioned. Yes. How are, what do those look like and and if those continue to be invested in or or idolized as like oh these new markers are something that we care about do you think people will emerge and get themselves back into the market so to speak? So what are the new markers?
Jess Carbino: They’re largely emotional in nature and also relate to responsibility because even if individuals are not able to financially differentiate themselves from their parents they are able to individually in certain ways like being able to not rely on their parents for the same type of encouragement and support as they had historically like as a child for example they still can look to families they also can be able to have experiences that are far and art from potentially. Achieving jobs or what have you. For example, experiences of discovery. These are largely things that are seen as part of adulthood or young adulthood. Self-discovery and exploration and encouraging people to not be as tied to these markers of achievement but rather markers more of exploration. And I think that does fit into dating because frankly the only way individuals learn about dating is by doing it. It's really challenging That's a really good point. To find... Partnership and to know what you want in a partnership without doing it.
Anna: For a partnership. And you mentioned, again, these markers of exploration. And those to me sound different than the traditional markers, which do seem to have a financial component. Do you have like a little bit more, can you get a little more specific about what the markers of exploration might be? I know you mentioned like potentially like being independent. Individuation. Individuations.
Jess Carbino: Individuation from families absolutely and also internally figuring out who you are. Mm-hmm absolutely and I think it's especially relevant because if you Are interested at all in like psychodynamic literature, which is about Trying to understand who we are in the context of families and how that shows up in our future relationships as couples. the Individual issues that you have in your families of origin are the same individuals issues that your going to struggle with as an individual and a couple. So the issues that you had to deal with with your parents are the same issues that are gonna show up in that future relationship with your spouse or your partner. And you're only going to be as healthy or as able to grapple with those things as you were able to grabble with your family of origin, original issues, unless you've addressed it in a meaningful way.
Anna: All of our signature issues. Yeah I'm thinking of mine right now. Well it is funny like I that is one thing that I think I've noticed again in my own relationship I've been in a relationship for eight years now and I am the youngest child like my sister is married has two children and I think that idea of individuation because I am now I'll be 29. In a couple weeks.
Jess Carbino: Happy birthday.
Anna: Thank you, Gemini. Gemini, stay strong. I feel like having that, maybe that space between this idea of marriage and keeping, not keeping my distance, but letting myself grow as an individual before that happened, really helped shape. Me in general and I think eventually helps shape relationships like the relationship I'm in but then also I think about like my sister who got married when she was quite young.
Anna: Do you think that people waiting to dive into those like serious committed relationships is affecting marriage and its stability because people know themselves better?
Jess Carbino: I think you're asking an important question of like, by delaying it, do you know yourself better? I think that yes, you do. But also, I think that in marriage... It is one of the best opportunities to grow. Because I do believe the person you marry can help you complete your psychological arc. As I mentioned, the issues you have as a child with your parents are going to show up and be the issues that you have in your relationship with your spouse or partner. And the capacity to work through those issues with your spouse in this relationship or your partner in this relationships can be developmentally and psychologically really meaningful. And I think that growth happens ideally over the life course. And it doesn't just happen between moving out and ultimately partnering. There's so much that happens after that's important to consider as well. But I do think it's important to know yourself and who you are and what you want before entering into it. It doesn't mean that you should delay everything. And I think people often use that excuse, like I need to go find myself. I don't think that's true. I think you find yourself through life along the way. You're always learning. I mean ideally, ideally that you're always learning and that your partner teaches you something.
Anna: So one of the things we talked about was if the economy sucks and dating also sort of sucks, we have to redefine how we form families and how we even define relationship milestones. So in the spirit, I guess, of emphasizing what's actually exciting about dating right now, what is exciting about these redefinitions?
Jess Carbino: I think, to me, what could theoretically be exciting about these rate divisions is the role of the individual within these institutions. So historically, we've thought about marriage and relationships as being about the identities of two people being combined into like one joint identity. And obviously, partnerships are around one identity, which is why uncoupling is so challenging for people because they are merging their identities in a way. It's the we. It's we. And I don't think that forming new partnerships will in any way become inhibited by that. I think that we are still going to have wheeze. But I think about if we are delaying marriage, if we're delaying partnership, it does provide an opportunity for a higher degree of individuation. Does it provide people with an enhanced chance of thinking more about who they are and what they want prior to entering these partnerships? Moreover, does it make them invest in other areas of their life socially, religiously, familially. That have historically, or at least over the last of years, have been neglected. We know that individuals do not have many close confidants, perhaps delaying these markers of adulthood will lead individuals to feel and turn inward towards their friend communities or their spiritual communities in a way that they may not have historically because they were moving at a pace or in a direction that was different.
Anna: Do you think that there's something in particular? I guess, just simply put, straight couples can learn from queer relationships in terms of the dating process.
Jess Carbino: Terms of the dating process? There's for example in the lesbian community for example sociologists have long talked about how lesbians partner relatively quickly compared to their straight counterparts. I think that's something interesting to think about like what does it mean to partner more quickly and to commit within a couple more quickly. I think these are all important things to consider. Also egalitarianism within queer couples relative to straight couples. You know, a lot of the literature bears out that once people marry and have children, that queer couples and straight couples look more similar in terms of the division of labor within their home. And so does that lead to this question that we've been talking about as it relates to like economic efficiency and this sort of trading model? I think that straight couples can learn a lot from queer couples as it relates to these ideas related to egalitarianism.
Anna: I do still feel like there's like an anti-app sentiment growing. Sure. And I mean, again, I feel like I know a lot of successful relationships that have started in the apps, mine being one of them. Mine too. Um... What do you think is behind the growing fatigue there?
Jess Carbino: I can tell you in one second. Great. People always haven't liked dating. People have always not liked dating dating has never been easy whether it was you know Elizabeth Bennet or now you know you and me or a single person out there. Dating has always been frustrating. Cut the show. We're done. That's it. We have the answer. That's over. Good point. No um no but dating has always been frustrating. It's just that the mediator has changed. It's no longer your Aunt Nancy coordinating it or trying to find somebody in a bar. Now you're in control per se, but it's a very depersonalized way of doing it to a certain degree because it's your phone. It's on the screen and you were alone while doing it versus sitting in with a group of girlfriends or a group of men and women friends and saying he's cute or she's cute. It's a completely different dynamic. It is a lot harder today to blame your Aunt Nancy for not setting you up with people when she was responsible historically. And historically would have been challenging to blame her as well because Aunt Nancy is not principally responsible for doing that for you. Everyone lay off Nancy. Lay off Nancy, please. But today it's easy to say the apps suck. They don't, in my opinion, but it's easy to say the apps suck. It's a lot harder to say your Aunt Nancy sucks. So I think that's really what it comes down to. Fundamentally, it is a depersonalized way of finding someone, and the onus is largely on you, and you're removed from other social institutions. There are institutions mediating. It's just technological, not interpersonal.
Anna: If dating sucks and the economy sucks and dating and the economy are quite related, what do we do?
Jess Carbino: We keep dating, and we rethink partnership, and we think about what it mean to form families in a new economy? What does it need to form partnerships in an economy? And it is related to these broader issues moreover about Occupational attainment and home ownership. I mean, these are all heavily linked and there are a lot of people questioning these things and I think that we'll have to continue to question these things together. But if we are continuing to look at these very historically relevant models of what is desirable, it may not necessarily be as germane anymore.
Anna: To the point of what you just mentioned of like, it's much easier to blame. Tinder or Bumble than your Aunt Nancy. Yes, yes. What is something you would say to someone who is feeling sour about the apps? Like what's something that you could say to them just to make them, just reposition your thinking on it, maybe. You can't win if you don't play.
Jess Carbino: I really believe that. My grandmother said to me, you cannot win if you don't play. If you do not put yourself out there, you're not going to find somebody just sitting alone in your room. You're not gonna find somebody never entering the space. You have to put yourself into the arena. You have enter the market to be eligible, to be at risk, as a demographer would say, to be in analysis of your likelihood of matching with somebody. You have actually participate in order to be able to find somebody.
Anna: One thing that I had listened to another interview you had done on a podcast a couple of years ago, and I really liked what you said about you can't, you have to take a risk on your profile. You can't just look exactly like everyone else because then what is making you stand out? That's true. What, do you think that, I mean this interview I think was in 2018, do think that's still very much true? I think it's absolutely relevant. I mean I think.
Jess Carbino: That we're all very much concerned about standing out and differentiating ourselves because we are worried about seeming as desirable to as many people people as possible with the fear that those matches that may be relevant to us may be turned off if we take a risk even if we are potentially a good match so by remaining as sanitized as possible in terms of our profiles we're not actually attracting the people who we want to attract. And we're not distinguishing ourselves from everybody else, so we just seem irrelevant in a way. We're indistinguishable, what does differentiate us? And like, I have often run into people who said, there's nothing special about me, there's something interesting. And I don't believe that's true.
Anna: And then one thing I wanted to ask you is, through your experience, again, working at Tinder, working at Bumble, the doctorate you're now pursuing, what is a polite way, and do you have advice to essentially tell people to kind of fuck off when they start asking around why you're dating, why you are not dating? Are you getting married? Are you never, not ever getting married at all? What's something to say to just shut that down?
Jess Carbino: I mean, I think that's part of it. Okay. I think is part of because their motivations are different. I mean one general question is like, depending on who they are, the real question is what is it about you that makes you want to ask me this question? That's really what it comes down to. What is driving you to ask this question. If the person is your mother, your grandmother, your parents, it may be coming from a place of genuine concern. Like, if you are in your mid-40s and you're not married and you really want to be married for example and your parents said like how is it going are you dating it's probably coming from a place of genuine concern if it's some random lady on the street who's saying you're cute why aren't you dating somebody it's a very different response um for the lady on this street be like I mean, that's a pretty odd thing to do. Or like a coworker. A coworker? I would ask them, frankly, tell me why you're curious to know that. Ask them. Tell me why you are curious to that. I'm happy to answer you, but I'd really love to know what makes you want to ask me that question. It's what I'd say to a patient of mine, if they asked me something that was deeply personal. How important is it for you to know why you're dating? Or can it just be kind of ambiguous?
Anna: I actually think it's a lot easier to answer when it is your coworker, it is someone on the street, because you're like, you don't really need to know, you know what I mean? But then it is a harder answer when it's, when it to someone you care about and you know that they care. And then also that they might not like the answer. Because the answer is just not right now.
Jess Carbino: No, and I think that's really, it's hard to have these conversations. But moreover, I think it relates back to one of the first questions you asked me about the stakes associated with dating and marriage historically and how it's evolved over time. Historically, your family and friends and coworkers had a stake in who you married. There was curiosity, there was management of it. They were the mediating forces. Now they're not the mediators in the same way, but they still feel invested in a way.
Jess Carbino: That's where I think this tension is really coming into play in a meaningful way. Wow.
Anna: This is like a free therapy session. My pleasure. I have to tell my therapist that now, too. We don't have to talk about relationships this week, so. OK.
Jess Carbino: Skip it.
Anna: That's really interesting. OK, before I forget, because we forgot this one time. One thing we've been asking. We forgot this once time. I know, one time and we're. I forget all the things all the time. We're literally going to FaceTime a previous guest to ask her this question later on, because you forgot.
Jess Carbino: Oh, you meant with me. I thought you meant me. No, no, no. You meant generally. Okay, got it.
Anna: What is the most unruly thing you've done this week?
Jess Carbino: Okay.
Anna: The most unruly.
Jess Carbino: I sent a text message to somebody, asking them something that was what I perceived to be a breach of social protocol. And I sent it to them and I called them out in a way that was kind, firm, and very direct. And I thought it was unruly because women often are not allowed or perceived as being allowed to engage in direct conversations with other women when there are breaches of social protocols. And I felt really good because I was kind. I started out from a place of curiosity, but I was very direct and firm and I told them that I believed that they were interfering in a private matter that should not have been interfered with.
Anna: I love that, and that has actually helped me reframe a scary email I sent the other day. Oh, good! I'm like, that people did not react as well, too, even though I was just being direct. So maybe it's just being unruly, and I don't mind being a little unruly sometimes.
Jess Carbino: Make good trouble.
Anna: As John Lewis said, making trouble. Yes, that's a good point. Making trouble.
SEGMENT:
Anna: Okay, so we play this little game called dot dot dot where I'll give you a little prompt and then you finish the sentence
Jess Carbino: I love it.
Anna: Biggest red flag to look out for on a date. The person is in plate. That's actually, yeah, mm-hmm. That would do it for me. Biggest green flag. The person is a good. Best way to romantically meet someone in real life. This can just be your opinion. It doesn't have to be a scientific fact.
Jess Carbino: Through your Aunt Nancy.
Anna: Um, the best meet-cute you ever heard of was...
Jess Carbino: My parents, my mom is a twin, and my dad and my aunt were working together, and my, my aunt was married, and my father brought my aunt, they were close friends, and he brought her flowers for her birthday, and she said, oh, my sister's going to be so jealous, and he said, why would she be jealous? He didn't know she was a twin. And she said oh, she's my twin. They were doing business together, in the Garment District, and she's, oh my sister is twin, and he's like, I have to meet her. I really, like, he like, they were friends for a long time. He's like I had no idea you were a twin? They met. Through my aunt, and they went on a date. My dad says he was blind. And my mom says she was absolutely blind. And they got married six months later. They've been married for 41 years almost.
Anna: All right, well, everyone take note.
Jess Carbino: They've had their share of issues who hasn't but for real
Anna: Cute me cute. Okay, the best the best take that Gen Z has on dating, in your opinion.
Jess Carbino: They seem really invested in getting to know themselves. They seem to be. I don't know how the data will be born out over time, but they seem really curious about knowing themselves and being aware of who they are when dating. And I think that's something laudable. Generalizing thing is generally hard and i think it i think its about not considering what really is important and being deliberate when dating. Like going into it with a very clear level-headed mindset about what is and what's not important to you and then acting in a manner that's consistent with that.
Anna: Um, okay, and then the best way to kindly reject someone you're not feeling.
Jess Carbino: I really enjoyed getting to know you, but I don't believe that we're a match, and I wish you the best of luck.
Anna: Well, I'll have to say this to my producer. It was really great getting to know you, but I don't know for a match, so best of luck. Marie-Alexa, did you like my joke? I don't know if she heard me. That's a good one. OK, those were all of our questions. Thank you so much for being here. It's my pleasure. This was absolutely fascinating. Like I said, I got my little bit of free therapy in. Same here. I could probably skip my session on Friday. So telling my therapist expecting an email to cancel. Amazing. Thank you again. My pleasure. It was really nice meeting you. Thanks for being. Um...
CREDITS:
For a transcript of the episodes and more resources, visit www DOT shopflamingo DOT com SLASH unruly podcast.
Unruly is a podcast created by me, Anna Wesche, and produced by Pineapple Street Studios in collaboration with Flamingo.
Our producer is Marialexa Kavanaugh.
Our senior managing producer is Kamilah Kashanie.
Our editor is Josh Gwynn.
Our Head of Sound & Engineering is Raj Makhija .
Our Senior Audio Engineers are Pedro Alvira and Marina Paiz.
This episode was Mixed by Pedro Alvira.
Our Executive Producer is Je-Anne Berry.
ALT: Our Executive Producer for development is Asha Saluja.
ALT: Our executive producers are Asha Saluja and Je-Anne Berry.
Our Music is from Epidemic Sounds.
Our Project Manager is Abigail Juezan [HOO-weh-zun]
Our Video Editor and Sound Designer is Elliott Moe
Our Art Director is Chelsea Castro
Our Animator is Abby DeWitt
And I'm your host, Anna Wesche.
