May 19, 2025 • 47 mins
Is it fair to want your significant other to 'light up with excitement when you get home'? A seemingly innocent statement from an Australian podcast has unleashed fierce debate online - Mia, Jessie and Holly unpack.
Plus, Australian Fashion Week has just wrapped and gosh weren't the designs gorgeous. Just kidding, we have no idea what was actually showcased, but we can offer a detailed explanation on all the influencer drama from behind the scenes.
And finally, Taylor Swift has had a week from hell. Between receiving a subpoena, a possible friendship breakdown with Blake Lively and being dragged into a messy Hollywood court case, we're betting her publicist Tree Paine needs a day off.
What To Listen To Next:
- Listen to our latest episode: Celebrities Are Spruiking Their Boob Jobs. Everyone Cool With That?
- Listen: Divorce Gifts & Text-Snooping Partners: We Have Thoughts
- Listen: Um, Who Are You Calling A Narcissist?
- Listen: The Most Mocked Woman In The World
- Listen: What If Love Never Finds You?
What to read:
- Justin Baldoni claimed Blake Lively extorted Taylor Swift. A judge has just thrown out his letter.
- In the Justin Baldoni, Blake Lively and Taylor Swift case, someone is lying. Here's how we'll learn the truth.
- A fashion expert just shared the 15 wardrobe essentials everyone needs.
GET IN TOUCH:
Feedback? We’re listening. Send us an email at outloud@mamamia.com.au
Share your story, feedback, or dilemma! Send us a voice message
Join our Facebook group Mamamia Outlouders to talk about the show.
Follow us on Instagram @mamamiaoutloud and on Tiktok @mamamiaoutloud
Mamamia acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the Land we have recorded this podcast on, the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation. We pay our respects to their Elders past and present, and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures.
Become a Mamamia subscriber: https://www.mamamia.com.au/subscribe
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
You're listening to a MoMA Mia podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Mamma Mia acknowledges the traditional owners of land and waters
that this podcast is recorded.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
On micro trend. Final Boss is basically like asking someone
who is the biggest fashion victim? Who is someone who
falls for every little trend? And it's not something you'd
be see Stoke.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
It's me. I was gonna say, it's Mia and her
shoe jewelry.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
What I was going to say is that there's only
one person in Australia who wouldn't have an issue with
that title, and it's Maya Friedman.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Hello, and welcome to Mamma Mia. Out Loud. It's what
women are actually talking about on Monday, the nineteenth of May.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
I am Holly Waynwright, I'm Maya Friedman.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
And I'm Jesse Stevens. And did you know we did
a live show on Saturday night in Sydney And did
you know that out louders flew in from Singapore. They
flew in from another country to come and see our extravaganza.
And we have not received a complaint yet from.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
Them, and from New Zealand, from Tasmania and from all
over Australia. And my goodness, We had a good time,
but this Thursday night it is Melbourne's Turney you excited me.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
I'm super excited. Before we start the show, though, a
special shout out to the out louder who had a
little bit of a tumble. She'd have a tumble in Sydney.
And luckily you probably don't know this, but my dear
friend Justine, who the character of Lucy is modeled on
in strife, she's a doctor and she was there with
her husband who's also a doctor, and their son, who
(01:40):
is a med student, and they all came to the rescue.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
They did, And I think that there's a rumor going
around that she did ignore medical advice and she stayed
for it too. And that's how out louders play it,
that's how they live.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Not that we advise such things. Please follow the advice
of your doctor while enjoying out loud. But anyway, on
the show today, the podcast that started a storm about
the energy a woman's job brings into the house. Also,
while Australian Fashion Week brought the off catwalk drama and
this week Taylor Swift got served a subpoena and lost
(02:16):
a friend, Mia explains the latest seemingly fatal blow in
the Blake Taylor Baldoni mess.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
But first, in case you missed it, the Sussexes Harry
and Meghan had the junior Beckham's Nicola and Brooklyn over
for dinner. The dinner was held last weekend or the
weekend before, timing slightly unclear, at the Sussex's Montecito residence
and was described as an intimate gathering, though it included
(02:42):
around twenty to twenty five guests, including many VIPs and
film executives. Brooklyn and Nicola were not apparently directly invited
by Harry and Meghan. Someone wanted to clarify to the media,
probably Harry and Meghan, but they were brought along through
mutual acquaintances, which is surely further proof that their version
of intimate when you're a celebrity is different to ours.
(03:05):
In other news, that could be a coincidence, Princess Kate
wore a Victoria Beckham suit to a pup engagement last week. Holly,
can you please translate for us what all this means?
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Well, the reason that we're excited about this and trying
to decode it is obviously we talked about this recently
but Brooklyn Beckham appears to have been cast out of
the Beckhams a little bit. And who would have more
wisdom to impart on how to deal with an estrangement
from your high profile family than Prince Harry. So it
does seem to have been some kind of a summit.
(03:34):
But this is delicious and also, Meir, I love that
you brought that because it is a little bit of
a fashion this. David Beckham is a well known monarchist.
He queued up to see the Queen lying in state.
They were at both royal weddings. They were at Wills
and Kate's wedding and Harry and Meghan's wedding. He is
a big king guy, David. So it's interesting that Princess
(03:54):
Kate chose to wear a Victorian suit, or at least
we're all obsessed with this. But one of my favorite
details from this whole thing is, as you say, me
at the dinner was supposedly intimate and blah blah, and
who the source that told People magazine about it. There's
a clue here where the last line of that story said,
according to the source, Brooklyn and Nikola had a wonderful
(04:15):
time and found Harry and Meghan to be particularly kind, caring,
and generous. I think maybe that comes from within the
House of Sussex.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
Follow the break cram.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
Can I just say that I reckon Hidden within this
story is a profound life hack, which is you never
want to position yourself as good at having guests over.
I think the three of us have really lowered people's
expectations when it comes to coming to our home. But
when you have a Netflix series about making little moments
(04:52):
next to the beds of guests and putting your dried
flower pedals on things, and you cook special cakes and
you make special cocktails, the expectations are too high. I
would be having a panic attack if I was Meghan
and I had guests coming over.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
It's true, how much I think your fancy depends on
whether I've peeled the four all the way off the
homeless so whether I'm leaving it on just to push
back when you've got it.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
Absolutely, in case you missed it, there is a way
to gently stop someone who talks way too much. An
article in The Washington Post explains that there are lots
of reasons that a person might talk too much. Alison
woodbrooks she is an associate professor at Harvard Business School.
She was interviewed in this article, and she said that
(05:33):
self disclosure can feel as good as chocolate or having sex.
So it is addictive to just talk about yourselves. We
all know that can feel good. Sometimes we do it
five times a week. Over talking can also be rewarded socially,
and in extreme cases, over talking might be caused by
conditions like ADHD, autism, bipolar, or social anxiety. So how
(05:58):
might we stop it? Some people might be wondering, Well, firstly,
consider the dynamic, because if you find yourself in repeated
situations with an overtalk, you might be the problem. Maybe
you're not talking enough, maybe you're asking too many questions.
It's a dynamic. You've got to consider your own partner.
(06:19):
But if you do, think no, this person is an
over talker. Apparently we should start with a bit of empathy. However,
honesty is the best policy. So do you want to
know what you're meant to say? I do?
Speaker 2 (06:32):
I definitely need to know.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
According to this writer, here's what you should say. I
know you like to share your opinions and ideas, but
I think sometimes you annoy people.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
That seems really harsh. I was thinking about over talkers
I know, and if I said that to them, I
think they'd be upset me too.
Speaker 3 (06:50):
So she says, maybe that's too harsh, so you can
try this instead. You are such a great storyteller, but
I think you would benefit from asking questions. You can
learn a lot that way. Also passive aggressive. She also
has some other suggestions because she says that you could
use humor right, humor always breaks the eye little bit.
How about WHOA? You have a lot to say about that? Oh,
(07:14):
I think you just talked without pause for seven and
a half minutes.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
These are all mortifying, Jesse, They're all mortifying.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
I'm sorry, but if I said this to any of
my friends, they wouldn't be my friends anymore. It's an
awful way to talk to someone. The only other advice
she had, which I think actually might be a good one.
You know, you can get an over talker on the
phone sometimes, she says, create a hard stop, so when
you answer the phone, you say, hey, I've got to
walk the dog in ten minutes, but yep, tell me
what you wanted to say, and then create a hard stop. Maya,
(07:44):
what do you think of this advice? Too harsh?
Speaker 1 (07:47):
I don't wish to comment. Do you notice I quiet
I've been in this segment, I did a test. There
was a test that was linked to in this article
about how to tell if you talk too much. I
didn't really need to take the test, but I did,
and I was pretty much off the charts. And I
think the diagnosis was a compulsive communicy. But I've kind
(08:12):
of built a career on that. So you know, I
talk when I'm tired. I talk too much when I'm anxious.
I talk too much as a way to deflect.
Speaker 3 (08:22):
Do you ever maya see signs in other people and
you go, oh, I think I've been talking too much.
Do you ever pick up on little social cues?
Speaker 1 (08:30):
No?
Speaker 3 (08:32):
How about you, Holly?
Speaker 2 (08:33):
This is so interesting. Well, I couldn't do the test
because I couldn't do the adding up, which is a
whole different problem that I have. And I've decided that
you two know me better than I know myself anyway,
So you know whether or not I'm an over talker.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
No comment.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
Yeah, I live with an over talker. He may be
my son. And it's interesting because I watch him. He
can't physically hold in the words. And so I was
thinking about trying some of these tactics, because otherwise you
do end up saying a lot And this is what
made me a bit sad about it. You do end
up saying a lot like shut up, like let someone
(09:07):
else talk, and like negatives all the time. Like I
think I'm going to try some of these, But they
do all still sound mean, don't they.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
They don't sound as mean as shut up, let someone
else get a word in across.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
This is a family. That's how we talk to each
other in a family.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
Right. Most people, though, who do overtalk, and I think
that this article acknowledged it, do have some form of
anxiety and you can often see that, and so what
you don't want to do is, you know, affect their
self esteem more so that they're more embarrassed.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
Yeah, I think we're the true victims here.
Speaker 4 (09:42):
I don't want my partner working unless she wants to work.
If you feel the need to go and work to
make money, and then you come home and you're complaining
about your day when we don't need you to make
money because we're sorted. If we've got four hours to
spend in the afternoon, and I ask you, how is
your day today, babe?
Speaker 1 (10:00):
Are want your eyes to line up.
Speaker 4 (10:01):
With excitement, with whatever the fuck it was four postcards
today and it's so good. It's the calm, it's the harmony,
it's peace and love that a man that's got a
busy life, that's chasing his dreams needs when he's trying
to wind down.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
A man called Chris Griffin, that's who you just heard.
He is a podcast host and a YouTuber with a
big following now. He talks a lot about self optimization, fitness,
mental health, chasing your dreams, achieving your dreams. And he
said what he said, and now everybody's very upset. For
a little bit of context, I went back to listen
to a little bit of this conversation because Chris was
(10:38):
talking on this to another YouTuber, an adventure creator called
Wade Papenfuss, And what they were talking about before they
got to this bit was about having relationships and how
it's quite challenging to have relationships when you're very you're
in a big growth phase, right, So they're both obviously
very ambitious dudes. They're out there chasing their dreams, as
they said, and they were like, there isn't really space
(11:00):
for a girlfriend at the moment. But if there was one,
and they would quite like them, because they both agreed
that the presence of women was comforting. They said, is.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
That code for blowjobs?
Speaker 2 (11:11):
I think it's code for attends to our needs. I
think that's what that's code for. They sort of noodled
around about what women want and what they're good for
and what they're useful for, and it led them to
this conversation about how they would like the women in
their lives to have a passion. Wade suggested he would
like it if a girl would be into collecting stamps,
which is where Chris's comment about if she's collected for
(11:34):
postcards today, that's great came. Chris said he didn't mind
if the girl in this mythical girl was platning Barbie
doll tales. He said it was fine as long as
they were happy, and that he was a big encourager
of his girl going for hot girl walks to get
their feminine chat out. As you can imagine, this commentary
sparked some shit. First of all, I want to ask
(11:56):
Mia Jesse. We've been traveling around this past week, working, working,
doing one of the most fun jobs ever, but working nonetheless,
and when we all got home, I wonder what the
energy we brought into the house was.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
The energy I bring into the house most days is
something I don't think Chris would want anything to do with.
And that's that's one of the many reasons we are
not married. But look, the work thing is one thing,
and if we put that to one side, what he
is saying is that I want you to be so
(12:28):
emotionally regulated and so even, and so in control of
your emotions and catered to me that when I walk
in the door, because I'm going to have a stressful
job and I'm really ambitious and my life is complex
and meaningful, and that will come with highs and lows.
So then when I come into my home, I need
you to be the steady one. And the example of
(12:49):
all of those the stamp collecting and the platting Barbie
doll hair, which is fine, you can do that. What
I will say about both of those hobbies is that
they have no intrinsic meaning. They are totally meaningless. And
I'm not saying that work has to be where you
get your meaning from. There's a point to be made there, absolutely,
(13:10):
And if women, I've said this before, I think that
caregiving and looking after kids or sick relatives or whatever
is a really justified and important thing to do with
your life. But it's also I would say that there's
something inherently meaningful about that. And as someone who recently
was on maternity leave, I can tell you that when
(13:31):
Luca walked in the door sometimes my eyes didn't light up.
I'd had a really, really tough day, and so that expectation,
to me betrays the fact that he's twenty two. I
think it's naivety and idealism that he doesn't really know
what it is to be in a long term relationship
with an adult woman.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
I thought he was older than that. I didn't realize
he was only twenty two. That explains a lot more.
I think that this guy probably hasn't had such a
great week. I feel like what he started off by
saying was actually correct, which is, I don't want my
partner to work unless she wants to. So it's not
(14:08):
like he was denying her of all autonomy. But what
was quite revealing is that he couldn't imagine a woman
wanting to work if she had the option to not work.
And I think that that is something that is a
really wide held belief, widely held belief and one that
a lot of us internalize. And that's why when this
(14:30):
conversation often happens after you have kids in a relationship,
when the conversation comes to will she go back to work,
it comes down to, oh, but by the time we
pay for childcare? What's the point? As if the only
reason a woman would ever work is for money? And
that's what he also said. He said, if I'm making
(14:51):
enough money, if I'm successful, and I've got enough money
that we don't have to work to pay the bills
and put food on the table, then why would any
woman want to? Now there are some who women who
wouldn't want to, at least they might think they don't
want to, But what does happen with things like superannuation?
What does happen with their financial independence and ability to
(15:13):
leave that relationship? If he cheats, if he becomes violent,
if she just doesn't want to be with him anymore,
if she's got this big gap where she hasn't worked,
if she's been a stay at home girlfriend or a
stay at home mother, it might seem like a good choice,
but it's hard to be able to have a crystal
ball and know what the future is going to bring.
But I also do think that he's really right in
(15:36):
some respects, because what nobody tells you is that when
you've got two big careers, you start playing the who's
busier and who's more hardly done by Olympics, and it's
like a big struggle to be on the top of
the leaderboard as to who's the busiest and the most tired.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
I played that Olympics when I was at home with
a baby too. By the way, Yeah, I agree, I
agree with that.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
I'm so glad you made that point, because it's not like,
even if something's fulfilling and you're looking after a child
and you love that child, even if your job's for
filling and you love that job and you love your
hot girl walk, you still might come home and have
normal humans about it and want to talk about them.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
I think you make a very good point there, Mir,
and that if this conversation wasn't really as gendered as
it is, and it was like, you know, the whole
point about particularly when you have a family, whether you
can both have Because they were talking very much in
the context as to very ambitious men right who clearly
their work and their career is very important to them, right.
(16:32):
That was very much the context of this conversation, And
so they were pondering what they wanted in a partner
in that context, and clearly what they want in a
partner in that context is a support person, like not.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
I don't mean the traditional sense, yeah.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
And I don't necessarily mean because they just want them
to do their washing or whatever. But they want somebody
to hold down the home and the harmony of the
home and all that kind of stuff. And you could
argue that everybody needs that, and there are lots of
conversations that couples and families have about who's gonna take
a step back, who's going to take a step forward
at different times. But the thing was, is I wonder
(17:08):
if he feels the same way. I don't think he would.
If a man doesn't want to work, does he have
to work? Should he have to work?
Speaker 1 (17:14):
You know?
Speaker 2 (17:14):
And this idea of I want the peace and harmony
that a man who's chasing his dream needs when he
tries to wind down when he gets home, just feels
so much that the man and his needs is always
at the top of the leaderboard, you know, which I
think is one of the things that's pushed a lot
of buttons because a lot of people have been got
really mad about this. Laura hen sure she wasn't mad,
(17:36):
but on the kickpod asked a lot of the questions
you did then Mia, where she said, well, Chris, that's fine,
but are you going to if your partner isn't working,
are you going to pay into her super for her?
Are you going to give her a weekly allowance to spend?
Speaker 4 (17:49):
Like?
Speaker 2 (17:49):
How practically does this work? And then doesn't that totally
alter the power balance in this relationship? That's the problem
with it is that on the surface, of course, it's
a lovely idea that I want someone I love to
get to live the life they want and make her
home happy and all those things, but the details of
it mean that you would always be in control that relationship.
Speaker 3 (18:10):
This reveals a deep anxiety that I don't know if
a lot of men feel it, but certainly maybe men
like him feel it, which is maybe justified that two
generations ago, men's role was really clear. It was really
easily defined. You had a job and it was to
provide for your family. I say that like it was easy,
it actually wasn't because for a lot of men, whether
(18:32):
it was during the depression or it was during recessions,
their entire identity was their employment, and when their employment
was lost, that was a disaster. But because of the
economic realities of the modern day, most homes need two
people working, especially at the moment, that is the real
You live in a capital city exactly. And so I'm
(18:54):
hearing a lot and we know this. There's been much
spoken about the manisphere and men kind of trying to
hold on to what it is that makes them a
man and why that's different to a woman. And I
think that that maybe makes people feel safe. And I've
seen this resurgence of masculine and feminine energy, which is
something he spoke about a lot where he basically says
(19:17):
there's a natural feminine and a natural masculine, And the
idea is that he goes to work and he's ambitious
and he's active, whereas she needs to get in touch
with her girlfriends and go on her hot girl walks
and all that kind of stuff.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
It's a very bridget in way of looking at women,
isn't it.
Speaker 3 (19:33):
And it's coded. It's coded, I think, so it's not
as simple. I see a lot of people in even
the wellness faces talk about it, and on the surface,
you go, all right, maybe masculine and feminine exists within
all of us to varying degrees at different points throughout
our whole lives.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
Whatever.
Speaker 3 (19:53):
But what it's often saying is men are asserting their role.
And what that means for the woman is caregiver, quiet,
support stuff, support stuff, exactly exactly right, receiver like all
of these things that I think very quickly diminish her
and degrade her.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
But I mean, he wants a trad wife, and there
are lots of women who want to be trad wives,
so kind of good luck to them all.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
Surely, Yeah, if the jigsaws all fit together, then that's great.
But I want to push back slightly. You know, working
class women have always had to work. My grandparents work,
my grandmother's worked, like most families have always had to
have a balance of this kind of stuff and piece
it together. I feel like it's become a real status symbol,
particularly in this particular corner of self optimized maleness. It's
(20:43):
a real status symbol to be able to say my
partner doesn't have to work. It's seen as an aspirational thing,
and I think that that's unfortunate because I think it's
still always casts women's career as secondary and the disposable one.
And really I think that in most partnerships and families
and groups, it's about personality, it's about different people, it's
(21:05):
about what they want, and you have to make compromises
around that. But it's just not as simple as men strive,
women care, and I don't actually think it has ever
been that simple.
Speaker 3 (21:15):
When I first kind of saw this, I went, A man,
a woman, whatever, has the right to marry whoever they want.
That's a nature of heterosexuality. You can make it as
political as you like, but if a man doesn't want
to be with a feminist, then he won't be with
a feminist. Relationships end, they begin, they're rearranged, then it's negotiated.
Whatever he can marry whoever he wants, and if he
(21:35):
wants to provide for her, that's fine. The issue a
lot of men and women took with this was the
music that was the bed of the clip and the
way in which he was positioning this as as aspirational
and as a man. If you really consider yourself ambitious
and building an empire, then here's what you need. In
(21:57):
a woman and that instruction grinded people in a moment.
All the drama from Australian Fashion Week and why interviews
with influencers are going viral, I want to present to
you both an all or nothing story from this year's
Australian Fashion Week, which just wrapped up in Sydney. People
(22:21):
will know either everything about this story if you spent
your weekend stuck in a TikTok rabbit hole with names
like Sofa dofa Jamie as a party and something about
micro trend's final boss taking over your feed what or
perhaps you are me on Friday who had never heard
of any of these things or any of these people.
(22:42):
For some context, the event was held this year by
the Australian Fashion Council for the first time, so their
long running partner IMG pulled out at the end of
last year, meaning that this was a much scaled back event.
So if you heard nothing at all about fashion Week,
that might be why. Now for the drama, this year
(23:02):
was all about the influencers, and I don't mean that
in a derogatory way. They are wielding the most power
when it comes to fashion trends at the moment and
brands or blogs sent social media teams to do fox pops.
Vox pops are little interviews that you do on the street,
or we might send someone to a premiere and interview
(23:23):
an actor, or it's sort of like a behind the
scenes look at what's going on at an event. But
some influences thought that the questions they were thrown were inappropriate.
Here's a little bit of what Sofa dofa had to say.
Speaker 5 (23:37):
Someone asked a bunch of creators, who's the biggest micro
trend final boss? First of all?
Speaker 1 (23:43):
Shit question.
Speaker 5 (23:44):
I don't know how many people they ask, but you
can see almost everyone is uncomfortable and clearly doesn't want
to answer that because you're pretty much asking them to
name a creator and like call them out, and that's
just not like. I feel like the Australian influencer scene
is already so toxic and we have such big, like
tall poppy syndrome, like we don't need other creators bringing
(24:04):
people down. Also, I got named as one of them
by someone that will schan to Australian.
Speaker 3 (24:09):
Bat allow me to translate.
Speaker 2 (24:11):
I was gonna say, Jesse, could you please translate because
none of that made any sense to me.
Speaker 3 (24:16):
Okay, So micro Trend Final Boss is basically like asking
someone who is the biggest fashion victim, who is someone
who falls for every little trend and it's not something
you'd be stoked.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
It's me, I was gonna say, it's mea Sue Jewelry.
Speaker 3 (24:28):
What I was going to say is that there's only
one person in Australia who wouldn't have an issue with
that title, and it's Maya Freed.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
I didn't realize it was an insult.
Speaker 3 (24:37):
The other questions they were asked were things like your
most expensive piece of clothing, how much they earn their
most controversial fashion opinion, that kind of thing. Now, Jamie
as a party, they are a celebrity stylist, and when
asked about micro Trend Final Boss, they said so for
Dofa and so for Dopher was like that's mean, and
(24:59):
so for Dopha.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
Was like, take me out of this narrative.
Speaker 3 (25:03):
Yes, and you're wearing Sheen and she is an insult exactly,
which is that fast fashion giant? So you're a hypocrite.
So fast fashion was a big thing and something that
a lot of them were asked about, and a lot
of people would be you know, there's this viral clip
of a woman standing there and she's got this over
the top dress on and over the top hat on,
(25:24):
and someone says, what's the biggest fashion mistake people are making?
And she says fast fashion yuck, which, by the way,
I fundamentally agree with. But all the comments on this
are going are you planning on re wearing that hat?
Speaker 4 (25:36):
Like?
Speaker 3 (25:36):
How often are you going to wear that hat? How
often are you going to wear that dress? And the tension,
of course, is that people do not want to be
told by people richer than them and thinner than them
that they need to stay away from fast fashion because
for people who can't go up to the local shops
and buy something that fits them, this is the only
business that's catering to them. So there is this it's
(26:01):
easy for people even op shopping, and this is what
was being discussed in the comments. Even going to your
local op shop has become more and more expensive because
the quality of the clothes is more. I was speaking
to someone recently who works at knopshop who were saying
that they will not put she in clothes on the
rack if you put fast fashioned tea moochi in in
(26:22):
a bag and go and donate it. They will not
put it on the rack because they probably can't put
it on the rack for the same price or cheaper
than what you would get it on the internet tomorrow.
Speaker 1 (26:33):
There's also this not virtue signaling because it's true, but
the answer that you should be giving. You know, what
are you wearing? Oh, this is all thrifted, this is
all vintage, this is all borrowed. That doesn't help the
fashion industry, That doesn't help the Australian fashion industry, and actually.
Speaker 2 (26:48):
Doesn't help the consumer because they can't buy what you're
wearing exactly.
Speaker 3 (26:52):
And something that one of the stylists was saying is that, oh,
we've got this poo pooing of Shean or other fast
fashion brands, But do you want to know where some
of your designer clothes were made. They were made in
the same factory. So I think that we are lifting
the lid on a lot of this camerism. And it's
messy and it's confusing, and people have to make a
(27:14):
living somehow, and there's a lot of hypocrisy. So here
are my questions, because this is the great philosophical debate
of the day. Has Fashion Week become an ethical nightmare?
Is this controversy inevitable when influencers become front and center?
And why do you think the questions directed at influences
are so weird? Holly? What do you reckon?
Speaker 2 (27:37):
Well, obviously they are definitely trying to get them to
talk shit about each other. That's exactly what they're doing
for virality. We all know that, right, is that as
you would say, Jesse, you'd say, look at the Internet,
nobody's going viral, being gushingly positive about anybody on there.
But it is very unfair to do it because you know,
I'm sure that most of the influencers stopped outside and
(27:59):
asked with the little fluffy mic because that's what it
looks like, you know, probably feeling quite game and they
want to participate in all those things, and then they've
got to think about that on their feet, and they're
not or how it's going to be portrayed, and it
feels mean what I'm confused about because I'm in the camp.
I had been oblivious to this. I'd only noticed that
(28:19):
Australian Fashion Week was going on because a very few
people on my feed were there and posing outside. I've
seen almost nothing from catwalks I've seen almost no actual
fashion of any kind. I've seen very little commentary about it,
and I just wonder if it's even relevant anymore. Mia,
you speak much better fashion than I do. Explain why
(28:43):
it's still a thing that everybody's talking about.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
Well, they're not really, except for people who are making
content about the thing that none of us are really
talking about. I went to the first Australian Fashion Week
in nineteen ninety six and it was meant to be
and it was for a really long time a way
to showcase Australian designers, and some of the designers that
walk to the catwalk then, like Zimmerman, have gone on
(29:08):
to be international, all huge labels. And when I was
a magazine editor, it was magazine editors and media who
would go and buyers from late department stores and the designers,
some who you knew and some that you didn't. It
was very expensive to put on a show, but it
would pay for itself, hopefully in exposure and coverage in
(29:29):
press and in sales to department stores and stuff. But
now with social media, fashion influencers and micro trends aren't
actually about the things that Australian designers manufacture because it
takes too long. Everything's sped up to the point where
(29:49):
it used to be that you know, fashion Week would
happen has always been around this time of year, but
they would be showing Spring summer, which wouldn't be available
until August or September. That would be fine because the
magazines were also you know, needed to work three months
in advance, so all of that cycle would work quite well.
But now that everything's instant, what's shown on the catwalk
(30:11):
you can't buy tomorrow or the next day, or even
next week or next month. That's how it used to be,
and the things that people are wearing outside and the
content that they make are about global trends, not about
you know, seasons in Australia or particular designers here. And
so that's why. To satisfy this instant gratification for these
(30:31):
micro trends which moves so fast, and you know we've
talked about on the show before, it might seem like
there's a different one every week. To support that, you
usually have to buy things from these global fast fashion
behemoths whose impact on the environment is hugely questionable. You know,
the sheines, the czars, the all of those kind of labels,
the temus. It's almost like the whole influencer world and
(30:54):
micro trends exists separately to the actual Australian fashion industry
of selling clothes.
Speaker 2 (30:59):
Your spot interesting.
Speaker 3 (31:01):
I also reckon that there is a legitimate tension that
you just spoke to Maya. You said it that first
fashion week there were you know, whether it was stylists,
magazine editors, fashion journalists who had a certain set of
training and experience that made them able to speak a
certain language and afforded them a certain understanding of what
(31:25):
they were watching. Right, And this isn't to undermine influences,
but what's lacking is expertise because you might be wearing
a dress that you bought online or whatever. But fashion
week can become all appearance, no substance because the people
you're speaking to don't necessarily know anything about the Australian
fashion industry. They're showing up. They're being invited because people
(31:49):
want them to make content or appear in content that
will go viral. So they are being used as pawns
in a game of exposure.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
But also their contents about themselves. It's not about anyone else,
like when it was magazines and again, I've never been
really a fan. I've never been in that world of catwalks,
and I find them hugely problematic with the models that
they show. There are also very expensive for designers, and
I'm also not very interested in, you know, the bias
cut of that skirt length. You know, I don't find
(32:18):
that interesting to me. Clothes are a lot more about
feelings and about practicality. But you know, back in the
days of magazines, magazines wrote about clothes and designers, whereas
influencers are just about themselves. And that's fine, but it's
these are two different parallel tracks that almost don't intersect
at all.
Speaker 3 (32:37):
The other difference is that all those years ago, if
you were a designer, for example, or even if you're
on a red carpet right let's say you're ashaketty, you
have been subject to some sort of media training. Someone
has taught you what to answer, what not to answer,
how to speak, all of that. And this sofa Doph
(32:58):
made of really I thought valid point, which was none
of us have media training.
Speaker 1 (33:02):
Oh Jesse, come on, they grew up on social media.
The media we're talking about.
Speaker 3 (33:08):
No, no, no, no, no. She had an experience at
the TikTok Awards two years ago, where Tony Armstrong was
showing her questions and she said something quite awkward and strange.
These people do not have when you work in certain industries,
when you work in media, you're an actor or whatever.
Speaker 1 (33:24):
They don't. You don't get met like this seems to
like the media training is being on social media. They're
better trained than any of the rest of us.
Speaker 3 (33:33):
Oh, I totally, I totally disagree. I think that this
is what happens when even like the freelance or the
individualization of the work, most of these people have never
worked in a workplace. They've never even had the privilege
of learning from other people, so they get.
Speaker 2 (33:47):
Also, Jesse, you made that sound as if, oh if
only they'd all been so professional in their answers. That
wasn't the point of the whole exercise, right, The whole
point was let's create some drama to go viral. So
they did exactly what was required of them.
Speaker 3 (34:00):
Yes, but then they sit there and go I felt trapped.
I felt like that was really uncomfortable. I didn't like that,
and I didn't know how to answer because I've never
been media tres.
Speaker 1 (34:09):
I don't know what this mythical media training is did
you get media training?
Speaker 2 (34:13):
Not really, did you learn what not to say to
a hot mic because of the consequences of having done
it once or twice?
Speaker 3 (34:20):
Yeah, I reckon that when you say when you tour
a book or even just working alongside you guys, I
think that you have the privilege. I have learned so
much from both of you about what not to say.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
Media training didn't help me every time I've stuck my
foot in it. I just think that this is a cycle.
Now we're making content about the content that was made
about the content. We're now about six steps removed from
the actual point of why everyone was there, which was
Australian Fashion Week and to support Australian designers and showcase
their work. I just think that's how the internet works now.
(34:53):
And for these influencers to say, oh, I didn't understand
what was going to happen, I mean, come on, they're
milking it and we're in an attention economy.
Speaker 2 (35:03):
I'm about to tell you a story that made me
believe in romance once more because there's a couple from
the North of England, which is where I'm from.
Speaker 4 (35:11):
Friends.
Speaker 2 (35:11):
They're called Rachel and Norman, and it was Rachel's birthday,
and they decided to have a night out in Blackpool,
which is not the most glamorous of locations. But have
I had a night out in Blackpool in my time? Yes?
Speaker 3 (35:22):
I have.
Speaker 2 (35:23):
They decided to go and have a night out in
Blackpool and stay at a hotel. Right now, Rachel loves
crisps chips as you would call them, also hard relate.
They are my absolute favorite thing, and so he organized
for the hotel to buy loads of bags of crisps
to surprise his wife with for when they went up
to the room.
Speaker 3 (35:42):
That's the most romantic thing I ever heard.
Speaker 2 (35:44):
Yeah, thirty packets of a sortied crisps as a surprise
on the bed. But the hotel staff misunderstood Johnny's instruction
and they opened thirty packets of the sordid chick had sprinkled.
Speaker 1 (36:00):
Over the bed like pettles, exactly like rosettals.
Speaker 2 (36:04):
So they walked into the room, presumably for a night
of exciting passion they'd eat some crisps, to find that
the bed was a soggy, salty, fatty mess. Rachel, though,
who is trying to pull back from her four packs
of chips, a day. Did make sure to eat some
of them so as not to be wasteful, which I
think means that she also is not a fan of
(36:25):
fast fashion Jessy and is ethical like you are. But
I love this story to be This is.
Speaker 3 (36:30):
A problem with romantic gestures. It's like you think, oh,
chocolate in the bath or something, and it's like, yeah,
you just end up with melted chocolate down your boobs,
like looking absolutely revolting, and your partner's like, this is
not the sexy moment I thought it was going to be.
Speaker 1 (36:45):
Like sex in the shower or at the beach never
quite lives up to expectation rolling around in a lot
of crushed off crisps, So I reckon maybe would live
up to expectations. I think he'd get cuts after the break.
We are never ever getting back together. There's some bad
blood between Blake and Taylor, and I'll explain why in
a minute.
Speaker 3 (37:06):
Every Tuesday and Thursday, we drop new segments of Mummy
out Loud just from Maya. Subscribers follow the link in
the show notes to get your daily Joseph out Loud
And a big thank you to all our current subscribers.
Speaker 1 (37:24):
I'm last week Taylor Swift was subpoenaed in the upcoming
Blake Lively Justin Baldoni trial, which frankly cannot come soon
enough because I think everybody is exhausted. We spoke about
this on the show last week, but over the weekend
things got worse for both Taylor and her former best
(37:46):
friend Blake, and it seems like their ten year friendship
is over. And it's really sad because Taylor is the
godmother to Blake's three eldest children, her three daughters, and
they've been super tight. Remember at the Super Bowl last year,
Blake was by Taylor's side. So what happened over the
weekend is that Justin Baldoni's lawyer, Brian Friedman no relation
(38:08):
sent a letter or applied to the judge to have
a letter admitted into the trial. That was from an
anonymous source who said that apparently Blake's lawyer called Taylor's
lawyer a few weeks ago and said that Taylor needed
to put out a statement of support for Blake on
social media and if she didn't, Blake might have to
(38:30):
release ten years of texts between the two former best friends. Now, Allegedly,
Taylor's lawyer said this is extortion and hung up the
phone and ended the call. Now the judge has not
allowed this to be submitted and has said to Baldoni's team,
stops growing around. This has got nothing to do with
(38:51):
the case. You're just causing trouble and there's going to
be consequences if you keep doing this, because it's not
the first time. But unfortunately it was too late. Everybody's
read these allegations and lots of content's been made, and
the fact that it won't be part of the trial
is kind of neither here nor there, because now it
makes Blake look a whole lot worse.
Speaker 2 (39:13):
I don't understand. So from where I'm sitting, this just
looks like Justin Baldoni is continuing to throw shit at
any shit that he can get his hands on. A
Blake Lively. Yeah, that has nothing to do with anything
they're talking about, because there's not relevant in any way.
Speaker 3 (39:30):
I disagree with you, Holly. This all hinges on whether
or not Blake Lively as telling the truth. She's accused
Justin Baldoni of sexual assault, which is a really serious allegation.
If Baldoni's lawyers can prove that Blake doesn't tell the
truth and that she essentially blackmailed Taylor Swift into giving
(39:53):
her public support. Then all the stuff about Justin Baldoni
playing the public so was Blake to the same extent.
This is a character assessment, right.
Speaker 2 (40:01):
Like, surely the problem is is he can't prove that
he didn't prove that the judge threw it out. He
just said it and now it's all over the internet.
Speaker 3 (40:08):
Look, I'm with you, but play Devil's Advocate. Isn't this
the reason why you do a subpoena because you could
prove it If you subpoena Taylor Swift and you say
I want to see your text messages, then was his
idea that there would be evidence within her phone or
there would be evidence in the correspondence that this thing
had taken place between the two of them. And we
do know that there's been some sort of falling out
(40:31):
because the aforementioned unfollowing on Instagram. Everyone knows that that's
something you can bring to a court.
Speaker 1 (40:36):
Right there are two courts playing out in parallel. One
is the court of public opinion and the other is
the actual court court. And while the court court will
not hear this allegation about Blake, allegedly trying to extort
Taylor through their lawyers. The court of public opinion has
been all over it, and it's you know, all over TikTok,
(40:57):
it's all over social media. We're talking about it now,
and so it's really just part of this mutually assured
destruction and smear campaign that is just had so many casualties,
you know, friendships that have been decades long, and relationships
and reputations and careers and job opportunities and the collateral damage.
(41:20):
I mean, even the press tour for Blake Lively's recent
movie and other simple favor with Anna Kendrick and a
Kendricks dragged into it. Like everybody within a million mile
radius of this Blast from It ends with us, and
that movie is just going down and is being smart
and it's awful to watch. Like, can you imagine Taylor Swift,
(41:42):
She's just finished her tour, She's trying to just stay
inside and be away from the spotlight. This has got
nothing to do with her, and she's been portrayed as
a main character in a narrative that she wants my.
Speaker 2 (41:55):
Part of by Justin Baldoni.
Speaker 1 (41:57):
Yeah, by Justin Baldoni. And it just feels like, I
don't know the level of betrayal. Imagine that this.
Speaker 3 (42:03):
Court case isn't actually going to happen until twenty twenty six,
So we've got another.
Speaker 2 (42:07):
It might not happen at all. I wouldn't be in
the a bit surprised if it doesn't happen at all
after all of this mess, Like, how is it possibly
going to happen?
Speaker 3 (42:14):
I wonder though, I mean, I know you're saying that
these people have nothing to do with it. But if
Blake Lively's lawyer threatened Taylor Swift, then that is a crime.
Speaker 1 (42:24):
But we don't know if that's we don't we don't
know if it's true.
Speaker 3 (42:28):
But Friedman, the lawyer, signed an Affidavid saying that this
was true, which.
Speaker 2 (42:34):
Well, he's saying an ath of David saying that somebody
told someone told it was true.
Speaker 3 (42:39):
That someone told him it was true, and that holds
penalties of perjury. So that is a big swing. If
this is made up, then he took a big risk
to go and put this out there at all. Someone
has sat on the phone with him for an hour
and told him, he said that this person is very
closely linked to Taylor Swift.
Speaker 1 (42:57):
I don't know if it was a very big risk,
because I think he knew that the gidge.
Speaker 2 (43:00):
It would get thrown out, So it's not a risk
at all. It's just shit throwing because he knew that
he was going to say it, the judge was going
to say, that's bullshit. But it doesn't matter. It doesn't
matter because, as MIAs said, as long as it got
to be in the spotlight for a second, that's all
that mattered. And that's one of the things I keep
thinking about this trial because I'm not a massive swifty
(43:20):
like you are, Mia, of course, but it makes me
very sad if it is true that their relationship is over.
As in Blake and Taylor friendship breakups as we know,
are devastating, never mind when they are that entrenched like
this is not just they were just having their picture
taken together for a couple of years. This was, as
you say, godmother to the kids, holidayed together all the time,
(43:42):
Taylor's written songs about. Apparently, this is a very intense
friendship and if it has crumbled, that's really sad. But
the other thing is it's really interesting how this, as
you've said, Mia, this court case is playing out in
the court of public opinion as well as in the
legal process, and it's the court of public opinion that matters.
And Baldoni knows that too, as we know from way
(44:03):
back when the text messages that aren't disputed where he's
like bury her. He knows that all that matters is
the publicity around this case. And now it's so interesting
because tabloid reporting about celebrities has always been toxic, it's
always been bitter, it's always skewed to the negative, but
it used to come from the outside. And now it's
(44:24):
like because it all plays out in excavation of clues
on social media and grabs of this and grabs of
that and holding that up to the light and who's
unfollowed who, and it's worse and more intrusive than ever
in so many ways.
Speaker 3 (44:38):
I'm still stuck on this point. Okay, if Justin Beldoni
called the most famous person in the entire world, let's
say it was George Clooney, and said, you better release
a public statement. If this was an allegation not proved,
if this was a rumor going around that he said,
you better provide some public support, put out a public statement,
(44:59):
or I am going to release all our text messages.
Do we not think that that would be relevant to
the case.
Speaker 2 (45:04):
But it's not real to the case because the case is.
Speaker 1 (45:07):
About what happened between Justin and Blake, not what happened
between Blake and No Taylor between them.
Speaker 3 (45:13):
But the case is also what happened afterwards. The case
is about defamation, the case is about bots, but.
Speaker 2 (45:19):
It's got nothing to do with Taylor Swift.
Speaker 1 (45:22):
This is all stuff that's happened after the case. Like,
the case doesn't just keep going indefinitely. I mean, there
can be other cases about that. This is like the
hydra of this case. There are cases that are just
springing up and everybody suing everybody.
Speaker 3 (45:35):
I think that this is how court cases work, though,
Like even if you looked at Bruce Lehman and Britney Higgins,
the shit that came up in that that you went,
how is that relevant?
Speaker 1 (45:43):
This is how that's when everyone started to sue each
other exactly exactly.
Speaker 3 (45:47):
And so I'm just saying I don't think that it's
ridiculous or totally irrelevant. I think that this detail I
can understand why a lawyer would bring it.
Speaker 2 (45:56):
Up, But what's crappy about it?
Speaker 1 (45:58):
Though?
Speaker 2 (45:58):
Is that, as we've already said, it's not necessarily true,
but you just believe it to be true because you've
been told. And so the court of public opinion has
reached its verdict, and it generally seems to be the
Blake Lively is not a nice person.
Speaker 1 (46:11):
I watched another simple Favor on the weekend, and I
watched a simple favor as well. She's a movie star,
like she is an actual movie star in the sense
of there are some people like Julia Roberts and George
Clooney who just pop off the screen, and I think
Blake Lively does like whatever you think of her personally.
And I know it's really hard in many ways for
(46:33):
celebrities and movie stars of today because of everything we
know about them, like the Timothy Shallomys, and we know
so much about their lives in a way that we
didn't really so much of the Julia Roberts's and the
Winnona Riders and celebrities of previous generations. But Blake Lively
has an amazing presence on screen. I thought, I mean,
(46:55):
those movies are absurd, but they are actually, you know,
quite a good time, and she was very good in them.
So is Anna Kendry.
Speaker 2 (47:00):
That is all we've got time for out louders on
our Monday show if we've stunted a bit funny to today.
By the way, we are still little recording remotely, so
we're all in our different homes dealing with doggies and
different things. So massive thank you to our team for
juggling all of that to bring you the show, and
to all of you for being here with us. We'll
be back in your ears tomorrow.
Speaker 4 (47:19):
Bye bye.
Speaker 1 (47:21):
Shout out to any Mum and Maya subscribers listening. If
you love the show and want to support us as well,
subscribing to Mom and Miya is the very best way
to do so. There is a link in the episode description.
You're listening to a MoMA Mia podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Mamma Mia acknowledges the traditional owners of land and waters
that this podcast is recorded.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
On micro trend. Final Boss is basically like asking someone
who is the biggest fashion victim? Who is someone who
falls for every little trend? And it's not something you'd
be see Stoke.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
It's me. I was gonna say, it's Mia and her
shoe jewelry.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
What I was going to say is that there's only
one person in Australia who wouldn't have an issue with
that title, and it's Maya Friedman.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Hello, and welcome to Mamma Mia. Out Loud. It's what
women are actually talking about on Monday, the nineteenth of May.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
I am Holly Waynwright, I'm Maya Friedman.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
And I'm Jesse Stevens. And did you know we did
a live show on Saturday night in Sydney And did
you know that out louders flew in from Singapore. They
flew in from another country to come and see our extravaganza.
And we have not received a complaint yet from.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
Them, and from New Zealand, from Tasmania and from all
over Australia. And my goodness, We had a good time,
but this Thursday night it is Melbourne's Turney you excited me.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
I'm super excited. Before we start the show, though, a
special shout out to the out louder who had a
little bit of a tumble. She'd have a tumble in Sydney.
And luckily you probably don't know this, but my dear
friend Justine, who the character of Lucy is modeled on
in strife, she's a doctor and she was there with
her husband who's also a doctor, and their son, who
(01:40):
is a med student, and they all came to the rescue.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
They did, And I think that there's a rumor going
around that she did ignore medical advice and she stayed
for it too. And that's how out louders play it,
that's how they live.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Not that we advise such things. Please follow the advice
of your doctor while enjoying out loud. But anyway, on
the show today, the podcast that started a storm about
the energy a woman's job brings into the house. Also,
while Australian Fashion Week brought the off catwalk drama and
this week Taylor Swift got served a subpoena and lost
(02:16):
a friend, Mia explains the latest seemingly fatal blow in
the Blake Taylor Baldoni mess.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
But first, in case you missed it, the Sussexes Harry
and Meghan had the junior Beckham's Nicola and Brooklyn over
for dinner. The dinner was held last weekend or the
weekend before, timing slightly unclear, at the Sussex's Montecito residence
and was described as an intimate gathering, though it included
(02:42):
around twenty to twenty five guests, including many VIPs and
film executives. Brooklyn and Nicola were not apparently directly invited
by Harry and Meghan. Someone wanted to clarify to the media,
probably Harry and Meghan, but they were brought along through
mutual acquaintances, which is surely further proof that their version
of intimate when you're a celebrity is different to ours.
(03:05):
In other news, that could be a coincidence, Princess Kate
wore a Victoria Beckham suit to a pup engagement last week. Holly,
can you please translate for us what all this means?
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Well, the reason that we're excited about this and trying
to decode it is obviously we talked about this recently
but Brooklyn Beckham appears to have been cast out of
the Beckhams a little bit. And who would have more
wisdom to impart on how to deal with an estrangement
from your high profile family than Prince Harry. So it
does seem to have been some kind of a summit.
(03:34):
But this is delicious and also, Meir, I love that
you brought that because it is a little bit of
a fashion this. David Beckham is a well known monarchist.
He queued up to see the Queen lying in state.
They were at both royal weddings. They were at Wills
and Kate's wedding and Harry and Meghan's wedding. He is
a big king guy, David. So it's interesting that Princess
(03:54):
Kate chose to wear a Victorian suit, or at least
we're all obsessed with this. But one of my favorite
details from this whole thing is, as you say, me
at the dinner was supposedly intimate and blah blah, and
who the source that told People magazine about it. There's
a clue here where the last line of that story said,
according to the source, Brooklyn and Nikola had a wonderful
(04:15):
time and found Harry and Meghan to be particularly kind, caring,
and generous. I think maybe that comes from within the
House of Sussex.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
Follow the break cram.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
Can I just say that I reckon Hidden within this
story is a profound life hack, which is you never
want to position yourself as good at having guests over.
I think the three of us have really lowered people's
expectations when it comes to coming to our home. But
when you have a Netflix series about making little moments
(04:52):
next to the beds of guests and putting your dried
flower pedals on things, and you cook special cakes and
you make special cocktails, the expectations are too high. I
would be having a panic attack if I was Meghan
and I had guests coming over.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
It's true, how much I think your fancy depends on
whether I've peeled the four all the way off the
homeless so whether I'm leaving it on just to push
back when you've got it.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
Absolutely, in case you missed it, there is a way
to gently stop someone who talks way too much. An
article in The Washington Post explains that there are lots
of reasons that a person might talk too much. Alison
woodbrooks she is an associate professor at Harvard Business School.
She was interviewed in this article, and she said that
(05:33):
self disclosure can feel as good as chocolate or having sex.
So it is addictive to just talk about yourselves. We
all know that can feel good. Sometimes we do it
five times a week. Over talking can also be rewarded socially,
and in extreme cases, over talking might be caused by
conditions like ADHD, autism, bipolar, or social anxiety. So how
(05:58):
might we stop it? Some people might be wondering, Well, firstly,
consider the dynamic, because if you find yourself in repeated
situations with an overtalk, you might be the problem. Maybe
you're not talking enough, maybe you're asking too many questions.
It's a dynamic. You've got to consider your own partner.
(06:19):
But if you do, think no, this person is an
over talker. Apparently we should start with a bit of empathy. However,
honesty is the best policy. So do you want to
know what you're meant to say? I do?
Speaker 2 (06:32):
I definitely need to know.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
According to this writer, here's what you should say. I
know you like to share your opinions and ideas, but
I think sometimes you annoy people.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
That seems really harsh. I was thinking about over talkers
I know, and if I said that to them, I
think they'd be upset me too.
Speaker 3 (06:50):
So she says, maybe that's too harsh, so you can
try this instead. You are such a great storyteller, but
I think you would benefit from asking questions. You can
learn a lot that way. Also passive aggressive. She also
has some other suggestions because she says that you could
use humor right, humor always breaks the eye little bit.
How about WHOA? You have a lot to say about that? Oh,
(07:14):
I think you just talked without pause for seven and
a half minutes.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
These are all mortifying, Jesse, They're all mortifying.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
I'm sorry, but if I said this to any of
my friends, they wouldn't be my friends anymore. It's an
awful way to talk to someone. The only other advice
she had, which I think actually might be a good one.
You know, you can get an over talker on the
phone sometimes, she says, create a hard stop, so when
you answer the phone, you say, hey, I've got to
walk the dog in ten minutes, but yep, tell me
what you wanted to say, and then create a hard stop. Maya,
(07:44):
what do you think of this advice? Too harsh?
Speaker 1 (07:47):
I don't wish to comment. Do you notice I quiet
I've been in this segment, I did a test. There
was a test that was linked to in this article
about how to tell if you talk too much. I
didn't really need to take the test, but I did,
and I was pretty much off the charts. And I
think the diagnosis was a compulsive communicy. But I've kind
(08:12):
of built a career on that. So you know, I
talk when I'm tired. I talk too much when I'm anxious.
I talk too much as a way to deflect.
Speaker 3 (08:22):
Do you ever maya see signs in other people and
you go, oh, I think I've been talking too much.
Do you ever pick up on little social cues?
Speaker 1 (08:30):
No?
Speaker 3 (08:32):
How about you, Holly?
Speaker 2 (08:33):
This is so interesting. Well, I couldn't do the test
because I couldn't do the adding up, which is a
whole different problem that I have. And I've decided that
you two know me better than I know myself anyway,
So you know whether or not I'm an over talker.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
No comment.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
Yeah, I live with an over talker. He may be
my son. And it's interesting because I watch him. He
can't physically hold in the words. And so I was
thinking about trying some of these tactics, because otherwise you
do end up saying a lot And this is what
made me a bit sad about it. You do end
up saying a lot like shut up, like let someone
(09:07):
else talk, and like negatives all the time. Like I
think I'm going to try some of these, But they
do all still sound mean, don't they.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
They don't sound as mean as shut up, let someone
else get a word in across.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
This is a family. That's how we talk to each
other in a family.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
Right. Most people, though, who do overtalk, and I think
that this article acknowledged it, do have some form of
anxiety and you can often see that, and so what
you don't want to do is, you know, affect their
self esteem more so that they're more embarrassed.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
Yeah, I think we're the true victims here.
Speaker 4 (09:42):
I don't want my partner working unless she wants to work.
If you feel the need to go and work to
make money, and then you come home and you're complaining
about your day when we don't need you to make
money because we're sorted. If we've got four hours to
spend in the afternoon, and I ask you, how is
your day today, babe?
Speaker 1 (10:00):
Are want your eyes to line up.
Speaker 4 (10:01):
With excitement, with whatever the fuck it was four postcards
today and it's so good. It's the calm, it's the harmony,
it's peace and love that a man that's got a
busy life, that's chasing his dreams needs when he's trying
to wind down.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
A man called Chris Griffin, that's who you just heard.
He is a podcast host and a YouTuber with a
big following now. He talks a lot about self optimization, fitness,
mental health, chasing your dreams, achieving your dreams. And he
said what he said, and now everybody's very upset. For
a little bit of context, I went back to listen
to a little bit of this conversation because Chris was
(10:38):
talking on this to another YouTuber, an adventure creator called
Wade Papenfuss, And what they were talking about before they
got to this bit was about having relationships and how
it's quite challenging to have relationships when you're very you're
in a big growth phase, right, So they're both obviously
very ambitious dudes. They're out there chasing their dreams, as
they said, and they were like, there isn't really space
(11:00):
for a girlfriend at the moment. But if there was one,
and they would quite like them, because they both agreed
that the presence of women was comforting. They said, is.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
That code for blowjobs?
Speaker 2 (11:11):
I think it's code for attends to our needs. I
think that's what that's code for. They sort of noodled
around about what women want and what they're good for
and what they're useful for, and it led them to
this conversation about how they would like the women in
their lives to have a passion. Wade suggested he would
like it if a girl would be into collecting stamps,
which is where Chris's comment about if she's collected for
(11:34):
postcards today, that's great came. Chris said he didn't mind
if the girl in this mythical girl was platning Barbie
doll tales. He said it was fine as long as
they were happy, and that he was a big encourager
of his girl going for hot girl walks to get
their feminine chat out. As you can imagine, this commentary
sparked some shit. First of all, I want to ask
(11:56):
Mia Jesse. We've been traveling around this past week, working, working,
doing one of the most fun jobs ever, but working nonetheless,
and when we all got home, I wonder what the
energy we brought into the house was.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
The energy I bring into the house most days is
something I don't think Chris would want anything to do with.
And that's that's one of the many reasons we are
not married. But look, the work thing is one thing,
and if we put that to one side, what he
is saying is that I want you to be so
(12:28):
emotionally regulated and so even, and so in control of
your emotions and catered to me that when I walk
in the door, because I'm going to have a stressful
job and I'm really ambitious and my life is complex
and meaningful, and that will come with highs and lows.
So then when I come into my home, I need
you to be the steady one. And the example of
(12:49):
all of those the stamp collecting and the platting Barbie
doll hair, which is fine, you can do that. What
I will say about both of those hobbies is that
they have no intrinsic meaning. They are totally meaningless. And
I'm not saying that work has to be where you
get your meaning from. There's a point to be made there, absolutely,
(13:10):
And if women, I've said this before, I think that
caregiving and looking after kids or sick relatives or whatever
is a really justified and important thing to do with
your life. But it's also I would say that there's
something inherently meaningful about that. And as someone who recently
was on maternity leave, I can tell you that when
(13:31):
Luca walked in the door sometimes my eyes didn't light up.
I'd had a really, really tough day, and so that expectation,
to me betrays the fact that he's twenty two. I
think it's naivety and idealism that he doesn't really know
what it is to be in a long term relationship
with an adult woman.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
I thought he was older than that. I didn't realize
he was only twenty two. That explains a lot more.
I think that this guy probably hasn't had such a
great week. I feel like what he started off by
saying was actually correct, which is, I don't want my
partner to work unless she wants to. So it's not
(14:08):
like he was denying her of all autonomy. But what
was quite revealing is that he couldn't imagine a woman
wanting to work if she had the option to not work.
And I think that that is something that is a
really wide held belief, widely held belief and one that
a lot of us internalize. And that's why when this
(14:30):
conversation often happens after you have kids in a relationship,
when the conversation comes to will she go back to work,
it comes down to, oh, but by the time we
pay for childcare? What's the point? As if the only
reason a woman would ever work is for money? And
that's what he also said. He said, if I'm making
(14:51):
enough money, if I'm successful, and I've got enough money
that we don't have to work to pay the bills
and put food on the table, then why would any
woman want to? Now there are some who women who
wouldn't want to, at least they might think they don't
want to, But what does happen with things like superannuation?
What does happen with their financial independence and ability to
(15:13):
leave that relationship? If he cheats, if he becomes violent,
if she just doesn't want to be with him anymore,
if she's got this big gap where she hasn't worked,
if she's been a stay at home girlfriend or a
stay at home mother, it might seem like a good choice,
but it's hard to be able to have a crystal
ball and know what the future is going to bring.
But I also do think that he's really right in
(15:36):
some respects, because what nobody tells you is that when
you've got two big careers, you start playing the who's
busier and who's more hardly done by Olympics, and it's
like a big struggle to be on the top of
the leaderboard as to who's the busiest and the most tired.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
I played that Olympics when I was at home with
a baby too. By the way, Yeah, I agree, I
agree with that.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
I'm so glad you made that point, because it's not like,
even if something's fulfilling and you're looking after a child
and you love that child, even if your job's for
filling and you love that job and you love your
hot girl walk, you still might come home and have
normal humans about it and want to talk about them.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
I think you make a very good point there, Mir,
and that if this conversation wasn't really as gendered as
it is, and it was like, you know, the whole
point about particularly when you have a family, whether you
can both have Because they were talking very much in
the context as to very ambitious men right who clearly
their work and their career is very important to them, right.
(16:32):
That was very much the context of this conversation, And
so they were pondering what they wanted in a partner
in that context, and clearly what they want in a
partner in that context is a support person, like not.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
I don't mean the traditional sense, yeah.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
And I don't necessarily mean because they just want them
to do their washing or whatever. But they want somebody
to hold down the home and the harmony of the
home and all that kind of stuff. And you could
argue that everybody needs that, and there are lots of
conversations that couples and families have about who's gonna take
a step back, who's going to take a step forward
at different times. But the thing was, is I wonder
(17:08):
if he feels the same way. I don't think he would.
If a man doesn't want to work, does he have
to work? Should he have to work?
Speaker 1 (17:14):
You know?
Speaker 2 (17:14):
And this idea of I want the peace and harmony
that a man who's chasing his dream needs when he
tries to wind down when he gets home, just feels
so much that the man and his needs is always
at the top of the leaderboard, you know, which I
think is one of the things that's pushed a lot
of buttons because a lot of people have been got
really mad about this. Laura hen sure she wasn't mad,
(17:36):
but on the kickpod asked a lot of the questions
you did then Mia, where she said, well, Chris, that's fine,
but are you going to if your partner isn't working,
are you going to pay into her super for her?
Are you going to give her a weekly allowance to spend?
Speaker 4 (17:49):
Like?
Speaker 2 (17:49):
How practically does this work? And then doesn't that totally
alter the power balance in this relationship? That's the problem
with it is that on the surface, of course, it's
a lovely idea that I want someone I love to
get to live the life they want and make her
home happy and all those things, but the details of
it mean that you would always be in control that relationship.
Speaker 3 (18:10):
This reveals a deep anxiety that I don't know if
a lot of men feel it, but certainly maybe men
like him feel it, which is maybe justified that two
generations ago, men's role was really clear. It was really
easily defined. You had a job and it was to
provide for your family. I say that like it was easy,
it actually wasn't because for a lot of men, whether
(18:32):
it was during the depression or it was during recessions,
their entire identity was their employment, and when their employment
was lost, that was a disaster. But because of the
economic realities of the modern day, most homes need two
people working, especially at the moment, that is the real
You live in a capital city exactly. And so I'm
(18:54):
hearing a lot and we know this. There's been much
spoken about the manisphere and men kind of trying to
hold on to what it is that makes them a
man and why that's different to a woman. And I
think that that maybe makes people feel safe. And I've
seen this resurgence of masculine and feminine energy, which is
something he spoke about a lot where he basically says
(19:17):
there's a natural feminine and a natural masculine, And the
idea is that he goes to work and he's ambitious
and he's active, whereas she needs to get in touch
with her girlfriends and go on her hot girl walks
and all that kind of stuff.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
It's a very bridget in way of looking at women,
isn't it.
Speaker 3 (19:33):
And it's coded. It's coded, I think, so it's not
as simple. I see a lot of people in even
the wellness faces talk about it, and on the surface,
you go, all right, maybe masculine and feminine exists within
all of us to varying degrees at different points throughout
our whole lives.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
Whatever.
Speaker 3 (19:53):
But what it's often saying is men are asserting their role.
And what that means for the woman is caregiver, quiet,
support stuff, support stuff, exactly exactly right, receiver like all
of these things that I think very quickly diminish her
and degrade her.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
But I mean, he wants a trad wife, and there
are lots of women who want to be trad wives,
so kind of good luck to them all.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
Surely, Yeah, if the jigsaws all fit together, then that's great.
But I want to push back slightly. You know, working
class women have always had to work. My grandparents work,
my grandmother's worked, like most families have always had to
have a balance of this kind of stuff and piece
it together. I feel like it's become a real status symbol,
particularly in this particular corner of self optimized maleness. It's
(20:43):
a real status symbol to be able to say my
partner doesn't have to work. It's seen as an aspirational thing,
and I think that that's unfortunate because I think it's
still always casts women's career as secondary and the disposable one.
And really I think that in most partnerships and families
and groups, it's about personality, it's about different people, it's
(21:05):
about what they want, and you have to make compromises
around that. But it's just not as simple as men strive,
women care, and I don't actually think it has ever
been that simple.
Speaker 3 (21:15):
When I first kind of saw this, I went, A man,
a woman, whatever, has the right to marry whoever they want.
That's a nature of heterosexuality. You can make it as
political as you like, but if a man doesn't want
to be with a feminist, then he won't be with
a feminist. Relationships end, they begin, they're rearranged, then it's negotiated.
Whatever he can marry whoever he wants, and if he
(21:35):
wants to provide for her, that's fine. The issue a
lot of men and women took with this was the
music that was the bed of the clip and the
way in which he was positioning this as as aspirational
and as a man. If you really consider yourself ambitious
and building an empire, then here's what you need. In
(21:57):
a woman and that instruction grinded people in a moment.
All the drama from Australian Fashion Week and why interviews
with influencers are going viral, I want to present to
you both an all or nothing story from this year's
Australian Fashion Week, which just wrapped up in Sydney. People
(22:21):
will know either everything about this story if you spent
your weekend stuck in a TikTok rabbit hole with names
like Sofa dofa Jamie as a party and something about
micro trend's final boss taking over your feed what or
perhaps you are me on Friday who had never heard
of any of these things or any of these people.
(22:42):
For some context, the event was held this year by
the Australian Fashion Council for the first time, so their
long running partner IMG pulled out at the end of
last year, meaning that this was a much scaled back event.
So if you heard nothing at all about fashion Week,
that might be why. Now for the drama, this year
(23:02):
was all about the influencers, and I don't mean that
in a derogatory way. They are wielding the most power
when it comes to fashion trends at the moment and
brands or blogs sent social media teams to do fox pops.
Vox pops are little interviews that you do on the street,
or we might send someone to a premiere and interview
(23:23):
an actor, or it's sort of like a behind the
scenes look at what's going on at an event. But
some influences thought that the questions they were thrown were inappropriate.
Here's a little bit of what Sofa dofa had to say.
Speaker 5 (23:37):
Someone asked a bunch of creators, who's the biggest micro
trend final boss? First of all?
Speaker 1 (23:43):
Shit question.
Speaker 5 (23:44):
I don't know how many people they ask, but you
can see almost everyone is uncomfortable and clearly doesn't want
to answer that because you're pretty much asking them to
name a creator and like call them out, and that's
just not like. I feel like the Australian influencer scene
is already so toxic and we have such big, like
tall poppy syndrome, like we don't need other creators bringing
(24:04):
people down. Also, I got named as one of them
by someone that will schan to Australian.
Speaker 3 (24:09):
Bat allow me to translate.
Speaker 2 (24:11):
I was gonna say, Jesse, could you please translate because
none of that made any sense to me.
Speaker 3 (24:16):
Okay, So micro Trend Final Boss is basically like asking
someone who is the biggest fashion victim, who is someone
who falls for every little trend and it's not something
you'd be stoked.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
It's me, I was gonna say, it's mea Sue Jewelry.
Speaker 3 (24:28):
What I was going to say is that there's only
one person in Australia who wouldn't have an issue with
that title, and it's Maya Freed.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
I didn't realize it was an insult.
Speaker 3 (24:37):
The other questions they were asked were things like your
most expensive piece of clothing, how much they earn their
most controversial fashion opinion, that kind of thing. Now, Jamie
as a party, they are a celebrity stylist, and when
asked about micro Trend Final Boss, they said so for
Dofa and so for Dopher was like that's mean, and
(24:59):
so for Dopha.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
Was like, take me out of this narrative.
Speaker 3 (25:03):
Yes, and you're wearing Sheen and she is an insult exactly,
which is that fast fashion giant? So you're a hypocrite.
So fast fashion was a big thing and something that
a lot of them were asked about, and a lot
of people would be you know, there's this viral clip
of a woman standing there and she's got this over
the top dress on and over the top hat on,
(25:24):
and someone says, what's the biggest fashion mistake people are making?
And she says fast fashion yuck, which, by the way,
I fundamentally agree with. But all the comments on this
are going are you planning on re wearing that hat?
Speaker 4 (25:36):
Like?
Speaker 3 (25:36):
How often are you going to wear that hat? How
often are you going to wear that dress? And the tension,
of course, is that people do not want to be
told by people richer than them and thinner than them
that they need to stay away from fast fashion because
for people who can't go up to the local shops
and buy something that fits them, this is the only
business that's catering to them. So there is this it's
(26:01):
easy for people even op shopping, and this is what
was being discussed in the comments. Even going to your
local op shop has become more and more expensive because
the quality of the clothes is more. I was speaking
to someone recently who works at knopshop who were saying
that they will not put she in clothes on the
rack if you put fast fashioned tea moochi in in
(26:22):
a bag and go and donate it. They will not
put it on the rack because they probably can't put
it on the rack for the same price or cheaper
than what you would get it on the internet tomorrow.
Speaker 1 (26:33):
There's also this not virtue signaling because it's true, but
the answer that you should be giving. You know, what
are you wearing? Oh, this is all thrifted, this is
all vintage, this is all borrowed. That doesn't help the
fashion industry, That doesn't help the Australian fashion industry, and actually.
Speaker 2 (26:48):
Doesn't help the consumer because they can't buy what you're
wearing exactly.
Speaker 3 (26:52):
And something that one of the stylists was saying is that, oh,
we've got this poo pooing of Shean or other fast
fashion brands, But do you want to know where some
of your designer clothes were made. They were made in
the same factory. So I think that we are lifting
the lid on a lot of this camerism. And it's
messy and it's confusing, and people have to make a
(27:14):
living somehow, and there's a lot of hypocrisy. So here
are my questions, because this is the great philosophical debate
of the day. Has Fashion Week become an ethical nightmare?
Is this controversy inevitable when influencers become front and center?
And why do you think the questions directed at influences
are so weird? Holly? What do you reckon?
Speaker 2 (27:37):
Well, obviously they are definitely trying to get them to
talk shit about each other. That's exactly what they're doing
for virality. We all know that, right, is that as
you would say, Jesse, you'd say, look at the Internet,
nobody's going viral, being gushingly positive about anybody on there.
But it is very unfair to do it because you know,
I'm sure that most of the influencers stopped outside and
(27:59):
asked with the little fluffy mic because that's what it
looks like, you know, probably feeling quite game and they
want to participate in all those things, and then they've
got to think about that on their feet, and they're
not or how it's going to be portrayed, and it
feels mean what I'm confused about because I'm in the camp.
I had been oblivious to this. I'd only noticed that
(28:19):
Australian Fashion Week was going on because a very few
people on my feed were there and posing outside. I've
seen almost nothing from catwalks I've seen almost no actual
fashion of any kind. I've seen very little commentary about it,
and I just wonder if it's even relevant anymore. Mia,
you speak much better fashion than I do. Explain why
(28:43):
it's still a thing that everybody's talking about.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
Well, they're not really, except for people who are making
content about the thing that none of us are really
talking about. I went to the first Australian Fashion Week
in nineteen ninety six and it was meant to be
and it was for a really long time a way
to showcase Australian designers, and some of the designers that
walk to the catwalk then, like Zimmerman, have gone on
(29:08):
to be international, all huge labels. And when I was
a magazine editor, it was magazine editors and media who
would go and buyers from late department stores and the designers,
some who you knew and some that you didn't. It
was very expensive to put on a show, but it
would pay for itself, hopefully in exposure and coverage in
(29:29):
press and in sales to department stores and stuff. But
now with social media, fashion influencers and micro trends aren't
actually about the things that Australian designers manufacture because it
takes too long. Everything's sped up to the point where
(29:49):
it used to be that you know, fashion Week would
happen has always been around this time of year, but
they would be showing Spring summer, which wouldn't be available
until August or September. That would be fine because the
magazines were also you know, needed to work three months
in advance, so all of that cycle would work quite well.
But now that everything's instant, what's shown on the catwalk
(30:11):
you can't buy tomorrow or the next day, or even
next week or next month. That's how it used to be,
and the things that people are wearing outside and the
content that they make are about global trends, not about
you know, seasons in Australia or particular designers here. And
so that's why. To satisfy this instant gratification for these
(30:31):
micro trends which moves so fast, and you know we've
talked about on the show before, it might seem like
there's a different one every week. To support that, you
usually have to buy things from these global fast fashion
behemoths whose impact on the environment is hugely questionable. You know,
the sheines, the czars, the all of those kind of labels,
the temus. It's almost like the whole influencer world and
(30:54):
micro trends exists separately to the actual Australian fashion industry
of selling clothes.
Speaker 2 (30:59):
Your spot interesting.
Speaker 3 (31:01):
I also reckon that there is a legitimate tension that
you just spoke to Maya. You said it that first
fashion week there were you know, whether it was stylists,
magazine editors, fashion journalists who had a certain set of
training and experience that made them able to speak a
certain language and afforded them a certain understanding of what
(31:25):
they were watching. Right, And this isn't to undermine influences,
but what's lacking is expertise because you might be wearing
a dress that you bought online or whatever. But fashion
week can become all appearance, no substance because the people
you're speaking to don't necessarily know anything about the Australian
fashion industry. They're showing up. They're being invited because people
(31:49):
want them to make content or appear in content that
will go viral. So they are being used as pawns
in a game of exposure.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
But also their contents about themselves. It's not about anyone else,
like when it was magazines and again, I've never been
really a fan. I've never been in that world of catwalks,
and I find them hugely problematic with the models that
they show. There are also very expensive for designers, and
I'm also not very interested in, you know, the bias
cut of that skirt length. You know, I don't find
(32:18):
that interesting to me. Clothes are a lot more about
feelings and about practicality. But you know, back in the
days of magazines, magazines wrote about clothes and designers, whereas
influencers are just about themselves. And that's fine, but it's
these are two different parallel tracks that almost don't intersect
at all.
Speaker 3 (32:37):
The other difference is that all those years ago, if
you were a designer, for example, or even if you're
on a red carpet right let's say you're ashaketty, you
have been subject to some sort of media training. Someone
has taught you what to answer, what not to answer,
how to speak, all of that. And this sofa Doph
(32:58):
made of really I thought valid point, which was none
of us have media training.
Speaker 1 (33:02):
Oh Jesse, come on, they grew up on social media.
The media we're talking about.
Speaker 3 (33:08):
No, no, no, no, no. She had an experience at
the TikTok Awards two years ago, where Tony Armstrong was
showing her questions and she said something quite awkward and strange.
These people do not have when you work in certain industries,
when you work in media, you're an actor or whatever.
Speaker 1 (33:24):
They don't. You don't get met like this seems to
like the media training is being on social media. They're
better trained than any of the rest of us.
Speaker 3 (33:33):
Oh, I totally, I totally disagree. I think that this
is what happens when even like the freelance or the
individualization of the work, most of these people have never
worked in a workplace. They've never even had the privilege
of learning from other people, so they get.
Speaker 2 (33:47):
Also, Jesse, you made that sound as if, oh if
only they'd all been so professional in their answers. That
wasn't the point of the whole exercise, right, The whole
point was let's create some drama to go viral. So
they did exactly what was required of them.
Speaker 3 (34:00):
Yes, but then they sit there and go I felt trapped.
I felt like that was really uncomfortable. I didn't like that,
and I didn't know how to answer because I've never
been media tres.
Speaker 1 (34:09):
I don't know what this mythical media training is did
you get media training?
Speaker 2 (34:13):
Not really, did you learn what not to say to
a hot mic because of the consequences of having done
it once or twice?
Speaker 3 (34:20):
Yeah, I reckon that when you say when you tour
a book or even just working alongside you guys, I
think that you have the privilege. I have learned so
much from both of you about what not to say.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
Media training didn't help me every time I've stuck my
foot in it. I just think that this is a cycle.
Now we're making content about the content that was made
about the content. We're now about six steps removed from
the actual point of why everyone was there, which was
Australian Fashion Week and to support Australian designers and showcase
their work. I just think that's how the internet works now.
(34:53):
And for these influencers to say, oh, I didn't understand
what was going to happen, I mean, come on, they're
milking it and we're in an attention economy.
Speaker 2 (35:03):
I'm about to tell you a story that made me
believe in romance once more because there's a couple from
the North of England, which is where I'm from.
Speaker 4 (35:11):
Friends.
Speaker 2 (35:11):
They're called Rachel and Norman, and it was Rachel's birthday,
and they decided to have a night out in Blackpool,
which is not the most glamorous of locations. But have
I had a night out in Blackpool in my time? Yes?
Speaker 3 (35:22):
I have.
Speaker 2 (35:23):
They decided to go and have a night out in
Blackpool and stay at a hotel. Right now, Rachel loves
crisps chips as you would call them, also hard relate.
They are my absolute favorite thing, and so he organized
for the hotel to buy loads of bags of crisps
to surprise his wife with for when they went up
to the room.
Speaker 3 (35:42):
That's the most romantic thing I ever heard.
Speaker 2 (35:44):
Yeah, thirty packets of a sortied crisps as a surprise
on the bed. But the hotel staff misunderstood Johnny's instruction
and they opened thirty packets of the sordid chick had sprinkled.
Speaker 1 (36:00):
Over the bed like pettles, exactly like rosettals.
Speaker 2 (36:04):
So they walked into the room, presumably for a night
of exciting passion they'd eat some crisps, to find that
the bed was a soggy, salty, fatty mess. Rachel, though,
who is trying to pull back from her four packs
of chips, a day. Did make sure to eat some
of them so as not to be wasteful, which I
think means that she also is not a fan of
(36:25):
fast fashion Jessy and is ethical like you are. But
I love this story to be This is.
Speaker 3 (36:30):
A problem with romantic gestures. It's like you think, oh,
chocolate in the bath or something, and it's like, yeah,
you just end up with melted chocolate down your boobs,
like looking absolutely revolting, and your partner's like, this is
not the sexy moment I thought it was going to be.
Speaker 1 (36:45):
Like sex in the shower or at the beach never
quite lives up to expectation rolling around in a lot
of crushed off crisps, So I reckon maybe would live
up to expectations. I think he'd get cuts after the break.
We are never ever getting back together. There's some bad
blood between Blake and Taylor, and I'll explain why in
a minute.
Speaker 3 (37:06):
Every Tuesday and Thursday, we drop new segments of Mummy
out Loud just from Maya. Subscribers follow the link in
the show notes to get your daily Joseph out Loud
And a big thank you to all our current subscribers.
Speaker 1 (37:24):
I'm last week Taylor Swift was subpoenaed in the upcoming
Blake Lively Justin Baldoni trial, which frankly cannot come soon
enough because I think everybody is exhausted. We spoke about
this on the show last week, but over the weekend
things got worse for both Taylor and her former best
(37:46):
friend Blake, and it seems like their ten year friendship
is over. And it's really sad because Taylor is the
godmother to Blake's three eldest children, her three daughters, and
they've been super tight. Remember at the Super Bowl last year,
Blake was by Taylor's side. So what happened over the
weekend is that Justin Baldoni's lawyer, Brian Friedman no relation
(38:08):
sent a letter or applied to the judge to have
a letter admitted into the trial. That was from an
anonymous source who said that apparently Blake's lawyer called Taylor's
lawyer a few weeks ago and said that Taylor needed
to put out a statement of support for Blake on
social media and if she didn't, Blake might have to
(38:30):
release ten years of texts between the two former best friends. Now, Allegedly,
Taylor's lawyer said this is extortion and hung up the
phone and ended the call. Now the judge has not
allowed this to be submitted and has said to Baldoni's team,
stops growing around. This has got nothing to do with
(38:51):
the case. You're just causing trouble and there's going to
be consequences if you keep doing this, because it's not
the first time. But unfortunately it was too late. Everybody's
read these allegations and lots of content's been made, and
the fact that it won't be part of the trial
is kind of neither here nor there, because now it
makes Blake look a whole lot worse.
Speaker 2 (39:13):
I don't understand. So from where I'm sitting, this just
looks like Justin Baldoni is continuing to throw shit at
any shit that he can get his hands on. A
Blake Lively. Yeah, that has nothing to do with anything
they're talking about, because there's not relevant in any way.
Speaker 3 (39:30):
I disagree with you, Holly. This all hinges on whether
or not Blake Lively as telling the truth. She's accused
Justin Baldoni of sexual assault, which is a really serious allegation.
If Baldoni's lawyers can prove that Blake doesn't tell the
truth and that she essentially blackmailed Taylor Swift into giving
(39:53):
her public support. Then all the stuff about Justin Baldoni
playing the public so was Blake to the same extent.
This is a character assessment, right.
Speaker 2 (40:01):
Like, surely the problem is is he can't prove that
he didn't prove that the judge threw it out. He
just said it and now it's all over the internet.
Speaker 3 (40:08):
Look, I'm with you, but play Devil's Advocate. Isn't this
the reason why you do a subpoena because you could
prove it If you subpoena Taylor Swift and you say
I want to see your text messages, then was his
idea that there would be evidence within her phone or
there would be evidence in the correspondence that this thing
had taken place between the two of them. And we
do know that there's been some sort of falling out
(40:31):
because the aforementioned unfollowing on Instagram. Everyone knows that that's
something you can bring to a court.
Speaker 1 (40:36):
Right there are two courts playing out in parallel. One
is the court of public opinion and the other is
the actual court court. And while the court court will
not hear this allegation about Blake, allegedly trying to extort
Taylor through their lawyers. The court of public opinion has
been all over it, and it's you know, all over TikTok,
(40:57):
it's all over social media. We're talking about it now,
and so it's really just part of this mutually assured
destruction and smear campaign that is just had so many casualties,
you know, friendships that have been decades long, and relationships
and reputations and careers and job opportunities and the collateral damage.
(41:20):
I mean, even the press tour for Blake Lively's recent
movie and other simple favor with Anna Kendrick and a
Kendricks dragged into it. Like everybody within a million mile
radius of this Blast from It ends with us, and
that movie is just going down and is being smart
and it's awful to watch. Like, can you imagine Taylor Swift,
(41:42):
She's just finished her tour, She's trying to just stay
inside and be away from the spotlight. This has got
nothing to do with her, and she's been portrayed as
a main character in a narrative that she wants my.
Speaker 2 (41:55):
Part of by Justin Baldoni.
Speaker 1 (41:57):
Yeah, by Justin Baldoni. And it just feels like, I
don't know the level of betrayal. Imagine that this.
Speaker 3 (42:03):
Court case isn't actually going to happen until twenty twenty six,
So we've got another.
Speaker 2 (42:07):
It might not happen at all. I wouldn't be in
the a bit surprised if it doesn't happen at all
after all of this mess, Like, how is it possibly
going to happen?
Speaker 3 (42:14):
I wonder though, I mean, I know you're saying that
these people have nothing to do with it. But if
Blake Lively's lawyer threatened Taylor Swift, then that is a crime.
Speaker 1 (42:24):
But we don't know if that's we don't we don't
know if it's true.
Speaker 3 (42:28):
But Friedman, the lawyer, signed an Affidavid saying that this
was true, which.
Speaker 2 (42:34):
Well, he's saying an ath of David saying that somebody
told someone told it was true.
Speaker 3 (42:39):
That someone told him it was true, and that holds
penalties of perjury. So that is a big swing. If
this is made up, then he took a big risk
to go and put this out there at all. Someone
has sat on the phone with him for an hour
and told him, he said that this person is very
closely linked to Taylor Swift.
Speaker 1 (42:57):
I don't know if it was a very big risk,
because I think he knew that the gidge.
Speaker 2 (43:00):
It would get thrown out, So it's not a risk
at all. It's just shit throwing because he knew that
he was going to say it, the judge was going
to say, that's bullshit. But it doesn't matter. It doesn't
matter because, as MIAs said, as long as it got
to be in the spotlight for a second, that's all
that mattered. And that's one of the things I keep
thinking about this trial because I'm not a massive swifty
(43:20):
like you are, Mia, of course, but it makes me
very sad if it is true that their relationship is over.
As in Blake and Taylor friendship breakups as we know,
are devastating, never mind when they are that entrenched like
this is not just they were just having their picture
taken together for a couple of years. This was, as
you say, godmother to the kids, holidayed together all the time,
(43:42):
Taylor's written songs about. Apparently, this is a very intense
friendship and if it has crumbled, that's really sad. But
the other thing is it's really interesting how this, as
you've said, Mia, this court case is playing out in
the court of public opinion as well as in the
legal process, and it's the court of public opinion that matters.
And Baldoni knows that too, as we know from way
(44:03):
back when the text messages that aren't disputed where he's
like bury her. He knows that all that matters is
the publicity around this case. And now it's so interesting
because tabloid reporting about celebrities has always been toxic, it's
always been bitter, it's always skewed to the negative, but
it used to come from the outside. And now it's
(44:24):
like because it all plays out in excavation of clues
on social media and grabs of this and grabs of
that and holding that up to the light and who's
unfollowed who, and it's worse and more intrusive than ever
in so many ways.
Speaker 3 (44:38):
I'm still stuck on this point. Okay, if Justin Beldoni
called the most famous person in the entire world, let's
say it was George Clooney, and said, you better release
a public statement. If this was an allegation not proved,
if this was a rumor going around that he said,
you better provide some public support, put out a public statement,
(44:59):
or I am going to release all our text messages.
Do we not think that that would be relevant to
the case.
Speaker 2 (45:04):
But it's not real to the case because the case is.
Speaker 1 (45:07):
About what happened between Justin and Blake, not what happened
between Blake and No Taylor between them.
Speaker 3 (45:13):
But the case is also what happened afterwards. The case
is about defamation, the case is about bots, but.
Speaker 2 (45:19):
It's got nothing to do with Taylor Swift.
Speaker 1 (45:22):
This is all stuff that's happened after the case. Like,
the case doesn't just keep going indefinitely. I mean, there
can be other cases about that. This is like the
hydra of this case. There are cases that are just
springing up and everybody suing everybody.
Speaker 3 (45:35):
I think that this is how court cases work, though,
Like even if you looked at Bruce Lehman and Britney Higgins,
the shit that came up in that that you went,
how is that relevant?
Speaker 1 (45:43):
This is how that's when everyone started to sue each
other exactly exactly.
Speaker 3 (45:47):
And so I'm just saying I don't think that it's
ridiculous or totally irrelevant. I think that this detail I
can understand why a lawyer would bring it.
Speaker 2 (45:56):
Up, But what's crappy about it?
Speaker 1 (45:58):
Though?
Speaker 2 (45:58):
Is that, as we've already said, it's not necessarily true,
but you just believe it to be true because you've
been told. And so the court of public opinion has
reached its verdict, and it generally seems to be the
Blake Lively is not a nice person.
Speaker 1 (46:11):
I watched another simple Favor on the weekend, and I
watched a simple favor as well. She's a movie star,
like she is an actual movie star in the sense
of there are some people like Julia Roberts and George
Clooney who just pop off the screen, and I think
Blake Lively does like whatever you think of her personally.
And I know it's really hard in many ways for
(46:33):
celebrities and movie stars of today because of everything we
know about them, like the Timothy Shallomys, and we know
so much about their lives in a way that we
didn't really so much of the Julia Roberts's and the
Winnona Riders and celebrities of previous generations. But Blake Lively
has an amazing presence on screen. I thought, I mean,
(46:55):
those movies are absurd, but they are actually, you know,
quite a good time, and she was very good in them.
So is Anna Kendry.
Speaker 2 (47:00):
That is all we've got time for out louders on
our Monday show if we've stunted a bit funny to today.
By the way, we are still little recording remotely, so
we're all in our different homes dealing with doggies and
different things. So massive thank you to our team for
juggling all of that to bring you the show, and
to all of you for being here with us. We'll
be back in your ears tomorrow.
Speaker 4 (47:19):
Bye bye.
Speaker 1 (47:21):
Shout out to any Mum and Maya subscribers listening. If
you love the show and want to support us as well,
subscribing to Mom and Miya is the very best way
to do so. There is a link in the episode description.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.