Digital & Print Membership
Yearly + Receive 8 free printed back issues
$420 Annually
Monthly + Receive 3 free printed back issues
$40 Monthly
Fatphobia in the Fashion Industry
maya finoh & Jordan Underwood Reflect on Regressive Culture

Reflecting on the cultural shifts we’ve seen since the rise of Ozempic as a blockbuster drug, we are two agency-signed fat models who have been actively working in the fashion industry for years, interviewing each other on the state of plus-size modeling. As models over a US size 22, we have borne the brunt of anti-fatness in the industry over the years and have also experienced the ramifications of cultural body preference shifts on personal and professional levels. Our photo story utilizes both bright colors and more neutral genderqueer aesthetics to shine a spotlight on the outcast beauty that is the fat form which has been increasingly pushed out of public life, despite being depicted as an image of abundance in many cultures historically.
Through interviewing each other, we hope to examine the current move in fashion and culture back to almost Y2K levels of ultra thinness (e.g., the decrease in curve models on the runway, many curve models getting dropped from their agencies, the constant vitriol on social media directed at visibly fat folks, and the declaration that the ‘BBL era’ is over) and how it’s connected to systemic fatphobia stoked by health anxiety and the desire to return to normalcy after years of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The fashion industry is one of the first cultural spheres to manufacture bias against certain body types, facial features, and so on via style trends. Anti- fatness has been and continues to be used as a tool of militarism (as seen through the presidential fitness test, and the Bush Administration’s declaration of a ‘War on Obesity’ in 2002). With authoritarianism rising globally, we posit that publicly naming these regressive trends is the first step as media can be a tool to either perpetuate these systems or disrupt them. Ultimately, we hope this conversation offers readers some possible tools to fight against anti-fat bias in their own lives.
MAYA FINOH: I had a longtime interest in modeling. I would think to myself, “Oh, I would love to model” because I’ve loved fashion since I was a tween. But I don’t think it was until I moved to New York and met a community of creatives—Black, queer, and trans artists especially—that I felt like this dream or this vision of me as a fat Black model in the industry could become a reality. For non-essential workers, the COVID-19 lockdown offered the space to focus on hobbies, creative dreams, and other endeavors that you wouldn’t have time to nurture otherwise. So I was lucky to connect with people who were entering their photography practices at that time, who would say to me “Let’s do a test shoot. I just want to shoot.”
I began to post those photoshoots online and then folks from the Parsons MFA Fashion Design & Society Program reached out to me about a class they had about designing inclusively. I had to go to Parsons consistently for a semester and had the clothes that student designers made fit to my body, which was cool. It was a lovely experience being a plus-size fit model, and from there, I started to get asked to do more modeling gigs. I believe it was in July 2021, that my mother agent found me on Instagram, and I became a signed model from there.
When did you become a model?

JORDAN: I always loved fashion. I was that kid that had little outfit sketches on the back of all my papers, and I always loved getting my picture taken, which is kind of funny, I don’t know, kind of cringe, but people always told me that I was really photogenic, which, maybe is fatphobic. I don’t know. “Pretty face” syndrome. That’s neither here nor there. I was always fat, and growing up during the “thin is in” era of the 2000’s, I didn’t really see modeling as a possibility for me. When I moved to New York in 2014, I briefly looked into modeling agencies that had plus size talent on their rosters, but at that time, it was incredibly rare to see a model under 5’7” signed, and I’m 5’4”. So, I tabled that idea.
After graduating in 2018, I was focused primarily on my career as an actor but started doing some modeling on the side. In November 2018, my agent posted a casting call looking for models with no size or height requirements. A friend sent it to me, and I submitted a few headshots and a video of me dancing on a whim, not thinking that anything would come from it. I signed with them that same week, and I’m still with that agency today. That was a huge turning point for me.
When the pandemic hit, theatres closed and I had to shift gears. I had more free time, so I started creating content online. That really helped boost my modeling career. Many of my test shoots and content I was creating on my own were getting shared, and I was able to make connections with brands through social media. Now, my career is about 50/50—half through my agent, half through social media. For plus-size models, especially those of us above a size 20, social media can be crucial because big brands often aren’t looking for models like us.
I find it interesting how the fashion industry seems to want to be bold and innovative and critique oppressive systems, while also so often supporting and reinforcing white supremacist hegemony with their artistic and casting choices. — Jordan
MAYA: You know, I love that you took a chance and applied to that agency just to see what would happen. Within a week, you were signed, and now here we are. I want to focus on the “thin-is-in” era, the Y2K fatphobic era 20 years ago. It’s wild to think about how much fatphobia was normalized. You could be a size eight or whatever, like Jessica Simpson or Raven-Symoné, and be considered the fattest thing in the world. And now we’re regressing back to that. What about this particular socio-political moment makes you think—or rather, makes you know—we’re regressing?
JORDAN: That’s so funny, because I had a very similar question for you: Do you see any differences between the “thin-is-in” fads of history and the current moment we’re in with the rise of Ozempic as a blockbuster drug?
I feel like we asked kind of the same question. For me, now everything is so steeped in neoliberal feminism. You see things like the Hims & Hers ad that was aired during the Superbowl this year. There is an explicit co-option of the language of fat liberation. The language of, specifically, Black radical thinkers has been misappropriated to sell weight loss products, and push anti- fat ideology. These companies slap this language of liberation on top of the same anti-fat rhetoric we’ve witnessed for decades in an attempt to trick us into thinking that they are “body positive” and critical of the anti-fatness of the early 2000s, all the while telling us to literally buy into the very system that they are pretending to critique.
MAYA: Absolutely. I feel like what you’re getting at is that neoliberal feminism, more commonly known as choice feminism, is allowing people to say, “It’s my choice to use this drug that’s meant for diabetic bodies for weight loss.” Let’s start there. Fundamentally, Ozempic was made for people who have a chronic illness and they’re now experiencing shortages trying to get it, so there’s a lack of regard for diabetic people and their needs in the use of this drug solely for weight loss. There’s also this delusion within choice feminism, a belief that choices can exist without the input of the superstructure of society around us. These choices don’t happen in silos, or a bubble, completely absent from influences. Our choices are impacted by fatphobia and other systems of oppression whether we like it or not.

JORDAN: I think it’s important to note that these conversations are happening all the time on social media in comment sections, on TikTok and Instagram and Substack, and always have been. I came to fat liberation through Tumblr in the 2010s but in the 2000s these conversations were being had on LiveJournal and in zines and at places like the NOLOSE conferences. I recently read an article where someone said, and I’m paraphrasing, “The difference between the 2000s thin-is-in moment, and now is that now we’re having these conversations.”
The reality is that people have always been having these conversations, and I think that it’s really disingenuous, or rather, when people say that I find that they are shining a light on their own ignorance to the history of fat liberation and liberation movements in general. Because these conversations have been happening literally forever. Even when talking about the history of body positivity and fat liberation, we go back to the civil rights movement where, many fat Black women who were leaders in that time were talking about anti- fatness as oppressive system that exists under white supremacy. I’m thinking specifically about people like Audre Lorde, Fannie Lou Hamer, and Johnnie Tilmon.
MAYA: Yeah, I always go back to Hunter Shackelford’s definition of fat liberation and how we can’t untie it from anti-Blackness. So in that regard, fat liberation started in the cargo hold of the slave ship. The first acts of rebellion towards fat liberation were the acts of insurrection and rioting that enslaved Africans did on the slave ship. So I absolutely agree.
JORDAN: I see a lot of people, at least when talking about Ozempic, be it via the Hims & Hers commercial or anywhere else that this conversation pops up, I often do see a lot of defensiveness from people, specifically people who have diabetes, bring up the original intended use of the drugs. I see a lot of people who take Ozempic or semaglutides, whatever the mode is, get very dug into the pathology of fatness, saying, “Oh, well, you don’t know what it’s like to be ‘obese’ and have the disease.” I’ve always found that self pathologization really interesting. They are pathologizing their own experiences, obviously, because doctors or whoever have told them to, which is so interesting too, in this current moment, because of the way in which we’ve seen, “obesity” be designated as a disease and then not disease, and the medical community going back and forth. We see flip-flopping from the people who have dedicated their lives to ending fatness as something that exists, period. Medically, and culturally, there seems to be a desire to pathologize fatness, to view being fat as a sickness, but at the same time, we see this consistent critique of a lot of fat activists’ work where people will claim that we’re conflating fatness and disability. So then my question becomes, is fatness a disability? Or is it not?
MAYA: It is. My fatness can be disabling! If I don’t get certain accommodations a place or environment can become inaccessible to me.
JORDAN: And that only seems to be a problem when we say it, and when we ask for accommodations for our disabilities as fat people, whether our disabilities are related to our sizes or not. The people who are the most entrenched in anti-fat ideology really grip to this idea that they are pro-science, but some of the loudest anti-fat voices I’ve encountered online come from people who are not only ignoring the decades of research that we have on the negative health outcomes that fat people face due to weight bias in medicine, but are also coming from people supporting politicians who are blatantly anti-vax and deny climate change.
MAYA: What you’re bringing up makes me think about the difference between the 2000s “thin-is-in” and this 2025 era of regressive body politics, which now has an authoritarian turn, or rather, a new adaptation of a regime in office.
In the Hims & Hers commercial, I found it interesting and Ericka Hart pointed this out, that they used “This is America” by Childish Gambino. I have many critiques of Childish Gambino and that music video, especially its disregard for Black life, but it’s telling that they chose a song meant to critique police brutality and the mass murder of Black people to sell a product related to Ozempic. I think this highlights a major difference between the early 2000s and 2025—a new kind of co-optation, minimization, and disrespect of Black cultural identity.
Black culture is now pop culture in the U.S., and the way we talk about it has changed. In the past year or two, we saw media declaring an end to the ‘BBL era,’ which symbolizes a rejection of bodies that have been stereotyped and associated with Blackness. The Brazilian butt lift, for example, has ties to the eugenics movement of Brazilian plastic surgeons, who aimed to take traits from Indigenous Brazilians and Afro-Brazilians they deemed worthwhile and apply them to lighter-skinned, white Brazilians. So many plastic surgery techniques originating from Brazil were attempts to strip their society of Blackness and Indigeneity while preserving specific “desirable” aspects of those communities.
Many people who claim to be pro-science and anti-vax are still promoting racial pseudoscience about fatness. The hatred of fatness doesn’t come from a concern for health—it’s rooted in racism. — maya
Sabrina Strings, in her book Fearing the Black Body, explains how anti-fatness as a coherent ideology is born out of racism. Fatness was used as a signifier to justify chattel slavery—those Black Africans deemed “fat” were labeled as greedy and lazy, and therefore undeserving of freedom. This marked them as people who deserved to be governed, enslaved, and colonized. The connection between pseudoscience about fatness, white supremacy, and anti-vax ideology has centuries of history aligned with white European hegemony and racial hierarchy.
JORDAN: And it’s admitted pseudoscience, right? Adolphe Quetelet who invented the BMI literally said (paraphrasing), “This is not to be used to determine health. This is for statistics. This is not for medical use.” That man was a proud eugenicist; he was literally a race scientist.
MAYA: Can I circle back to part of our question, about how you think the fashion industry in this particular moment is complicit, aiding and abetting this regression and this increase of fatphobia and all other forms of disregard for bodies that are not white, thin and able-bodied?
JORDAN: When we talk about body politics and body fascism translating into the fashion industry, the industry likes to think of itself as a trendsetter. But I don’t know how much I buy that, especially right now. The fashion industry is almost always a reflection of our politics and culture. That’s not to say there aren’t people in the industry—Black and brown designers, queer and trans designers, disabled designers, fat designers—who are pushing boundaries and making statements through their art and fashion as political commentary. But in this current moment of Ozempic, things have really shifted.
New Year’s 2023, there was a noticeable shift in the industry. I think a lot of us saw it coming, especially given how the conversations around fatness started changing when Ozempic was introduced. A lot of people predicted this moment, including Imani Barbarin, who was creating content back in 2020 warning us about ableism and fatphobia as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
MAYA: I definitely felt that. I think COVID-19, this global pandemic, opened the door to intense anxiety around health. There was also this desire to return to normal after the lockdown, even though the pandemic is still ongoing. But after the end of lockdown, people craved a return to normalcy. It’s also this desire to go back to simpler, more “innocent” times. That translates into wanting ultra-thinness, wanting whiteness. Particularly, there was a push to see healthy and fit bodies after millions of people died and we had to slow down during lockdown. We didn’t want to see sickness or disease. We didn’t want to see disabled people. We wanted to see healthy, fit bodies. So, we became even more anti-fat, and terms like the “R-word” began resurfacing. This moment isn’t just about vitriol; it’s about the desire to dismiss disabled and fat people from public life.
JORDAN: A lot of anti-fatness came into play almost immediately as we saw fatness being blamed for COVID deaths. That is incredibly relevant when we talk about this health anxiety because when you tell people, “Oh, you’re going to die of COVID because you’re fat,” then of course, the cultural response is going to be “Okay. Well, I’m not going to be fat. I’m going to do everything in my power to not be fat so I don’t die and if I get COVID I can be okay.” Even though we know that that’s not how this works, that many thin, “healthy,” able-bodied people have died of COVID and many continue to suffer from the severe effects of long COVID.
MAYA: I would also add that COVID showed a lot of people how the government will abandon you. “If I don’t have health insurance, I better be fit and healthy. I can’t be fat because I can’t trust the state to take care of me.” This reflects the ways in which this country, focused on capitalist accumulation, is willing to sacrifice any human life that gets in the way of profit. I’m not sure how many people fully grasp the totality of it, but I think most folks have a basic understanding of the horrors of our healthcare system right now. Watching so many people drop dead in the early months of the lockdown made it clear: “I can’t be fat or disabled because, literally, the triage protocols are designed to let fat and disabled people die.”
JORDAN: Capitalism is comfortable letting us die, and the solution becomes spending $1,000 a month on a blockbuster drug. Even elevating this drug as a “magic” solution—people call it a magic drug, right? There are claims that it helps curb addiction, alcoholism, and so much more. The list goes on and on. People will tell you semaglutide can solve literally any problem you’re struggling with. And I think people need it to be true, for their sanity, because the reality is not so simple. We want it to be, “Oh, I take this pill or shot, and I’ll be healthy, and I won’t have to struggle.” But that’s just not true. We’ve seen this before—every 10 or 20 years, there’s a new magic drug. It just seems that critical thinking is missing here. We’re not questioning who benefits from this.
I see a lot of people acknowledging the damage of weight stigma while promoting semaglutides as a solution. And I think that’s really interesting because we’re acknowledging a systemic issue and then offering an individual solution for it. Charging people $1,000 a month for this individual solution to a systemic issue. Even if Ozempic were a solution—which it’s not—but following their logic, if they’re presenting it as the answer, Medicaid doesn’t cover Ozempic. Medicaid doesn’t cover any weight loss medication. And we know that people who live in poverty, statistically, are more likely to be fat. So we’re gatekeeping this magic drug from the people most impacted by what they call a disease. They’re saying, “You have a disease, here’s a magic drug to cure you,” but because you’re poor, we’re not going to give it to you. And why is that?
MAYA: Who’s it really for?

JORDAN: Eradicating fatness does not eradicate anti-fatness. And the reality is that fat people have always existed.
MAYA: There’s something I’ve noticed more and more in terms of anti-fat harassment online: “There’s Ozempic now, so there’s no excuse to look like that.” Now Ozempic has become more than what it actually is. It’s become this mythic drug with which you can lose half of your body weight instead of the reality of around 15 to 20 pounds. I think fashion does go hand in hand with our political moment. I’ve been reflecting a lot on Nazi Germany and the collaborators, and how brands like HUGO BOSS, which produced Nazi military uniforms, played a role. It’s interesting seeing figures like Ivanka Trump and Usha Vance dressed in custom couture for the presidential inauguration, especially after the 2016 Trump administration, when many fashion brands made a spectacle of saying they wouldn’t dress or collaborate with them. This election marked a big shift.
I want to talk about this shift, especially how it’s affected us as plus-size models. Since 2020, the introduction of Ozempic as a blockbuster drug, and the end of lockdown, we’ve seen a decrease in opportunities. There’s been a push to get rid of the “COVID-15” and return to normal, which has led to fewer jobs for plus-size models, fewer opportunities on the runway, and even models being dropped from agencies because there are no jobs for them. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.
JORDAN: I think it’s interesting because, after the start of the lockdown, there was a big push for increased representation of different body sizes. In 2021, it seemed there was more mainstream support for body diversity in commercials and larger companies. Then, it felt like a sharp backlash, as if they pushed too far. This is the trap of representation—when there’s representation without protections, without tangible changes, or without broad-scale education. We see this with transness as well. There’s representation of trans people, but particularly with trans women, this hyper-visibility leads to pushback through transmisogyny, especially for Black trans women, who are exposed to really serious violence.
MAYA: What you’re making me think about is that the uprisings of 2020, particularly the George Floyd and Breonna Taylor protests, that led to that brief moment of increased visibility. Black liberation, both in the U.S. and globally, opened the door for other movements to have space and gain attention. In this case, we’re talking about the performance of representation, but I think it still matters. The increased body diversity in 2020-2021, with more fat, disabled, trans, and darker-skinned models, is rooted in the work of the Black Freedom Struggle Black liberation is key to collective liberation and cannot be downplayed. As we already mentioned, anti-fatness is tied to anti-Blackness, so it makes sense that fat models also had that brief moment, as we saw brands perform their “diversity” with black squares and weak gestures. Ultimately, we know that despite creating diversity and inclusion roles and work plans, these changes have been rolled back in the past year. But the foundation of that brief moment is rooted in Black liberation.
JORDAN: Something that I have always found really frustrating in fat liberation spaces is the whitewashing of fat liberation through the mainstreaming of body positivity, where it’s seen as a cis white lady thing. When you actually engage with fat liberation work, it has always had its roots in Black liberation and the people who are producing the most pivotal texts in fat studies are fat Black queer people like Da’Shaun L. Harrison, Roxanne Gay, Kiese Laymon…
MAYA: It’s like the liberal dilution of that work.
JORDAN: That hyper-focus on representation leaves fat people vulnerable, because people don’t fully understand what they’re fighting for or against. We often name random fat influencers as our leaders, but they’re not equipped for this work. They’re not activists, nor have they studied liberation, especially fat liberation. It’s interesting who gets labeled as activists in this field. People, not necessarily you or I, allow ourselves to be continually let down by those who aren’t qualified. Just because someone has a million followers and is fat doesn’t mean they can tell you how to love yourself. “Tell me how to love myself” will never liberate you. It might give you tools to self-advocate, but it’s not the solution.
MAYA: It’s not about love. Institutions can’t love us. This is about systemic anti-fatness, it’s about whether we can live with dignity or have our lives cut short by others’ fat discrimination and neglect. I also want to uplift Andrea Shaw Nevins, who wrote The Embodiment of Disobedience. She doesn’t get enough credit for naming fat Black women’s contributions to the politics of fat liberation, almost 20 years ago.
We should also touch on anti-fatness in relation to militarism and imperialism, especially in this time of ongoing genocides. I want to bring up a Jerusalem Post article from October 2023 that discussed using the “stress from the Israel-Hamas war to lose weight.” I also want to address how the war on obesity, declared by the Bush administration in 2002 before the Iraq War, framed obesity as a bigger threat than terrorism in the United States. The U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona even called obesity “the terror within.”
JORDAN: The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on obesity, all of these quasi ‘wars’ are waged by the US government to keep us distracted, fighting each other so we don’t fight them. You’re telling me that while we’re witnessing multiple genocides the thing that we should be most focused on is keeping our bodies snatched?
MAYA: Meanwhile, people are starving a couple of miles away from you—being decimated— in fact.
JORDAN: I also think that there’s something in the government wanting the people to be comfortable starving: to keep people weak, to keep people in line, and to say “Don’t eat. It’s better for you.”
MAYA: The declaration of a ‘war on obesity’ frames fatness as an emergency because we need people to be fit—to be police officers or part of the military. The United States requires a steady supply of recruits for the military-industrial complex, which needs soldiers to keep the war machine running.
JORDAN: There is a billboard that I’ve seen many times in my life for bariatric surgery, where it is a before and after, and the before is just some fat guy, and the after, he’s in a fucking police uniform. They said the quiet part out loud: “Be skinny. Arm the state.” When we talk about Israel specifically, that’s also a country that has mandatory military service.
MAYA: Even the way Israelis talk about their military—claiming to have a bunch of vegans—reflects a focus on health and beauty. Discussions about their military might, particularly through the violence they enact on Palestinians through occupation, are bolstered by conversations about Israelis’ perceived health and beauty. The emphasis on “sexiness” and the popularity of white supremacist and fatphobic views on media platforms today support the maintenance of empire. Fatphobia, as an ideology, is a part of the upkeep of empire.
JORDAN: It’s common to see declarations of allegiance to white supremacy followed by hatred of fat people. Most recently, Kanye West’s tweets began with “I am a Nazi” and ended with “I hate fat woke bitches.” Even outside of Kanye, there’s an influencer who posted on TikTok saying, “I hate liberals, love Trump, and hate fat people.” Hatred of fatness is often central to these declarations.
MAYA: I would argue that fatphobia, anti-fatness, and ableism are symptoms of fascist, authoritarian ideologies, which are now consolidating in places like the White House and across Europe. Many nations are experiencing a new fascist turn. Fat and disabled communities serve as universal scapegoats, with people across the political spectrum—whether fascist or leftist—claiming they have no place in the revolution.
JORDAN: I see this often when discussing disability and fatness, where even people in the disability community say, “You did it to yourself,” implying no right to complain. For many, including me, disability and fatness are intertwined; my disability causes weight gain, and for many fat disabled people, inaccessibility stems from fatness, not just separate disabilities. Capitalism shifts the blame onto individuals instead of addressing the systems that keep us sick.
What does it mean to push back when culture has regressed in the way that it has, but also regressed and got smarter? When we’re seeing a sort of blatant co-option of the language of fat liberation, the language of liberation in general, I think we have to go back to the basics. We have to go back to education. We have to go back to having these conversations with people on a one- to-one level and meeting people where they are.
MAYA: To be frank, the pendulum has swung this way, and in 10 years we might see a swing back towards liberal diversity, or rather the liberal politics of representation and diversity with the next wave of movement organizing that happens in U.S. empire. I think then we’ll see a lot of the fashion industry, who at this moment are being outwardly fatphobic, pretend like they weren’t. There’s going to be a lot of revisionism.
There’s always going to be fat people here. Fat people have made it through multiple eras of regressive body politics. Fat people have been here and always will be because you can feed two people exactly the same way, and just because of different genetics and the diverse human experience, they will carry weight in different parts of their body. They’re not going to look the same. It’s the beauty of humanity, and fascism really tries to pretend like that’s not true: that we can get uniformity, we can get Nazi ‘Aryan’ beauty. As fucked up as that regime was—as horrific and unimaginable as the loss of life was—ultimately, this type of thinking does not work. You’ll never be able to eradicate fat and disabled people out of existence.
JORDAN: Obviously it’s so cliche, and everyone is saying it, but community really is key. We have each other. I’m not a pessimist, but fat people saw it coming. If I had a message for thin people, it would be to listen to fat people, listen to fat, Black, and disabled people specifically. This cultural moment should not have been a surprise to anyone, because it was not a surprise to us.
MAYA: Global pandemics have always led to increased ableism, fatphobia, and regressive body politics as people try to regain control after mass loss of life and widespread disability. This pandemic, in particular, has left millions with long COVID and new chronic disabilities, forced to create a new way of life that many are unprepared for. Instead of accommodations or a world that values disability justice, there’s been a move by the ruling class towards fear and control, with a push to return to normal by scapegoating fat and disabled people.
Like you said, it’s crucial to listen to those who’ve studied history and the work of long-time organizers. History doesn’t repeat itself, but it’s shaped by past choices. This articulation of authoritarianism and regressivism demonstrates that.
{
"article":
{
"title" : "Fatphobia in the Fashion Industry: maya finoh & Jordan Underwood Reflect on Regressive Culture",
"author" : "maya finoh, Jordan Underwood",
"category" : "interviews",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/fatphobia-in-the-fashion-industry",
"date" : "2025-03-21 17:36:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/05.jpg",
"excerpt" : "",
"content" : "Reflecting on the cultural shifts we’ve seen since the rise of Ozempic as a blockbuster drug, we are two agency-signed fat models who have been actively working in the fashion industry for years, interviewing each other on the state of plus-size modeling. As models over a US size 22, we have borne the brunt of anti-fatness in the industry over the years and have also experienced the ramifications of cultural body preference shifts on personal and professional levels. Our photo story utilizes both bright colors and more neutral genderqueer aesthetics to shine a spotlight on the outcast beauty that is the fat form which has been increasingly pushed out of public life, despite being depicted as an image of abundance in many cultures historically.Through interviewing each other, we hope to examine the current move in fashion and culture back to almost Y2K levels of ultra thinness (e.g., the decrease in curve models on the runway, many curve models getting dropped from their agencies, the constant vitriol on social media directed at visibly fat folks, and the declaration that the ‘BBL era’ is over) and how it’s connected to systemic fatphobia stoked by health anxiety and the desire to return to normalcy after years of the COVID-19 pandemic.The fashion industry is one of the first cultural spheres to manufacture bias against certain body types, facial features, and so on via style trends. Anti- fatness has been and continues to be used as a tool of militarism (as seen through the presidential fitness test, and the Bush Administration’s declaration of a ‘War on Obesity’ in 2002). With authoritarianism rising globally, we posit that publicly naming these regressive trends is the first step as media can be a tool to either perpetuate these systems or disrupt them. Ultimately, we hope this conversation offers readers some possible tools to fight against anti-fat bias in their own lives.MAYA FINOH: I had a longtime interest in modeling. I would think to myself, “Oh, I would love to model” because I’ve loved fashion since I was a tween. But I don’t think it was until I moved to New York and met a community of creatives—Black, queer, and trans artists especially—that I felt like this dream or this vision of me as a fat Black model in the industry could become a reality. For non-essential workers, the COVID-19 lockdown offered the space to focus on hobbies, creative dreams, and other endeavors that you wouldn’t have time to nurture otherwise. So I was lucky to connect with people who were entering their photography practices at that time, who would say to me “Let’s do a test shoot. I just want to shoot.”I began to post those photoshoots online and then folks from the Parsons MFA Fashion Design & Society Program reached out to me about a class they had about designing inclusively. I had to go to Parsons consistently for a semester and had the clothes that student designers made fit to my body, which was cool. It was a lovely experience being a plus-size fit model, and from there, I started to get asked to do more modeling gigs. I believe it was in July 2021, that my mother agent found me on Instagram, and I became a signed model from there.When did you become a model?JORDAN: I always loved fashion. I was that kid that had little outfit sketches on the back of all my papers, and I always loved getting my picture taken, which is kind of funny, I don’t know, kind of cringe, but people always told me that I was really photogenic, which, maybe is fatphobic. I don’t know. “Pretty face” syndrome. That’s neither here nor there. I was always fat, and growing up during the “thin is in” era of the 2000’s, I didn’t really see modeling as a possibility for me. When I moved to New York in 2014, I briefly looked into modeling agencies that had plus size talent on their rosters, but at that time, it was incredibly rare to see a model under 5’7” signed, and I’m 5’4”. So, I tabled that idea.After graduating in 2018, I was focused primarily on my career as an actor but started doing some modeling on the side. In November 2018, my agent posted a casting call looking for models with no size or height requirements. A friend sent it to me, and I submitted a few headshots and a video of me dancing on a whim, not thinking that anything would come from it. I signed with them that same week, and I’m still with that agency today. That was a huge turning point for me.When the pandemic hit, theatres closed and I had to shift gears. I had more free time, so I started creating content online. That really helped boost my modeling career. Many of my test shoots and content I was creating on my own were getting shared, and I was able to make connections with brands through social media. Now, my career is about 50/50—half through my agent, half through social media. For plus-size models, especially those of us above a size 20, social media can be crucial because big brands often aren’t looking for models like us. I find it interesting how the fashion industry seems to want to be bold and innovative and critique oppressive systems, while also so often supporting and reinforcing white supremacist hegemony with their artistic and casting choices. — JordanMAYA: You know, I love that you took a chance and applied to that agency just to see what would happen. Within a week, you were signed, and now here we are. I want to focus on the “thin-is-in” era, the Y2K fatphobic era 20 years ago. It’s wild to think about how much fatphobia was normalized. You could be a size eight or whatever, like Jessica Simpson or Raven-Symoné, and be considered the fattest thing in the world. And now we’re regressing back to that. What about this particular socio-political moment makes you think—or rather, makes you know—we’re regressing?JORDAN: That’s so funny, because I had a very similar question for you: Do you see any differences between the “thin-is-in” fads of history and the current moment we’re in with the rise of Ozempic as a blockbuster drug?I feel like we asked kind of the same question. For me, now everything is so steeped in neoliberal feminism. You see things like the Hims & Hers ad that was aired during the Superbowl this year. There is an explicit co-option of the language of fat liberation. The language of, specifically, Black radical thinkers has been misappropriated to sell weight loss products, and push anti- fat ideology. These companies slap this language of liberation on top of the same anti-fat rhetoric we’ve witnessed for decades in an attempt to trick us into thinking that they are “body positive” and critical of the anti-fatness of the early 2000s, all the while telling us to literally buy into the very system that they are pretending to critique.MAYA: Absolutely. I feel like what you’re getting at is that neoliberal feminism, more commonly known as choice feminism, is allowing people to say, “It’s my choice to use this drug that’s meant for diabetic bodies for weight loss.” Let’s start there. Fundamentally, Ozempic was made for people who have a chronic illness and they’re now experiencing shortages trying to get it, so there’s a lack of regard for diabetic people and their needs in the use of this drug solely for weight loss. There’s also this delusion within choice feminism, a belief that choices can exist without the input of the superstructure of society around us. These choices don’t happen in silos, or a bubble, completely absent from influences. Our choices are impacted by fatphobia and other systems of oppression whether we like it or not.JORDAN: I think it’s important to note that these conversations are happening all the time on social media in comment sections, on TikTok and Instagram and Substack, and always have been. I came to fat liberation through Tumblr in the 2010s but in the 2000s these conversations were being had on LiveJournal and in zines and at places like the NOLOSE conferences. I recently read an article where someone said, and I’m paraphrasing, “The difference between the 2000s thin-is-in moment, and now is that now we’re having these conversations.”The reality is that people have always been having these conversations, and I think that it’s really disingenuous, or rather, when people say that I find that they are shining a light on their own ignorance to the history of fat liberation and liberation movements in general. Because these conversations have been happening literally forever. Even when talking about the history of body positivity and fat liberation, we go back to the civil rights movement where, many fat Black women who were leaders in that time were talking about anti- fatness as oppressive system that exists under white supremacy. I’m thinking specifically about people like Audre Lorde, Fannie Lou Hamer, and Johnnie Tilmon.MAYA: Yeah, I always go back to Hunter Shackelford’s definition of fat liberation and how we can’t untie it from anti-Blackness. So in that regard, fat liberation started in the cargo hold of the slave ship. The first acts of rebellion towards fat liberation were the acts of insurrection and rioting that enslaved Africans did on the slave ship. So I absolutely agree.JORDAN: I see a lot of people, at least when talking about Ozempic, be it via the Hims & Hers commercial or anywhere else that this conversation pops up, I often do see a lot of defensiveness from people, specifically people who have diabetes, bring up the original intended use of the drugs. I see a lot of people who take Ozempic or semaglutides, whatever the mode is, get very dug into the pathology of fatness, saying, “Oh, well, you don’t know what it’s like to be ‘obese’ and have the disease.” I’ve always found that self pathologization really interesting. They are pathologizing their own experiences, obviously, because doctors or whoever have told them to, which is so interesting too, in this current moment, because of the way in which we’ve seen, “obesity” be designated as a disease and then not disease, and the medical community going back and forth. We see flip-flopping from the people who have dedicated their lives to ending fatness as something that exists, period. Medically, and culturally, there seems to be a desire to pathologize fatness, to view being fat as a sickness, but at the same time, we see this consistent critique of a lot of fat activists’ work where people will claim that we’re conflating fatness and disability. So then my question becomes, is fatness a disability? Or is it not?MAYA: It is. My fatness can be disabling! If I don’t get certain accommodations a place or environment can become inaccessible to me.JORDAN: And that only seems to be a problem when we say it, and when we ask for accommodations for our disabilities as fat people, whether our disabilities are related to our sizes or not. The people who are the most entrenched in anti-fat ideology really grip to this idea that they are pro-science, but some of the loudest anti-fat voices I’ve encountered online come from people who are not only ignoring the decades of research that we have on the negative health outcomes that fat people face due to weight bias in medicine, but are also coming from people supporting politicians who are blatantly anti-vax and deny climate change.MAYA: What you’re bringing up makes me think about the difference between the 2000s “thin-is-in” and this 2025 era of regressive body politics, which now has an authoritarian turn, or rather, a new adaptation of a regime in office.In the Hims & Hers commercial, I found it interesting and Ericka Hart pointed this out, that they used “This is America” by Childish Gambino. I have many critiques of Childish Gambino and that music video, especially its disregard for Black life, but it’s telling that they chose a song meant to critique police brutality and the mass murder of Black people to sell a product related to Ozempic. I think this highlights a major difference between the early 2000s and 2025—a new kind of co-optation, minimization, and disrespect of Black cultural identity.Black culture is now pop culture in the U.S., and the way we talk about it has changed. In the past year or two, we saw media declaring an end to the ‘BBL era,’ which symbolizes a rejection of bodies that have been stereotyped and associated with Blackness. The Brazilian butt lift, for example, has ties to the eugenics movement of Brazilian plastic surgeons, who aimed to take traits from Indigenous Brazilians and Afro-Brazilians they deemed worthwhile and apply them to lighter-skinned, white Brazilians. So many plastic surgery techniques originating from Brazil were attempts to strip their society of Blackness and Indigeneity while preserving specific “desirable” aspects of those communities. Many people who claim to be pro-science and anti-vax are still promoting racial pseudoscience about fatness. The hatred of fatness doesn’t come from a concern for health—it’s rooted in racism. — mayaSabrina Strings, in her book Fearing the Black Body, explains how anti-fatness as a coherent ideology is born out of racism. Fatness was used as a signifier to justify chattel slavery—those Black Africans deemed “fat” were labeled as greedy and lazy, and therefore undeserving of freedom. This marked them as people who deserved to be governed, enslaved, and colonized. The connection between pseudoscience about fatness, white supremacy, and anti-vax ideology has centuries of history aligned with white European hegemony and racial hierarchy.JORDAN: And it’s admitted pseudoscience, right? Adolphe Quetelet who invented the BMI literally said (paraphrasing), “This is not to be used to determine health. This is for statistics. This is not for medical use.” That man was a proud eugenicist; he was literally a race scientist.MAYA: Can I circle back to part of our question, about how you think the fashion industry in this particular moment is complicit, aiding and abetting this regression and this increase of fatphobia and all other forms of disregard for bodies that are not white, thin and able-bodied?JORDAN: When we talk about body politics and body fascism translating into the fashion industry, the industry likes to think of itself as a trendsetter. But I don’t know how much I buy that, especially right now. The fashion industry is almost always a reflection of our politics and culture. That’s not to say there aren’t people in the industry—Black and brown designers, queer and trans designers, disabled designers, fat designers—who are pushing boundaries and making statements through their art and fashion as political commentary. But in this current moment of Ozempic, things have really shifted.New Year’s 2023, there was a noticeable shift in the industry. I think a lot of us saw it coming, especially given how the conversations around fatness started changing when Ozempic was introduced. A lot of people predicted this moment, including Imani Barbarin, who was creating content back in 2020 warning us about ableism and fatphobia as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic.MAYA: I definitely felt that. I think COVID-19, this global pandemic, opened the door to intense anxiety around health. There was also this desire to return to normal after the lockdown, even though the pandemic is still ongoing. But after the end of lockdown, people craved a return to normalcy. It’s also this desire to go back to simpler, more “innocent” times. That translates into wanting ultra-thinness, wanting whiteness. Particularly, there was a push to see healthy and fit bodies after millions of people died and we had to slow down during lockdown. We didn’t want to see sickness or disease. We didn’t want to see disabled people. We wanted to see healthy, fit bodies. So, we became even more anti-fat, and terms like the “R-word” began resurfacing. This moment isn’t just about vitriol; it’s about the desire to dismiss disabled and fat people from public life.JORDAN: A lot of anti-fatness came into play almost immediately as we saw fatness being blamed for COVID deaths. That is incredibly relevant when we talk about this health anxiety because when you tell people, “Oh, you’re going to die of COVID because you’re fat,” then of course, the cultural response is going to be “Okay. Well, I’m not going to be fat. I’m going to do everything in my power to not be fat so I don’t die and if I get COVID I can be okay.” Even though we know that that’s not how this works, that many thin, “healthy,” able-bodied people have died of COVID and many continue to suffer from the severe effects of long COVID.MAYA: I would also add that COVID showed a lot of people how the government will abandon you. “If I don’t have health insurance, I better be fit and healthy. I can’t be fat because I can’t trust the state to take care of me.” This reflects the ways in which this country, focused on capitalist accumulation, is willing to sacrifice any human life that gets in the way of profit. I’m not sure how many people fully grasp the totality of it, but I think most folks have a basic understanding of the horrors of our healthcare system right now. Watching so many people drop dead in the early months of the lockdown made it clear: “I can’t be fat or disabled because, literally, the triage protocols are designed to let fat and disabled people die.”JORDAN: Capitalism is comfortable letting us die, and the solution becomes spending $1,000 a month on a blockbuster drug. Even elevating this drug as a “magic” solution—people call it a magic drug, right? There are claims that it helps curb addiction, alcoholism, and so much more. The list goes on and on. People will tell you semaglutide can solve literally any problem you’re struggling with. And I think people need it to be true, for their sanity, because the reality is not so simple. We want it to be, “Oh, I take this pill or shot, and I’ll be healthy, and I won’t have to struggle.” But that’s just not true. We’ve seen this before—every 10 or 20 years, there’s a new magic drug. It just seems that critical thinking is missing here. We’re not questioning who benefits from this.I see a lot of people acknowledging the damage of weight stigma while promoting semaglutides as a solution. And I think that’s really interesting because we’re acknowledging a systemic issue and then offering an individual solution for it. Charging people $1,000 a month for this individual solution to a systemic issue. Even if Ozempic were a solution—which it’s not—but following their logic, if they’re presenting it as the answer, Medicaid doesn’t cover Ozempic. Medicaid doesn’t cover any weight loss medication. And we know that people who live in poverty, statistically, are more likely to be fat. So we’re gatekeeping this magic drug from the people most impacted by what they call a disease. They’re saying, “You have a disease, here’s a magic drug to cure you,” but because you’re poor, we’re not going to give it to you. And why is that?MAYA: Who’s it really for?JORDAN: Eradicating fatness does not eradicate anti-fatness. And the reality is that fat people have always existed.MAYA: There’s something I’ve noticed more and more in terms of anti-fat harassment online: “There’s Ozempic now, so there’s no excuse to look like that.” Now Ozempic has become more than what it actually is. It’s become this mythic drug with which you can lose half of your body weight instead of the reality of around 15 to 20 pounds. I think fashion does go hand in hand with our political moment. I’ve been reflecting a lot on Nazi Germany and the collaborators, and how brands like HUGO BOSS, which produced Nazi military uniforms, played a role. It’s interesting seeing figures like Ivanka Trump and Usha Vance dressed in custom couture for the presidential inauguration, especially after the 2016 Trump administration, when many fashion brands made a spectacle of saying they wouldn’t dress or collaborate with them. This election marked a big shift.I want to talk about this shift, especially how it’s affected us as plus-size models. Since 2020, the introduction of Ozempic as a blockbuster drug, and the end of lockdown, we’ve seen a decrease in opportunities. There’s been a push to get rid of the “COVID-15” and return to normal, which has led to fewer jobs for plus-size models, fewer opportunities on the runway, and even models being dropped from agencies because there are no jobs for them. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.JORDAN: I think it’s interesting because, after the start of the lockdown, there was a big push for increased representation of different body sizes. In 2021, it seemed there was more mainstream support for body diversity in commercials and larger companies. Then, it felt like a sharp backlash, as if they pushed too far. This is the trap of representation—when there’s representation without protections, without tangible changes, or without broad-scale education. We see this with transness as well. There’s representation of trans people, but particularly with trans women, this hyper-visibility leads to pushback through transmisogyny, especially for Black trans women, who are exposed to really serious violence.MAYA: What you’re making me think about is that the uprisings of 2020, particularly the George Floyd and Breonna Taylor protests, that led to that brief moment of increased visibility. Black liberation, both in the U.S. and globally, opened the door for other movements to have space and gain attention. In this case, we’re talking about the performance of representation, but I think it still matters. The increased body diversity in 2020-2021, with more fat, disabled, trans, and darker-skinned models, is rooted in the work of the Black Freedom Struggle Black liberation is key to collective liberation and cannot be downplayed. As we already mentioned, anti-fatness is tied to anti-Blackness, so it makes sense that fat models also had that brief moment, as we saw brands perform their “diversity” with black squares and weak gestures. Ultimately, we know that despite creating diversity and inclusion roles and work plans, these changes have been rolled back in the past year. But the foundation of that brief moment is rooted in Black liberation.JORDAN: Something that I have always found really frustrating in fat liberation spaces is the whitewashing of fat liberation through the mainstreaming of body positivity, where it’s seen as a cis white lady thing. When you actually engage with fat liberation work, it has always had its roots in Black liberation and the people who are producing the most pivotal texts in fat studies are fat Black queer people like Da’Shaun L. Harrison, Roxanne Gay, Kiese Laymon…MAYA: It’s like the liberal dilution of that work.JORDAN: That hyper-focus on representation leaves fat people vulnerable, because people don’t fully understand what they’re fighting for or against. We often name random fat influencers as our leaders, but they’re not equipped for this work. They’re not activists, nor have they studied liberation, especially fat liberation. It’s interesting who gets labeled as activists in this field. People, not necessarily you or I, allow ourselves to be continually let down by those who aren’t qualified. Just because someone has a million followers and is fat doesn’t mean they can tell you how to love yourself. “Tell me how to love myself” will never liberate you. It might give you tools to self-advocate, but it’s not the solution.MAYA: It’s not about love. Institutions can’t love us. This is about systemic anti-fatness, it’s about whether we can live with dignity or have our lives cut short by others’ fat discrimination and neglect. I also want to uplift Andrea Shaw Nevins, who wrote The Embodiment of Disobedience. She doesn’t get enough credit for naming fat Black women’s contributions to the politics of fat liberation, almost 20 years ago.We should also touch on anti-fatness in relation to militarism and imperialism, especially in this time of ongoing genocides. I want to bring up a Jerusalem Post article from October 2023 that discussed using the “stress from the Israel-Hamas war to lose weight.” I also want to address how the war on obesity, declared by the Bush administration in 2002 before the Iraq War, framed obesity as a bigger threat than terrorism in the United States. The U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona even called obesity “the terror within.”JORDAN: The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on obesity, all of these quasi ‘wars’ are waged by the US government to keep us distracted, fighting each other so we don’t fight them. You’re telling me that while we’re witnessing multiple genocides the thing that we should be most focused on is keeping our bodies snatched?MAYA: Meanwhile, people are starving a couple of miles away from you—being decimated— in fact.JORDAN: I also think that there’s something in the government wanting the people to be comfortable starving: to keep people weak, to keep people in line, and to say “Don’t eat. It’s better for you.” MAYA: The declaration of a ‘war on obesity’ frames fatness as an emergency because we need people to be fit—to be police officers or part of the military. The United States requires a steady supply of recruits for the military-industrial complex, which needs soldiers to keep the war machine running.JORDAN: There is a billboard that I’ve seen many times in my life for bariatric surgery, where it is a before and after, and the before is just some fat guy, and the after, he’s in a fucking police uniform. They said the quiet part out loud: “Be skinny. Arm the state.” When we talk about Israel specifically, that’s also a country that has mandatory military service.MAYA: Even the way Israelis talk about their military—claiming to have a bunch of vegans—reflects a focus on health and beauty. Discussions about their military might, particularly through the violence they enact on Palestinians through occupation, are bolstered by conversations about Israelis’ perceived health and beauty. The emphasis on “sexiness” and the popularity of white supremacist and fatphobic views on media platforms today support the maintenance of empire. Fatphobia, as an ideology, is a part of the upkeep of empire.JORDAN: It’s common to see declarations of allegiance to white supremacy followed by hatred of fat people. Most recently, Kanye West’s tweets began with “I am a Nazi” and ended with “I hate fat woke bitches.” Even outside of Kanye, there’s an influencer who posted on TikTok saying, “I hate liberals, love Trump, and hate fat people.” Hatred of fatness is often central to these declarations. MAYA: I would argue that fatphobia, anti-fatness, and ableism are symptoms of fascist, authoritarian ideologies, which are now consolidating in places like the White House and across Europe. Many nations are experiencing a new fascist turn. Fat and disabled communities serve as universal scapegoats, with people across the political spectrum—whether fascist or leftist—claiming they have no place in the revolution.JORDAN: I see this often when discussing disability and fatness, where even people in the disability community say, “You did it to yourself,” implying no right to complain. For many, including me, disability and fatness are intertwined; my disability causes weight gain, and for many fat disabled people, inaccessibility stems from fatness, not just separate disabilities. Capitalism shifts the blame onto individuals instead of addressing the systems that keep us sick.What does it mean to push back when culture has regressed in the way that it has, but also regressed and got smarter? When we’re seeing a sort of blatant co-option of the language of fat liberation, the language of liberation in general, I think we have to go back to the basics. We have to go back to education. We have to go back to having these conversations with people on a one- to-one level and meeting people where they are.MAYA: To be frank, the pendulum has swung this way, and in 10 years we might see a swing back towards liberal diversity, or rather the liberal politics of representation and diversity with the next wave of movement organizing that happens in U.S. empire. I think then we’ll see a lot of the fashion industry, who at this moment are being outwardly fatphobic, pretend like they weren’t. There’s going to be a lot of revisionism.There’s always going to be fat people here. Fat people have made it through multiple eras of regressive body politics. Fat people have been here and always will be because you can feed two people exactly the same way, and just because of different genetics and the diverse human experience, they will carry weight in different parts of their body. They’re not going to look the same. It’s the beauty of humanity, and fascism really tries to pretend like that’s not true: that we can get uniformity, we can get Nazi ‘Aryan’ beauty. As fucked up as that regime was—as horrific and unimaginable as the loss of life was—ultimately, this type of thinking does not work. You’ll never be able to eradicate fat and disabled people out of existence.JORDAN: Obviously it’s so cliche, and everyone is saying it, but community really is key. We have each other. I’m not a pessimist, but fat people saw it coming. If I had a message for thin people, it would be to listen to fat people, listen to fat, Black, and disabled people specifically. This cultural moment should not have been a surprise to anyone, because it was not a surprise to us.MAYA: Global pandemics have always led to increased ableism, fatphobia, and regressive body politics as people try to regain control after mass loss of life and widespread disability. This pandemic, in particular, has left millions with long COVID and new chronic disabilities, forced to create a new way of life that many are unprepared for. Instead of accommodations or a world that values disability justice, there’s been a move by the ruling class towards fear and control, with a push to return to normal by scapegoating fat and disabled people.Like you said, it’s crucial to listen to those who’ve studied history and the work of long-time organizers. History doesn’t repeat itself, but it’s shaped by past choices. This articulation of authoritarianism and regressivism demonstrates that."
}
,
"relatedposts": [
{
"title" : "Nature As the Battlefield: Ecocide in Lebanon and Corporate Empire",
"author" : "Sarah Sinno",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/ecocide-lebanon-chemical-warfare",
"date" : "2026-02-25 15:16:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/PHOTO-2026-02-25-13-34-24%202.jpg",
"excerpt" : "",
"content" : "Photo Credit: Sarah SinnoOn February 2, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)issued a statement announcing that Israeli occupation forces had instructed their personnel to remain under cover near the border between south Lebanon and occupied Palestine. They were ordered to keep their distance because the IOF had planned aerial activity involving the release of a “non-toxic substance.” Samples collected and analyzed by Lebanon’s Ministries of Agriculture and Environment, in coordination with the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL, confirmed that the substance sprayed by Israel was the herbicide, glyphosate. Laboratory results showed that, in some locations, concentration levels were 20 to 30 times higher than normal. Not to mention, this is not the first instance of herbicide spraying over southern Lebanon, nor is the practice confined to Lebanon. Similar tactics have been documented in Gaza, the West Bank, and Quneitra in Syria.While the IOF didn’t provide further explanation as to its purpose, these operations are part of a broader Israeli strategy to establish so-called “buffer zones” by dismantling the ecological foundations upon which communities depend. The deployment of chemical agents kills vegetation, producing de facto “security” no-go areas that empty entire regions of their Indigenous inhabitants. Cultivated fields are deliberately destroyed, soil fertility declines, and water systems become polluted. Farmers lose their livelihoods, and communities are forcibly uprooted. Demographic realities are reshaped, and space is incrementally cleared for future settlers. Simply put, these tactics function as a mechanism of displacement, dispossession, and elimination—and are importantly part of a long history of this kind of colonial territorial engineering.Glyphosate and Ecological HarmFor decades, glyphosate has been marketed as a formulation designed to kill weeds only and increase crop yields. But the consequences of its use on humans and the environment cannot be ignored: In 2015, Glyphosate was classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” and it has been associated with a range of additional health risks, including endocrine disruption, potential harm to reproductive health, as well as liver and kidney damage. In November of last year, the scientific journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology formally withdrew a study published in 2000 that had asserted the chemical’s safety.Beyond its human health implications, glyphosate is ecologically harmful. Studies have shown that it degrades soil microorganisms; others have linked it to increased plant vulnerability to disease. It can also leach into water systems, contaminating surface and groundwater sources. Exposure may be lethal to certain species like bees. Even when it does not cause immediate mortality, glyphosate eliminates vegetation that provides habitat and shelter for bees, birds, and other animals, disrupting food webs and ecological balance. What’s more, research indicates that glyphosate can alter animal behavior, affecting foraging and feeding patterns, anti-predator responses, reproduction, learning and memory, and social interactions.Despite a growing body of scientific literature highlighting its risks to both human health and the environment, and bearing in mind that corporate giants manufacturing such products have been known to fund and even ghostwrite research to promote the opposite, glyphosate remains the most widely used herbicide globally.The Monsanto ModelTo understand how it became so deeply entrenched, normalized within agriculture systems in some contexts, and used as a weapon of war in others, it is necessary to look more closely at the corporation responsible for its global expansion: Monsanto.Founded in 1901, Monsanto’s corporate history reflects a longstanding pattern of chemical production linked to environmental devastation. Over the past century, the corporation has manufactured products later proven harmful and has faced tens of thousands of lawsuits, resulting in billions of dollars in settlements.Among the products it manufactured were polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), synthetic industrial chemicals that were eventually banned worldwide due to their toxicity. Through their production and disposal, including the discharge of millions of pounds of PCBs into waterways and landfills, Monsanto contributed to some of the most enduring chemical contamination crises in modern history, the consequences of which continue to reverberate today.One of the most notorious cases unfolded in Anniston, Ala., where Monsanto’s chemical factory polluted the entire town from 1935 through the 1970s, causing widespread harm to the community. Despite being fully aware of the toxic effects of PCBs, the company concealed evidence, according to internal documents, a conduct that reflects a longstanding pattern of disregard for both environmental care and human health. Whether in the case of PCBs or glyphosate, the underlying logic remains consistent: ecological systems and communities are harmed in order to prioritize profit and, at times, territorial expansion.Monsanto also became the world’s largest seed company. Through the enforcement of restrictive patents on genetically modified seeds, the corporation consolidated unprecedented control over global food systems. By prohibiting seed saving, a practice upheld by farmers and Indigenous communities for millennia, it undermined seed sovereignty and compelled farmers to purchase new seeds each season rather than replanting from their own harvests. What had long functioned as part of the commons since the origins of human civilization, the foundational basis of food and life itself, was privatized. Monsanto transferred control over seeds from cultivators to corporations, further creating systems of structural dependency.What was once embedded in reciprocal relationships between land, seed, and cultivator is now controlled by the same chemical-producing corporations implicated in the degradation of land—as is the case of what is unfolding in southern Lebanon. Power is thus consolidated within an industrial architecture that, at times, prohibits the exchange and regeneration of seeds and, at other times, renders the land uninhabitable. In both cases, it undermines the ability to grow food and remain rooted in the land, thereby threatening the conditions necessary for survival.Chemical WarfareAlongside its record of manufacturing carcinogenic products, dumping hazardous chemicals into the environment, and contributing to the destruction of agricultural systems, Monsanto has also been linked to chemical warfare. During the Vietnam War (1962–1971), it was among the U.S. military contractors that manufactured Agent Orange, a defoliant used to strip forests and destroy crops that provided cover and food to Vietnamese communities.The chemical contained dioxin, one of the most toxic compounds known, contributing to the defoliation of millions of acres of forest and farmland. It has been associated with hundreds of thousands of deaths and long-term illnesses, including cancers and birth defects.Although acts of ecocide long predated this period, well before the term itself was coined, it was in the aftermath of Agent Orange that the word “ecocide” was first used to describe the deliberate destruction of ecosystems and began to enter political and legal discourse.The Vietnam War exposed a structural link between chemical production, corporate power, and a military doctrine in which ecosystems and farmlands are targeted precisely because they sustain human life. Nature, because it nourished, protected, and anchored Indigenous communities, was treated as an obstacle to military and imperial control. As a result, it became a battlefield in its own right.Capital and RuinThis historical precedent continues to reverberate today in Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria. Decades apart, these are not isolated acts of ecological destruction but part of a continuous trajectory carried out by the same imperial, corporate, and financial machinery.In 2018, Monsanto was acquired by Bayer. Bayer’s largest institutional shareholders include BlackRock and Vanguard, the world’s two largest asset management firms.Both firms have been identified in reports, including those by UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, as major investors in corporations linked to Israel’s occupation apparatus, military industry, and surveillance infrastructure. These include Palantir Technologies, Lockheed Martin, Caterpillar Inc., Microsoft, Amazon, and Elbit Systems.Mapping these financial linkages reveals how ecocide is structurally embedded within broader systems of violence that are deeply entrenched and mutually reinforcing. Ecocide and genocide are financed through overlapping capital networks that connect chemical production, militarization, and territorial control.The spraying of glyphosate over agricultural land in southern Lebanon must therefore be situated within this historical continuum. The same corporate-financial structure that profits from destructive chemicals and agricultural control is interwoven with the industries that maintain a settler-colonial stronghold."
}
,
{
"title" : "Nothing Is ”Apolitical”: Why I Refused to Exhibit at the Venice Biennale",
"author" : "Céline Semaan",
"category" : "",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/nothing-is-apolitical",
"date" : "2026-02-24 15:51:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_Apolitical_Venice_Biennale-19ed6f.jpg",
"excerpt" : "After October 2023, the art world felt comfortable discriminating against Arab artists and dehumanizing us when Israel began carpet bombing Gaza leading to a genocide . For a few years since that moment, many Arab artists saw their work rejected, refused, or cancelled from shows, publications, and galleries. But in 2025, the propaganda against Arabs began to be debunked and the world recognized that Israel was in fact a colonial military occupation decimating Indigenous people, and curiously, we started receiving invitations to participate in the art world again.",
"content" : "After October 2023, the art world felt comfortable discriminating against Arab artists and dehumanizing us when Israel began carpet bombing Gaza leading to a genocide . For a few years since that moment, many Arab artists saw their work rejected, refused, or cancelled from shows, publications, and galleries. But in 2025, the propaganda against Arabs began to be debunked and the world recognized that Israel was in fact a colonial military occupation decimating Indigenous people, and curiously, we started receiving invitations to participate in the art world again.In the middle of last year, I was invited to exhibit my work at the Venice Biennale as part of their Personal Structures art exhibition. But unfortunately, I found myself needing to decline the invitation due to their separation between artistic practice and political reality: An expectation, stated and implied, that the work remain “apolitical.”For many artists, this is understood as an important recognition in one’s art career, a symbolic entrance into contemporary art history. Venice confers legitimacy, visibility, and, for many of us, validation from a historically extractive, colonial arts system. It also functions, like all major biennials, as an instrument of cultural diplomacy, soft power, and geopolitical storytelling. So a representation at the Venice Biennale as a Lebanese artist means a lot on a political scale.The word “apolitical” was used as part of a response that the Venice Biennale curator sent to justify their position regarding centering Israeli artists. It was an attempt to make explicit that engaging with the ongoing violence shaping the present moment, including the mass killing and destruction in Gaza, is a personal choice. That art exists without consequence, an elevated ideal that has the privilege of existing outside reality.I couldn’t tolerate pretending art was separated from politics, when Israel continues to bomb Lebanon daily, erase and sell Gaza, and murders Palestinians almost on a daily basis. Not when, just this February, Israel proposed to install a death penalty for the abducted Palestinians in Israeli jails with complete immunity. We are living through a time in which bombardment, starvation, displacement, and civilian death are documented in real time. Images circulate instantly; testimony is archived before bodies are buried. The evidence is not obscured by distance or ambiguity, but rather, is immediate, relentless, and impossible to ignore. Yet cultural institutions claim ignorance or worse, voluntary exclusion. In such a context, neutrality is not a passive stance but an alignment with injustice.Moral clarity is non-negotiable for me. It is my anchor in a time where global forces are unveiling their corruption for the world to see. In shock and despair, overwhelmed by the intensity of the crimes, many remain silent. Motionless. Like deers in the headlights. Hence, the safe label of remaining apolitical.But the myth of the apolitical artist has always depended on their proximity to power. It is a luxury position historically afforded to those whose bodies are not directly threatened by the carceral order. For many artists—particularly those shaped by colonization, occupation, exile, or racial violence—the political is not a thematic choice. It is the ground of existence itself.Arab women artists have shown me the path to moral clarity, integrity, and honor. The Palestinian American painter Samia Halaby has long argued that all art is political in its relation to society, whether acknowledged or not. For instance, Mona Hatoum’s sculptural language, often read through the lens of minimalism, is inseparable from histories of displacement and surveillance. The body remains present even when absent, reminding viewers that aesthetics do not transcend geopolitics.The Egyptian feminist writer Nawal El Saadawi warned with unmistakable clarity: “Neutrality in situations of injustice is siding with the oppressor.” Her words emerged from lived confrontation with imprisonment, censorship, and patriarchal state violence. Neutrality was never theoretical to her, it was lethal.Black feminist artists and thinkers have articulated the same truth. Audre Lorde’s assertion—“Your silence will not protect you”—dismantles the illusion that withholding speech preserves safety. Silence is participation in the maintenance of power. Lorraine O’Grady’s performances exposed how cultural institutions erase entire populations while claiming universality, revealing that visibility itself can be a political rupture. These perspectives converge on a single recognition: Art does not exist outside power structures. It either interrogates them or reinforces them.We remember artists who refused neutrality because their work altered the moral imagination of their time. Artists like Ai Weiwei, whose work centers politics and identity, go as far as putting their own bodies in danger. We remember the cultural boycott of apartheid South Africa, when artists refused lucrative opportunities rather than legitimize a racist regime. We remember Nina Simone transforming grief and rage into sonic resistance. We remember the Black Arts Movement insisting that aesthetics could not be detached from liberation.We also remember the artists who accommodated power. History is rarely generous toward them. The contemporary art world often performs political engagement while it structurally protects capital, donors, and institutional relationships behind closed doors. Calls for “complexity” or “nuance” frequently operate as ways to avoid taking positions that might threaten funding streams or geopolitical alliances. Requests for artists to remain apolitical are risk-management strategies that prioritize donors’ comfort.The insistence that artists claim they “do not know enough” to speak while mass civilian death unfolds is abdication. It mirrors political rhetoric that justifies violence through ideology, nationalism, or divine authority. Both rely on belief systems that absolve responsibility. The role of the artist is not to decorate power. It is to feel reality—to alchemize collective experiences into forms that expand perception rather than sterilize it.Art is essential precisely because we are living through rupture. But essential art is not decorative. It is not institutional ornamentation detached from consequence. It does not require erasing humanity in exchange for belonging to elite cultural circuits. Refusing the Biennale was not a heroic gesture. In fact, I had no desire to write this piece to begin with. It was just a form of moral clarity. Moral clarity some can live without, but unlike them, I refuse to become numb. I want to exist with a deep connection to my own humanity, and to feel it all.Including this moment that forces us to reckon with our own privileges and position. No exhibition, no platform, no symbolic prestige outweighs the responsibility of responding honestly to the conditions shaping our world. Participation under forced neutrality in accepting the presence of genocidal entities such as Israel would have required fragmentation — an agreement to pretend that art exists outside the systems producing suffering, including settler colonial violence and military occupation.It does not. And I cannot fake it."
}
,
{
"title" : "ICE Attacks Are a Food Sovereignty Issue",
"author" : "Jill Damatac",
"category" : "essay",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/ice-interference-is-a-food-sovereignty-issue",
"date" : "2026-02-24 11:26:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/ice_food_soveriegnty.jpg",
"excerpt" : "Food inequality, like the carceral state, is not a bug, but a feature.",
"content" : "Food inequality, like the carceral state, is not a bug, but a feature.California National Guard troops face off with protestors during a federal immigration raid on Glass House Farms in Camarillo, Calif. on July 10, 2025. Photo Credit: Blake Fagan via AFPIn June 2025, ICE agents walked into Glenn Valley Foods, a meat plant in Omaha, Neb. and detained roughly half the workforce. Production sagged to a fraction of normal: Producers were already strained by drought, thinned herds, and high cattle prices. On paper and in headlines, the Trump administration claimed an enforcement success; on the plant floor, workers stayed home, choosing to lose wages rather than risk returning. Beef processors warned that if raids became routine, they would buy fewer animals, and bottlenecks would pinch slaughterhouses and feedlots. The systemic shock emerged in the price of ground beef, which edged, at one point, towards seven dollars a pound. Still, raids were sold to voters as proof of control, even as they paid more for food and meals.ICE actions against food workers, already exhausted and criminally underpaid, have a demonstrable effect on sky-high food prices and our tax dollars: Raids further strain an already fragile, extractive food production and service system by not only further funding violent carceral systems, but also our fiscal ability to put food on the table. And while it’s clear that much needs to be changed when it comes to how we treat food workers–from livable wages and health insurance to legal protections and affordable housing –one thing has not been properly acknowledged. ICE interference shapes how we eat and our ability to have food sovereignty.By definition, food sovereignty is, first and foremost, a claim to power. It is the right of communities, including immigrant food workers, to decide how food is grown, who profits from it, and what it costs. True self-determination means the land and our labor serve everyone, rather than corporations or government agencies. It means the price of food stays low and steady enough that working-class households eat well, that profits are shared so that small farmers, migrant workers, and food workers can live with dignity and comfort. But this is far from the reality we face today: with grocery and restaurant bills rising and food workers one threat away from deportation, what we are left with is a food system benefiting corporate interests, flanked by a carceral force wearing a false claim to justice as a mask.Immigrant food workers carry the nation’s appetite on their shoulders: According to a 2020 study by the American Immigrant Council, over 20% of food industry workers are immigrants. Within agriculture, 40-50% of workers are undocumented on any given year, while in the restaurant industry, undocumented immigrants are 10-15% of the workforce. Their work is in our carts, fridges, and pantries, on our restaurant tables, takeout counters, and drive-throughs. Workers are keenly aware that ICE knows exactly where to detainthem to hit their arrest quota: in fruit orchards and vegetable farms, meat processing plants, egg barns, dairy plants, grocery stores, restaurant kitchens, and even the parking lots where they gather at dawn, hoping to find work for the day. With agents detaining and deporting workers regardless of immigration status or criminal record, workers are scared into staying home, giving up precious income just to live another day. Meanwhile, fields go unpicked, stores scramble to cover shifts, and kitchens stall. Crews thin out rather than risk being taken, or, as in the case of Jaime Alanís García, are killed while fleeing an ICE farm raid.These calculations between fear and courage in the face of aggression are not abstract to me; they’re personal. My father was an undocumented immigrant who worked nights stocking a cereal aisle. He was given thirty-two hours a week, just shy of full-time, so the grocery store could avoid providing health insurance. When a new manager began to ask employees for identification, my dad and other undocumented co-workers quit, leaving the store scrambling to find people willing to work for minimum wage, nearly full-time, with no healthcare. These violent acts move through the food chain under the guise of “rising prices,” a surcharge in our grocery carts and restaurant bills.The U.S. government has played with the lives of immigrant food workers many times before. Under President Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression, “Mexican repatriation” campaigns deported hundreds of thousands of Mexicans and Mexican Americans, many of them farmworkers recruited in boom years, as officials caved to white workers, who were both unwilling to cede the work to immigrants or to take on the low-paying farm jobs themselves. Filipino farmworkers, known as the Manongs, were treated similarly: in the 1920s and 30s, Filipino workers slept in crowded bunkhouses, were paid low wages, worked through illnesses such as tuberculosis, and were given no path to citizenship, even though the Philippines was then a U.S. territory. In January 1930, white mobs in Watsonville, Calif. hunted Filipino men, beat them, threw them off bridges, and shot and lynched them. Soon after, California banned marriage between Filipinos and white people, and Congress slashed Filipino immigration to a token quota. The food industry has long built itself on brown people’s labor while the law denied them basic human rights. At the root of it all is a sinister plantation logic: a nation’s wealth and abundance built on enslaved Black people’s labor and deprivation. It’s just new bodies in the fields, now.Today’s arrests and deportations are a continuation of this very logic: exploited migrant workers are still denied basic rights and protections while the food industry that employs them grows, year on year. Many lack legal status; many more live in mixed-status families. Using the excuse of “border security,” ICE and DHS agents press on that vulnerability by design. As a result, fear of ICE enforcement becomes a cost itself, narrowing what people can afford and where they can eat. These enforcements, carried out without input the food industry or local communities, and often against their will, directly impact our food sovereignty—how people determine the way food is grown, distributed, made, and served, as well as how workers within the food industry are paid and treated.Take summer 2025 as an example: ICE raids swept through produce fields around Oxnard in California’s Ventura County, arriving in unmarked vehicles (and sometimes helicopters) at the height of harvest. The raids spread, so crews went into hiding: one Ventura County grower estimated that roughly 70% of workers vanished from the rows almost overnight, leaving farms heavy with rotting produce and no one to pick it. Economists modeling removals of migrant farmworkers from California estimate that growers could lose up to 40% of their workforce, wiping out billions of dollars in crop value and raising produce prices by as much as 10%.These losses are passed on to communities and households, obfuscating why and how the increases happened in the first place. The American consumer is consequently exploited, too, absorbing the real labor cost of detentions and deportations. In Los Angeles, immigration sweeps in June 2025 hit downtown produce markets and surrounding eateries; vendors called business “worse than COVID” as customers vanished and supplies wasted away in storage. In January 2026, along Lake Street in south Minneapolis, immigrant-run spots like Lito’s Burritos and stalls at Midtown Global Market, a popular food hall in downtown Minneapolis, saw revenue plunge due to ICE enforcement, forcing them to cut hours, or close altogether. In nearby St. Paul, Minn., El Burrito Mercado shut down after its owner watched agents circle the building “like a hunting ground.” Meanwhile, four ICE agents ate at El Tapatio, a restaurant in Willmar, Mn. Hours later, they returned after closing time to arrest the owners and a dishwasher. Hmong restaurants and Mexican groceries across the Twin Cities have gone dark for days or weeks at a time, suffocating the local economy, leaving consumers with shrinking access to food, and small business owners with no revenue while their employees go unpaid.If food sovereignty means real control over how food is grown, distributed, and accessed, it must begin with the safety of the workers holding the system up. Workers’ wellbeing is not ornamental: it is the precondition for steady harvests, stable prices, and an affordable Main Street. Federal and state legislation must build strict firewalls between labor and immigration enforcement so that workers can file complaints, call inspectors, or take a sick day without fear. Laws can enforce and extend safety protections, wage standards, and the right to unionize. This can only happen with comprehensive immigration reform: A durable legal status and a path to citizenship for food and farmworkers would help immigrant families break the old pattern of being extracted for labor while being denied the basic right to stability.There are also infrastructures that must be abolished to truly achieve food sovereignty: specifically, the burgeoning immigration detention industrial complex. The Big Beautiful Bill allocated $75 billion dollars, spread over four years, to ICE, funding the expansion of private prison facilities. Alongside the nation’s existing prison industrial complex, the immigration detention industrial complex has become a key economic driver, albeit one that benefits only a few, such as shareholders in CoreCivic and Geo Group, two of the nation’s biggest private prison companies.Food inequality and lack of food sovereignty, like the carceral state, are not bugs, but features: soaring food, housing, and healthcare costs, voter discontent, and public unrest form a feedback loop, reinforcing the manufactured narrative scapegoating immigrant and migrant workers. If enough Americans believe that immigrants are to blame for the high prices in grocery stores and restaurants, no one will pause long enough to scrutinize the corporations (and owners) who stand to profit.Should legislators have the courage to change the infrastructure that allows these inequities to occur, the hands that harvest, pack, cook, serve, and wash would be fairly recognized as part of the nation they feed. Because fear and imprisonment should never be priced into the dinner table. Everyone can—and should be able to—eat."
}
]
}