Episode Archives

Ep 7 – IRL – In Real Life

Episode description: Is dating in real life dead? In this episode we look into the the rise of online dating and discuss if dating in real life from start to finish is even a thing anymore. We welcome a special guest! Sophia joins us to give her perspective and strategies for dating from the perspective of someone that has been off the market for 10 years and is just getting back into the scene. For those of you that are over online dating, we provide tips for changing up your dating approach.


We start the episode by reviewing the history of online dating and the websites and apps that have shaped the future of dating. You can read the entire article here.

The milestones at a glance:

  • Match launched in 1995
  • AIM launched in 1997
  • eHarmony launched in 2000
  • OKCupid 2000s
  • Tinder’s arrival in 2012

Now that we have spent dating online for over 20 years, economists have looked into the impact online dating has made on society. These are the findings:

  • more than ⅓ of marriages start online
  • There is evidence that suggests that relationships that start from online dating lead to stronger and more diverse marriages
  • The economists examining the trends are Josué Ortega and Philipp Hergovich. They are looking at the data on how marriages and relationships are forming. The have found that online dating tools may actually be helping more people get together in new ways.

We talk about these findings and infuse our perspective of what we find interesting.

Sophia, Westley, Maddie, and Lina D all share their personal experiences with dating online and in real life. Sophia gives her perspective on the importance of having a dating strategy so that you don’t waste your time. We also talk through the pros and cons of dating in real life. You will want to listen to the entire episode, but here are some teasers:

  • My last relationship and most recent situationships started online but I feel like I’m a harsher judge with those guys on the onset and just expect bullshit. Since the connection happened online, I am more skeptical. -Maddie
  • I think the benefits of meeting in real life are more intangible. There is an element of security tied to meeting someone in person. You feel an instant attraction and know the chemistry is real. This makes you more driven to get to know that person. -Lina D
  • Meeting in real life is better because the catfish factor is non-existent. -Westley

And to wrap this episode Maddie provides her tips for getting off the apps and putting yourself out there to meet people in real life.  

Ep 6 – Stay Out Of My Uterus

Bold & Bawdy Episode 6

Stay Out of My Uterus


Episode Description:

In this episode we talk about reproductive rights and how the Trump administration has made shady moves that threaten women’s health and reproductive liberty. Get informed and take action, the midterm elections are just around the corner.   


Maddie opens the episode with a state of of affairs for women since Trump took office, and

questions why so many decisions tied to women’s sexual rights are made by 90% old white men. Lina D can’t stand the multiple conversations led by men regarding what women should be doing with their bodies. Westley talks about his fear of Handmaid’s Tale becoming a reality in this political environment.

Trump, Pence, the administration and Congress had already targeted women in the first 100 days in office. Read below for a quick recap of the issues. Want to learn more? Read this article from Planned Parenthood.

  1. Trying to Strip Maternity Care to Help Pass the ACA Repeal Bill: Pence and the House Freedom Caucus negotiated to revive the failed ACA repeal bill by giving states the option to eliminate plan coverage of the essential health benefits (EHBs). EHBs are core health care services that the majority of plans must cover under ACA. This includes maternity and newborn coverage, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and prescription drugs. This proposal eliminates maternity care, reduces women’s access to birth control, and raises insurance costs for women. It would create a situation where women may not be able to prevent pregnancy and get medical care once they’re pregnant.
  2. Undermining Protections for Title X, the Nation’s Family Planning Program: Title X is a law passed in 1970 by Nixon. It was the first federal subsidy to help lower-income families obtain access to birth control which started in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty.” Nixon thought the subsidies were not adequate and they were expanded. On March 30, Pence cast a vote in the Senate to dismantle President Obama’s rule protecting access to basic health care services through Title X and then Trump signed the bill into law. Under the Obama administration, the rule allowed for patients to have access to critical Title X care from the most qualified family planning provider available, regardless of whether it separately provided abortion services. Under the new law, anti-women’s health state politicians can block patients with low incomes from getting care from reproductive health care providers, including Planned Parenthood because they also provide safe, legal abortion.
  3. Confirming Anti-Abortion Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court: 63% of voters agree with the landmark Supreme Court decision on abortion, while 31% disagree. There is a small gender divide on the issue, with women agreeing on the decision at 65% and men just four points behind. On April 7, Trump’s allies in the Senate voted to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court by a thin vote. Gorsuch’s judicial record threatens reproductive health and rights. Over the next few years, the Supreme Court could rule on laws that undermine access to basic health care, target the LGBTQ community for discrimination, and deny the essential right to safe and legal abortion. Justice Gorsuch has a history of going to extraordinary lengths to interfere with reproductive health and rights, and his alarming record and judicial philosophy leave no doubt that he will vote to restrict access to abortion.


We also cover the most recent policy

  • proposal by Trump administration to bar clinics that provide abortion services or referrals from receiving family-planning funds
  • This Impacts the $260 million Title X program- which provides basic primary and preventive services for low-income women and families.
  • The defense used is that this will ensure that taxpayers do not “indirectly fund abortions.”
  • The program could lead to doctors not being allowed to discuss comprehensive health-care options.
  • Planned Parenthood, which serves 41% of the 4 million people who get care through the program, could lose as much as $60 million in funding.


The Story in Iowa– a case study that shows the impacts to how Title X funds will be blocked

  • 4 Iowa centers closed, drops the state’s number of clinics to 8 effective June 30 and disrupts care for some 15,000 patients.
  • Gov. Terry Branstad signed legislation into law in May, so that Iowa could decline $3 million in federal Medicaid money that funded family planning. The state declined the funding dollars on the grounds it did not want to funnel taxpayer money into abortion services
  • BUT funds are rarely used for abortion. It pays for other treatments a person might seek at a gynecologist or a urologist. People impacted might not be able to afford those visits otherwise.
  • Centers closed:
    • Sioux City, served 4,810 patients
    • rural Keokuk center, served 1,871 people and existed as the sole provider for 92% of family planning patients from surrounding Lee County in 2015
    • Burlington center, served 4,187 patients and offers crucial care to a medically underserved population
    • Quad City, Bettendorf center, served 3,829 patients.


The Facts on how the funding is used

  • Planned Parenthood receives over $500 million from the federal government each year in the form of Medicaid reimbursements and Title X grants.
  • Title X applies only to family planning: contraception, pelvic exams, HIV testing, pap smears, cancer screenings, all for impoverished and low-income patients seeking services at a publicly funded clinic.
  • It never funds abortion, but Trump gave states the go-ahead to withhold Title X funds from family planning entities that offer abortion services anyway.
  • Medicaid, is only used to pay for abortion when an unwanted pregnancy results from rape or incest, and when a pregnancy threatens the life or health of the mother.
  • Exceptions are rare: 2010 saw 331 Medicaid-funded abortions. For reference, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention logged 765,651 abortions for 2010.
  • In 2015, publicly funded clinics in Iowa helped prevent 11,000 unintended pregnancies and 4,000 abortions.


Know the Issues and Get Involved



What do you know about the issues related to:

  • Abortion
  • Birth Control
  • Fighting Pregnancy Discrimination
  • Paid Family Leave





Episode 5 – Family Separation at The Border: A Recap

Episode Description: The past few months have been a constant barrage of tweets, breaking news headlines, and articles about the “immigration crisis.” This administration has had no shortage of excuses when it comes to directing blame and skirting accountability for the separation of families at the border. So what statements are fact and which ones are fiction? Listen to this week’s episode to get a recap of the events and learn what sides of this issue still require our attention and call for us to stay involved to prevent further infringement of human rights.


We briefly talked about this topic in our first episode of the season (Woke in Review) and we wanted to revisit the topic to provide you with a better account of what has been happening. There has been so much that has happened and the administration has not been honest about what is happening.

During our conversation it was interesting to find that the three of us had learned about the family separation issue at different times. Maddie spoke about how she heard about it earlier in 2018. She was keeping up with the deportations and rhetoric around it but the family separations wasn’t really in the forefront till the pictures came out of the kids in the detention centers. Westley first heard of it back in February and the issue did not entirely catch Lina D’s attention until she saw a headline that positioned the issue as if the kids were being rescued from human trafficking situations. This was in May and her bullshit meter went off especially since Session’s Zero Tolerance policy had taken effect on April 6th.

Let’s do a recap of the situation and take a look at the chronology of events.

The articles below were used as a resource.

The Intercept: The U.S. Has Taken More Than 3,700 Children From Their Parents — And Has No Plan For Returning Them

Politifact: What You Need To Know About The Trump Administration’s Zero-tolerance Immigration Policy

CNN: The Remarkable History of The Family Separation Crisis

The Timeline

  • April 6, 2018: The “zero tolerance” policy orders authorities to criminally prosecute all individuals crossing the border illegally- includes asylum-seekers and parents arriving with small children.
  • April 2018 to May 2018: 1,995 children reported to be separated at the border
  • May 26, 2018: Trump tweets that the democrats are to blame for a “law” that separates families at the border. The tweet reads:

Put pressure on the Democrats to end the horrible law that separates children from there* parents once they cross the Border into the U.S. Catch and Release, Lottery and Chain must also go with it and we MUST continue building the WALL! DEMOCRATS ARE PROTECTING MS-13 THUGS. 9:59 AM – May 26, 2018

*Spelling has been maintained from the source

  • May 2018 to June 2018: Additional 2,342 children were reported to be separated. This is in addition to the approx 1,500 children that were separated from Oct 2017 to earlier this year.
  • June 20, 2018: Trump signs executive order to stop separating families at the border

There is a lot here that we should fact check so let’s start with fact checking Trump’s statement about the “law.”

There is no such democratic law that is separating families- it’s actually the zero tolerance policy that is enabling the separations. Zero tolerance ends up criminalizing all adults who cross the border illegally. That means that children cannot remain with their parents once they are charged.

Trump has made mention of “loopholes” that have contributed to the “immigration crisis”

What exactly is he referring to?

  • Flores v Reno: 1997 court settlement requires the government to release children from immigration detention either to their parents, relatives or protective programs.
  • 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act signed by Bush made this a law
  • 2015 a federal judge in California ruled that Flores requirements apply to unaccompanied minors and to children apprehended with their parents. The judge also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to release parents detained along with their children.

The Trump Administration reversed these protections with Zero Tolerance Policy.

We talk through what was happening with families at the border prior to the Trump administration:

  • Before Trump came into office, families were detained together, sent back immediately or paroled into the country
  • Prosecutions were rare: cost, time-consuming, previous administrations felt broad use of the ‘prosecute-first’ option was needlessly harsh, only used for repeat offenders
  • Now, prosecution is happening across the board and has become the uniform policy.

We mention how the administration started plotting the implementation of this policy

  • considering separating families at the border since the early months of his presidency
  • harsh treatment deter illegal immigration- John Kelly, then the Homeland Security secretary

The area that isn’t being considered by the administration and is not being elevated enough, is the traumatic impact these events have on the children.

  • children who are traumatized by that separation
  • traumas they suffered along the migration journey or in their country of origin
  • hundreds of immigrant children were placed in state foster care facilities across the country.
  • parents will have a difficult time proving their right to reunification.
  • Once in foster care the kids become wards of the state. They have their care and custody decisions handled by state welfare agencies and then by a state court.
  • Parents are given an opportunity to prove their ability to take care of their kids but due to their undocumented status this proves difficult. Especially because the courts  consider a parent’s undocumented status and their willingness to cross the border illegally as proof of parental unfitness sufficient to terminate parental rights.
  • For deported parents seeking reunification with their children, the prohibition on re-entry can be a major hurdle. It means parents cannot enter the U.S. to contest the termination of their parental rights. If parents do attempt re-entry after deportation they risk arrest, which further hampers their efforts to be reunited with their kids. Courts have repeatedly confirmed that an undocumented immigrant’s motivations for illegal reentry are irrelevant, and thus treat deportation as abandonment.

We reference the story of Alejandra and Temo Juarez to make a case for becoming informed about what is happening in our country and stress the importance of staying on top of what policy changes mean. You can read more of the story in the article: Chicago Tribune: Facing Deportation, Wife Of U.S. Marine Chooses To ‘self-deport’ To Mexico

So to inform you on the latest policy and the implications that it has on the ongoing immigration conversation we disset what has happened since the signing of the executive order.

CNN: What Trump’s Family Separations Executive Order Does

  • maintain family unity,” a new position from the administration which had been defending the separation of families and blaming the families themselves for putting themselves in the position of being separated by crossing the border illegally
  • adults will not be turned over to the Justice Department when they face criminal charges, and will instead stay with their children in detention with the Department of Homeland Security.
  • Justice Department will continue to prosecute adults who cross the border illegally in federal court, the order says, Trump asks that families be housed together “where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources.”
  • Called out that family cases would be prioritized
  • Seeks to change the policy dictated by Flores v. Reno
  • Didn’t require families to be reunited but court order from San Diego judge ordered that the administration reunite all children with their families by July 27th
  • some 700 children remain in youth shelters.
  • government says some of the parents are not eligible to be unified. Some have criminal records, or they’re locked up in county jails or state prisons. And then, there are hundreds of parents the government has lost track of. They were released into the U.S., or they’ve already been deported back to Central America.

What can we do to take action and stay involved?

The Cut: What You Can Do Right Now to Help Immigrant Families Separated at the Border

The Rolling Stone: 5 Things You Can Do to Fight Family Separation Right Now

  • Volunteer at organizations that support intake along the border
  • Donate to nonprofits
  • Contact your elected officials
  • Vote


Want to read more about this topic? Take your pick from the articles below.  

The Washington Post: Fact-checking Immigration Spin On Separating Families And 1,500 ‘lost’ Children

CNN: Us Lost Track Of 1,500 Immigrant Children, But Says It’s Not ‘legally Responsible’

Politifact: Donald Trump Blames Democrats For Own Immigration Policy Separating Families

USA Today: Trump Signs Executive Order On Immigration, But Says ‘zero Tolerance’ Will Continue

PBS: Trump Administration Seeks To Close Immigration ‘loopholes’

NBC News: Judge Orders U.S. To Reunite Families, Stop Border Separations

Episode 4 – Boycott For What

Boycott For What


Episode Description: In today’s social media dominated world we see outraged calls for boycotts when brands, companies, or celebrities take part in actions that reflect tone death opinions, appropriate cultures, or misrepresent reality. But how committed are we to these calls for boycotts? In this week’s episode we recount the role boycotts have played in history and discuss the evolving role that boycotts have in society today.    


So what is a boycott? According to Webster, boycott refers to an action in which one engages in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (a person, a store, an organization, etc.) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions. In today’s world, it feels like there is a call for a boycott almost everyday. Social media has facilitated this given the ease and rapidness of information transfer. But before we dive into the boycotts of today, let’s talk about the role boycotts have played in history considering the fact that social media did not exist back then.

Maddie kicks off the history lesson by recounting the details of her favorite boycott- the Boston Tea Party. Lina D expands upon the history of the Grape Boycott and Cesar Chavez.  This is a noteworthy boycott because it reflects how widespread the force of this type of action had and it highlights the length of commitment to a cause. The grape boycotts took place between the 1960’s and continued to surface until the 1980’s. If you want to read the full deep dive given by Lina D in the episode see below. You can also read about other boycotts in this PBS article.

Cesar Chavez & The Grape Boycott:

  • He was born to immigrant parents and in 1939 he moved to California with his family to work various fields up and down the state
  • He encountered working conditions that he would dedicate his life to change: wretched migrant camps, corrupt labor contractors, meager wages for backbreaking work, bitter racism.
  • He drew from the of civil rights movement, insisted on nonviolence, relied on volunteers from urban universities and religious organizations, allied himself with organized labor, and used mass mobilization techniques such as a famous march on Sacramento in 1966 that brought the grape strike and consumer boycott into the national spotlight.

Chavez founded the National Farm Workers Association in 1962. His union joined with the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee in its first strike against grape growers in California, and the two organizations later merged to become the United Farm Workers.

  • Although the first contracts were signed in 1966, there were many more years of strife. In 1968 Chavez fasted for 25 days to protest the increasing advocacy of violence within the union. Victory came finally on July 29, 1970, when 26 Delano growers formally signed contracts recognizing the UFW and bringing peace to the vineyards.
  • Fast forward to 1984 when Chavez inaugurated an international boycott of table grapes in response to the grape industry’s refusal to control the use of pesticides on its crops

Boycotts played a large role in changing unfair conditions. We take a look at how effective boycotts have been with a special lens to the efficacy of consumer boycotts today. You can also read this article that explores the times that company boycotts work.   

  • “Boycotts are rarely the precipitating factor for change. Rather, they bring attention to an issue and signal the magnitude and intensity with which a group feels a particular way,” Schweitzer said. “In most cases, a small minority of people call for a boycott that the wider community fails to support by taking substantive action.”

Let’s take a look at some modern day boycotts that have actually worked. In response to the HB2 bill passed by North Carolina, the NBA announced on July 21, 2016, that the league would move its 2017 All-Star Weekend from Charlotte to New Orleans. The loss of revenue to North Carolina was estimated at $100 million. You know that drove some change when this action hit Charlotte’s bottom line. Then in 2017 we saw NFL viewership drop 9.7% with the Kaepernick boycott. In a boycott of Arizona immigration legislation, the liberal polling firm Center for American Progress wrote a 2010 report called “Stop the Conference” that estimated that Arizona lost $45 million in convention business because of a boycott called after passage of SB 1070. This law targeted illegal immigration.

Although historically they’ve been successful we have to consider if social media is watering down the effectiveness since everyone and there momma can demand a boycott. We talk about social media’s role in boycotts by choosing to make an example of recent calls for boycotts. Here is where we give our 2 cents:

  • H&M
  • Dove
  • Starbucks: 106,920 mentions of #BoycottStarbucks posted across social platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram from Saturday through Monday.
  • Kanye:
    • Said that slavery was a choice on May 1, 2018
    • large crowds were expected to greet the debut of Kanye West’s fashion label’s collaboration with Australian sportswear brand 2XU. The line boasted $375 bike shorts and $415 neoprene leggings. A 2016 Yeezy launch in Sydney had found fans lining up around the block, but this time, according to The Sydney Morning Herald, customers were a no-show and the event was shut down after just 45 minutes.

Lina D is a proponent of speaking with your dollars. If you are currently giving financial support to an entity that does not align with your values, you should reconsider. Although you might think that it is only 1 voice, you would be surprised about the impact it can have.

After a review of these events, we ask ourselves “how long are boycotts meant to last?” Listen in to hear our opinions. We also provide our thoughts on what the solution should be long term. What are your thoughts?

Episode 3: The Move In: A Look at Cohabitation Trends

Episode Description: Are you thinking about taking the next step and moving in together? Listen to this episode to get all sides of the story. Cohabitation can be a scary step and it may not be for everyone. We talk about the pros and cons of cohabitation and look into the most recent trends.


What is cohabitation? It’s a situation in which a couple chooses to live together and have a sexual relationship. Cohabitation has been defined as “two unrelated persons of the opposite sex who share common living arrangements in a sexually intimate relationship without legal or religious sanction.”

Lina D opens up the episode by discussing how she was raised to think about cohabitation. Growing up in a Salvadoran household meant there were strong views against cohabitation. Her mom believed that marriage before sex was a requirement so living with the boyfriend was out of the question. She gives a recount of how her parents always talked negatively about cousins that were cohabiting and having kids. Interestingly enough, they were less concerned about people who were living together without kids but there was still an element of judgement. Lina D talks about the words (in Spanish) that are used to describe the partner: el marido or el mari-novio which was said in such a tone that showed a type of disdain and disapproval for the situation. What’s worse, is that women somehow lost their identity when they decided to move in with their significant other. All of the sudden they would be referred to as “la mujer.” Maddie and Westley explain how in Haitian culture they weren’t as judgemental but it was still preferred that couples get married before they decided to live together.

Maddie and Westley also share their views on cohabitation. Maddie would never do it because it would get in the way of her leading a celibate life. Westley agrees that his upbringing led him to believe that only married couples should live together, but when he was young he said he would only do it if he felt something special for the person. Westley and Lina D then discuss how they came about deciding to move in together.

So what are the stats around living together? We take a look at Pew Social Trends and find that one-in-four parents living with a child in the United States today are unmarried. “Driven by declines in marriage overall, as well as increases in births outside of marriage, this marks a dramatic change from a half-century ago, when fewer than one-in-ten parents living with their children were unmarried (7%).” Trends show that fewer Americans are getting married, and that it’s becoming more common for unmarried people to have babies. In 1970 there were 26 births per 1,000 unmarried women ages 15 to 44, while that rate in 2016 stood at 42 births per 1,000 unmarried women. Meanwhile, birthrates for married women have declined, from 121 births per 1,000 down to about 90. This one came as a shock to Lina D- you should listen to the banter between Maddie and Lina D. In 1997, the first year for which data on cohabitation are available, 20% of unmarried parents who lived with their children were also living with a partner, now that share has increased to 35%. Pew Research found some interesting trends tied to age. Roughly half of those living with an unmarried partner are younger than 35. Since 2007, the number of cohabiting adults ages 50 and older has grown by 75%.


We discuss our views on whether cohabitation is bad. Some studies have shown that living together prior to marriage most likely ends in divorce, but more recent studies show the opposite- cohabitation alone isn’t the culprit for divorce. According to this Time article living together doesn’t totally keep people from divorce, but it isn’t the marriage killer it was once thought to be. Here are some interesting facts surfaced by this article:

  • What leads to divorce is when people move in with someone – with or without a marriage license – if they aren’t mature and either choose incompatible partners or conduct themselves in ways that threaten the longevity of a relationship.
  • Economist Evelyn Lehrer (University of Illinois-Chicago) says the longer people wait past 23, the more likely a marriage is to stick. Her analysis shows that for every year a woman waits to get married, right up until her early 30s, she reduces her chances of divorce.
  • 70% of all women aged 30 to 34 have lived with a boyfriend and many are educated and wealthy.

Maddie talks about the reasons why she would never consider moving in with someone before marriage. Ladies if your priority is to get a ring put on it, then listen to the episode to help you sort out your stance on the issue. Maddie offers great advice. She also references an article from Probe and explains how those who live together before they get married are putting their future marriage in danger.

Obviously living together isn’t a one size fits all issue. Make sure you listen to this episode and inform yourself on the different points of view.

Ep 2 – Pura Vida: Rethinking Work-Life Balance

Pura Vida: Rethinking Work-Life Balance

Episode Description:

In this episode we dissect the concept of work-life balance and provide our tips for achieving healthy balance and working smarter in corporate America. If you haven’t heard the term “Pura Vida” it is a way of thinking embraced in Costa Rica, and it refers to having a perspective to life that evokes a spirit that is laid back and optimistic. Take that concept and apply it to how you view your work life and we start moving in a direction that is healthier and more productive.


According to Wikipedia, work-life balance is the concept that an individual needs to balance time allocated for work and other aspects of life. Areas of life other than work-life can be, but not limited to personal interests, family and social or leisure activities.

We talk about the different areas that impact work and personal life from our experiences, and we also look at general trends in the U.S.

If you didn’t know, there are studies that look into high level trends in the workplace.  We looked at Gallup’s State of the American Workplace 2017, and according to that study, 53 percent of employees say that it is “very important” for them to have a role that allows them to have greater work-life balance and better personal well-being. While that may sound like a good stat, you have to wonder, why don’t more people value better balance?

We answer that question throughout this episode and come to the conclusion that a piece of it is due to generational differences. Generations that came prior to the millennial workforce, came up the ranks and worked in environments where long work hours were the norm. Priorities have shifted and the younger generations are looking for more balance and shifting how they think about work and life.

Below are some of the areas we discuss.  We give tips to those that feel like navigating a well balanced life and career is difficult to pursue in practice.  

  • Kids v. No Kids: parents aren’t the only people that need flexible working arrangements. Those of us without kids want it too!
  • Leaving Vacation on the table (AKA why aren’t you going on vacation?!?!): Project Time-Off’s 2017 Under-Vacationed America Report found that 54 percent of Americans did not use all their vacation time- 662 million vacation days went unused. As active workforce members, it is up to us to place the intended value on vacation time and take vacation. Those that don’t prioritize taking vacation are contributing to work cultures where work supersedes time off.
  • Dads are entitled to Paternity leave: Regardless of how dads were classified (as “egalitarian, divided or traditional” in their parenting role) in the 2017 Boston College Center for Work & Family’s Study: The New Dad: The Career-Caregiving Conflict, researchers found that ALL working dads want more time with their children.  And that is across all generations, from Millennials to Gen X to Baby Boomers.
  • The Millennials Workforce: the 2017 Deloitte Millennial Survey found that 82 percent of those taking the survey expressed a positive impact on overall wellbeing, health and happiness, and an 81 percent impact on their productivity when their employer fosters an environment of flexibility.


Want more reading material?


The Evolving Definition of Work-life Balance

Where Trends Need to be Going at a Faster Speed Work-Life balance is a myth

The most compelling work life balance trends in the US so far (2017)

Ep 1 – Woke In Review

Episode 1: Woke in Review

In the first episode of Bold & Bawdy we talk about the importance of staying woke, especially in today’s America. Trump’s coming into the presidency has awaken and embolden the spirit of racism in this country. We take a walk through the history of oppression that blacks have faced and highlight many of the events that are oddly similar to what is happening today in 2018.  


So what is woke?

Staying woke comes from “stay awake,” and it means to stay informed of the shitstorm going on in times of turmoil and conflict, specifically on occasions when the media isn’t focusing on the real issues.

We did some research to give you a recap of the history of systemic injustices and America’s commitment to keeping racism alive. It is said that “America’s original sin is racism.” The history of blacks in America started with slavery, followed by Jim Crow laws, then segregation, and then to today’s not-so-invisible hands guiding housing and education policy, the wage gap, health disparities, how banks give loans. And we can’t forget police brutality, food insecurity and disinvestment in black and brown communities. You can read this article about overt racism.

In history, the most overt acts of racism happened during the Jim Crow era (1877- 1950’s)

Lynching was a socially acceptable way to resolve anything and everything whites were angry about in relation to the free blacks. In the south, people were blaming their financial problems on the newly freed slaves that lived around them. From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States, these are only the recorded numbers but we know that many were never recorded. You can read more in this NAACP article.

Another act of overt racism was the Race Riots. They are described as a “pattern of racial violence” that emerged in which white mob assaults were directed against entire Black communities. They were caused by a great number of social, political and economic factors. Joseph Boskin, author of Urban Racial Violence observed that there were certain general patterns in the major twentieth century race riots, we summarize them below and you can access the original article here for more.

  1. In each of the race riots, with few exceptions, it was white people that sparked the incident by attacking Black people.
  2. In the majority of the riots, some extraordinary social condition prevailed at the time of the riot: prewar social changes, wartime mobility, post-war adjustment, or economic depression.
  3. The majority of the riots occurred during the hot summer months.
  4. Rumor played an extremely important role in causing many riots. Rumors of some criminal activity by Blacks against whites perpetuated the actions of white mobs.
  5. The police force, more than any other institution, was invariably involved as a precipitating cause or perpetuating factor in the riots. In almost every one of the riots, the police sided with the attackers, either by actually participating in, or by failing to quell the attack.
  6. In almost every instance, the fighting occurred within the Black community.


The importance of social media

“Historians of the 1960s talk about how the media of the time helped establish a “new common sense” about race in America. I think the new common sense being established now is that   racism and the struggle against it do not exist somewhere in the distant past; racial activism didn’t end after King and the Black Panther Party. Technology has helped make today’s struggle feel both different from and continuous with the civil rights era. All the terror and greatness we associate with that moment is right in front of our faces, as near to us as our screens.” You can read more in the Wired article.

We talk about the role that social media plays today in allowing us to stay informed and how it is an effective way to stay connected to the cause. It also provides a platform to expose those that are racist.


Things we need to stay woke about in 2018

We wrap up the episode by highlighting many of the areas that should be on your stay woke list.


  • ICE scandals including the arrest of 2 American women for speaking spanish in public and the 1500 undocumented children that are unaccounted for since they were taken in from the border


  • So we just calling cops on everyone?

Nationwide trend of police militarization

  • Images on the news of police wearing helmets and masks, toting assault rifles, and riding in mine-resistant armored vehicles are not isolated incidents
  • Unjust killings of black people by police should have been enough to prompt significant, nationwide reforms years ago. But it hasn’t been enough. Read more here.

Ep 0 – Meet Bold & Bawdy

This is our intro episode. We keep it short and sweet and introduce ourselves and what you can expect from Bold & Bawdy. If you haven’t listen to us before come and get a taste of our personalities, meet Maddie, Lina D, and Westley.

Ep 50 – Season Finale

The series finale of No Free Drinks is here! In this episode we recap all of our favorite moments, topics, episodes, and listener comments. In true NFD style, we keep it real and stay telling em why we mad! Don’t forget we will be back next week, same place, same time with the season premiere of Bold & Bawdy.

Ep 49 – The Goal Diggers

Changes are coming! In our episode last week we gave a preview of some of the changes that are coming for the podcast. Now we dive into more details and reveal what to expect in the coming weeks. Consider this our unveiling episode. To make sure you walk away with something of value we walk through the changes using the goal setting process we used to determine our new path. We talk about how to set goals and hold yourself accountable so that you can make progress.

What is a goal setting process? It is when you set goals & check in to make sure you are actually making progress.
We talk about the goal setting process we used to evaluate the direction of No Free Drinks.

Goal 1: Build a podcast called No Free Drinks started as “Not Your Ordinary Dating Podcast” where we wanted to challenge societal norms and expectations that are placed on men and women when it comes to dating, relationships, and sex.
Our evaluation: We invested in ourselves and the podcast to build our expertise. We went to Podcast Movement, Podcaster Meetups, and NY Sex Expo. When we evaluated the areas that we have expertise on to credibly speak on the podcast, we concluded that by focusing only on the dating, relationships, sex we were limiting ourselves. We can bring more value to our listeners if we expand the scope of what we talk about.
Takeaways: Define what you want to do and commit to it. Invest in yourself so that you are prepared to bring the goal into fruition.

Goal 2: Create an inclusive and safe space to drive meaningful conversations that introduce different perspectives
Our evaluation: As the podcast grew we wanted to have other conversations that didn’t fit into the sex, dating, relationship buckets- which is why we started talking about mental health and the Me too movement. These were topics that were meaningful to us but live outside of the topic areas we had defined for ourselves. We had a goal to be the experts in dating, relationships, and sex but we took a step back and realized that we have experiences and stories that go beyond the buckets we had predefined for the podcast. As we evaluated this goal we realized that we had grown beyond the scope we had defined for ourselves and if we were going to truly foster an inclusive environment we needed to present ourselves in a way where we were bringing all of ourselves into the conversations. We felt like we were missing the mark because we wouldn’t speak on certain topics because they didn’t fully fit with dating, relationships, and sex but they were important to us. By expanding the topics we speak to we are also empowered to spend more time fostering the conversations and interacting with other podcasters.
Takeaways: Assess your goals and don’t be afraid to re-evaluate them and change direction.

Goal 3: Build a brand that is known for challenging the norms when it comes to dating, relationships, and sex. We want people to know what we stand for and is it obvious to everyone else on first glance.
Our evaluation: When we ask, “what do we want you to walk away with when you interact with us” we saw that No Free Drinks wasn’t fully capturing the essence of who we are. So to hold ourselves accountable to achieving our goals, we are going to change our name to better capture who we are, introducing
Bold and Bawdy
Definition according to webster:
bold: adjective a: fearless before danger: intrepid b: showing or requiring a fearless daring spirit bawdy: adjective a. obscene, lewd b. boisterously or humorously indecent
Takeaways: Set a goal, evaluate, and if you are falling below expectations, there is no shame in re-establishing and changing direction. Don’t think you are starting over- you have already made progress, it’s worse to give up completely.

Do you have trouble setting goals and holding yourself accountable?.
Here is our checklist for helping you set realistic goals and holding yourself to them:
How do you bring your vision to life so that you can connect with the direction you need to go to?
These tools help: vision boarding, soul searching, journaling, self reflection
Start with developing SMART goals that will help you bring your vision to life- this is a tool we have used in the workplace and is effective when thinking about your personal goals
Specific (simple, sensible, significant).
Measurable (meaningful, motivating).
Achievable (agreed, attainable).
Relevant (reasonable, realistic and resourced, results-based).
Time bound (time-based, time limited, time/cost limited, timely, time-sensitive).
Have milestones: these help you break up all your goals into manageable bite sizes and keeps you on track
Have check points: these are meant to track your progress as you work towards your milestones. It makes it easy for you to stay accountable.
Communicate: share out with your team, advocates, etc. on where you are. This is also a good time to take a step back and see if your progress is in line with that big picture strategy you set in the beginning.