Articles

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 9663
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2025-10-07 13:50:59
    [post_date_gmt] => 2025-10-07 13:50:59
    [post_content] => 

Mark your calendars: Season 2 drops October 14.

We're back!

Conversationalist readers and listeners, after a long hiatus, I'm so excited to share that season 2 of The Conversationalist Podcast (formerly known as Unbreaking Media) is coming back October 14. Hosting our podcast has been a great professional joy for me, and it’s been an honor bringing the same depth, care, and human connection that we put into every article on our site into honest, informative conversations with our expert guests on the show. At a time when the free press is under attack around the globe—as corporate media increasingly bows under pressure from authoritarian governments—I treasure the space we've created as a feminist, independent nonprofit for stories and conversations that matter.

This season, we're also introducing something new: half our episodes will feature some of our favorite articles, read by the writers themselves. You'll hear their words, in their own voices, the way they were meant to be heard. The other half of the season will feature original interviews with folks working on the front lines of the issues we care about—from climate justice to reproductive health to fighting back against kleptocracy. We can't wait for you to hear them.

Listen to the season 2 trailer below, and subscribe now wherever you get your podcasts.

[post_title] => The Conversationalist Podcast is Coming Back [post_excerpt] => Season 2 drops October 14. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-conversationalist-podcast-season-two-announcement [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-10-07 15:55:51 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-10-07 15:55:51 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=9663 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
An illustrator of two women in sweatsuits, one wearing a patching purple set (facing towards the viewer) and the other in a matching blue sweatsuit (facing away from the viewer). They're sitting on green grass with a pink cloud and pink-to-yellow sky behind them. Connecting them is a string with cups on each side. The woman in the purple sweatsuit is putting a cup to her ear, the woman in the blue sweatsuit is putting the cup to her mouth.

The Conversationalist Podcast is Coming Back

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 9639
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2025-09-19 12:01:38
    [post_date_gmt] => 2025-09-19 12:01:38
    [post_content] => 

Too many promising breakthroughs in women’s health research stall out due to a lack of funding. I’m trying to remove the roadblock for just one.

I was flat on my back on the cold tile of my bathroom floor, with a wet washcloth over my forehead, when I first learned about Dr. Marlena Fejzo’s work. It was December 2023. I was four months pregnant. While I had experienced some nausea in my first pregnancy, my second was an order of magnitude worse, and the bathroom floor was where I spent most of my time, always within arm’s reach of a toilet.

But scrolling through the headlines that day, I found a surprising glimmer of hope. Dr. Fejzo had cracked the code on understanding severe morning sickness, proving a genetic link between the mechanism of pregnancy nausea and vomiting for the first time. 

As I fought off another wave of my own nausea, reading about her research felt like a lifeline. Someone was figuring this out. And if a scientist had made such a huge breakthrough, surely treatment couldn’t be too far behind. Not for me, of course. But for women after me. 

Right? 

~

It’s important to understand how limited the understanding of pregnancy nausea and vomiting (NVP) was before Dr. Fejzo’s work—and, largely, still is. Nearly seventy percent of women experience some degree of NVP in pregnancy, and yet, before Dr. Fejzo and her collaborators, doctors didn’t know what actually caused it. 

Prior to 2023, the historical hypothesis was that hormones, such as estrogen and HCG, were somehow implicated in NVP—but a causal link to nausea and vomiting had never been demonstrated. Just eighteen months ago, my own OB told me, “We don’t know what gives some women morning sickness. Probably those pesky hormones.” (Pesky hormones is not, to my knowledge, a medically meaningful term.) The current edition of perennial bestseller What To Expect While You’re Expecting, updated in 2024, also states that “no one knows for sure what causes pregnancy nausea.” As if vomiting were just part of the elusive mystery of sacred motherhood, not a biological phenomenon that deserves care and answers. 

Angered by the lack of medical information on the subject, Marlena Fejzo approached NVP research from the perspective of a geneticist, and that of a survivor. In 1999, Dr. Fejzo had herself suffered from hyperemesis gravidarum, or HG, the most severe form of morning sickness—a debilitating condition which can quickly lead to severe malnutrition. Her doctor was dismissive, accusing her of exaggerating her symptoms and attention-seeking, all while she was fully incapacitated and rapidly losing weight. Tragically, despite a last-resort feeding tube and seven different medications, her condition became too advanced and she lost her pregnancy at 15 weeks gestation. 

In the 25 years since, Dr. Fejzo has been committed to researching HG. Her early efforts moved slowly, with little to no funding, carried out alongside her day job researching ovarian cancer. (Complicating her efforts, women vomiting to the point of incapacitation have a hard time participating in research trials.) Dr. Fejzo partnered with the Hyperemesis Education and Research Foundation to set up a web portal, then contacted affected patients individually to obtain DNA samples. 

Her work took a huge leap forward when she partnered with private genetics company 23andMe in 2010 to include a question about HG in their health surveys. From those responses, and the genetic data of 50,000 women, Dr. Fejzo was able to determine that HG had a strong genetic link. The greatest risk factor was in a gene that codes the hormone GDF15—which occurs in all humans, but is produced at the highest levels by the placenta. This finding was immediately exciting to Dr. Fejzo. High GDF15 levels were already known to occur in late-stage cancer patients with cachexia, a syndrome that causes weight loss, appetite loss, and muscle wasting—all similar symptoms to pregnant people suffering from HG. The evidence was lining up. 

Together with international collaborators, in late 2023, Dr. Fejzo released a groundbreaking paper in Nature, titled GDF15 linked to maternal risk of nausea and vomiting during pregnancy. Simply put, Dr. Fejzo and her collaborators had cracked the code on morning sickness. Even better? Their work suggested methods of prevention and treatment. 

When Time Magazine named Dr. Fejzo one of its 2024 “Women of the Year,” they noted, “Fejzo is now applying for funding for a clinical trial to test whether the drug metformin—which is approved to treat Type 2 diabetes but is used off-label for numerous purposes and has been shown to raise GDF15 levels—works as a preventive therapy.”

I was thrilled to hear it. For women who had experienced HG before, or had a family history of it, or who could, hypothetically, take a blood test to gauge their risk—preventative therapy would be life-changing. And, in some cases, life-saving.

The problem, as it turned out, was finding the funding to do it. 

~

Six months after I first read about Dr. Fejzo—this time, attempting to rock a newborn to sleep—I saw a post on a pregnancy message board about an incredible women’s health researcher who could not get funding for a clinical trial. 

I almost scrolled by the post, convinced it couldn’t possibly be about the same researcher I’d first learned about while incapacitated on my bathroom floor. But then, I saw her name—and immediately stopped scrolling.

My first naive assumption: that the great capitalist machine would have a profit motive in preventing a condition that affects millions of women—something those women would do anything to solve. My second naive assumption: that promising research gets funded publicly. The post I was now looking at disproved both—a reality that felt equally disillusioning and enraging. 

Part of the problem, as it turns out, was precisely that Dr. Fejzo’s research was such an outlier. Since Dr. Fejzo is the only full-time HG researcher in the country, grant review boards still don’t have the expertise to properly review her applications. When researchers of under-studied conditions do not have peer scientists to advocate for them and their research, their work often goes overlooked. As Caroline Criado Perez writes in her book Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men, “It’s not always easy to convince someone a need exists if they don’t have that need themselves.” As of writing, Dr. Fejzo has been denied seven different grants. 

Learning this, my vague notions of “science” and “progress” quickly crumbled. I’d previously had some kind of faith that medical problems existed; and then scientists solved them; and then we all benefited. But of course, there is no abstract body of “science,” and scientists are people who require resources to perform their work. It had never occurred to me to question where, exactly, those resources actually came from. 

Scientific breakthroughs do not, on their own, produce follow-up funding. Neither does media attention or critical acclaim. Visibility is important, of course. But it doesn’t automatically turn into dollars. As Time noted, Dr. Fejzo had intended, and still intends, to launch her clinical trial with an existing generic drug, metformin—something already known to have a good safety profile in women trying to conceive, lowering potential risk for participants. But the use of this drug is also why there’s no profit motive for pharmaceutical companies to invest some of the $83 billion—with a B—dollars they put into research and development each year: The drug already exists. 

Moreover, resourcing women’s health research funding, already challenging, faces stiffer headwinds than ever. As of 2020, only 5 percent of healthcare-related R&D efforts are targeted specifically at women’s health issues—and most of that is dedicated to female-specific cancers, leaving only 1% of all medical research dollars invested in all other female-specific conditions, including maternal health conditions, menopause, endometriosis, and the like. 

While the women’s health gap is a global issue, it feels particularly acute in the United States of 2025, where the current administration has also made abundantly clear that they do not consider women’s health a priority. The New York Times reported that terms such as “female,” “uterus,” and “mental health,” painted with the indiscriminate brush of “DEI,” can get a grant submission flagged for further review. According to JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association), overall grants disbursed by the National Institute of Health (NIH) are down $1.8 billion in 2025. Recently, NIH funding for a landmark women’s health study of 40-plus years was revoked, before being reinstated due to public outcry. Meanwhile, even research grants for active scientific projects face termination when they “no longer meet agency priorities.” (A quick perusal of these terminated NIH grants includes plenty with “pregnancy,” “breast,” or “ovarian” in the title… and none with “prostate,” “penile,” or “testicular.” Priorities, indeed.)

In just the last eight months, Dr. Fejzo has spoken at the White House, lectured at Harvard and Yale, and won prestigious awards. Her most recent paper in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology garnered a great deal of attention from the OB-GYN community; and her work has been extensively profiled both in major outlets such as The Guardian, and influential parenting newsletters like Emily Oster’s ParentData. There seems to be a consensus that this work is essential; that it deserves attention and further research. Yet none of this has actually translated to funding. 

This enraged and frustrated me. I found the pregnancy message board post and got in touch with its author—who, it turned out, had been desperately hoping Dr. Fejzo was already conducting clinical trials, and had been devastated to learn they hadn’t even yet begun. She put me in touch with the researcher herself.  “In terms of fundraising, I need all the help I can get,” Dr. Fejzo emailed me. 

Over the course of several conversations, hearing about her difficulties in obtaining funding and the incredible promise of her work, I became convinced that someone needed to be a champion for Dr. Fejzo’s work. And it might as well be me. This is how I—a complete outsider, whose last brush with genetics was MOLBIO 101 twenty-odd years ago—launched myself into fundraising for medical research.

Some familiarity with the nonprofit world was a big help. Since Dr. Fejzo works at the University of Southern California, donations to her work are routed through USC as a 501(c)3 research university, making them eligible for tax deductions, some corporate matching programs, and various other mechanisms that make a donation financially advantageous. (And supporters aren’t writing a check to an entity they’d never heard of.) I also worked with USC to set up an ongoing crowdfunding page so that interested people can donate any amount directly to Dr. Fejzo’s research fund and share within their own networks, GoFundMe-style. 

I’ve made deep connections in incredible women’s funding networks such as Women Moving Millions, whose bold members are dedicated to advancing women’s well-being in every arena. We’ve hosted a number of webinars where anyone interested could hear from Dr. Fejzo directly. I leaned on the advice of friends in the academic and media worlds; I tapped every alumni and professional network I had. I dug around for matching programs through organizations including #HalfMyDAF and Pivotal Ventures that could leverage existing gifts; I got social media boosts from the HER Foundation, which does incredible work supporting and connecting hyperemesis patients and providers. 

And finally, I’ve spent the last 10-odd months talking up Dr. Fejzo’s work to absolutely anyone who will listen. I’ve found that friends and colleagues are pretty interested when you adopt a single-minded crusade against morning sickness. (One stone still unturned: celebrity outreach. I haven’t found a contact for Princess Kate yet, who publicly shared her harrowing experience with HG during all three of her pregnancies. If you happen to know her, put us in touch.) 

We’ve raised nearly $750,000 thus far, a testament to the power of collective action. But we still have a long way to go: Dr. Fejzo needs $1.3 million to go forward with her clinical trial—a sum of money which is both significant, and yet so tiny in the scheme of research dollars. 

As my fundraising has shown me, though, this is completely doable—because I’m not the only one who feels motivated by Dr. Fejzo’s work. There is a true hunger for her research among women who have previously suffered HG. In fact, many individuals have emailed Dr. Fejzo—who, again, is a researcher, not a medical doctor—to ask whether she might help their own doctors suggest a metformin protocol. Essentially, pregnant people are volunteering themselves as studies of one, outside the controls and protections of clinical trials, out of sheer desperation for a better alternative to the pain they’re suffering through. 

I think back to my own experience. I did not have full-blown HG; I had a less severe experience with nausea and vomiting that, while deeply disruptive to my everyday life, was not ultimately dangerous to me or my baby. Yet I still emerged from the experience absolutely desperate for better care. I would have done anything in my power, and paid anything within my means, for the nausea to go away. For women who end up hospitalized, it’s many orders of magnitude worse. 

This is also why Dr. Fejzo’s inability to access followup funding makes me so angry. I’m angry that women’s pain isn’t considered a priority. Angry that women aren’t considered reliable narrators of their own experience. Angry that a primary response to any complication during pregnancy seems to be “suck it up.” That women, and pregnant women especially, are given vague assurances like, “Your baby is fine! It’ll get what it needs,” without any evidence to support those claims. (Oh, you’re vomiting multiple times a day? Well, didn’t you want a baby? What did you expect?)

This anger is motivating. But for those suffering from HG, it’s impossible to harness that rage into action while utterly incapacitated, fearing for the safety and health of your baby and yourself. HG can be dehumanizing—taking away your ability to advocate, fight, or do much more than exist. It’s on the rest of us, then, to rally for those who can’t. 

Where funding goes, and where it doesn’t, communicates something unmistakable about what society values—and clearly, addressing women’s suffering does not rank very high on that list. So what can we do? Well, we can start by crowdfunding one critical clinical trial, then another, and another. Collectively funding public good is a foundation of society, and perhaps it can continue despite the failure of official systems to support it, if we come together to put our dollars where they count. 

Should there be better ways to fund this kind of research? Yes. Are there better solutions than crowdfunding out there? Maybe. But until then, it’s time we reclaim some control, and fund the damn research ourselves.

[post_title] => Let's Fund the Damn Research Ourselves [post_excerpt] => Too many promising breakthroughs in women’s health research stall out due to a lack of funding. I’m trying to remove the roadblock for just one. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => morning-sickness-womens-health-research-pregnancy-funding-science-studies-hyperemesis-gravidarum-marlena-fejzo-fundraising [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-10-10 15:28:09 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-10-10 15:28:09 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=9639 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
An illustration of three characters in a nature scene, a blue lake surrounded by forest. One person, in a white outfit, is on the shore, looking on at a red canoe filled with research equipment. There is one person paddling the canoe while another person is in the water, putting more instruments into the boat.

Let’s Fund the Damn Research Ourselves

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 8823
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2025-09-09 21:36:41
    [post_date_gmt] => 2025-09-09 21:36:41
    [post_content] => 

Over-processed produce is disconnecting us from where food comes from.

The way it looked promised richness and flavor. Sharp green leaves, stemless, in a transparent plastic package with the words “organic” and “triple-washed.” It was something I’d never seen before: ready-to-eat spinach with no dirt, worms, or roots. In Colombia, my home country, produce always needed to be washed. Spinach, in particular, needed extra effort, because it was always sold as a whole. I usually soaked it in vinegar and lemon for half an hour to kill any parasites or bacteria. But in the United States, everything seemed easy, fast, and reliable—no soaking required. I bought the bag of spinach, and prepared a fresh salad with goat cheese and walnuts. In less than two minutes, it was on my plate. I chewed and chewed. But while there was a hint of spinach in whatever those leaves were, it was certainly not spinach

In Colombia, I lived in Bogotá, a densely populated and urbanized area. With reduced access to green spaces, I felt most connected to nature through food. Vegetables came from the earth and still carried the signs: roots that once absorbed nutrients, stems that transported water and sugars, bugs that had nibbled on the same leaves I would soon eat, too. Seeing all this reminded me that my food had been grown, not manufactured. It connected me to the farmers who had cultivated, cared for, and harvested it. I felt grounded when peeling, chopping, smelling, washing, and eating my produce. At the end of the day, I was manipulating something that came from the earth.

When I moved to New York City in 2022, I noticed how little people manipulated their food by comparison. Grocery stores sold pre-washed and pre-cut vegetables, and people just opened the packages and threw food on a plate and called it a meal. They didn’t need to bother getting their hands dirty, because their food was already chopped and sanitized. 

To me, this disconnect was clearly separating people from nature, making food’s origins feel unfamiliar. When people don’t see, feel, and taste the whole flavor of produce, they also feel less encouraged to eat it. A mango that once grew on a tree, appears nature morte—a dead nature—in a plastic container, more like a granola bar than fruit. In Colombia, produce tasted intense and complex. Spinach, for example, tasted bitter, earthy, and savory. A friend from Peru tells me she avoided fruit her first year in New York because it tasted too sugary and artificial. Another friend from Mexico will only eat pineapple, because she thinks other fruits taste as if they’ve been diluted in a water and sugar solution.

The University of Florida found the reason that fruits, like tomatoes, taste so insipid in the U.S. is because, in the pursuit of higher yield, disease resistance, and shelf life, the genes responsible for flavor were bred out. While unsanitized produce may be risky for gastrointestinal health, GMO and ready-to-eat produce isn’t necessarily always “safer,” either. Processing facilities or farms, for example, frequently wash greens with water and chlorine. While safe in small doses, regular consumption can pose health risks. Other additives, like preservatives or antioxidants, might also cause immune diseases and antibacterial resistance

It’s also just unnatural. A Colombian friend living in San Francisco tells me she once forgot about a bag of mandarins for two months. When she rediscovered them, they were still edible. “The mandarins were supposed to be spoiled,” she said. “What kind of component do they have to survive for months?” 

It is a universal truth that Western society is obsessed with germs. We fear bacteria so much that we do everything we can to isolate ourselves from it, no matter the source. But when it comes to food, are we truly that delicate—unable to tolerate mud on our fingers or on the ground beneath our feet? Is our obsession reinforcing the binary vision that nature is dirty and dangerous, and human creations safe and clean? And what are we robbing ourselves of in the process?

Research published in Communications Psychology found that the more people interact with nature, the more fruits and vegetables they eat. While this affects us all, it disproportionately affects some of us more than others: Access to nature and socioeconomic and racial inequalities in U.S. urban areas have long been related. Simultaneously, the more urban the environment, the fewer healthy food choices are available—especially amongst Black and Hispanic communities, who often have less access to green spaces. 

Community gardens and farmers markets help mitigate this gap. They also provide more affordable prices than grocery stores for organic and whole produce. I used to visit a community garden in Queens, where I learned how to compost and take care of the crops they had, allowing me to feel close to food again like I once did in Colombia. I have also tried to buy my produce in farmers markets that sell whole foods, rather than their chopped and sanitized counterparts. But access to these spaces is limited. Community gardens can’t produce the amount of food necessary to feed the whole city. Farmers markets are only in certain neighborhoods and on specific days a week, limiting access for working-class people. Not everyone has the privilege to eat spinach from the earth and not a bag.

I don’t have a solution to this disconnection. But I do know this: We understand the world through our senses. The feel of a vegetable in our hands, the smell of it, the taste, reminds us we exist because of the earth, what we feed ourselves comes from the earth, and that our cells are built from the earth, too. Our bodies evolved alongside the earth. Our ancestors touched soil, grew food, harvested crops, and fed their communities with their hands. And it seems likely for our collective wellbeing that we still need to do everything in our power to do the same.

[post_title] => Food is Meant to Be Touched [post_excerpt] => Over-processed produce is disconnecting us from where food comes from. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => food-groceries-united-states-colombia-produce-packed-pre-washed-cut-processed-gmo-ready-to-eat-fruits-vegetables-treatment [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-09-12 16:40:11 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-09-12 16:40:11 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=8823 [menu_order] => 10 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
An illustration with different panels of a salad being prepared. On the left, a panel with a plate of spinach salad with walnuts and goat cheese on a placemat next to a fork, over a panel with spinach growing in the wild. Across the top, a panel with a close-up of spinach with a snail on it; a panel where spinach is being rinsed in a colander; and a panel where spinach is being chopped. On the bottom, a large panel in the center with pre-packed groceries: a giant plastic tub of spinach, a bag of lemons, an apple with a sticker on it, a bag of walnuts, a package of feta. On the bottom right, organic vegetables in plastic crates and piles.

Food is Meant to Be Touched

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 9177
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2025-09-02 20:19:11
    [post_date_gmt] => 2025-09-02 20:19:11
    [post_content] => 

How one word has birthed a globe-spanning tradition of resistance.

A few months ago, I was at a protest in Washington, D.C. This was not unusual. Gaza burns. The president deports with impunity. Respect for the rule of law—notably and especially by the government—now seems like the nostalgic artifact of a more innocent era, an era merely months ago. Unsurprisingly, for those of us moved by these simultaneous horror shows, expressing our anger through protest has become almost unremarkable. I’ve lost count of the number of protests I’ve attended, the catchy homemade signs I’ve crafted and seen, and the clever chants I’ve memorized. But at that particular march, something unusual happened: a chant-leader exhorted us to cry a word in my mother tongue, Urdu.

“Azadi!” she called.

“Azadi!” the crowd responded in unison.

Suddenly, the word seemed everywhere: scrawled in chalk across sidewalks and columns; emblazoned across signs. In the heart of the nation, the seat of its power, everywhere, that old watchword of uprising—Azadi.

~

Azadi, or freedom, is a small word. A scant five letters in both English and its original Farsi (آزادی), these five letters have birthed a globe-spanning tradition of resistance, having been shouted by students in Srinagar and Tehran, whispered in prison cells in Ankara, and sung by women in Kashmir and Delhi. A cry familiar to all children of the Middle Eastern and South Asian diaspora, myself included, Azadi is hymn, music, and lifeline. It’s a demand for dignity from its callers and from all those who answer the call. 

This demand is expansive in scope and depth, inclusive of the dignity of life, of identity, and of the ability to govern your own political destiny. Azadi evokes our collective memory that freedom is claimed, not given, while narrating a people’s unified struggle for systemic social change. For those who seek the protection of the most vulnerable while preserving the dignity of all, Azadi is always within reach. 

Still, for all that Azadi is, we must be clear about what it is not. It is not a slogan to be selectively invoked. It is not a justification for state violence. Azadi cannot mean the protection of innocent life only when politically convenient. Moreover, it becomes meaningless when uttered by those who do not uphold a politics grounded in human dignity. Nowhere was this distinction starker than in a recent televised address, in which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu briefly switched from English to Farsi while commenting on Israel’s bombing of Iran. “Women, life, freedom. Zan, zendagi, azadi,” he said—invoking the slogan of the Iranian women’s rights movement. In that moment, the language of liberation was co-opted to justify the machinery of war. It was surreal to hear a feminist chant—professed often by Iranian women defying authoritarian rule—repurposed by the very man overseeing the brutally indiscriminate bombing of thousands of women and girls in Gaza. The slogan, stripped of its radical roots and repurposed as rhetorical cover, stood in direct contradiction to the grassroots movements that had once breathed life into it. 

Creeping autocracy in the United States has for too long been ignored and shrugged off as a dysfunction that happens only in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Global South—the lawless other. But this careless, arrogant posture can no longer be supported, nor can the dangers of autocracy be reduced to a foreign export; and so, Americans chant Azadi now, because America needs it now. The past 100+ days have exhibited what the marginalized in this country have always known: that the greatest repression within America’s borders remains homegrown. Despotism collapses the political distance between nations and times, and just as fascism is rising globally, it has risen here. The myth of American exceptionalism falsely preached that our democracy was immune to the spell of demagoguery. But we know that Americans are just as capable of voting themselves into tyranny as any other people. White supremacy, toxic masculinity, and violent inequalities in rights and liberties were always part of the country’s domestic architectures. Now, from the streets to digital silos, they are plain for all to witness. 

From Hungary to India, Israel to the U.S., authoritarian regimes the world over are in conversation, looking admirably upon each other. They swap notes in class, sharing tactics of repression, like aggrandizing executive power and politicizing independent institutions. But just as authoritarian regimes learn from each other, so too must we build solidarity across movements. The rhymes of history—from the surveillance of Black radicals in the U.S. to the targeting of Kashmiri students in India—demand collective study. And along with any new lessons that may arise, we must continue to echo the lessons of some of our most beloved visionaries. From Angela Davis to Edward Said to Arundhati Roy, we are reminded that global resistance is strongest when deeply rooted in local struggle. 

In fact, therein lies Azadi’s greatest power: It crosses borders, languages, and faiths, moving between nations without itself becoming nationalized. It is a global grammar of defiance.

~

Language lives. It breathes, grows, reproduces. Azadi has done so, too, absorbing every movement and tongue it touches: Farsi, Urdu, Kurdish, Pashto, Punjabi, English. The precise journey of the word is contested; after all, linguistic borrowing is never an isolated event. Still, it carries an expansive genealogy of struggle through its travels: against gendered violence, against settler colonialism, against religious nationalism.

While I heard cries for Azadi in D.C. for the first time this year, in Indian-occupied Kashmir—the most militarized zone on earth—Azadi has been invoked for decades, having been part of the Kashmiri liberation movement since its inception. Yet as Modi’s India forbids conversations about the region and brands it as sedition, as students and organizers are arrested for expressing their desire for freedom, as the indigenous Kashmiri struggle for self-determination persists—Azadi remains the movement’s heartbeat. 

Long serving as the anthem of the Kashmiri separatist movement, now that Azadi can no longer be expressed in the open, it hides itself in art or in niche digital spaces not yet subject to state discipline. Digital speech, however, is increasingly policed. On platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Indian authorities now block, geofence, or suspend accounts that challenge its narrative. Content from advocacy groups like Stand With Kashmir is censored using the same tools of repression that platforms in the U.S. deploy against pro-Palestinian activists—algorithms, shadowbanning, keyword suppression. Surveillance and censorship, previously characterized as exclusive to so-called illiberal regimes, are now a feature of the liberal democracies just catching up. 

As all this occurs, state actors escalate their repression of dissent in the United States. Trumpism has made it clear what can and cannot be said: speech critical of the Trump administration is met with swift retribution; and speech challenging domestic and foreign policy is quickly vilified, as seen by the vicious response to ICE protests in California earlier this summer. Meanwhile, students protesting for Palestine in the U.S. now face the same brutal state retaliation we’ve long associated with authoritarian regimes abroad—even though the U.S. has always had its own archive of violent suppression, from the surveillance and silencing of civil rights activists and abolitionists to the the crackdown on anti–Vietnam War protesters after them. Today, much to Trump’s delight, some of the most prestigious law firms have capitulated to executive pressure, agreeing to perform approximately $1 billion worth of pro-bono labor for Trump’s retributive pet projects. Activists and pro-Palestine advocates have been doxxed, fired, expelled, and/or blacklisted. All the while, institutional liberalism bends the knee: DEI offices that once promised safe harbor for marginalized voices now fall silent or side with power; liberal media outlets fire staff who speak out against atrocities in Gaza. The suppression of speech, criminalization of protest, surveillance of dissent—these are global patterns, and we are not exempt. Arguably, if American exceptionalism matters here at all, it will be in its ability to normalize this authoritarian bent worldwide.

And yet resistance continues. The same dignity Azadi rallies for abroad is now demanded here. On the steps of American universities. In its hallowed institutions. At the foot of the Capitol. 

~

For all that Azadi gives, it demands something of us—namely that we do more than simply bear witness. When we chant Azadi, we are not just echoing other movements, past and present, but entering into dialogue with them, from Kashmir to Kabul to Tehran. This is not mimicry, but lineage, as Azadi reminds us in every generation that our rights are not guaranteed and must be renewed through struggle. 

It is not enough, then, to be the appreciative, passive inheritor of a tradition of resistance; one must mobilize. This means texting rideshares, learning how to administer basic first aid for those whose names you don’t yet know, and tracking jail releases of those who you just met and marched alongside. This means disagreement without collapse, and accountability without exile. This means spending hours in rooms with bad lighting and too many opinions, trying to move toward consensus anyway. 

If Azadi is to continue to mean something lasting, we’ll need to carry it beyond the chants—into policy fights, mutual aid networks, protective kinship, and more. Because Azadi is not metaphor, it is mandate, and requires all of us to answer its call. 

~

Call and Response: 

Hum kya chahte? Azadi!
What do we want? Freedom!

Chheen ke lenge—Azadi!
We will snatch it—Freedom!

Hai haq hamara—Azadi!
It is our right—Freedom!

Zor se bolo—Azadi!
Say it louder—Freedom!

Hai jaan se pyaari—Azadi!
We love it more than life—Freedom!

Tum kuch bhi kar lo, hum leke rahenge—Azadi!
Do what you want, we will still win it—Freedom!

[post_title] => America Needs Azadi [post_excerpt] => How one word has birthed a globe-spanning tradition of resistance. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => america-united-states-azadi-freedom-protest-palestine-gaza [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-09-03 10:27:10 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-09-03 10:27:10 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=9177 [menu_order] => 4 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

America Needs Azadi

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 9206
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2025-08-07 16:43:47
    [post_date_gmt] => 2025-08-07 16:43:47
    [post_content] => 

How one woman's friendship helped guide me to myself.

Old Friends” is an ongoing series exploring the many ways that friendship changes shape in adulthood. 

I met Maryam at an Egyptian dance class in 2009, just outside Boston. We ended up on the same train ride back into the city afterwards, and got to chatting, about dance, about life. I was immediately at ease in her presence. Maryam’s big green eyes peered owlishly at me over wire frame glasses as we talked, and I was struck by the sensation that I was speaking to an elderly cartoon wizard who had transfigured, comically, into a freakishly gorgeous human woman. We also learned we were both students at the same college, and when she got off at her stop, we agreed to meet up on campus the next week.

I’m still not sure why Maryam wanted to hang out with me back then. At 21, I’d arrived to our friendship a myopic, self-centered mess of youthful immaturity. Unrecognized neurodivergence and unaddressed teenage trauma had glazed over my entire life, until everything was blurry. I was totally disconnected from myself beyond whatever my current fleeting hyperfixation, which often included chasing after some dehydrated headache of a man. I had no internal compass or intrinsic motivation to carve a deliberate path forward for my life.

In contrast, Maryam was poised, self-expressive, and independent in ways that awed me. Several years older and light years more adult, she moved through life with an enigmatic grace. Her home was full of art, films, perfumes, and books. Meanwhile, I still lived with my mom, and my room was full of…laundry.

I so desperately wanted to be like Maryam. A trained historian, herbalist, doula, and certified babe, this woman had it together. She taught me about feminist geopolitics, which plants would be good for my period cramps, and how to take care of my skin. She kept her fingers and toes manicured (red, always), and had a standing appointment at the nail salon for a polish change every Friday. It was the first time I’d met someone so devoted to herself; not in an egotistical way, but as a practice in self-respect.   

“I never leave the house without at least a little makeup,” Maryam told me once. "My mother taught me that.” 

Wow, I remember thinking. What a cool mom. 

I haven’t spoken to my own mother much since middle school, but at 21, I was a full-time student who couldn’t yet afford my own apartment. Home, then, was a source of constant anxiety and stress; a gulf of silence, punctuated by unpredictable bouts of my mother’s wrath, a pattern that still defines our relationship today. 

I cherished having an elder femme take me under her wing. I was a shy, only child, and my living situation had left me feeling pretty isolated. Time with Maryam often felt like an escape; like an alternate plot line where I felt a sense of belonging. Over time, I started to realize that I could actually live in that plot line, if I wanted to. 

In the early years of our friendship, Monday nights were ours. Nearly every week, we went dancing in Cambridge, the notorious college town next door. We both had to be up early on Tuesdays, but that didn’t stop us—Maryam may have been responsible and mature, but we were both in our early 20s; still able to party all night and get up at 6 a.m. the next day. Whenever men would try to talk to us, we would start “joke dancing”: lurching and flailing our bodies around to scare away the would-be suitors, purely for our own amusement. When the night was done, I would drop her off and make my way back home in my mom’s Scion.

Maryam quickly became a mother figure to me, and helped me grow strong in ways that I needed, especially when I later stepped into sex work for the first time at 25. Through her, I was also able to see the ways my own mother had inadvertently taught me to hide from myself. My mom, a white woman who adheres to the principles of second wave feminism, raised me to believe that femininity was something that weak women performed for men. She was loud about her disdain, both for men and for femmes. She kept her hair short, never wore makeup, and still rarely wastes an opportunity to let me know she thinks my own femininity is frivolous. 

But for all her convictions, my mother has also never been a confident woman; not when I was growing up, and not today. She is direct, entitled, and bossy in the ways that whiteness allows, but, when presented with everyday opportunities to disrupt things like misogyny, racism, or classism, she often stays silent, choosing decorum over the values she believes she holds. 

The first iteration of my womanhood was steeped in the same temerity as my mother’s, something that required me to subjugate large swaths of my personality. I am, at my core, a belligerent lesbian with a smart mouth who capitulates to no one. I just didn’t know all of that yet at 21, and Maryam’s friendship helped guide me to myself.

In many ways, just meeting her was a revelation. She embodies a multiplicity that my mother’s idea of feminism can’t compute; a multiplicity that, though different from mine, allowed me to better understand my own contradictions, not as shortcomings, but as evidence of the shortcomings of the patriarchal culture around me. Maryam is brave enough to speak her mind, especially when it comes to standing up to men—even though as a mixed race, high femme, feminist hijabi, she faces a unique set of risks that often compound when she does so. Once, as a new mother, she noticed a man following a woman down the street, harassing her. With her infant strapped to her chest, Maryam began loudly heckling him, and he panicked and ducked into a store. She followed him inside and continued to roast him in front of shoppers. 

I wonder if she gets this ferocity from her own mother, Karla, who died suddenly, shortly before Maryam and I first crossed paths. I wonder, too, what it was like for Maryam in the early years of our friendship, to guide me so thoughtfully and patiently through life as she grappled, mostly alone, with her monumental loss. She, like me, is an only child, and she lived with her mom until she died.

I also wonder what it was like to be raised by someone so tough. My favorite story about Karla, who was an artist, is the time that she was working in her studio and accidentally slashed her flesh. She cauterized her own wound with a cigarette, because, according to Maryam, “She couldn’t be bothered with the fuss of the ER.” 

So unlike my own mother’s lip-service, Maryam taught me to hold my ground, go with my gut, and never let a man push my boundaries. Wise, wise advice for anyone to heed, but especially for a young person heading into the sex industry, like I did, just a few short years into our friendship. I am 36 at the time of this writing, and I have been in various types of sex work for over a decade. I started out as a stripper, and Maryam was one of my most supportive friends. She immediately understood the complex web of reasons why sex work may be the best choice for some people; even people like me, who have a college degree and other potential career options. Her steadfast support helped me keep my head on straight when others, including my mom, tried to make me feel bad about myself for dancing. And her support never wavered. During our brief but glorious stint as roommates, she would perform parody dances for me in the living room, twerking in a handstand on the wall to strip club classics, like T Pain’s I’m in Love (With a Stripper). Once, during one of my shifts at the club, the bewildered bouncer came inside to let me know that Maryam had tried to come visit me at work—with her new baby asleep in the carriage. 

In stark contrast, when my biological mom found out through the grapevine that I had been dancing, she lost it. Even though we barely spoke, she used any contact as an opportunity to let me know she was mortified by my choices. She tried to shame me out of my job, eventually using her own mental health as a manipulation tactic, blaming my stripper status for her anxiety and depression.

I don’t resent my mother for this, I don’t hate her. But I also don’t feel known by her. And when I was younger, I needed to feel known, to feel understood—to feel mothered. 

For an off-the-wall autist, pinballing through her early adulthood, Maryam’s care was a lifeline. Her lessons in self respect also helped me shift paradigms in my personal life. Eventually, as I matured, I started to put less attention into toxic relationships and instead focus on building a relationship with myself. I have my own apartment now, full of my own art, music, perfumes, and books. (I’m still locked in a chronic battle with my laundry, though—some things don’t change.) Gradually, as I grew up, my friendship with Maryam changed, too: In the 15 years since we met, she’s had kids, I’ve figured out I’m queer, and we’ve both begun to contend with the ways that time takes a toll on the body; the ways that life shapes the spirit and the mind. 

Part of me will forever feel like a clumsy little kid, chasing after Maryam with a lollipop tangled in my hair, but, in general, I feel pretty well equipped to take care of myself. Now, I’m also someone Maryam calls in a crisis, someone she vents to when she has a problem; not just the other way around. I feel rewarded by having earned her trust over the years; a kind of trust that I still don’t get from my own mom.

I’ve also had my own experiences now, mothering younger friends and relatives, and in those situations I often find myself emulating Maryam, trying to strike a balance of grace and leadership; trying to teach my little ducklings to be strong and brave.

It took a long time for me to see just what it meant for Maryam to show up for me like she did in those early years, especially as she was learning to navigate life without her mom. She was attentive to me in ways for which I previously had no barometer; she validated my dreams, recognized my hard work, and showed me care in simple ways, like learning which foods were my favorites, or reminding me my worth every time some dingus broke my heart. On the other hand, my own mother has asked me twice in the past decade what color my eyes are, refuses to believe that I am autistic, and, just before I started grad school for journalism last fall, decided to tell me why she thinks I’ll never be a good journalist.

Since my own mom is mostly a stranger to me, it’s hard for me to imagine what it’s like to lose a bond I never had. But through mine and Maryam’s friendship, I have caught glimpses of Karla, and have come to love her through Maryam’s eyes—to recognize the woman who mothered the woman who mothered me. 

When I look back at the ways that Maryam helped guide me in my lost, immature years, or when I reflect on what a spectacular mom she has become to her own children, I am awash with the strange sense of missing someone I never had a chance to meet. I can feel Karla’s presence in so much of Maryam’s life, and, by extension, so much of my own. 

It’s been over ten years since Maryam and I lived in the same state. She’s raising a family with her husband in the Midwest, and I’m running around, a gay, sex working journalist in New York. I miss her so much. I keep photos of her and her kids in my studio, along with a pair of Karla’s old boots: a reminder that my best friend is always with me, and of the multigenerational blessings she brings to my world; and of the many mothers, here and gone, who continue to watch over me.

[post_title] => The Cycle of Mothering [post_excerpt] => How one woman's friendship helped guide me to myself. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => old-friends-friendship-mothering-growing-up-self-understanding-personal-essay [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-09-19 12:32:12 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-09-19 12:32:12 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=9206 [menu_order] => 2 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
An illustration of a laundry line, with white sheets billowing in the wind. Behind it, we can see the shadows of two women holding paper cut-outs of shoes on sticks, and the silhouettes of the New York skyline. In the foreground, there's a plastic chair with a pair of red cowboy boots.

The Cycle of Mothering

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 9098
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2025-08-01 17:42:22
    [post_date_gmt] => 2025-08-01 17:42:22
    [post_content] => 

As immigrants, my friends and I depend on each other in ways I've never needed back home.

Old Friends” is an ongoing series exploring the many ways that friendship changes shape in adulthood. 

For months, I thought coming to New York City was a mistake. I’d accepted an unpaid internship in the city, leaving my home in Bogota to try living abroad. I dreamed of going to Broadway shows, dining out at different restaurants—enjoying all the fun New York had to offer. But instead, in addition to my internship, I ended up taking another job, just to afford rent. I worked sixteen hours a day, six days a week, with little time to socialize. I was burned out and deeply lonely. Then, one day, my friend Carolina suggested we go out after our internship and do something fun.

“We should go rollerskating at Rockefeller Center,” she said.

I used to skate for fun back in Colombia—my home country—when I was a teenager, but hadn’t gone in years. Still, I thought it was a great idea. Carolina was a talented skater, and we had so much fun looping around the rink that I was reminded of the joy skating had once made me feel. 

For the first time in months, I was completely at ease. Then, as we were leaving the rink, I fell. When I looked down, my arm was shaped like the letter “s”: I’d broken my left wrist. Carolina, somehow, found the strength to pull me up, call an Uber, and take me to the nearest hospital. She waited with me for hours in the emergency room, where I learned I’d need nails and a cast to fix my broken bones. 

As my arm healed, Carolina took the subway with me to work every day, protecting me from accidental bumps. She brushed my messy hair, pulled down my pants so I could pee, and dressed me up again; all things I’m not sure I’d ask even my closest friends to do for me back home. 

At the time, we had only known each other for four months. 

~

I once read an Instagram post that said being an immigrant is like becoming a dog: one year as an immigrant equals seven years of life experience. Friendships, then, become intense and profound more quickly than they might back home. Sometimes, out of necessity, they become deeper than our friendships back home, too.

Adult immigrants often find themselves profoundly alone. Our families and closest friends usually remain in our home countries, hundreds or even thousands of miles away. The friendships we form in our new lives, then, become everything to us: our support network, our first call, our emergency contacts. 

In an unfamiliar city, we also seek familiarity. As immigrants, we tend to connect more deeply with people from similar cultural backgrounds, something especially meaningful when we suddenly become the “other” after a lifetime of living in a country where we are the “norm.” Sharing a language, traditions, and social cues lowers the barriers to intimacy: When someone understands the way you were raised, you don’t have to justify or over-explain everything you do. 

Carolina was from Bogota, too, and had started at the same internship a week before I had. We had a lot in common: We both came from Catholic-conservative backgrounds, needed to be very mature at a young age, identified as feminists, had issues making friends, and wanted to start life from scratch in the city. We shared similar experiences growing up, and similar experiences since coming to New York. But our friendship deepened after I broke my wrist: I knew then that we could rely on one another. That if something ever happened to me again, she would take care of me—and if something ever happened to her, I’d take care of her, too. 

Carolina isn’t the only immigrant friend I’ve felt this immediate intimacy with. One day, I was hiking with Nicol, a Peruvian friend. The trail was rocky and we had to march in rhythm just to move forward. Suddenly, a memory popped into my head: In primary school, I used to march like a soldier with the rest of my classmates. Military culture is deeply ingrained in Colombia because of our near century-long history of war and internal armed conflict. It felt silly, but I decided to share my memory with Nicol.

“Oh, yeah, we did that at my school, too,” she said. “It was so ridiculous. Our parents would come watch us march in squared formations.”

Of course. Peru, too, has a history of armed conflict, and military culture was a part of her primary school indoctrination as well. She didn’t make fun of me for what I thought might be a strange confession. Instead, she took my memory and treated it with care—turning it into something funny and shared. 

I immediately felt closer to her, something unusual for me. I’ve always considered myself introverted. During my undergrad years in Colombia, I experienced severe social anxiety. I was trapped in an internal monologue that told me I was boring, strange, and hard to love. For nearly two years, I didn’t make a single friend. I built high walls around myself that kept everyone out. After a while, I made meaningful connections that have stayed with me, but I’d never found it easy.

When I migrated, I assumed I’d again struggle to make friends—especially since, on top of everything else, I now had to add “not fluent enough in English” to my long list of self-demeaning adjectives.

But when I started grad school in the States, I made friends within the first two weeks. At the time, I thought maybe I had changed somehow; become more at ease within myself, more confident. But looking back, I can see it was something else: My deep, human need to belong—and the comfort I felt around other Latin American students—had activated parts of me that had been frozen. 

A couple of weeks ago, I spent the afternoon with María, a friend from Mexico. Before coming here, I had never had friends like her—extroverted, party lovers, heavy users of dating apps, full of energy. After a long conversation about how Latina diet culture has shaped our relationship to food and our bodies, I realized our friendship had grown strong, in spite of our differences, because it was rooted in something larger than us. Like with Carolina, and Nicol, and countless other immigrant friends, we were united by our need to resist a homogenizing environment. We were united by our shared confusion about U.S. social cues. We were united by our warmth, our humor, and our overlapping memories, even if we didn’t grow up in the same country.

“I’ve noticed you’re literally like my younger sister,” she told me. “The good girl who wants to fit in and carries the weight of your lineage. We’re very different, but there’s a strong emotional connection between us.” I realized then that she is, indeed, a lot like my older sister, too.

I’ve been in the U.S. for almost two years now, and I still find it hard to make American friends. Sometimes, people make xenophobic comments to me in the streets. When I meet people who grew up in the States, I quickly find myself running out of conversation topics, unable to find much common ground—something that still makes me feel out of place. But my immigrant friends are part of the reason I still want to stay, to put down roots. 

At the end of the day, home is where you feel safe, loved, and cared for, rather than where you grew up. If I have friends who look after me, who resist the harshest expressions of discrimination and exclusion by my side—then here, I’ve found a place to call home. 

Don’t get me wrong: I have beautiful, loyal friendships in Colombia, too. But my friends there don’t need me to survive. In Colombia, if I got sick, I could call my parents or sisters, and they would drop everything for me. But there, I had never been anyone’s emergency contact. My friends back home already had someone else to call—their own parents, siblings, partners. 

In contrast, my friendships in New York became lifelong within months. I’m now the emergency contact for two friends. I’ve been the caregiver for one of them coming out of a medical procedure that needed anesthesia. Here, my friends and I depend on each other to be each other’s version of family, to be a shoulder to cry on, to be someone reliable for medicine delivery; as a party plus-one, a caregiver, a babysitter (or cat sitter!), among many other things. 

The need to survive, to resist, to belong, and to be comforted—that’s what first pushed us together. But it’s the care, love, and familiarity that’s kept us bonded.

[post_title] => Emergency Contact [post_excerpt] => As immigrants, my friends and I depend on each other in ways I've never needed back home. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => immigrant-friendships-migrant-friends-relationships-home-emergency-contacts-shared-language-culture-latin-america-immigration-personal-essay [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-09-12 16:43:09 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-09-12 16:43:09 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=9098 [menu_order] => 3 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
Illustrator of the silhouettes of two women, one braiding the hair of the other. They are in shadow, standing in front of a window with a sunrise, while the rest of the room is shrouded in darkness.

Emergency Contact

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 9113
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2025-07-28 20:48:44
    [post_date_gmt] => 2025-07-28 20:48:44
    [post_content] => 

How younger generations are turning knitting and crochet into a community building affair.

The first known knitted project was a pair of socks. Discovered in Egypt, the socks featured colorwork made from indigo and white cotton, and were believed to date back to the 11th century, although the craft itself has likely existed for much longer. In the many decades since, knitting, crochet, and other fiber arts have become widespread and global, evolving from the work of artisans to a beloved pastime across generations, while still staying true to the original techniques used in the very first woven fabrics. And now, the craft has evolved once more—this time, at the hands of young people seeking a comforting hobby that gets them out of the house. 

This is what led Virginia Meinhausen, 28, and Lea Engler, 31, to take the leap and start Knitting Club Potsdam in Germany earlier this year. “Being part of a community in person is something [meaningful], not only just to speak to each other, it's also… Wow, so many people are doing this and we are doing this together,” says Meinhausen. “We are now meeting each other in a huge group once a month.” 

Since launching the club in March, Meinhausen says it’s grown to over 100 members. But this quick success isn’t unique to just Knitting Club Potsdam. In recent years, the age-old practice has found new meaning amongst Gen Z and Millennials, who have turned to knitting as a means of bringing back the “third place” and reconnecting with their peers. 

“I remember thinking, it’s crazy how many people don’t have a real hobby anymore,” says Isabelle Mann, textile business expert and owner of knitwear brand Fable and Failure. But she says this started to shift during the pandemic, as younger generations sought more analog ways to pass the time.

The trend first began online, rising to prominence through influencers like Petite Knit and platforms like Ravelry, with younger generations taking ancient techniques and adapting their garments and patterns to match modern trends. “People do appreciate knitting more again,” Mann says. She sees fiber arts as a community building affair for those between 25 and 35, and started her own club through her business in 2019 as a means of teaching and preserving the craft. She also believes that fiber arts skipped a generation, and that parents in the 90s and early 2000s simply never taught their Millennial and Gen Z children how to do it. Instead, these generations taught themselves—and eventually, as COVID lockdowns lifted, these same knitters decided it was time to take things offline. 

Craving human interaction and a break from their screens, hobbyists began coming together post-pandemic as a means of bringing back the “third place”: a neutral, physical space separate from home and work (or school). The concept is set on community building in-person, without having to spend much or any money to participate—something Gen Z feels that they’ve missed out on, and Millennials frequently mourn, as social media has increasingly replaced it online. 

Knitting clubs, in particular, have gained global interest in recent years, with communities expanding rapidly, even in small cities. The industry is expected to grow by $10.69 billion between 2024 and 2028, according to Technavio, a company that specializes in market research reports and industry analysis. 

In addition to creating bonds through a like interest, in-person knitting clubs are also helping young fiber artists learn new techniques faster and more effectively. When they began Knitting Club Potsdam, Meinhausen was a beginner and Engler was a seasoned knitter, having learned from her mother starting at 8 years old. The club currently has 60% beginner knitters and 40% advanced, according to Engler. Meinhausen, still a beginner herself, says she can’t believe the intricate project she’s working on now, which she credits to how quickly she’s learned since starting the club. She adds that advanced members “love to help,” which gives those just starting out the confidence to continue attending—and makes everyone joyful in the process. 

Quote is good

“I told Gini [Virginia] after the first meeting, for me, it was very calm. Everyone was smiling. Everyone [was] so, so happy,” Engler says. “I think this feeling is the best part.”

According to Meinhausen and Engler, knitting and crochet is very popular amongst young people in Germany, but the hobby has gained traction amongst 20- and 30-somethings in other places, as well. In New York, crochet designer Michelle Palacio is creating garments for her brand Venganza using crochet techniques from her Colombian grandmother. In Nepal, the Nepal KnotCraft Centre, founded in 1984, aims to help women of all ages build traditional skills in fiber arts. In Paris, Avril Bas, 26, and her co-president Alice Pierre-François, 28, launched a crochet club called Club Crochet Tricot in 2024, a club that is now officially recognized by the French government. She says membership is growing every week. 

“It's really incredible to have [this] place where a common hobby links people, and it helps us find similarly minded people that want to [enjoy] the same activities,” Bas says. “It's really beautiful.”

Bas says that starting the club, combined with her passion for knitting and crochet, contributed to her pursuing fiber arts full time. She fell in love with the tight-knit nature of the community, and now, their club’s efforts have “blossomed into something massive.”

“I started this club and all of a sudden I had like quadrupled my number of friends,” she says. 

Club Crochet Tricot meets on Sundays four times a month, with locations varying from scenic park picnics, local cafes, public libraries, and even the cinema. Between 40 and 100 people regularly attend their in-person crafting sessions, and there are always new and interested attendees week to week. Bas feels like younger generations long for this kind social interaction, building community around creativity—and her club is an outlet for that. She also says that she’s more than happy to be a “third place” for those who have been seeking it—and perhaps, that it’s a sign of more “third places” to come. 

“Everybody around our age wants to open a bookstore, plant store, cafe,” Bas says. “I feel like it’s going to happen.”

[post_title] => Weaving a New Third Place [post_excerpt] => How younger generations are turning knitting and crochet into a community building affair. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => third-place-fiber-arts-knitting-circles-clubs-crochet-weaving-community-crafts-artists-artisan [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-09-19 14:59:16 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-09-19 14:59:16 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=9113 [menu_order] => 5 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
An embroidered illustration on fabric of a tree with women and sheep sitting or standing on the branches. In the background are rolling hills, and clouds in the sky.

Weaving a New Third Place

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 8963
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2025-07-14 19:52:34
    [post_date_gmt] => 2025-07-14 19:52:34
    [post_content] => 

A few unconventional beach reads from the Conversationalist team.

Trauma Plot: A Life by Jamie Hood

Part memoir, part literary criticism, part autofiction, part therapy diary, and totally all-consuming, Jamie Hood's Trauma Plot considers how rape upends subjectivity, narrative, and identity — and, in more personal terms, what it means to build a life that acknowledges the reality of sexual violence while refusing to be defined by it. Structurally, it's one of the most interesting books I've read in years; emotionally, it's one of the most gripping. It's searing and surprisingly funny, both brilliant and deeply intimate. And though its subject matter is dark, Hood's a gifted stylist who writes with a powerful spirit of hopefulness and solidarity. I found Trauma Plot utterly unforgettable.

—Marissa Lorusso

The book cover for Trauma Plot: A Life by Jamie Hood.
The book cover for Skin & Bones by Renée Watson.

Skin and Bones by Renée Watson

I started reading Skin and Bones by Renée Watson at the top of the year, a Christmas gift from a friend. The premise follows a woman, Lena, who is set to get married when her fiancé divulges a secret the day of their wedding. The book is about heartbreak and forgiveness and how relationships evolve. It's about friendships, motherhood, and multigenerational hurts, lessons, and loves. But even more, it's about the dynamics, social and political, of being a fat, black woman in the U.S.; specifically within historical and present black Portland.

I didn't know what to expect from Skin and Bones, though I'd been a bit familiar with Watson's poetry. Like her poetry, her pose is soulful, and the story keeps you wanting to know more and more and more, so much so that by the end, I still wanted to know more about the main character Lena and the world she existed in. However conscientious I may consider myself now about the politics of fatness, there's so much nuance in the book Watson offers through Lena's story, and I'm appreciative of the insight given that I didn't know; that perhaps I could not have easily known. 

All in all, the book is both informative and heartfelt, and whatever time of year you read it in, it's sure to deliver warmth to your skin—and bones.

—Kovie Biakolo

Alligator Tears: A Memoir in Essays by Edgar Gomez

From working at a bougie flip-flop store to Latin dance nights at Pulse nightclub, Edgar Gomez's Alligator Tears is an ode to Florida and queerness. As someone who also grew up in Florida, I saw so much of myself in Gomez's story. His book made me laugh, cry, and feel less alone. The writing is so raw; it's a refreshing dive into the deep end of some topics that are rarely discussed with such honesty. (Just be warned that in the deep end, you may find some alligators lurking.)

—Kiera Wright-Ruiz

The book cover for Alligator Tears: A Memoir by Edgar Gomez
Book cover of The Adventures of Amina al-Sirafi by Shannon Chakraborty.

The Adventures of Amina al-Sirafi by Shannon Chakraborty

I've been reading a lot of escapist fantasy to cope with current events, and this novel about Amina al-Sirafi, a retired pirate who gets sucked back into sailing the medieval Indian Ocean in search of a kidnapped kid and ancient, magical treasures, was the most fun I've had with a book of late. It's also especially unusual to find middle-aged mothers as fantasy protagonists, and it reminded me of another favorite, N.K. Jemisin's Broken Earth trilogy. Even better, the book is set up to become a series, which means more adventures to come.

—Anna Lind-Guzik

Things in Nature Merely Grow by Yiyun Li

Early in her memoir Things in Nature Merely Grow, Yiyun Li writes, “Facts are the harshest and the hardest part of life." Yet it is the sturdiness of facts, "unalterable," that the writer finds herself returning to in the aftermath of immeasurable loss: the deaths of both her children by suicide, six years apart.

Li writes about the abyss of grief, aware that she is still in it, and perhaps always will be. Things in Nature Merely Grow is Li’s book for her younger son James, a boy who lived life through his thoughts, and it is therefore led by logic; exploring how we think about, talk about, and rationalize death, suicide, and grief. This isn’t to say the book abandons feeling—far from it—but rather that Li’s feelings are almost always tethered to facts: Each moment she catches herself on the cliff’s edge of a hypothetical, she steps away, knowing no answer will change her reality.

A deeply generous book, this memoir flowed through me. It’s staggering to read something that so deftly addresses how impossible it is to put grief into words while doing it so masterfully. Yet here, Li’s writing is precise, capturing grief’s abyss with unwavering clarity.

Gina Mei

The book cover for Not Your Rescue Project: Migrant Sex Workers Fighting for Justice by Chanelle Gallent and Elene Lam.

Not Your Rescue Project: Migrant Sex Workers Fighting for Justice by Chanelle Gallant and Elene Lam

As a sex worker and a writer, I’m constantly on the lookout for that rare text that covers adult industry workers with nuance, accuracy, and cultural competence. Not Your Rescue Project: Migrant Sex Workers Fighting for Justice, written by sex worker advocates Chanelle Gallant and Elene Lam, is one such uncommon text. Published last year, this timely book balances workers’ personal narratives with a play-by-play breakdown of the historical and contemporary jigsaw puzzle of racist and sexist policy, stigma, and violence that plagues migrant sex workers in North America. Many people outside the sex industry don’t understand how anti-sex worker stigma affects them personally, and I’m always excited when I find a piece of media that connects the dots in a way that’s easy to understand. Not Your Rescue Project accurately situates migrant sex work as a global justice issue about gender and labor, and every page is a well-researched argument for why anyone who wants to end patriarchy would benefit from joining the fight for migrant sex workers’ rights.

Delilah Saul

Catalina by Karla Cornejo Villavicencio

The novel is written with simple language, but I read each page slowly, because every sentence contains meaning and emotion. This is the story of Catalina and her grandparents, an undocumented Ecuadorian family living in Queens, New York. From a young age, Catalina feels the fear and pressure of living in the States without a visa. When she graduates from high school, she begins studying at Harvard—her family’s great dream for her. But as the story unfolds, it becomes clear that attending such an institution won't necessarily fulfill the promise of solidifying her immigration status, nor give her family the upward mobility they'd long hoped for.

Faced with the impossibility of telling her own story, Catalina finds a way to claim space by deciding to become art—because then, she would be seen, and admired, and perhaps even able to legalize her immigration status. After all, a recognized work of art can freely come and go, without needing visas.

Unlike other common portrayals of immigrants in pop culture, Cornejo Villavicencio’s novel does not portray immigrants as victims. Rather, it asserts a claim: Immigrants want to be seen, and have the right to joy.

Ana María Betancourt Ovalle

Book cover for Catalina by Karla Cornejo Villavicencio.
Book cover for Coach Prime: Deion Sanders and the Making of Men by Jean-Jacques Taylor.

Coach Prime: Deion Sanders and the Making of Men by Jean-Jacques Taylor

This book spoke to me on so many levels. Coach Prime is more than a story about football—it’s a deep, intimate look into what it means to lead with integrity, faith, and fearlessness in a world that often misunderstands or underestimates you. Deion Sanders, known for his illustrious NFL career, emerges here not just as a coach, but as a transformational leader, mentor, and father figure who guides young men through life’s toughest moments with purpose and poise.

In an era where diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts are often under attack or dismissed, Sanders' approach also offers a compelling and deeply needed counter-narrative: He doesn’t just preach inclusion—he lives it, modeling how authenticity and high standards can coexist. Rather than lower the bar to accommodate struggle, he lifts people up so they can reach it. 

Personally, this book has challenged me to lead with greater intentionality, to show up more consistently in my purpose, and to be a source of confidence and clarity for others. I’ve taken away this truth: Real leadership isn’t about being loud—it’s about being rooted. Others can learn from this book that greatness isn’t found in performance alone—it’s in how you treat people, how you guide them, and how you hold space for others to grow. That’s how we build lasting impact—not just on the field, but in every part of our lives.

Loleta Ross

The Book of Alchemy: A Creative Practice for an Inspired Life by Suleika Jaouad

As a lifelong journaler, I’ve been relishing each page of The Book of Alchemy by Suleika Jaouad. Even if you don’t journal (or aspire to but haven’t made it a ritual—yet!), it’s a beautiful collection of 100 essays from deep thinkers and wisdom gatherers that you can flip through and digest at your own speed. I love that each essay is short, only a few pages; which means I can manage to finish one at bedtime before falling asleep. Each essay ends with a prompt for journaling, a friendly hand reaching out to you to help make the habit a little more inviting and doable. It continues to surprise me how a journal (or just any ole notebook, really) can instantly become a safe space and listening ear for what’s swimming inside of you and wants to be released. A free form of therapy that’s available whenever you need it. Thank you Suleika for unlocking the magical world of journaling that’s awaiting all of us!

Erin Zimmer Strenio

The book cover for The Book of Alchemy: A Creative Practice for an Inspired Life by Suleika Jaouad.
[post_title] => What We're Reading This Summer [post_excerpt] => A few unconventional beach reads from the Conversationalist team. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => summer-reads-books-recommendations-2025-memoir-nonfiction-fiction-novel-trauma-plot-jamie-hood-skin-bones-renee-watson-alligator-tears-edgar-gomez-things-in-nature-merely-grow-yiyun-li [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-09-12 16:53:42 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-09-12 16:53:42 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=8963 [menu_order] => 7 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
A collage of book covers on a dark red background.

What We’re Reading This Summer

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 8835
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2025-07-10 15:40:06
    [post_date_gmt] => 2025-07-10 15:40:06
    [post_content] => 

How Kenya's grocery stores might be hurting local farmers.

When the Mauritian private equity fund, Adenia Capital IV, bought Kenyan supermarket chain Quickmart and merged it with rival Tumaimi in 2019, the benefits to investors were obvious. Under the terms, all 13 Tumaimi stores in Kenya would rebrand as Quickmarts, making it the third-largest supermarket chain in Kenya by number of stores overnight. In a joint statement, the two supermarket chains said this new entity would “enhance the capacity to accelerate expansion” and bolster “operational efficiencies.” With an influx of capital, the expanded Quickmart was also poised to buy up smaller stores around the country and become an even larger retail powerhouse, extending its operations beyond dense shopping areas and into quieter residential areas on the periphery of Kenya’s major cities. 

Beyond lower prices and expanded access, Quickmart and its private equity owner also spoke of social advantages for ordinary Kenyans. At the time of the merger, 14,000 farmers across the country supplied the chain. With time, Quickmart expected them to supply about 30 percent of its fresh produce. In a country where an estimated 40 percent of people derive at least some of their income from agriculture, the promise of more opportunities for farmers looked like a benefit for everyone. 

Since exploding onto the scene in the early 2000s, there’s been a steady rise in supermarkets across Kenya. In 2002, there were four supermarket chains in the country; by 2018, there were ten. Though more “informal” operations, like market stalls, still account for the vast majority of Kenyan grocery sales, in 2020, the proportion of groceries sold through supermarkets was as high as 15 percent. By the end of the decade, such “modern retailers” could account for as much as 25 percent of sales, according to a report from Boston Consulting Group. 

It’s a similar story across the developing world, where supermarkets are rapidly displacing other retailers to become the place of choice to buy food. In doing so, supermarkets have become a major force in the Global South, not just in retailing, but in agricultural purchasing. But a closer look shows the new phenomenon has often done more harm than good for the small farmers these supermarket chains and their investors claim to help. 

~

Well into the 20th century, buying groceries in the United States was a lot like buying them in many parts of Africa today: Different vendors sold different items, like meat, produce, oil, or rice, independently, but in close proximity. 

As journalist Benjamin Lorr explains in his book, The Secret Life of Groceries: The Dark Miracle of the American Supermarket, the idea of a big store that sells everything in one place only goes back a century. Michael Cullen, the New Jersey grocer who pioneered the supermarket concept, struggled and failed to persuade colleagues about its viability for years. But when he opened his King Kullen store—the first supermarket in history—in New York in 1930, the Great Depression was raging, and the store’s wide range of heavily discounted offerings quickly proved indispensable to legions of customers. Other stores soon followed. 

“They came with names like Big Bear, Giant Tiger, Bull Market, Great Leopard, announcing their size and price-chopping ferocity with a zoological zeal that puzzles the modern ear,” Lorr writes. “Adding in-store mascots and costumes, parades and pullout advertisements, each trying to pile up merchandise into ever higher displays of abundance.” 

By the 1960s, virtually every new grocery store in America was a supermarket, and regional and national chains like Safeway and Kroger became household names throughout the country. Since big supermarkets meant big parking lots, people could also bring their cars—by then an indispensable part of modern life. And because these stores offered everything in one place, families could load up for the week in a single transaction. 

Size came with a cost advantage, both for stores and for customers. By buying so much food at once, supermarkets could insist on lower prices from farmers, then sell it to consumers for less than their smaller competitors, thus drawing more people and fueling their own expansion. 

But the supermarkets’ edge was often their suppliers’ curse. Dealing with a big supermarket chain meant farmers could sell vast amounts of their products, but it also made them beholden to them. Some farmers got by under this new regime by adapting the stores’ model for themselves, consolidating with each other, getting bigger, and selling at volume to make up for the smaller margins on each item. More often, however, farmers went out of business entirely. 

In developing countries today, farmers are facing a similar threat. As a report from the African Climate Foundation recently found, rising supermarket chains typically impose burdensome costs onto farmers in the form of “fees, terms and supply conditions” that only the very largest farmers can endure. 

In Kenya, smaller farmers are already suffering. In 2016, the Competitive Authority of Kenya (CAK), a government agency formed to regulate market competition, found that a number of supermarkets had abused their power by pressing new fees onto suppliers after signing contracts. Soon after, Kenya became only the second country in Africa, after South Africa, to prohibit such abuses in legislation.

Kenya and South Africa’s relative affluence may distinguish them from most countries in Africa, but, as supermarkets spread across the continent, they offer a warning of how supermarkets can harm farmers, even with regulations in place. In 2023, CAK hit the local operators of Carrefour, a French supermarket chain, with a record $8.5 million fine after concluding that the chain had climbed the ranks in Kenya’s supermarket industry by demanding crushing discounts from suppliers with one hand, while promoting impossibly low prices to consumers with the other. Carrefour has said it will appeal the decision, but it’s not the first time the company and its local partners have been accused of harming a supplier. A few years earlier, CAK ruled against Carrefour’s local operators after a Kenyan yogurt producer, Orchards, argued it had been forced to give Carrefour steep discounts and even free merchandise that the supermarket later turned around and sold. 

Kenya’s high court upheld the ruling last year. By then, Orchards had already gone out of business. 

~

You might think consumer demand is the sole driving force behind the rise in supermarkets in the Global South. It’s true that in Kenya and other developing countries, an emergent class of consumers has come to expect the same luxuries that people in the United States and Europe have long enjoyed. But the worldwide shift towards supermarkets isn’t just a free market trend: It’s aided by a heavy hand from taxpayers in the Global North. 

When Adenia Capital IV purchased Quickmart in 2019, more than 40 percent of the fund’s €230 million came from government-controlled development finance institutions. Development banks from Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Austria, and Germany all contributed, as well, along with two multilateral banks—the International Finance Corporation (IFC), part of the World Bank Group, and the European Investment Bank, the European Union’s development bank. 

Similar taxpayer-funded institutions underwrite supermarkets all over the developing world. In the last two years alone, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, another development bank, has invested in supermarket chains in Uzbekistan, Romania, Turkey, Albania, and elsewhere. In 2025, the IFC promised up to $30 million to help Kazyon, an Egyptian chain, expand in Morocco. Two years before, Kazyon also received $165 million from Development Partners International, a private equity fund backed by development banks from France and the UK. 

European development banks are typically mandated to use their capital to alleviate poverty in developing countries, and often justify investments in supermarkets as a means of helping women and “modernizing” agricultural economies. Consider the Netherlands’ development bank, FMO, which provided $23 million to Azerbaijan’s Araz Supermarket in 2024 to help it build a new distribution facility. FMO said the investment would “contribute to gender equality” since Araz employed a number of women. The bank also said it would help Araz provide “modern working conditions” in a poor region of the country. 

But despite investors’ claims, history has shown that the rise and consolidation of supermarkets is usually also bad news for small farmers. Development banks may tout an altruistic mission, but the supermarkets appeal to them for the same reason they appeal to commercial banks: not because they support local agriculture or gender equality, but because they are reliable investments. What benefits they provide to rural communities is less important than whether they grow and turn a profit. 

One way to make conditions more equitable for farmers is to implement regulations that dictate what supermarkets can and cannot do to suppliers. Since 2010, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand have adopted mandatory codes that bar grocers from practices like changing the terms of a supplier contract unilaterally or delaying payments to suppliers. In Africa, two countries—Kenya and Namibia—have adopted similar codes; though, for now, adherence is voluntary. That’s an inherent weakness: As the African Climate Foundation notes—and as Kenya’s recent history of supermarket-supplier relations has demonstrated—true change requires enforcement. 

Development banks could also play a role in obliging countries to adopt these stronger regulations. By promising to invest in supermarkets only in countries that have adopted mandatory codes of conduct, a bank like the IFC could ensure its capital does more to help than harm the small farmers—not just in Africa, but in developing countries around the world—on whose labor agricultural economies depend.

[post_title] => The Troubling Rise of Supermarkets in the Global South [post_excerpt] => How Kenya's grocery stores might be hurting local farmers. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => kenya-global-south-african-supermarkets-quikmart-private-equity-fund-development-banks-food-groceries [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-09-12 16:54:56 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-09-12 16:54:56 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=8835 [menu_order] => 8 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
A customer stands in front of shelves with loaves of bread at a supermarket in Nakuru City, Kenya, their back to the camera.

The Troubling Rise of Supermarkets in the Global South

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 8790
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2025-06-27 18:56:37
    [post_date_gmt] => 2025-06-27 18:56:37
    [post_content] => 

In defense of a long-neglected form of protest.

Soapbox is a series where people make the case for the sometimes surprising things they feel strongly about.

At a press conference in Baghdad in December 2008, Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zaidi stood up and threw both of his shoes at then-U.S. President George W. Bush in an act of protest against the Iraq War. “This is a farewell kiss from the Iraqi people, you dog,” he yelled in Arabic, chucking the first shoe. “This is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq,” he continued, throwing the other. 

Disappointingly if impressively, Bush managed to duck both shoes. But the impact of al-Zaidi’s actions was both immediate and profound: It demonstrated that an American leader—a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people—was not untouchable. And by proxy, neither was the United States. 

Muntadhar al-Zaidi wasn’t the first person to throw a shoe at a politician, and he wouldn’t be the last. (In fact, he wasn’t even the first to do it that year.) Still, the Bush incident inspired copycats over the following months, many explicitly citing al-Zaidi as their inspiration. Over a decade and a half later, it feels like the practice has gone out of style. I imagine this is partly because, with the rise of global authoritarianism, the potential punishment for throwing a shoe at a world leader has drastically gotten worse—something true even with softer ammo, such as when a protester was arrested for throwing tomatoes at then-presidential candidate Donald Trump in 2016. Or last year, when another protestor was sentenced to prison for throwing coffee cups at Reform UK leader Nigel Farage. But, in my opinion, this is all the more reason for it to make a comeback: More war criminals need to have shoes thrown at them. And, more importantly, people should be allowed to throw shoes at war criminals without fear of death, jail, or other punishment. 

In the grand scheme of violence, having a shoe thrown at you is painful but temporary—often to the ego for far longer than the body. Even in the Bush incident, the only people injured were then-Press Secretary Dana Perino after a boom mic gave her a black eye, and al-Zaidi himself, when he was subsequently tackled to the ground and kicked by Iraqi guards and U.S. Secret Service agents. When compared to the countless deaths caused by the person on the receiving end of the shoe, some might even consider it a relatively minor gesture. But I believe it’s the spirit of the act that matters most, both in meaning and message. Having a shoe thrown at you is highly offensive, and as Iranian-American professor Hamid Dabashi points out, not just in Arab culture; a truth easily understood by the billions of us around the world who know to take off our shoes whenever we enter a home. As an insult, it dates at least as far back as the Old Testament—“Upon Edom I will cast My shoe” (Psalm 60:8)—and as a form of defiance towards a person in power, it requires a great deal of bravery. More than anything else, though, shoeing is an outlet for insurmountable rage and grief—a desperate expression of despair. 

Feeling helpless, al-Zaidi chose to throw his shoes at the person most responsible for his people’s suffering. In the nearly 20 years since, arguably, the world’s collective anguish has only ballooned. As I write this from my desk in Los Angeles, President Donald Trump has just sent another 2,000 members of the National Guard to tamp down protests against ICE raids across the city. The U.S. has just bombed Iran, violently escalating and inserting itself into another war in the Middle East. Over four years after their initial arrests, the majority of the Hong Kong 47 remains imprisoned, as press freedom around the world grows increasingly tenuous, further threatening the media’s ability to hold war criminals to account. On a mission to break the blockade and deliver food to Palestinians in Gaza, the Freedom Flotilla—carrying Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, amongst other international activists—has just been intercepted by Israel, its passengers all either deported or unlawfully arrested and detained. Unable to leave, desperate Palestinians continue to starve at "catastrophic" levels, with hundreds killed by the Israeli army "while attempting to approach the few remaining aid convoys" in the last month alone.

As our protests in their many forms continue to go unheard, and the world’s countless injustices mount, it sometimes feels as if there is little recourse to stop the people most responsible for our collective devastation. After reading Chris Stephen’s The Future of War Crimes Justice (2024), I was disappointed but not surprised to learn, in great detail, that the reason most war criminals never face trial is largely bureaucratic. There is no feasible way to have a functioning “international” criminal court, because no country notorious for its crimes against humanity would ever willingly comply with its laws, or even agree that it’s subject to such a court’s jurisdiction. Notably, the United States is still not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC), despite signing the Rome Statute in 2000, two years after the treaty was adopted. In a statement in 2002, then-United Nations Ambassador John Bolton confirmed that the U.S. had no intention of ratifying it, and therefore, the country “has no legal obligations arising from its signature.” (Equally notable, the three other countries that signed the Rome Statute but confirmed they would not comply are Israel, Russia, and Sudan.) 

If the so-called systems of justice aren’t serving their purpose, at what point, then, is it acceptable for us to take matters—and shoes—into our own hands? I’m not saying we should all be throwing shoes at any run-of-the-mill asshole, or even any run-of-the-mill asshole politician. But I do think the world shouldn’t bend so easily to fascists and dictators and genocidal oligarchs; that literal war criminals shouldn’t get to feel so comfortable moving through the world, living morally bankrupt lives without consequence. If their victims aren’t ever going to see real justice, then at the very least, they should feel perpetually inconvenienced, and a little on edge—aware that, at any moment, a rogue shoe might thwack them in the head.

Personally, if I were a war criminal or billionaire or other generally detestable figure enacting suffering on millions, I’d rather have a shoe thrown at me than lose my head to a guillotine. (For legal reasons, this is a joke.) But beyond inconvenience, perhaps it might also accomplish something more substantial—if not a reckoning for the person being shoed, then for the millions of people who might witness it. Because sometimes, it takes seeing someone else accomplish something we hadn’t considered possible to understand what’s possible to accomplish ourselves.

Muntadhar al-Zaidi has claimed he does not believe himself to be a hero, but merely “a person with a stance.” His only apology in the incident’s aftermath was to his fellow journalists—with the caveat that, “Professionalism does not preclude nationalism.” 

“This scene stands as proof that… a simple person was capable of saying ‘no’ to that arrogant person, with all his power, tyranny, arms, media, money, and authority,” al-Zaidi said in an interview with Reuters for the shoeing’s 15-year anniversary. To me, this is precisely why it has endured in our cultural consciousness for so long: Bush’s shoeing remains an important reminder that each of us, as individuals, is more powerful than we often give ourselves credit for; and when we act collectively, that power only multiplies. 

Like all forms of “violent” protest, throwing a shoe at a prominent political figure is not without its risks. After he threw his shoes at Bush, al-Zaidi was sentenced to three years in prison, later docked down to a year. He ultimately served nine months, having been released early for good behavior, alleging he experienced violent torture at the hands of senior government officials throughout. But he has also never once expressed regret for anything other than the fact he “only had two shoes.” 

If more of us were to partake in this time-honored tradition, however, this wouldn’t be a problem: After all, if one pair of shoes can cause such a fuss, just imagine what we might accomplish with a few million more.

[post_title] => Who Throws a Shoe, Honestly? [post_excerpt] => In defense of a long-neglected form of protest. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => soapbox-shoe-throwing-shoeing-muntadhar-al-zaidi-george-w-bush-iraq-united-states-war-crimes-international-criminal-court-protest-opinion [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-09-12 16:56:12 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-09-12 16:56:12 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=8790 [menu_order] => 9 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
An illustration of a brown dress shoe on a white background. The shoe is untied, and in all-caps white lettering on the side it says, "This machine kills fascists," a reference to Woody Guthrie, who would paint the same message on his guitars as protest during WWII.

Who Throws a Shoe, Honestly?

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 8636
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2025-06-25 22:18:26
    [post_date_gmt] => 2025-06-25 22:18:26
    [post_content] => 

Why I became more subscription-conscious (and you should, too).

Soapbox is a series where people make the case for the sometimes surprising things they feel strongly about.

In my junior year of college, I wound up with a free subscription to a bunch of magazines, including Real Simple. To this day, I have no idea how it happened, and if my bank account or credit card had been charged at the time, I would have remembered. But it wasn’t. So, even though I hadn’t paid for them, for much of that school year, magazines would show up in my mailbox; and apart from Real Simple, I’d mostly ignore the rest. Unable to remember any other analog subscriptions prior—even if this one was free—we’ll say this was my first. Not one that belonged to my parents, siblings, or friends, that I might have made use of, but one that was truly mine. This was 15 years ago.

Post-college, I briefly lived with my brother and benefited from all his subscriptions, many of them digital. When I eventually began graduate school and moved out, I would acquire my own first digital subscriptions, too—although these, I actually signed up and paid for. Back then and soon after, the $9.99 for Spotify and $7.99 for Netflix didn’t feel like chump change, although it didn’t exactly break the bank. Either way, both seemed like a good deal. At least, a better deal than the price iTunes charged for individual songs and albums, and the cost of renting or buying individual movies from a store, or paying for cable. 

It’s been over a decade since I completed graduate school, and since then, in addition to my first two digital subscriptions (and my unintentional first magazine subscriptions), I’ve at some point or another (and quite frankly, altogether) been subscribed to Hulu, HBO Max, Disney+, Peacock, Paramount+, Tidal, various print and digital magazines and newspapers, multiple money managing and investing apps, CitiBike, Uber One, Zoom, YouTube Premium, Amazon Prime (#judgeaway), HUM vitamins, and more. This is all without mentioning the endless products I’ve bought online then temporarily and periodically subscribed to, whenever they’ve offered a discount for doing so. 

It’s an excessive and exhaustive list, but in my defense, having studied and then covered culture, some of these subscriptions were for work, and the cost was either free for a time or could at least be counted as expenses for my taxes. Others were arguably also because of work due to having less time to myself; during certain periods in my life, hunting for home goods in a store just didn’t seem like a good use of my time when I could just search for them on a database and have them delivered to my door. 

At a certain point, however, I gradually began to realize something much more fundamental had been lost in all the “convenience” I’d been paying for. I was becoming less conscientious of how my choices were not just directly affecting  my physical locale, but the people who live and work in it. Sure, in theory, I said I valued my neighbors, residents and businesses alike, but I’d make critiques about the changing neighborhood (“there goes the neighborhood!”) without implicating myself in those changes. More thoughtful and purposeful encounters with my community had been sacrificed at my altar of convenience. 

So, I began to unsubscribe, unsubscribe, unsubscribe. 

Looking back, my subscription-ending journey—or perhaps more accurately, subscription-consciousness journey—was a product, at least in part, of post-COVID lockdown reflections on what I really need and how I’d really like to spend my time. The excess of my subscriptions had started to feel akin to hoarding, and I needed to clear space, even if most of that space was intangible. There was also the lightbulb realization that has become more and more common amongst Millennials, that, despite our monthly investments in accessing various forms of media, we don’t actually own most of the culture that we consume. What’s more, should the companies that do own that media go defunct or be sold to entities that we may prefer not to do business with, we really wouldn’t have much recourse—except to unsubscribe.

This could mean years and years of playlists and TV shows and films that we would no longer have access to because they were never really ours to begin with, ultimately leaving us with nothing. And while I’m not interested in owning many things from culture, save for books and some fashions, I do think ownership of culture in its various forms serves more than capitalistic desire. Our things can be physical memories of what we love or once did, what has been passed on and gifted to us, and sometimes, reminders of what we saved and scraped for—emblems of hard-fought earnings. We are robbed of this when we choose to rent something out of convenience or compulsion instead of mindfully acquiring things that are truly meaningful to us.

We also aren’t the only ones both literally and figuratively footing the bill for our abundance of subscriptions: The obvious, of course, is that small, local businesses pay the ultimate price for our overreliance on the monopolies cannibalizing our choices. There’s an impersonal, persistent transactional relationship that develops when you constantly have things delivered to you via third parties. It’s not your favorite delivery person from your favorite Jamaican spot; it’s just the person that first picked up the order who you’ll likely never see again. It’s not the local hardware store owner that understands which tools work best for your apartment because they know other people in your building dealing with the same problem; it’s you endlessly scrolling through the best reviewed or highest quality or cheapest options online, hoping the tools you’ve chosen will get the job done. It’s missing out on a discount from the owner of the neighborhood craft and candle store—who unbeknownst to too many others, can also act as a notary—and choosing a digital coupon over a beautiful reminder that you’re part of a community.

Moreover, overconsumption inevitably leads to resource depletion, and in this brave new world where the latest AI technology permeates everything we do (sometimes against our will), even the climate-conscious among us are contributing to it negatively. Binge-watching or binging-anything-digital also has adverse health effects, including on our mental health and sleep, and we’re yet to fully grasp all of its socio-psychological effects, not to mention its contribution to our loneliness and isolation crises

When I think about the last 15 years of subscribing—and lately, unsubscribing—I’ve had to admit that like many of us who live during this time, I sacrificed more convenience for less community, ownership of important things for access to seemingly everything, and gave my contact information to a bunch of companies whose aim is to profile my habits and patterns with little care for how my day is going. Unlike my favorite delivery person at my favorite Jamaican spot, who never fails to ask. 

Today, I don’t have as many subscriptions as I once did, and for different reasons. I downgraded or fully got rid of some streaming services because I didn’t watch them enough and I felt the value didn’t match the price—especially as prices have hiked significantly in the last few years. My short stint with CitiBike was because quite frankly, I’m more of a walker and a subway rider—and I’ve accepted once again that biking regularly for transportation is just not something I enjoy. Meanwhile, while I’ve kept some print literature, I’ve ended other subscriptions or kept them as digital-only because they were starting to need their own storage space in my home—and I couldn’t lend or donate them fast enough. And of course, with subscriptions like Amazon Prime, I decided I could no longer live with the cognitive dissonance of having it while being opposed to its labor politics and the politics of its owner. (Unfortunately, this has also meant ending a more than decade-long affair with Whole Foods, which I unashamedly enjoyed as much as the farmer’s market I still frequent.)

I don’t think I’ll ever be subscription-free. I still have Netflix, and although Tidal had replaced Spotify in my life for many years due to its higher-quality sound, I missed my old playlists and collaborations on the latter and decided it’s one excess I can live with for now. But I’ve also returned to collecting vinyl again, shopping for most things in-person, and living with things taking as long as they need to get to me if I do order them online. Putting an end to the mindless and endless subscribing has made me more mindful of the things that I do want showing up in my digital and physical mailbox once a month. Because unlike 15 years ago with that accidental analog subscription, I’m making a conscious choice for them to be there.

[post_title] => Unsubscribe, Unsubscribe, Unsubscribe [post_excerpt] => Why I became more subscription-conscious (and you should, too). [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => soapbox-unsubscribe-subscriptions-community-streaming-platforms-netflix-spotify-amazon-capitalism [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-09-12 16:58:49 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-09-12 16:58:49 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=8636 [menu_order] => 11 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

Unsubscribe, Unsubscribe, Unsubscribe

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 8523
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2025-06-23 21:38:31
    [post_date_gmt] => 2025-06-23 21:38:31
    [post_content] => 

And it'll make you feel alive, too.

Soapbox is a series where people make the case for the sometimes surprising things they feel strongly about.

A few months ago, I found myself openly crying in the office. I wasn’t crying about something personal, or even something particularly emotionally complex. I also wasn’t crying over the usual slate of workplace drama (bad meetings, good news, big decisions, encroaching deadlines, staffing cuts, etc.), which I’ve admittedly cried about a million times before. No, this time was different: I was crying because I was streaming the Boston Marathon at my desk, and—after 26 miles, all of them occurring hundreds of miles away from the city where I work—the lead women were approaching the finish line.

If the idea of crying over running sounds insane to you, or if the prospect of spending several hours in front of a screen watching strangers run sounds like watching paint dry: I get it. Until a few years ago, the very idea of long-distance running as a professional sport that people followed and spectated was entirely foreign to me. Having grown up in Massachusetts, I was aware that Marathon Monday was a meaningful day for the city; but for me, it mostly meant that work and school would be canceled, lots of roads would be closed, and maybe some friends would be going to cheer their friends on while I enjoyed the day off. I felt no more emotionally invested in the race and its outcome than in a 4th of July parade. Going out of my way to watch a race happening in a different city, then, would never have occurred to me; it would have felt like closely following municipal elections in a city I’d never visit.

But over the last few years, I’ve come to believe that spectating marathons is one of the most beautiful, life-affirming ways we can spend our time. Before I got into watching races, I’d never been a serious fan of any sport. I’ve long been a casual runner, who initially got into the sport out of a vague, begrudging sense of obligation to “fitness.” But then, I made friends who competed in—and sometimes even won!—local races, and who truly adored running on its own merits. Their enthusiasm got me hooked: When they sent me a pro runner’s Instagram post, I’d hit “follow”; when they wanted to watch a race, I’d stream it, too. Whenever we spectated together, they’d point out how everyone racing was quite literally on equal footing—what other sport, they’d ask, has total newbies and elite lifers competing in the same place, at the same time? Not to mention that races aren’t hard to follow. Unlike, say, baseball or football, whose fandoms seem to mandate memorizing reams of stats and plays, marathons have precious few rules to remember: Generally speaking, the first person to the finish line wins, making it incredibly accessible for both the casual and serious viewer alike. By the time the 2021 women’s Olympic marathon rolled around, I was the one texting my friends about whether they’d seen Molly Seidel’s groundbreaking bronze medal performance. 

Running asks very little of a viewer, but feels communal, and cathartic, and inspiring—feelings that are increasingly hard to come by in these particularly bleak and fractured times. It’s also just a joy to witness; and as I’ve become a more dedicated fan, I’ve come to appreciate its particular drama and intrigue. Watching as a mass of competitors thins out into a small pack of frontrunners; seeing the determination in runners’ faces as they decide when to make a break for the lead, only to sometimes get subsumed by the pack again; witnessing the absolute bliss of a first-time winner breaking the tape—all of it is, genuinely, thrilling.

I mostly follow the women’s division, in part because we’re living through an incredible moment for American women’s distance running. For decades, the sport was deemed unsafe for our supposedly fragile physiology, and women were barred from participating. The Boston Marathon has been run annually since 1897; women, though, weren’t officially allowed to compete until 1972. (This year, more than 12,000 of the approximately 30,000 runners were women.) Women’s participation in marathon running has increased steadily since the ’70s, but as the New York Times has reported, there’s been “a sea change in women’s running” in the last decade. Simply put: Way more women are running way faster than ever. Consider the U.S. Olympic Trials, which are open to any American woman who can complete a marathon within its wildly fast cut-off time (right now, that’s just under two and a half hours). In 2016, fewer than 200 women met that qualifying mark, as the Times reported; just four years later, that number jumped to over 500. (Meanwhile, the number of qualifying men during that time increased by fewer than 50.) There has never been a time where there’s more enthusiasm, community, or resources for women who want to push themselves to be the best runners they can be—and watching that magic take place at the highest levels of the sport has successfully turned me into a lifelong fan. 

Unfortunately, like all sports, it isn’t without its less uplifting aspects. The ever-higher ceiling for women runners has also attracted backlash from anti-trans campaigners, who have fought to keep trans women out of professional running, casting doubt on the biology of women they deem “too masculine” and making it near-impossible for non-binary runners to compete on their own terms. So much of what inspires me about watching women’s running—and being a runner myself—is about pushing past the assumed limits of our genders and our bodies, which makes the bigotry inherent in marginalizing trans runners feel, to me, particularly painful and incongruous. When I look to runners like Nikki Hiltz—a nonbinary middle-distance runner who represented the United States at the Olympics—and the scores of queer run clubs popping up all over the country: That’s where I, as a fan, see the true future of the sport.

Running is an individual activity, but watching (and, of course, participating in) a marathon feels like a community endeavor. Each fall, when the New York City Marathon takes over the streets of the city where I now live, I watch as the roads fill up with people across a wide range of ages, races, sizes, and abilities—all united by their participation in attempting a time-honored and miraculous feat. The sidewalks, meanwhile, are populated with ardent fans, casual viewers, young kids being hoisted on their parents’ shoulders, well-behaved dogs providing moral support; homemade signs that range from tried-and-true to weirdly topical; strangers offering racers water or Gatorade or high-fives—together, watching the sheer speed of the pros as they zoom past, making it all look elegant and easy. Even people who don’t care about running, or would never engage in the sport on their own time, quietly admit that it’s the best day of the year—and who am I to disagree? Just don’t come complaining to me when you suddenly find yourself glued to a stream of a race in a far-off city, crying over a total stranger as she crosses the finish line.

[post_title] => Watching People Run Makes Me Feel Alive [post_excerpt] => And it'll make you feel alive, too. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => women-marathon-runners-running-boston-new-york-sports-soapbox-opinion [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-09-12 17:00:14 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-09-12 17:00:14 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=8523 [menu_order] => 12 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
A colorful illustration of many women marathon runners' faces as they cross the finish line, euphoric and sweaty and exhausted and happy.

Watching People Run Makes Me Feel Alive