Articles

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 9104
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2025-11-18 21:59:25
    [post_date_gmt] => 2025-11-18 21:59:25
    [post_content] => 

I've gotten exhausted with the ways that convenience culture has shifted what we find acceptable when it comes to waste.

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

On the streets near my house, there are lines of tree stumps, left over from diseased elms that had to be cut down. Some people have made the most of these hollowed out stumps by planting flowers inside them, or scattering seashells around the base. Some have even used them to create elaborate shrines for their dead loved ones. Others, meanwhile, have taken a different approach, filling the hole in the center of the stumps with beer cans, cigarette ends, and banana skins, treating the stumps like organic trash cans. 

Randa l. Kachef and Michael A. Chadwick, researchers at King’s College London, have coined a term for this phenomenon: polite littering. Other examples include a person placing their litter on a wall or in a hedge, or somewhere almost near a trash can, but not quite in one. I know about this phenomenon, and this term, because I have thought a lot about the psychology of people who litter in recent years, and what, if anything, can be done to change it, both on a local and global scale.

There is a certain type of person who sees a hole and perceives it to be a trash can, where others have seen the potential for a garden. But having spent the last couple of years campaigning with my local councillors to tackle litter in my immediate area, I know that the issue isn’t unique to either my three-block radius or even my (unfortunately pretty filthy) country. Human beings and the things they dump are having a devastating impact on the planet. Where infrastructure cannot keep up with increasing numbers of people and waste, trash cans overflow. The rate at which we produce plastic, and waste more generally, means that a great deal of it will escape our hands and end up in nature or creating garbage islands. Litter and plastic waste have been found in the deepest parts of the ocean and on the tallest mountains. Litter has even been found in places humans have never been

While daunting, this doesn’t mean that the issue is out of our individual hands. On the contrary, it only makes our individual efforts all the more important. I live near the beach, and in the summer, we get a lot of tourists. Many of them are respectful and take their waste to the trash cans just a few meters away from the shore. A few, however, will litter in the most egregious way, leaving inflatable boats, bottles, and even the waste from an entire picnic rotting in the sun behind them. This summer, over 24 tons of trash was cleared from our beach over just two weekends

Of course, not everyone who litters is so flagrant. But every day, people who consider themselves to be polite, upstanding citizens will leave napkins, banana skins, or orange peels on our pebble beach, and when confronted, will use nonsense words like “biodegradable” instead of the most fitting one, “lazy.” I’ve often had to make several trips back and forth with someone else’s sandwich wrappers, drink cans, and dirty napkins while sunbathers sit and watch. I’ve even fished band-aids, croissant wrappers, and takeout packaging out of the sea from a paddleboard. 

I won’t bore you with tales of every dirty diaper I have found in a beach parking lot. But suffice to say, I have gotten pretty exhausted with the ways that convenience culture and our incessant waste seem to have shifted what we find acceptable. There is a cognitive dissonance inherent to littering, a short-sightedness wherein a person cannot think more than a few minutes into the future. Littering, and convenience culture overall, affects all of us in the longterm, and yet many people still choose the instant gratification of no longer having a Big Mac wrapper in their car over waiting to throw it away once they reach their destination. 

There are places I have visited and loved that seem to sadly be crumbling under the weight of their own litter and waste: Paris, Los Angeles, New York, London, Athens. It isn’t only major cities, either. On Crete, an island in Greece, the first thing I saw when I arrived at the airport was trash. Everywhere. That continued: at the side of the road, in the ocean, on the beaches. Some places were untouched, but only because they were in the middle of nowhere. I couldn’t believe it. Crete was, in many ways, the most beautiful place I had ever seen, and I wanted everyone else to have the reverence and respect for it that I did, so that others could enjoy it, too. But when I looked down from a sunset mountain view to the streets of the small village I was staying in, all I saw was trash. 

The consequences of throwaway culture are also rarely felt by the people who most egregiously participate in it. Beyond litter in our streets, the countries who produce the most devastating volumes of waste are often not the ones who feel its true impact. In much of the western world, our waste is shipped to other countries, creating an overwhelming crisis in places like Indonesia, Vietnam, Ghana, and Kenya—destroying the environments of countries that simply do not have the infrastructure to handle our onslaught.

I have been trying to understand why litter is so out of control and why so many people do it, and my only answer is convenience and laziness, combined with the fact that we just have so much more waste and single-use plastic than ever before. Yet an abundance of litter is as much a cultural problem as it is an environmental one: There are also major cities that manage to keep their trash under control. In Tokyo, there are very few public bins, due to the 1995 sarin gas attack. Instead, people simply carry their litter around until they find one, or even bag up their waste throughout the day and take it home. This diligence, this refusal to give up and just put down a Pocari Sweat bottle because they’d been holding it for a few minutes, was a welcome reprieve. This isn’t to say I didn’t see any litter in all of Tokyo. But overall, I believe most of us have much to learn from the city and its people.

Other countries have also made similar strides in their relationships to litter. Sweden sends just 1% of its waste to landfill, using half of its garbage to create energy. When I visited Las Canarias, in Tenerife and Lanzarote, I saw city workers out every single day cleaning trash from the side of the road. Hoping to deter foreigners from contributing more, signs begged tourists not to litter and to respect the islands’ unique volcanic environment. Tenerife even has fines of up to 3,000 euros for littering. 

I would hope that seeing people take such great pride in their home would deter even the most ardent litterbug. But maybe that’s part of the problem: I’ve never found that same pride when I come home. The answers are there, but countries like the US and UK are just not prioritizing solving the problem—or sometimes, even asking the right questions.

Litter has been found in 90% of the UK. We are a small island, but we still can’t manage to keep it clean. Our roadsides, waterways, and countrysides are filthy, particularly compared to neighbouring countries, and there is no motivation to change it at either a government or local level. It also seems like nobody really cares to. When I look at other countries and wonder why they’re cleaner, I know that no small part of it comes down to better infrastructure, organization, and funding for waste clearance and street cleaning. But a lot of it is pride, too—and with it, genuine care. 

There isn’t a straightforward answer to fixing our monumental global litter problem, particularly when we only keep creating and wasting more. But to start, we need our governments to invest in better waste management, to prioritize circularity, and to devote infrastructure and resources to tackling waste, not only on our streets, but throughout every country. We need corporations who relentlessly produce single-use crap to be held to account and restrained. 

Sadly, we can’t make someone care about something that just isn’t a priority for them, and the same is true of our governments. But beyond lobbying and campaigning and voting tactically, we can all make a small difference at home. If more of us took control of our own waste and took pride in our own small parts of the world and the ones that we visit, perhaps we might actually begin to make some difference in cleaning up our mess.

[post_title] => There's No Such Thing as Polite Littering [post_excerpt] => I've gotten exhausted with the ways that convenience culture has shifted what we find acceptable when it comes to waste. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => soapbox-littering-trash-environmental-impact-climate-change-global-warming-waste-garbage-islands-opinion [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-11-18 21:59:36 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-11-18 21:59:36 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=9104 [menu_order] => 6 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
A bright, colorful illustration of a woman in a chartreuse pant suit and hiking boots, running through the forest with a hiking stick towards a body of water on the other side of a fence. Next to her is a spotted dog. She's surrounded by trees, a stag, and an old man lounging up against a hill. All around them are balanced pieces of trash: on the branches, on each person/creature, on the fence.

There’s No Such Thing as Polite Littering

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 9582
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2025-11-11 01:01:14
    [post_date_gmt] => 2025-11-11 01:01:14
    [post_content] => 

Three trans service members speak out on the military ban, and the rise of transphobia in the United States.

I met Commander Emily Shilling in April 2024 during a Lesbian Visibility Week panel celebrating LGBTQ+ women in leadership. I immediately found her both warm and intriguingly different. When I asked if she had ever flown upside down, the absurdity of posing such a question to a Navy test pilot sparked laughter, and a friendship.

After Trump’s reelection and his vow to reinstate a ban on transgender military service, my filmmaking partner Rivkah Beth Medow and I knew we had to respond. The growing anti-trans narrative wasn’t just a culture war skirmish, it was a symptom of something deeper and more dangerous: a coordinated effort to undermine democratic norms by turning vulnerable groups into political targets. We reached out to Emily, who saw our project as a way to turn a dark moment into a new mission: protecting her troops. When she shared that she’d voted for Trump in 2016 before coming out as trans, we all recognized how potent—and powerful—her story arc could be. 

We initially intended to make a short film centered on Emily’s experience, but it became clear that there was a bigger story to be told. Emily has always understood the power of storytelling, and through her leadership role and deep respect in the trans military community, she connected us with several compelling voices across all branches of service. 

Alongside Emily, we cast Navy Petty Officer Paulo Batista and Army National Guard Chief Warrant Officer Jo Ellis for a feature documentary, Fighting Forward. The film follows these three trailblazing transgender service members as they continue to navigate career threats, legal battles, and rising political hostility. And yet, despite this constant onslaught, one of our most interesting discoveries as the project has progressed is that each of our heroes remains completely committed to serving their country. Each, too, has taken a completely unique path in moving forward. 

This kind of service—steadfast, principled, and often invisible—is precisely what democracy requires to survive. But the attacks on LGBTQ+ rights, especially within government institutions like the military, are not isolated. They are part of a broader attempt to consolidate power by eroding the rights of those who don’t conform to a narrow, exclusionary vision of America. Efforts to push trans people out of public life, out of service, and out of legal recognition are not just discriminatory—they are anti-democratic. They chip away at the very idea of equal citizenship.

Equally chilling is the growing political rhetoric around using the U.S. military to "fight crime" in so-called "Democrat-run cities." Deploying the military against our own citizens, especially in diverse urban areas that overwhelmingly vote for progressive policies, is a direct threat to democratic governance. It weaponizes fear to justify the erosion of civil liberties and the silencing of dissent. This is precisely why it matters who serves in the military, who leads it, and whether or not they believe in the rights of all Americans: When the military is redirected to silence dissent at home, it stops defending democracy, and starts dismantling it.

Rivkah and I believe wholeheartedly in everyone’s right to belong. While we chafe at the military’s hierarchical system, feel appalled by their budget allocations, and are devastated by the environmental and human cost of war, if we have a military, then we want it to be representative of the country that military is fighting for. Not because of “woke ideology,” but because inclusion reflects democracy; and without it, we risk losing the very principles this country claims to defend.

The best way we know to shift culture is through telling nuanced stories amplified through impact campaigns that spark transformative conversations, policy change, and solidarity. While making this film, we’ve been surprised to find a strain of patriotism rising in us. It’s of an abolitionist and civil rights provenance, aligned with hope of what our democracy can possibly be. With the world around us on fire, both literally and figuratively, Fighting Forward has offered us a concrete way to challenge stereotypes, clarify misconceptions, and seed the culture we want for the United States.

~

Disclaimer: These interviews have been edited and condensed for length and clarity. The opinions expressed reflect the personal views of those interviewed, and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Military or Department of Defense.

Navy Commander Emily "Hawking" Shilling

Photo courtesy of Emily Shilling.

Why did you first enlist?

The Navy’s motto at the time was “A Global Force for Good,” and I believed it, wholeheartedly. I believed in service, in being part of something bigger than myself. I couldn’t imagine sitting on the sidelines when I had the ability and the drive to make a difference. So I chose adventure, to stand and fight for all those who couldn’t. Maybe it was naive, or self-aggrandizing for the scrawny nerd I was, but I believed the worst sin of all is to do nothing in the face of evil.

What does it signal more broadly that trans people are now banned from joining the military?

It’s a betrayal of the very ideals the military claims to uphold. We say we’re a merit-based force, one where what matters is your capability, your integrity, your commitment. When we start disqualifying people simply because of who they are, we’ve abandoned that principle. If identity, not performance, is grounds for exclusion, where does that line stop? It's not just unjust. It's dangerous. The military must be made up of the people it swears to protect; otherwise, those that are different tend to become the unprotected.

What do you want people to know about the ban, how it’s impacting you, and what it means for the U.S.?

I want America to understand this isn’t abstract, it’s affecting real people, with real lives, families, and responsibilities. I’ve worn the uniform for over two decades. I’ve deployed in combat. I’ve led teams and flown missions that mattered. And now, people like me—qualified, capable Americans, patriots—are being told we’re not welcome, not because of performance, but because we were brave enough to say who we are. That should alarm every citizen. This ban doesn’t just hurt trans people, it undermines the strength of our military and the values we claim to defend. A country that believes in liberty and justice for all shouldn’t be in the business of telling patriots they’re not allowed to serve if they don’t match the reigning political party’s “perfect mold”.

Emily (foreground) with her wife, Amanda. Photo courtesy of Emily Shilling.

What, if anything, is giving you hope right now?

I find hope in those who refuse to accept silence as safety. People are organizing, speaking out, pushing back against the narrative that some of us are less worthy of dignity or service. Your voice matters.

I find hope in my fellow service members and veterans, who are standing together in solidarity. Many of them have seen what leadership really means, and they know it has nothing to do with gender or politics and everything to do with integrity, skill, and trust.

I find hope in how many people outside of uniform are waking up to what’s happening. They’re realizing this isn’t just about trans people, it’s about whether we will be a nation that honors its promises, and continues to fight for the dream of a more perfect union. 

And personally, I find hope in simply still being here, able to speak the truth out loud, to show up for others, and to remind people that we’ve been through dark times before and when we have organized, when we have stayed loud and connected and human, we have never lost. And, if we have the moral courage to fight, we will win this time, and every time.

What can readers do to support trans service members?

1. Raise your voice. Contact your elected officials. Let them know you oppose discrimination in the military and support open service. They do pay attention to public sentiment, and silence helps no one.

2. Challenge misinformation. Whether at your dinner table or your workplace, don’t let transphobia or fear-mongering go unchecked. Educate yourself, then share accurate, humanizing stories, especially about those who serve.

3. Support organizations doing the work. Groups like SPARTA, Modern Military Association of America (MMAA), and Minority Veterans of America (MVA) are fighting daily for the rights, recognition, and safety of LGBTQ+ service members and veterans. Donations, signal-boosting, and volunteering all help.

4. Connect and care. If you know a trans service member, reach out. Let them know you see them, support them, and appreciate their service. It’s not always about grand gestures; sometimes, the quiet affirmation that we’re not alone gets us through.

Army National Guard Chief Warrant Officer Jo Ellis

Photo courtesy of Jo Ellis.

Why did you first enlist?

I wanted to serve my country. Service is in my blood. I’m a patriot and I come from a family of military service.

What does it signal more broadly that trans people are now banned from joining the military?

It means our country will lose out on patriots like me who volunteered to sacrifice for the country. It means instead of a military based on meritocracy, it’s now a military based on political ideology. Instead of selecting the best person for the job, we are excluding an entire category of people for no justified reason. It’s pure animus. Service members were told they could serve openly and now we are being punished for coming out under a previous administration. 

What do you want people to know about the ban, how it’s impacting you, and what it means for the U.S.?

Thousands of deployable service members are being purged from the military without regard to readiness, cost, or experience. Service members are being sent home from deployments, command positions vacated without replacements, and no plan to recoup qualified personnel. We can’t shortcut a decade-plus of military experience.

Photo courtesy of Jo Ellis.

What, if anything, is giving you hope right now?

I believe in the great experiment that is the United States. We can be better. It’s not big percentages that make the difference in this country. It’s in the margins. 1%. 1% better each day. It’s the aggregation of marginal gains that lead to exponential results. Maybe that’s quixotic, maybe I’m the greater fool. I’ll wear those as a badge of honor. This country was founded by greater fools.

Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Paulo Batista

Photo courtesy of Paulo Batista.

Why did you first enlist?

I enlisted because it was a dream since high school to serve in the military, inspired my by older brother who served for 20 years in the Air Force. Due to the "Don't Ask, Dont Tell" policy and me becoming my father's caretaker after high school, I could not join right away and had to wait until later in life. 

What does it signal more broadly that trans people are now banned from joining the military?

It means military readiness will be affected. Many transgender military service members play a vital role in all branches. We are enlisted to officers, and removing us from our jobs will leave gaps in many areas, including deployments. The military will lose great leaders with experience in their areas of expertise that cannot be replaced easily. 

What do you want people to know about the ban, how it’s impacting you, and what it means for the U.S.?

That being transgender in the military does not affect military readiness. We meet the requirements and standards implemented to service our country. However, more importantly, transgender service members have been serving for decades in the military, making our military more effective.

Unfortunately, per the new policy, thousands of effective service members, including non-transgender members, will be affected. It's a domino effect when the gap is created. Pulling a transgender service member from their job means that other service members will have to cover down for that unmanned position, ultimately causing more stress on the other service members by making them work longer or go on longer deployments, thus taking service members away from their families and causing more strain on other service members and their families, declining military readiness instead of increasing it.

Furthermore, the ban causes harm to all the transgender service members due to the DD214 [Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty] rating that the policy implements, giving a rating that ultimately labels transgender service members a national security threat, thus affecting our futures and ability to continue our careers, even though we all served our country with honor, courage, and true bravery.

Photo courtesy of Paulo Batista.

What, if anything, is giving you hope right now?

The one thing that gives me the greatest hope is my community and trans siblings. Seeing others standing tall and seeing the ones who tell me they get hope from seeing me stand loud and proud against the current environment instead of going quiet. 

What can readers do to support trans service members and veterans?

If allies and friends are looking to help, the best ways start with reaching out to their representatives and congressional offices. Helping influence their decisions is vital, as that is the way to make the changes we need. Otherwise, I would say be a voice for transgender service members when we cannot speak. We are a limited number of voices, and need a vast audience to spread the correct information and hopefully educate the ones who are willing to listen.

[post_title] => "I Find Hope in Simply Still Being Here" [post_excerpt] => Three trans service members speak out on the military ban, and the rise of transphobia in the United States. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => transgender-military-ban-lgbtq-trans-rights-equality-veterans-service-members-interview-emily-hawking-jo-ellis-paulo-batista [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-11-11 05:38:38 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-11-11 05:38:38 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=9582 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
Photographs of Emily Shilling, Paulo Batista, and Jo Ellis.

“I Find Hope in Simply Still Being Here”

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 9722
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2025-11-04 14:12:36
    [post_date_gmt] => 2025-11-04 14:12:36
    [post_content] => 

Queer relationship visibility isn’t good enough if all it does is replicate heteronormative approaches.

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

Like any faithful reality TV fangirly, I dutifully invest many hours of my brief and precious human life into my little shows. I dwell unabashedly in the cult of reality standom: My housecleaning rituals include day-long marathons of shows like Vanderpump Rules or 90 Day Fiancé, where I empty my closets and scrub my floorboards to the tune of a full season, filling my home with the sounds of strangers’ arguments, diary cam thoughts, and curated confessionals. 

For me, this isn’t just entertainment. I am endlessly fascinated by human relationship dynamics, and the belief systems that shape them. Much of reality television serves as my personal laboratory for examining these phenomena in action—and I absorb every minute with rapture. This is especially true within my favorite subgenre of all, reality romance, which I find particularly compelling because of the ways it reveals the ubiquity of heteronormativity in our collective consciousness. It’s also why I think we are long overdue for more queer reality romance—including shows that actually explore queer relationship frameworks, rather than just LGBTQ+ casting.

From classics like The Bachelor and Rock of Love to contemporary hits like Love is Blind, shows where total strangers form attachments to one another and make legally binding commitments in intense, pressurized, and unnatural situations are canonical. They’re also historically very heterosexual, something that hasn’t changed even as casting has diversified. 

Accurate, dynamic queer representation across all media is essential, and desperately overdue. Thanks to LGBTQ+ reality shows like Tampa Baes, The Real L Word, and the I Kissed a Boy franchise, we’ve finally been able to see a variety of sexualities and genders normalized in a dating context. And thank goodness! But as entertaining as these programs might be, queer relationship visibility isn’t good enough if all it does is replicate heteronormative approaches—and when it comes to relationships where personal autonomy and romantic intimacy are successfully balanced, these shows are falling short. 

With its second season out last summer, breakout hit The Ultimatum: Queer Love might be the most popular of the LGBTQ+ reality romance genre, both for queer and straight viewers alike. It’s also a strong (and, for better or worse, incredibly entertaining) case study in the pitfalls of dropping queer contestants into heterosexual dating frameworks, especially on a global stage. The plot features five couples on the lesbian spectrum who have reached an impasse in their relationships—one partner wants to get married, the other does not, and the former has issued the latter an ultimatum: Marry me, or we’re breaking up. 

The show aims to “help” castmates gain clarity about their present dilemma by presenting them with an opportunity to explore partnership with someone new. But not just anyone new: Castmates date each other. 

In front of the partners they arrived with. 

Participants have one week to select a new partner, and then immediately move in with that person for a three week “trial marriage,” which some of the new couples consummate. They then each move back in with their original partner for another three week “trial marriage” before decision day. 

The end goal is either for castmates to leave the show engaged—whether to their original partner, or to someone they just met under fast, furious, and fantastical circumstances—or, if they’re still not ready to commit, to walk away single. And of course, things go off without a hitch, everyone is super mature about everything, and no one ends up brokenhearted or publicly humiliated.

Now, maybe this plotline conjures images of the chaotic, toxic, and mysteriously elusive “U-Haul lesbian”. Yet that instinct would be misguided: In reality, The Ultimatum: Queer Love is a spin-off of The Ultimatum: Marry or Move On, a pre-existing show with the exact same premise, but a heterosexual cast. 

When the main focus of a show is for participants to “find love,” however, especially when the premise pressures them into making quick decisions about marriage or monogamy, the ghastly, unflattering light of patriarchy spares no one—something the landscape of LGBTQ+ reality romance makes clear. This is also one reason why copy-pasting heteronormative relationship frameworks onto a queer cast is particularly dangerous. On the whole, as a society, we are not trained to recognize misogyny when it doesn’t come from cis men, something that can quickly translate into queerphobia: When queer folks embody patriarchal values, people around them may be tempted to blame queerness, rather than patriarchy, for any ensuing problematic behavior. Queer people struggle enough with this inside our own communities already; something that compounds when media about us continuously reiterates stereotypes about gender, power, and control. This is particularly visible in reality television, from the lesbian sex scenes that border on soft porn, to the queer fuckbros whose predatory behavior towards femmes goes largely unconfronted, to cis women whose emotional abuse of their femme, masc, and genderqueer partners does not ring alarm bells the way it would if a cis man were behaving the same way.

The entire Ultimatum franchise is part of a robust and patriarchal legacy within the genre, where marriage is treated as an achievement, especially for women and femmes, and prioritized over everything, even at the expense of healthy bonds and connections. But to simply recycle the plotlines of heteronormative reality shows and transpose them onto a queer cast is not only creatively lazy; it exposes the errors of these shows’ premises at their core. 

“[R]eality television…has created a falsified account of how certain people are meant to behave, communicate and love, and the majority of the victims to these production tactics are women,” wrote Lindsey Spencer in a 2022 article for the Michigan Daily.

Where patriarchal marriage is the prize, women and LGBTQ+ folks will always get the short end of the stick, even when they “win.” I’m not knocking marriage as an institution—big fan, actually—but patriarchal marriage? One where gender is, whether consciously or unconsciously, viewed as binary, and where partners and/or traits perceived as “feminine” are subjugated to partners viewed as “masculine”? Where the praxis of the relationship itself eliminates the possibility of true intimacy? Where my partner and I are beholden to monogamy, rather than deciding whether we want to choose it anew, as the seasons of our lives unfold? 

Ew, no.

This is also precisely why I believe we’d all benefit from some more queering of reality romance. What if, instead of watching people wrestle their partners into making high-stakes commitments, audiences were offered a window into a cast of queers exploring alternative frameworks and modalities for love and connection? Reality fans would still get to absorb all the juicy human drama we hold so dear, but we’d also get to witness people grow and change in ways for which current plotlines don’t allow. 

In the current season of The Ultimatum: Queer Love, for example, an interesting situation cropped up during the initial re-shuffling of couples that might have played out very differently outside of the show’s rigid framework. A mutual attraction developed between one participant, Pilar, and both halves of one original couple, Kyle and Bridget. When, independently of one another, the pair learned that Pilar was interested in them both, they each encouraged her to explore the other, vouching for each other’s radness.

The show’s most visibly genderqueer couple so far, Kyle and Bridget already stood out from the pack. But they were also, in my opinion, the most mutually respectful couple the show has seen—something made clear throughout the season. Eventually, Pilar and Kyle selected one another for the trial marriage, and Bridget ended up with someone else. After Pilar and Kyle shared a kiss during their time together, Kyle quickly disclosed it to Bridget once they were reunited for their own “trial marriage.” While Bridget was visibly miffed, she and Kyle continued to have productive, open, and tender communication as they worked through a difficult conversation. 

It was an intriguing plot line, for sure, and played out as healthily as it could have within the scope of the show. But how much more interesting would it have been to watch Pilar, Kyle, and Bridget explore what it might be like to date as a trio? Or to watch them even have that discussion? I wonder how they may have all impacted each other’s lives differently, and whether stronger friendships or romances could have blossomed if they hadn’t been confined to the show’s rules.

Something as simple as that could have changed not only the trajectory of the contestants’ lives but, arguably, perhaps the trajectory of a viewer’s life, too. Witnessing couples undertake that type of exploration, safely and from a place of mutual trust, could be the very representation that some viewers need, queer or straight. It could also be a gateway for them to learn about their own relationship preferences, or even expose them to the fact that alternatives are possible. 

Beyond that, this more expansive approach would bring us closer to true representation, not just its bare minimum. The reality romance industry profits greatly from our identities, and queer viewers deserve something beyond an “LGBTQ+” label on the dropdown menu of our favorite streaming sites. After decades of witnessing countless reality stars run the hamster wheel of heteropatriarchy, I, personally, am ready for something a bit more nuanced—and, frankly, a lot more queer.

[post_title] => Why Isn't LGBTQ+ Reality TV More... Queer? [post_excerpt] => Queer relationship visibility isn’t good enough if all it does is replicate heteronormative approaches. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => lgbtq-reality-television-tv-dating-shows-the-ultimatum-queer-love-representation [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-11-04 14:12:40 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-11-04 14:12:40 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=9722 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
An illustration of a wedding cake with a rainbow of colors in the background. At the top of the cake is a cake topper with a queer couple, both wearing suits, leaning towards one another for a kiss; both holding bouquets behind their back. In their shadow, we see a heteronormative couple, with one wearing a wedding dress.

Why Isn’t LGBTQ+ Reality TV More… Queer?

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 9725
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2025-10-28 19:30:22
    [post_date_gmt] => 2025-10-28 19:30:22
    [post_content] => 

Now, more than ever, we need art to do the heavy lifting of defining our values.

Cultural Currency is a bi-monthly romp through the intersection of art and capital with writer Cara Marsh Sheffler. 

In the art world this year, many a gallery’s story has ended with Chapter 11. For those who’ve been paying attention, this wasn’t surprising. Art sales are slipping everywhere, down as much as 35% at Art Basel. This month, the Financial Times reported that blue chip Hauser & Wirth’s London profits have slid a staggering 90%. August mid-tier galleries have begun shuttering with alarming frequency: Blum, Kasmin, and Venus Over Manhattan, to name a few. For artists and galleries alike, the walls are literally and metaphorically caving in: the model of an entire industry predicated on selling to a few rich people is no longer working.  

When the hero’s journey comes to its final chapter, a certain existential reckoning occurs. The life and death of ideas is very real: many far outlive their usefulness, and perhaps one that needs to die right now is the idea that art should exist on the market principally as a financial tool. Art fairs are expensive, rents are obscene, and a global economic downturn accented with the panic and chaos of trade wars and ethno-nationalism all point toward the necessity of conservative budgets and cost-cutting. Yes, the tie between money, power, and art is irrefutable, the backbone and lifeblood of art history. But as the midtier market collapses, it might be nice to finally unfuck the gap between the hand-to-mouth life of the artist and the value of art in the market, beginning with a trial separation—at least as a thought exercise—between money and art. 

Now, more than ever, we need art to do the heavy lifting of defining our values. Alternative thought is essential when the capitalistic world has agreed—with zero referendum—that artificial thought is in any way preferential or superior. By subscribing to the centrism that masquerades as progressivism in the United States, the art world lost touch with the political landscape and, with that disorientation, any ability to question it. Amid the art market highs and market-oriented inclusivity, art has also lost its critical capacity.

But what is the value of art that cannot be sold? What might be the purpose of art that is simply not meant to sit aside a red dot? Historically, of course, we have performance art and Situationism, along with their descendants. But, beyond art that is merely difficult to commodify, what does an expression of cultural values look like when consciously uncoupled from the art market? 

I pondered these questions as I walked around my favorite show I have seen all year, Lydia Eccles’ “Jokes About Bombs Will Not Be Taken Lightly,” which was up at Goswell Road, an artist-run space in Paris, from May 15 until June 14. In 1995, Eccles, a Boston-based artist, had one hell of an idea for an art project. Rather than taking a ho-hum trip to the supply store, she nominated the Unabomber—at the height of his anonymous reign of terror—in the 1996 US presidential election. The show was a documentation of that campaign and the ensuing pen-pal relationship Eccles formed with Ted Kaczynski after his arrest and throughout his incarceration. 

Conceptual art has given us everything from Chris Burden having a friend shoot him to Agnes Denes turning a strip of downtown Manhattan to a wheatfield. Art in this vein pushes what can be a canvas for expression: the human body, landfill. But never before had I seen an artist decide their chosen medium was a presidential election. By participating in the political arena with all the familiar trappings of the era—signs, slogans, bumper stickers, and even a dedicated camera crew—Eccles showed a presidential campaign for what it is: an hysterical circus that plays to our basest fears, one where infamy and fame are interchangeable. 

Eccles documents the Unabomber’s “run” alongside his more literal run from the law and the dance he did with the media, most notably and implausibly with Bob Guccione. Her prolific campaigning warranted its own inane and disturbingly underinformed coverage. At one point in the winter of 1996, WRKO radio reported, “There are more Unabomber signs than there are for Clinton, Gore, or all the Republicans, so it looks like the Unabomber is leading in this precinct.” In a time of Luigi Mangione fandom and a renewed, bi-partisan interest in Kaczynski, “Jokes About Bombs” offered a riveting, prescient, wholly prophetic anti-capitalist critique of technology’s role in a broken political system. The phrase “artistic intervention” has been worn out to the point of farce, but Eccles had staged one in a presidential election and a federal manhunt. 

I had to own the catalogue. 

But: how to get it home??? The cover showed an old-fashioned political sign stuck in sludgy snow amid a warren of placards for Bob Dole and Pat Buchanan:

DON’T WASTE YOUR VOTE!
Write-in for President
UNABOMBER ’96
If elected he will not serve 
★ VOTE AGAINST REPUBLICANS
★ VOTE AGAINST DEMOCRATS
★ VOTE AGAINST CORPORATE TECHNOLOGY
All you have to lose is the political illusion…
ARE YOU READY FOR THE RUPTURE?

I imagined myself at customs, declaring this tome. Anthony Stephenson, the gallery’s convivial proprietor, asked me if it would be so terrible to be stuck in France forever. He had a point. Still, I demurred and, frankly, chickened out of buying a book I really wanted to own. 

In my own cowardice, I recognized that Eccles’ show was lightning in a bottle, and that my own hesitation indicated that I was in the presence of something genuinely avant-garde. I’d been conditioned to the shopping malls of art fairs, swapping out the Orange Julius and TCBY of my New Jersey childhood for the (aptly named) Ruinart Champagne Lounge. Despite my arty existence, in that moment of contact, I realized that coming across art that is actually outré (if you like your French cultural theory) or verboten (if you prefer your Germans), and has purpose, simply had not been my experience of most galleries where, at best, I sigh and think “Gee, if only I had a cool $30K lying around…” Like the idea of owning its catalogue, the show itself freaked me out a bit. I felt alive in my mind and privileged to be in the room, as well as to meet Eccles herself. 

In its early pages, the catalogue for “Jokes About Bombs” contains the text of a speech James Baldwin gave in 1962, “Art is here to prove, and to help one bear, the fact that all safety is an illusion. All artists are divorced from and even opposed to necessarily any system whatever.” These are, of course, the sorts of moral standards we expect whenever we read James Baldwin, who had a sixth sense for integrity the way sea turtles and migratory birds can use the earth’s magnetic fields for navigation. While I ultimately left the catalogue behind, as spring turned to summer, I let his words guide my art viewing. 

I came across two moral stand-outs in London. The first was Ed Atkins at the Tate Britain, best known for his computer-generated, incredibly unsettling videos that plumb the uncanny valley. Atkins has been exploring the genre for decades, well ahead of AI moral and economic panic. Seeing his career retrospective made me think of a Democracy Now interview I saw with Karen Hao, who pointed out that, as we have no agreed-upon scientific definition of human intelligence, what, exactly, is Artificial Intelligence? Is it merely a projection of our perceived notion of intelligence, skewed entirely by capitalistic values? Are we creating “intelligent” bots with the same level of foresight and ethical depth as rare dog breeds concocted by bored, rich people that are so helpless they cannot even fuck on their own? (A sharp new ad for Merriam-Webster slyly posits their dictionary as an LLM and ends with the tagline, “There’s artificial intelligence, and then there is actual intelligence.”) 

The second stand-out was “Leigh Bowery!” at the Tate Modern, a retrospective of fashion and nightclubbing as artistic expression. The text at the entrance to the exhibit read: “In his brief life Bowery was described as many things. Among them: fashion designer, club monster, human sculpture, nude model, vaudeville drunkard, anarchic auteur, pop surrealist, clown without a circus, piece of moving furniture, modern art on legs. However, he declared, ‘if you label me, you negate me,’ and always refused classification, commodification, and conformity.” The show was a riveting reminder of transgression and artistic expression in the face of AIDS, discrimination, and the rise of conservatism—and a call for the same as we face rising global authoritarianism today. In an era where fashion often feels like the reductio ad absurdum of vapid aspirational mass consumption amid our ever more precarious existences, online and in debt, Bowery’s ability to imbue costume with so much intellectual ambition and drive floored me. 

These three exhibitions were recentering as reminders that art’s purpose—its true value—shouldn’t be monetary. Moreover, those figures don’t mean much just before a crash, when the numbers game is more of a hiding-the-real-numbers game. While blue chip galleries and their deep war chests can ride out the chaos for now, Hauser & Wirth’s stumble may tell us otherwise. 

Right now, it is vital to uncouple cultural values from the marketplace. Commercial worth has always been baked into ideologies that align with power, whether you’re talking about royal court painters or the CIA and Abstract Expressionism. The market then reinforces that notion of value over and over again in a way that resonates into institutions and educational systems. Yes, that art market is experiencing a downturn that might spell collapse for many. It won’t be pleasant. However, chaos presents an opportunity for a reappraisal, and for finding what was lost. I would argue that—whether you love it or hate it—art that passes the Baldwin litmus test is a great place to start understanding what art with a valid critical stance looks like at this very moment in time. 

Such art demands the same moral clarity from its viewers, too: I did return to Goswell Road this summer, and I bought the catalogue for “Jokes About Bombs Will Not Be Taken Lightly.” Despite my concerns, the book made it home through customs.

[post_title] => The Value of Art That Can't Be Sold [post_excerpt] => Now, more than ever, we need art to do the heavy lifting of defining our values. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => cultural-currency-value-art-cant-be-sold-galleries-profits-economy-goswell-road-lydia-eccles [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-10-28 19:30:26 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-10-28 19:30:26 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=9725 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
A photograph from the exhibition "Jokes About Bombs Will Not Be Taken Lightly" at the gallery Goswell Road, depicting the work of Lydia Eccles from her election campaign for the Unabomber in 1995-96. A bunch of paper ephemera on the wall, including photos, fliers, and bumper stickers. In the middle is a lawn sign that reads "America is voting for for the UNABOMBER".

The Value of Art That Can’t Be Sold

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 9713
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2025-10-22 17:42:39
    [post_date_gmt] => 2025-10-22 17:42:39
    [post_content] => 

Why eating disorders are so prevalent in Latinx and AAPI communities in the U.S.

It was a summer morning in 2001 when 11-year-old Elizabeth Moscoso realized her body was growing in width "unlimitedly." Before puberty, her figure had been slim, smooth, and long. But in recent months, it had become almost unrecognizable, as if it did not belong to her; her body suddenly covered in thick, black hair, and curves where there had once been straight lines. She desperately wanted to get rid of them. “This body…isn’t mine,” Moscoso, now 35, thought. That morning, she shared these thoughts with her mother, a Guatemalan immigrant who had moved to the United States decades prior. Leaving the kitchen, her mother returned and handed Elizabeth a solution: a dark gray faja.

A faja—a type of girdle that wraps tightly around the abdomen—is supposed to shape people’s, usually women’s, bodies to make them appear slimmer, giving them an hourglass figure. It’s also meant to increase sweating, and eventually, help with weight loss. Elizabeth wanted to feel pretty, and to her, that meant having a small waist, so she accepted her mom’s help and let her wrap her body in the faja. It was immediately uncomfortable; and soon, she began to sweat. Still, she felt determined: Elizabeth continued wearing the faja every day for the next month. 

“I hoped that this would work, like a cocoon, and that after a while, I would come out beautiful and different, more like I'd always wanted to be,” she says. 

Growing up, Elizabeth would watch Mexican telenovelas after school, enraptured by the beautiful women portrayed on screen. She also noticed a pattern: The women who found true and eternal love on these shows were usually pale, thin, and clean-shaven, their hair always perfectly curled. “Do I need to be like them to be loved?” she asked herself. But she wasn’t sure. Growing up in Southern California, in a Guatemalan and Ecuadorian household, she was surrounded by contradicting beauty standards. Her grandmother said beauty meant having curvy calves; her mom believed it was having hips and breasts, with a slim waist; her classmates believed it meant being extremely thin. Confused and desperate to fit in, it was around this time that Elizabeth began wearing the faja. 

Soon after, she also developed an eating disorder. Within a matter of months, Elizabeth had begun an extreme dieting regime, and would hide herself in baggy clothes—even in summer. She began using hair removal creams on her arms, and later began bleaching the hair blonde.

“I was feeling uncomfortable and confused because I didn’t see my white peers experiencing the same,” Elizabeth says. “But I wasn’t sure what was going on with me; I did not have the language. I wanted to stop restricting and exercising compulsively but I couldn’t.”

Unfortunately, Elizabeth’s experience struggling with Western beauty standards isn’t an uncommon one. A study by Florida International University found that Latinx and Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) communities have the highest rates of eating disorder (ED) symptoms in the United States. The main reason is that ethnic minority women who acculturate to Western society are at an increased risk of experiencing body dissatisfaction, due to contradicting beauty standards between their primary and assimilated cultures. In other words, people who come from non-American cultures—or were raised with traditions from other countries, like Elizabeth—often experience stress when trying to adopt the beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of Western society in order to fit in with its dominant culture.

“For young people who need to feel like they belong to this country, physical appearance is often an element that provides a concrete way of knowing that if they lose weight, get thinner, and look like a white girl, then they will feel like they fit into this culture and be more accepted,” says Mae Lynn Reyes-Rodríguez, clinical psychologist and Associate Director of the Center of Excellence for Eating Disorders at University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

This is especially common in first-generation Americans, like Elizabeth, and immigrants who have lived more than 70% of their lives in the U.S., as highlighted in a study published by the International Journal of Eating Disorders. 

This pressure has only been exacerbated with the rise of social media in recent years, as beauty standards continuously shift at a lightning pace. In the late 2010s, the growth of the wellness industry, influencer culture, and beauty/fitness content shaped women's beauty ideals towards toned bodies achieved through exercise and "healthy" eating. But more recently, the rise of conservative aesthetics and the popularization of weight-loss medications like Ozempic have been shifting beauty standards again—this time toward bodies that are ultra-thin. 

Today, Western beauty ideals promote a teenage—even prepubescent—body, despite the reality that even during their teenage years, people often feel insecure about their bodies and want to change them.

Because thinness is the goal, disordered eating habits that result in dramatic weight loss often don’t raise concerns from clinicians, often delaying diagnoses and care for those who are suffering. In fact, when patients lose weight, many say they are praised for prioritizing their “health.” 

Clinicians also aren’t always able to see—nor do they actively look for—disordered eating symptoms in young women of color. 

“Providers are trained to look for eating disorders through a white, Western lens,” says Ana Gardner, a Latina clinical supervisor and therapist at Equip, an organization that provides ED treatment in the U.S. “So if somebody doesn't meet the typical profile, their symptoms might not be identified. There's research that primary care doctors are less likely to screen BIPOC patients for eating disorders, even when there are very clear symptoms present.”

Shikha Advani, 25, an Indian American woman who grew up in Michigan, experienced this firsthand: After she rapidly lost weight at 15 years old, her doctors began congratulating her at every routine check-up. 

Prior to that, growing up, Shikha had always had a larger body. Her family used to call her mota, the Hindi word for fat, and constantly gave her advice on why she needed to lose weight. Her classmates made fun of her in gym class because she couldn’t run, and taunted her with things like, “Why are you so slow?” or “You’re too big to keep up.” Sometimes it was more subtle: eye rolls, laughter, or whispers when she lagged behind. 

“It wasn’t constant, but it stuck with me because it singled me out and made me very aware of my body in a way that felt shaming,” Shikha says.

When she saw her classmates start dating in middle school, Shikha didn’t want to be left out. So she decided she would lose weight—no matter what. She joined the cheerleading team and became a flyer, started running, and restricted her food intake. As she lost weight, the people around her took notice. But despite her efforts, she wasn’t asked to the school dance and was unable to find a significant other—something that only reinforced her idea that she needed to make herself literally and figuratively smaller.  

Shikha had witnessed her mother go through a similar cycle of disordered eating when she was still just a baby. After 9/11, the "Global War on Terrorism" led to widespread racial and religious profiling of individuals perceived to be of Middle Eastern or South Asian descent. Her family was targeted.

“My mom wanted to stay small and take up less space, so she could assimilate to society and look like the white folks,” she says. “It was like that for me, as well. We wanted to matter less and to be seen less after all the trauma of 9/11.”

Now, Shikha has a tattoo on her right arm that says “take up space,” a reminder that the only way to help other people of color who experience EDs is by being visible and outspoken, something she tries to practice in her work today as an anti-diet nutritionist.

Shikha was initially drawn to this work because she wasn’t able to access the necessary resources for her own ED recovery—something common for many young people of color. In addition to prohibitive costs, ED recovery treatments in the U.S. also usually follow a Western approach that may reinforce the racism and sexism that contribute to these disorders in the first place. Gloria Lucas, founder of Nalgona Positivity Pride, an organization supporting people of color affected by ED, emphasizes that colonialism is deeply tied to the development and persistence of disordered eating in marginalized communities. It leads to food insecurity, the disruption of traditional food systems, the imposition of Eurocentric beauty standards, medical violence, and trauma from discrimination.

But even those who might accept a Westernized ED treatment often can’t access it. Most U.S. health insurance plans don’t cover the full cost of treatment. Medicaid is accepted by only a few ED clinics, and Medicare offers limited coverage and doesn’t include nutritional counseling.

“An eating disorder can be very expensive, especially depending on its severity,”  Reyes-Rodríguez says. “Treatments require a team-based approach; there must be a doctor, nutritionist, therapist, and often a psychiatrist. The later it is diagnosed, the more expensive it becomes as people would need more effort and resources.” 

For those who choose to pay for treatment out of pocket, the costs can quickly become prohibitive. Malena Román Giovanetti, 20, born and raised in San Juan, Puerto Rico, experienced this firsthand. Most of her childhood, she remained very healthy, but at 14 she began to struggle with disordered eating. At home, she watched as some of her relatives followed strict diets to modify their bodies; at school, she barely had any friends. Her ED became a coping mechanism to regain a sense of control. After four months, she told her mom, who quickly found the only clinic in San Juan—and the only clinic on the entire island of Puerto Rico—that offers ED treatment. It didn’t accept insurance, so her family paid out of pocket. Malena regained some weight, but continued to struggle with body dissatisfaction and intrusive thoughts. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, she relapsed. Her family had to pay even more for online therapy.

“My parents went into a lot of debt and stuff to try to pay for my treatment,” Malena says. “It made me feel really bad.”

Guilt is one of the most common feelings shared amongst people experiencing an ED: guilt over expenses, guilt for breaking food rules, guilt for losing control, guilt for not meeting unrealistic standards, guilt for worrying others, and guilt for not being able to share joy with loved ones over food. 

This guilt is multiplied across many AAPI and Latinx cultures because, despite the diversity and heterogeneity between them, they share one thing in common: Food is central to family, and to social life. Food is celebration, love, community, and care. Rejecting a dish prepared by a relative is often perceived as rejecting their love and effort. These cultures are the vivid proof that food is more than just a biological need: It is a way to celebrate culture. But while joyful, these gatherings are also rife with body shaming and unfiltered commentary on physical appearance.

For Anoova Sattar, a 17-year-old Bangladeshi American, attending family gatherings became difficult when she developed her ED, because of her self-imposed food restrictions. Rice, for example, is a staple in Bangladeshi cuisine, but Anoova avoided it.

When eating with other Bangladeshi families, she felt anxious about being exposed to triggering foods and the inevitable comments about her weight. Everyone seemed happy that the once-chubby Anoova was now slender. But this didn’t stop them from commenting on what she was or wasn’t eating; and there was no space to talk about how she truly felt about any of it, or how much she was struggling.

“I've never been comfortable with the thought of seeking therapy,” Anoova says. “It's just never been something comfortable for me, because I don't really like sharing so much personal information with one person to help myself. If it helps others, then it's fine.”

To that end, Anoova recently founded a social media initiative called Shuno to raise awareness about EDs in the South Asian community. Through this project, she is working on a directory of South Asian ED providers in the U.S. But despite encouraging others to seek help, she continues to manage her ED on her own.

“Something common both in the AAPI and the Latinx communities is that there's a lot of stigma towards mental health,” says Gardner. “It's not always encouraged to seek out help or talk about it with others, and sometimes, depending on spirituality or cultural beliefs, it could be believed that it's that person's fault.”

For Anoova, visiting Bangladesh while dealing with her ED also brought a new layer of guilt.

“People there are concerned about getting access to food, because it controls whether or not they live or die,” Anoova says. “It’s a matter of life and death for them, but for me, here, appearance also becomes life or death, because eating disorders [anorexia] have the highest fatality rate among psychiatric illnesses.”

In the Global South, even those seeking help may quite literally lack the language to do so: The words for “eating disorder” simply do not exist in their mother tongue. Sometimes, however, this inability to translate it can be a means of self-protection, too. 

Julia, who requested we not include her last name for privacy reasons, moved from China to Nevada with her mom when she was four. As an only child, the only English speaker in her household, an Ivy League graduate, and someone who quickly landed a good job after school, Julia was her mother’s pride. But eventually, that burden started to grow heavy for Julia, as her mother’s expectations for her often extended beyond her accomplishments. 

Growing up, Julia's mother frequently commented on her appearance: Her skin wasn’t pale enough, her body wasn’t slim enough, her eyes needed to be wider. Her mother embodied the Chinese beauty standard and expected Julia to mirror it.

“It wasn’t malicious, but there were so many comments,” Julia says. “So in high school, I became super aware of my size. My mom said that as I was growing into a woman, I needed to be pretty to attract men.”

When Julia moved to New York City to study Sociology and Global Liberal Studies, living on her own meant she could make her own choices for the first time, without supervision. She began working out at the gym, purging, compensating, and dieting. When her mother saw her again, she congratulated her, saying she was finally learning to take care of herself. Her friends praised her, as well, admiring her discipline.

Julia has had an ED for nearly 10 years now, but only received a diagnosis five years ago—by accident. She had been struggling with ADHD and had sought medication and support. During an appointment with a therapist, she mentioned her eating habits, which is when she was formally diagnosed. 

“My doctor didn’t notice or ask anything about my eating habits—I told her,” Julia says. “I wasn’t expecting them to notice, because unless I was severely underweight or had abnormal bloodwork, I [didn’t] see why they would ask.”

Julia has shared her story on podcasts and on social media, but her family still doesn’t know about her diagnosis. Since they don’t speak English or use social media, she’s been able to keep it hidden.

“I literally don’t know the word for eating disorder in Chinese,” Julia says. “And honestly, I don’t know how I’d ever bring it up. Culturally, my mom’s response would be like, ‘Oh, why would you do that?’ There would be no productive conversation. At a certain point, you have to accept that there are conversations you’ll never be able to have with them because of a cultural gap. And I’m kind of okay with it.”

Julia wrote her mom a poem—of love and detachment on her expectations on Julia’s appearance, of recognizing her mother while also recognizing herself:

“She says she is waning
That she withers while I blossom
But I’m just barely budding
While she lives in full bloom

I’m not as slender
I don’t share the same curls
Ruby red never suited me
Yet she colors my world
She made me bold and unafraid
Like her, I won’t break nor bend
For I am woven from her threads
Just as strong, from start to end.”

As people constantly reminded that they don’t belong, Latinx and AAPI folks in the U.S. face a mental battle over how beauty, health, food, exercise, medicine, and relationships should look. Trying to preserve their heritage while fitting in, trying to be the fulfillment of the American Dream while being appreciated and seen like everyone else—that burden has never been easy to carry. But through the acceptance of diversity and community building, perhaps we might collectively begin to bend towards a more gentle world, one where people don’t merely focus on their physical appearance, but on the joy that food, movement, and social networks inspire.

[post_title] => A Cocoon for Us to Fit In [post_excerpt] => Why eating disorders are so prevalent in Latinx and AAPI communities in the U.S. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => eating-disorders-prevalence-latinx-latina-aapi-asian-communities-united-states-feature [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-10-27 23:15:27 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-10-27 23:15:27 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=9713 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
An illustration of an hourglass silhouette, the waist cinched tight, in shades of muted peachy gold. Within it, increasingly smaller versions of the silhouette are contained, leading to a central shadow silhouette. The hourglass is over a dark blue background with arms seen through a filter, as if ghostly.

A Cocoon for Us to Fit In

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 9660
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2025-10-15 18:39:37
    [post_date_gmt] => 2025-10-15 18:39:37
    [post_content] => 

Once we lose a free press, we lose everything it protects.

Last summer, I stood in front of a typewriter that led to the death of two journalists. I was visiting the German Occupation Museum on the small Channel Island of Guernsey, a British crown dependency, and was awe-struck by a display on a group of dissident reporters from the 1940s.

At the time, all news entering the occupied Channel Islands was filtered by the Nazis, and reports from the BBC and elsewhere were forbidden. But a small group of journalists disobeyed Nazi orders, secretly listening to wireless broadcasts, and typing out uncensored news for distribution. One of them used the typewriter I was looking at in the museum.

In response, the Nazis held a tribunal for five of the men involved. While I hear stories about shrinking media freedom and threats to journalists daily—I’m the deputy editor at a freedom of expression magazine, Index on Censorship—as a Brit, it gave me chills to know this level of censorship had once played out on British soil. Without a civil defense, the men were given prison sentences in Germany totalling over eight years. Charles Machon, sentenced to two years and four months, and Joseph Gillingham, sentenced to 10 months, never made it home. Both died in a German prison.

Today, global press freedom is more restricted than it has been in recent memory. In many places across the world, information is controlled by authoritarian regimes. Criticism of these governments, real or perceived, can land people in jail, or worse, and journalists often risk their lives to report on it. The 2013 Press Freedom Index and its accompanying interactive world map assembled by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), shows a handful of countries shaded green (good) and yellow (satisfactory). Pull the slider across to 2025, and the map dissolves into an alarming dark red (very serious) and shades of mid to dark orange, with a few countries in northern Europe clinging onto that green space for dear life. There’s not a lot of yellow either, indicating that concern over press freedom is not alarmist: Things have, in fact, gotten worse.

In Eastern Europe, the Russian- and English-language news outlet Meduza, founded in 2014, was headquartered in Latvia by its Russian-born founder, Galina Timchenko, for the safety of its staff. Russia is hostile toward independent media, and Meduza and others like it are labeled as “foreign agents” or “undesirable organizations,” resulting in increased surveillance. People who work in or with an “undesirable outlet” can face prosecution, fines, and even prison time. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, its media landscape has been further eroded, with most news sites owned by the state and their allies. According to RSF, there are currently 50 jailed journalists or media workers in the country.

In 2023, I spoke to student journalists from the online Russian outlet Doxa, who fled to Germany and other European countries after four members of their team were sentenced to two years of correctional labor in 2022 for a YouTube video where they defended freedom of assembly for young people. Months later, the publication’s editor and co-founder Armen Aramyan was added to the country’s “terrorist and extremist” list. In one high-profile case, for speaking out against the war in Ukraine, British-Russian journalist Vladimir Kara-Murza was denied access to lawyers while languishing in jail between April 2022 and August 2024. Condemned to a 25-year sentence for his dissent, he was freed in the biggest prisoner swap between Russia and the US since the Cold War. But even exiled Russian journalists like Kara-Murza are not safe, and face possible assassination attempts by the state. Elena Kostyuchenko is one of three female Russian journalists in exile who, in a similar period of time, suffered symptoms associated with poisoning.

Even countries, regions, and cities that have a history of press freedom have backslid in recent years. Once home to a thriving media landscape, Hong Kong has fallen hard since the crackdown on its anti-government protests in 2019-2020. In 2020, the headquarters of one of its last publications to criticize the authorities—independent media outlet Apple Daily—were raided by police. Shortly after the introduction of the National Security Law was imposed by Beijing that same year, Apple Daily’s publisher Jimmy Lai, a pro-democracy activist, was arrested and placed in solitary confinement. The company has since closed, and Lai remains imprisoned.

According to RSF, China is the third worst country in the world for media freedom, after Eritrea and North Korea. The government has long seen the media as a tool for propaganda, sending out daily notices detailing censored topics. Journalists are kept under a watchful eye, including foreign journalists, who are followed by drones. While this censorship masks much of what is happening in China, prominent cases give some insight into the more honest reality. Over 100 journalists are currently detained in the country, a huge number of whom are Uyghurs who have reported on atrocities committed against the ethnic minority group in Xinjiang. Zhang Zan, who reported on the outbreak of Covid-19 in Wuhan, was jailed for four years, and once released, almost immediately rearrested. Reporter and #MeToo activist, Sophia Huang Xueqin, was held in solitary confinement for months and faced a closed-door hearing, before receiving a sentence of five years for “subversion against the state” in 2024 for her reporting on sexual assault. 

Meanwhile, in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, where journalists are widely persecuted, it is near impossible to be a female reporter at all. Since regaining control in 2021, there’s been increasing restrictions on both women and journalists—including a national ban on women’s voices being heard in public. Afghanistan’s female journalists now largely work in exile, notably including Zahra Joya, the founder of Rukhshana Media, who currently lives in the UK. In neighboring Iran, journalists face arbitrary arrests and prison sentences, as was the case for Iranian-American journalist Reza Valizadeh, jailed for 10 years in January for “cooperating with the hostile U.S. government.” 

Beyond legal pressure and intimidation, reporters in the region are also being killed at alarming rates. On June 14, Saudi Arabia executed prominent journalist Turki Al-Jasser for alleged treason, with no clear evidence, following his writing about corruption in the ruling family. Despite Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman playing for positive press, the reality is a country with a poor human rights record and a dire situation for press freedom under his rule. 

It’s also no secret that Palestine has become the most dangerous place on the planet to be a journalist. Since Israel’s escalation following the October 2023 Hamas attacks, at least 250 journalists have been killed in Gaza, the majority of whom are Palestinian. Some journalists have been deliberately targeted by the Israeli army, according to the International Federation of Journalists, and others, critical of Hamas, have said they’ve been threatened by the militant group. According to the United Nations, it has officially become “the deadliest conflict ever for journalists.”

As well as the disastrous consequences for human lives, this intense pressure on journalists has created an information vacuum, in part due to Israel’s ban on international press entering Gaza. Al Jazeera has some of the only international journalists left on the ground, but they, too, are facing disruption and targeted killings. Elsewhere in the region, the Al Jazeera offices in the occupied West Bank were closed down by both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli authorities, with broadcasts suspended. The Israeli government also stopped Al Jazeera from broadcasting in Israel, calling them a propaganda tool for Hamas, a move condemned by many human rights and press groups. In May, Israeli police also raided their offices in East Jerusalem.

These are just some of the more glaring extremes of shrinking media freedom around the world, but there are many more, including in countries where press freedom is enshrined in law, such as the U.S. The second Trump administration has made it clear that they want to control which media outlets have press pool access. In one alarming example, they banned Associated Press (AP) journalists from White House press events after they continued to use the term “Gulf of Mexico” instead of their adopted “Gulf of America.” A judge later ordered the administration to restore AP’s access

In June, the administration's threats to journalists became physical. As protests against ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) raids in Los Angeles grew, several journalists were injured by “non-lethal” bullets (which, despite the name, can actually be lethal), including at least one Australian reporter caught on camera. Elsewhere in the city, a photographer was shot in the head with a rubber bullet, a British photojournalist had emergency surgery to remove a plastic bullet from his leg, and other journalists were tear-gassed. Back in April, the Committee to Protect Journalists issued its first ever travel advisory for journalists heading to the US because of increased security at the U.S. border. Since then, comedian Jimmy Kimmel was taken off air (and later reinstated) for remarks critical of the Trump administration. Yet in the wake of this huge story, Trump actually suggested that networks which give the president bad press should have their licenses taken away.

Closer to my home, the rich and powerful use abusive lawsuits known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPPs, to silence journalists and others who speak out against them, in the UK and beyond. Some (but certainly not all) of these lawsuits come from oligarchs. Through defamation or privacy claims, critical views in the public interest are silenced with the backing of the British courts. Defending against one of these claims can be costly and drag on, which is exactly the point. It scares people, and stops reporters from doing their jobs for fear they could become the next SLAPP target. 

In spite of the worsening global landscape, there are still organizations and journalists holding the line. The Anti-SLAPP Coalition is doing incredible work to put an end to SLAPPs. Maria Ressa, a Filipino journalist who co-founded Rappler in 2021 has dedicated her investigative journalism to uncovering corruption within the Philippines government, and continues despite landing several charges against her, including charges of cyber libel and tax evasion. There is also the late Daphne Caruana Galizia, who unearthed numerous instances of Maltese state corruption, including her vital work on the Panama Papers scandal. In October 2017, she was murdered for it, and the campaign for justice continues.

There are countries, too, that give us a ray of hope, including Norway, which tops RSF’s 2025 World Freedom Press Index map. It’s a country that safeguards press freedom, has a vibrant independent media sector, and where editorial independence is valued. Namibia, while not falling within the green sweet spot, has historically been one of the best countries in Africa for press freedom, according to RSF. Journalists have faced verbal attacks and criticism from the government, and there are other areas where there is room for improvement. But in a world of press decline, it has risen six places (to 28th) in the most recent league table. (However, it’s important to note that it stood in 18th place as recently as 2022.) This comes down to a diverse media landscape, few barriers to coverage, and a judiciary that often defends the press. 

That a free press is vital in order to uphold democracy always bears repeating; and with things as dire as they’ve become, we must defend it with everything we’ve got. In countries where that idea is under threat, or where democracy itself is in tatters, we desperately need journalists who are pushing back, who refuse to stop publishing, and who shine a light on corruption. They’re often the ones running incredible independent media, whether in their countries or in exile. And we need the public, international community, and human rights organizations to keep calling out the threats, and supporting these brave journalists, wherever they may be. Because once we’ve lost press freedom, it’s only a matter of time before we lose everything it protects.

[post_title] => The Shrinking Space for Media Freedom [post_excerpt] => Once we lose a free press, we lose everything it protects. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => media-freedom-free-press-global-journalism-censorship-index [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-10-16 17:42:12 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-10-16 17:42:12 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=9660 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
A modern white keyboard on a black background. On each key, there's a thumbtack with the sharp end pointing upwards.

The Shrinking Space for Media Freedom

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] => 

Season 2 is out now.

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 back. 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 season 2 below, and subscribe now wherever you get your podcasts.

Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Simplecast | Pocket Casts | RSS Feed

[post_title] => The Conversationalist Podcast is Back [post_excerpt] => Season 2 is out now. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-conversationalist-podcast-season-two-announcement [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-11-20 18:31:43 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-11-20 18:31:43 [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 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