May 7, 2025 • 44 mins
The world’s true crime podcasters, novelists and documentary makers are all camped out in a small town in Victoria, transfixed by a woman called Erin Patterson. The 'mushroom murders' are all we can talk about.
Glennon Doyle can do hard things. But this week, the iconic writer was forced off one of the world’s biggest stages. Why?
Plus, welcome to the age of the 'quiet wedding proposal' — and why Jessie thinks the new trend might finally see Holly married off to her elderly boyfriend.
What To Listen To Next:
- Listen to our latest episode: WTF Just Happened? The Election, Prince Harry & Nagi
- Listen: Mia On The Met Gala 2025 – Fashion, Lore & Drama
- Listen: Uh Oh. The Most Low Status Way To Dress
- Listen: The Question We're Finally Ready To Answer
- Listen: Meghan's Bedtime Routine Is A Lot
- Listen: Caroline Bessette-Kennedy: The Original Influencer
- Listen: We're Fighting About Being Ugly
Sign up to the Mamamia Out Loud Newsletter for all our recommendations and behind-the-scenes content in one place.
What to read:
- Ian was the only survivor of the deadly mushroom lunch. This is what happened after he sat down.
- When doctors diagnosed Glennon Doyle with anorexia, she didn't believe them.
- Every single red carpet look from the 2025 Met Gala.
- A surprise pregnancy, an ongoing feud and all the moments you missed on The Met Gala red carpet.
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 Amma Mia podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Mamma Mia acknowledges the traditional owners of land and waders
that this podcast is recorded on.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
The biggest reason is that it is a case that
is so highly unusual. That a suburban woman would be
on trial for murder is very, very unusual. The alleged
method is very very unusual.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
One of the things that's on display there is a
very ordinary, very sad disintegration of relationships between this family. Hello,
and welcome to Momma Mia. Out loud, what women are
actually talking about? On Wednesday, the seventh of May, I'm
Holly Wainwright.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
I'm mea Friedman, and I'm Jesse stevens An.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
On today's show, the world's true crime podcasters, novelists and
documentary makers are all camped out in one small Victorian town,
transfixed by a woman called Aaron Patterson. Why are we
all so obsessed with the so called mushroom murders? Also,
Glenn and Doyle can do hard things, but this week
(01:18):
the iconic writer was forced off one of the world's
biggest stages. Why and welcome to the age of the
quiet wedding proposal? And why Jesse thinks this new trend
might finally see me married off, but first, Mia Friedman.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
In case you missed it, it's rude to wear a
famous civil rights activist on your volva. Apparently this is
what Lisa from Black Pink and the White Lotus fame
did at the met gala, which was yesterday, and it's
kind of one of the only sort of controversies that
have come out of it. What happened was she wore
an outfit by Louis Vuton that was like tights with
(01:57):
Louis Vton logo on it, and a black lace blazer
and a pearl chain belt. She looked great, and she
had this sort of crystal embellished underwear or bodysuit that
was kind of lacy, and that seemed to have well,
did have the faces of women on it, or seem
to have the faces of women on it. Now some
people have said, wait a minute, that's Rosa Parks, the
(02:18):
famous black civil rights activist. She shouldn't be on your volver,
she shouldn't be on your.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
Bum And I had a look because everyone went Rosa Parks,
Rosa Parks, and then suddenly that felt like it became
fact and it's a woman who has glasses. But when
I had a look, I went, oh, well, we've not
really got confirmation, and the designer hasn't confirmed, and Lisa
hasn't confirmed, and it could be anyone.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Really, do you know what's creepy about it is that
all of us, including me, are doing close up zooming
into Lisa's vulva area, which I felt a little bit
icky about, to be honest.
Speaker 3 (02:48):
But I think that people have jumped on and kind
of gone, and I think that it's worth acknowledging. There's
been this barrage of criticism towards Lisa, and the context
of that is that there was a clip released a
few months ago by a disgruntled former employee who basically
showed Lisa and other members of that band using the
N word. So it's really incriminating, right, and that mixed
(03:11):
with potentially having Rosa Parks on her crotch is not
a great mix. So there are a lot of activists
and black Americans going, I'm offended by this. And also,
if you're gonna wear Rosa Parks on your underwear, then
know it's Rosa Parks. Because she didn't say in any
of her statements, is it fair to say she appeared
to not understand the relevance of what she was wearing.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
Yeah, what was really interesting on the Red carpet was
the celebrities who hadn't been very well briefed. Yeah, because
pretty much all of the people who attended, who were
asked who were celebrities, they had some really interesting, often
very touching, interesting educational things to say about the significance
of their outfit and why it was designed and how
(03:53):
it related back to the theme of the night and
respecting black culture and black designers and the civil rights movement.
But she didn't, and neither did Jenny, who was also
from Black Pink. She was like, I just wanted to
do a tribute to Coco Chanel. So they were not
briefed well by their team.
Speaker 3 (04:10):
And you told us yesterday in the subscriber episode that
I'd learned for the first time that these people are
dressed like in terms of someone comes and dresses them
and then Wintur comes in.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
And walk the Red carpet with their designer. This is
why I don't really like the criticism that's directly about
Lisa and Jenny, because they don't even choose what they're wearing.
They're put in the thing, and then they're given talking points,
and so if she's stuffed it, it's not really her fault,
that's my view.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
But do you reckon that it's her job to kind
of go all right, I'm walking this, I need to
know the significance. I ask a few questions.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
Absolutely. That's why something smells wrong to me about all
this criticism and the rosa parks of it all, because
I just don't think it's possible, in this hyper scrutinized
age that they would not have discussed that and foreseen
any backlash and had a statement pread. That's why something
about this story doesn't feel right to me. Also, the
other thing is is she is We kind of dismiss
(05:04):
her a bit, I think because if you're not familiar
with black Pink. But as everyone involved in White Loada
said in Asia in particular, but in plenty of other
place around the world, she's Taylor Swift, She's Princess Diana.
She is an enormously high profile, influential artist, so I
just dont by it.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
I also learned from someone at work who knows things
about fashion that none of the people dressed by Louis
Vuitton what pants interesting. I cannot wearing pants.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
Sabrina Carpenter didn't wear pants, and she said that Forrell,
who designs for Louis Vuton, he said, you're very short,
shorter than I thought. You won't be wearing pants. No
pants for you.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
I don't want to wear pants.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
We should wear pants to the out Loud show, Jesse,
you and I were short. We should not wear pants countless. Yeah,
at all times.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
I think anyone under five to seven. It's just a
good rule of thumb, no pants for you. If you
want to hear us talk at length, not about Lisa's
vulva area, but other things are the looks on the
red carpet, including Sabrina Carpenter's in Daya Rihanna. We've done
a special subs episode about it, an emergency meeting. In fact,
there is a link in the show notes.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
There's a trial going on in a real Victorian town
at the moment that the world's content creators have descended upon.
Here's a little grab of the kind of people who
are hanging around outside the courtroom.
Speaker 4 (06:20):
We thought we'd give you a little behind the scenes
look and how the highly anticipated Mustering trial is being
covered by the media. It was a case that fascinated
us at the time and continues to draw an immense
amount of attention with all eyes on more Well right now.
So as well as a huge contingency of Australian media,
there are novelists, there are book writers, there are podcasters
(06:41):
and filmmakers. There's even the team from a stand down
here working on a three part Donkey series. I've spoken
to a number of journalists who flew in from the
UK at the start of this week just to cover
this trials. We've had the BBC down here doing crosses
throughout the day.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
It is, of course, the trial of Aaron Patterson, who
is pleading not guilty to knowingly killing three of her
in laws and attempting to kill another when she invited
them to lunch back in July twenty twenty three and
then served them homemade beef Wellington's made with dehydrated death
cap mushrooms. So the people invited to lunch at Eron's
(07:20):
house that day was her former husband, Simon Patterson. Now
he's the father of her two children, and he declined
the invitation. They were separated and things had got pretty
testy between them. But the people who did come were
Simon's parents, so Erin's mother and father in law or
former mother and father in law, Don and Gail Patterson,
(07:42):
also Gail's sister, so Erin's aunt in law. I suppose
Heather Wilkinson and her husband, Ian Wilkinson. Now, tragically it
was Don and Gail, so Erin's mother and father in
law who lost their lives after that lunch, as well
as Heather. Now Ian Wilkinson, Heather's husband was the one
survivor of that lunch and he gave evidence in the
(08:04):
trial last week. Now Erin's former husband, Simon, is the
father of their two children. Obviously those children lost their
grandparents that day. The family, the Pattersons, are Baptists and
quite religious. That became talked about a little bit as
one of the points of tension between Erin and her
husband playing. Now, to be clear, what is not under
question here is that those four people who all went
(08:27):
to Erin's house in Leongatha, Victoria that day eight death
cap mushrooms. That has been established. That is not under discussion.
It was established at the hospital relatively soon after they
were admitted seriously unwell. What is being prosecuted in court
is whether Erin who interestingly is a former air traffic controller,
but who was apparently supporting herself largely with an inheritance
(08:50):
from her grandma. Did it deliberately or by mistake? She
says it was a tragic accident, that she'd bought the
mushrooms from an Asian supermarket and had no idea there
was a problem with them. The prosecution says that Erin
was a known forager of mushrooms, that she owned a
dehydrater that she later denied owning and dumped at a
local tip, and that our phone record show that she
(09:11):
was present at several sites around the town where death
cap mushrooms were known to be. Now, we're not here
to debate Eron's innocence or guilt, because there's a judge
and jury employed to do that at the moment, But
we want to unpack why we think the entire world
is obsessed with this case and why we're likely to
see many books. We're already seeing many many podcasts. There
(09:33):
is going to definitely be of dueling documentaries. They'll probably
be a movie. Jesse, does this real life tragic case
tickle every one of our true crime obsessed sensitivities.
Speaker 3 (09:45):
There are a few things it has that I think
to anyone who consumes true crime. I used to host
a true crime podcast, there are a few elements that
make a case particularly interesting, and I think in this
case as well appealing internationally. The biggest reason is that
it is a case that is so highly unusual. That
(10:06):
a suburban woman would be on trial for murder is
very very unusual. The alleged method is very very unusual.
I think as well that if the allegations are proven
in court, then the audaciousness of that choice, because we
(10:26):
know that toxology reports they were able to you know,
identify the death cap mushrooms. You look at that and go,
it wasn't very easy to hide if those allegations are true.
And I think as well, what a true crime documentary
podcast anything needs is primary sources. And the fact that
this has a wealth of text messages of interpersonal relationships,
(10:50):
of divorce of in laws makes it particularly interesting. Like
Maya even you saying it's unusual that she's got really
her ex in laws at her house, and then of
course she gathered them there and announced that she had
a cancer diagnosis that she was navigating. It has since
come to light that she did not have a cancer diagnosis,
(11:13):
which makes the whole story even more curious. And you're
seeing on all the homepages as well every day the
things that are coming out. The fact as well that
there is a person who was there who survived, means
that he is able to say there were plates served,
and her plate was a different color, and I can
tell you how sick I was. And before three of
(11:35):
the people did die, they said, hang on, why was
her meal on a different colored plate? Like there was
suspicions being aroused. And I think that for those reasons
it's particularly interesting.
Speaker 1 (11:48):
And the living witness is unusual in a case like this,
isn't it. And also I think what you say about
the method, this idea that there's this potentially lethal substance
or what is a lethal substance that's just available, Yes,
I didn't know that.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
I think that's part of it too, isn't it right?
Is that the idea that there is this lethal thing
that just growing in the ground and on bushes and
on trees in the Australian suburban bush. Every piece of
this story, and I don't want to lessen the absolute tragedy.
Three lives are lost, lots of people love those people
still do love those people. It's a horrible tragedy. But
(12:24):
every detail of this story is so ripe for storytelling,
fictionalizing analysis. And we live in a world now, don't we,
where everybody is doing their own investigations alongside the actual investigations.
And you can find out because there's a storyline in
my book that's adjacent to this in a way, And
I went down some rabbit holes about mushrooms, and you
(12:47):
can find out where all different kinds of mushrooms grow.
You can find out which ones are poisonous, which ones aren't.
Some people are really really into foraged fungus and they
cook with it all the time. What are the things
that came out this week, which again is a fascinating turn,
is that she was in all these true crime groups.
She was really interested in the Kelly Lane story, and
so she was in groups around that and they talk
about mushrooms and dehydrating them and getting the kids to
(13:09):
eat them. It's like you couldn't write it.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
Yeah, And the analysis of a female alleged murderer is
something that Kelly Layne is another example. It captures the
public imagination because we believe that women, especially mothers, are
the picture of innocence and sacrifice and martyrdom. So it's like,
I think that the other question that everyone has is motive.
(13:35):
Is like what drives a woman? And that's a big question.
It's like we almost with men. And again this is
because of the statistics of how many percentage of men
and women are murderers. But what makes someone decide to
potentially do that is a big question. And I think two.
I was reading NPR, which is an enormous US media company.
(13:56):
We're talking about how in April twenty twenty three, a
pharmacist in this small town was going about his business
and noticed under a tree that these deathcap mushrooms were
growing and reported it and said, this is quite dangerous.
It appears if she is found to be guilty, that
she may have heard that and then kind of learned
a bit about what what happens.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
Oh, when you said some people are really into it
and they like foraging and cooking with things they find,
It's true. I know someone who does that, but I've.
Speaker 5 (14:26):
Never asked them.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
Why is it to save money? Is it because it's
just interesting, like growing your own vegetables.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
It's because if you're really into fungi. You think they
taste better the wild ones. There's obviously almost like the
sport of going and finding them and hunting them down.
And I watched some really interesting videos of people who
would test the mushrooms that they've picked on themselves, kind
of to see how sick you get, because some mushrooms
can kill you, like death caps, and lots of other
(14:54):
mushrooms can just make you a bit unwell. There can
also be hallucinogenic, and of course there's that too, right, Yeah,
So there's a subset, just as there almost is a
subset for anything, of people who are fascinated by fungi.
And this idea that you can go and you can
get these beautiful mushrooms and then turn them into something
is not always a sinister thing, of course, but it's
one of those things that if you didn't know, you
wouldn't know.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
But why don't more people die accidentally? Then if more
people are doing it, is there a process by which
you can establish whether something's poisonous or hallucinogenical, whether it's just.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
And you can food also identify them, like if you
wanted to know whether or not this is a death cap,
you can find out very quickly, so it's you know,
obviously you can argue that there are mistakes going to
be made in that way, but there's a lot of
information about where to find different kinds of mushrooms out there,
which is really interesting to motive.
Speaker 5 (15:42):
Though.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
I think this is a divorce story at its heart
if it turns out, and of course we're not saying,
but what has been presented in court. Her ex husband,
Simon Patterson, gave a lot of evidence last week, and
one of the things that were striking to me is
the disintegration of their relationship is very relatable. Apparently when
they first broke up, it was relatively amicable. They'd had
(16:02):
disagreements about religion. She wasn't religious, he was. They'd had
disagreements about money, they'd had disagreements about the way the
kids are being raised. But it started out quite amicable,
and then it had obviously escalated to a point where
it wasn't And a lot of text messages were shown
that seemed to be a lot about money and financial dispute,
and the in laws were involved in.
Speaker 3 (16:21):
That, and of course he was meant to be at
that lunch then and.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
The night before pulled out I think that one of
the things that's on display there is a very ordinary,
very sad disintegration of relationships between this family.
Speaker 1 (16:35):
After the break, who gets to decide how successful a
woman is allowed to be? We explain the internet drama
surrounding Glennon Doyle this week.
Speaker 3 (16:46):
In case you missed it, a TikTok user who goes
by the name of pp poo pooh Emily. Sorry, can
we just pause?
Speaker 5 (16:52):
I put it.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
Wow, that's not a line I hear every day.
Speaker 3 (16:56):
Is this where we're at as a culture? Because I
will have everyone reminded that I went to university and.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
That's kind of level of humor I have to say.
Speaker 3 (17:05):
And my toddlers that would be her username onto we
have great chats. So I am now referencing in a
podcast Poo poo poo Emily. Anyway, she posted a video
about a fun fact she just learned, and a doctor
named doctor Souge jumped on to confirm or deny. Here's
what she said. So last night I proceed a video
(17:25):
mentioning that some people apparently can't smell ants, and apparently
the majority of people can't smell ants.
Speaker 5 (17:32):
If you can smell ants, congratulations, you've been blessed with
one of the most useless superpowers on Earth, And yes,
it is real. It comes down to the chemicals that
ants release when they're squished or stressed or they're trying
to warn the colony. One of the big ones is
form of acid. It's sharp, it's vinegary, and if your
nose is sensitive to it, you will know straight away.
And then there are odorous house ants. These guys release
(17:55):
meth al ketoes. These are the same chemicals in blue
cheese and rotten coconuts. Have actually never smelled rotting coconuts.
So if you've ever thought that ants smell like sweaty
socks or expied stilton, you're not wrong. People describe it
in all sorts of ways, rust cleaning, spray, sour chemicals,
and only about twenty percent of people can say that
they can smell ants. Scientists think it might be genetic.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
How many ants did to congregate to admit to smell
How stressed do they need to be?
Speaker 3 (18:21):
Oh, guys, I'm so glad you asked, because I watched
this and went, oh my god, I can smell ants,
Like as soon as they brought it up, I could
smell it.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
Give me an example of a time and a place
where you can smelt as.
Speaker 3 (18:33):
I smell ants before it rains. I've been outsider, I've
been on the street, and you know the smell as well,
like you see the sky change and whatever.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
Smelling rain.
Speaker 3 (18:41):
No, the smell of the rain comes when it hits
the concrete, right. But when I see the ants running
because they're stressed, right, because I know that's train.
Speaker 1 (18:49):
And wanting the other ants get out. You're about to drown.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
Yeah, And I see them fretting, and there is a
damp I would say a wet, earthy smell that I get.
I wouldn't describe it as anything strong enough to be
like a blue cheese smell.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
So you don't have to be very close to the ants.
You don't have to actually be going.
Speaker 3 (19:06):
No, no, no, because that would be awkward.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
They might go smelly.
Speaker 3 (19:10):
It is like a smell that where like I can
nearly taste it.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
I remember being I'm not in the percent.
Speaker 3 (19:16):
And I remember I think I remember my dad saying
something about the smell of ants. So the fact that
this is a business thought to be genetic interesting.
Speaker 1 (19:23):
There are other things. Because I was interested to go
and find what other things can only some people smell coriander. Yeah,
you either fine with coriander or you hate it. People
smell it.
Speaker 3 (19:34):
I hate it the taste to some people it literally
taste like dish.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
So yeah, exactly one of these people. Yeah, is cat urine. Oh,
some people have strong I'm like, you have strong reaction
to cat urine. Other people it's just not that big
of a deal, or they can't smell it at all.
Speaker 3 (19:53):
Fascinating.
Speaker 1 (19:53):
I don't know how these things are helpful in evolution.
It's true in case you missed it, and you probably did,
because even I did. And I'm a big glen and
Doyle fan. She's had a very shitty week on the internet.
This story has made me really puffer fish and I'm
going I unpack it in a very top lane way
because it might seem a bit weedy and a bit petty,
(20:14):
but at the heart of it, it's about what can
happen to women when they become too successful and how
other women feel about it. Now Glennon Doyle, For those
of you who aren't familiar with her, she's a hugely
successful author, podcaster. She most recently wrote a fantastic book
called Untamed about women breaking free from constraints in their lives.
(20:36):
She's written also a lot of books and blogs and
spoken on her podcast We Can Do Hard Things about
her personal life and about struggle she's overcome, like addiction,
infidelity in her first marriage, meeting her now wife, and
you know, getting married to her, and her lifelong battle
with a eating disorder.
Speaker 3 (20:55):
She's in the same world as you're Elizabeth Gilbert's your Oprah's.
She's on Oprah.
Speaker 1 (21:00):
Yeah, she is. In fact, Oprah optioned her book either
Love Warrior or Untamed I can't remember which one, and
has turned it into a really thingy oh, I didn't
know that a movie. Yes, a TV series. All her
books are being turned into TV series. Fat anyway, she
has had a bad week. She was forced to quit
(21:21):
substack after she was essentially harassed off the platform.
Speaker 2 (21:26):
First of all, tell us about substack.
Speaker 1 (21:27):
I'm so glad you asked now Louders may have hurt
us referencing substack a lot. It's basically a platform where
you can write a newsletter. Anyone can sign up. Think
of it like social media in a way, but for writing.
Speaker 3 (21:39):
It's like what blogging used to be.
Speaker 1 (21:41):
Yeah, it's like a tool, really I'm on substack. I've
always done a newsletter, but I move my newsletter onto
substack because it's just very easy to use. The back
end of it is very easy.
Speaker 3 (21:52):
So mummy are out loud our newsletter.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
It's also on subject I have a substackle, though I
always forget to so people.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
The word substack has almost become synonymous with the word newsletter.
So a lot of people. Small writers are on their
bigger writers are on there. Your sister Claire Stevens has
got a substack. You can't manetized, so you can choose
to charge people or not. It's all sort of very
easy to use anyway. So Glennon a little while ago
decided she didn't want to be on social media anymore because,
(22:20):
like many of us, she felt that it was just
all a bit toxic, it was a bit big. She
was sick of being a victim to the algorithm. She
also didn't like who she was when she was scrolling
through social media. So her good friend Liz Gilbert, who
has a substack, convinced her to come over. And here
is a video that Liz and Glennon made on substack
(22:42):
and sent out to their followers. Liz was welcoming Glennon
onto substack. Here's what they had said, and here.
Speaker 6 (22:48):
As Glennon Doyle's beloved friend to welcome back to the substack.
Because I have been trying to convince her to come
to the substack. I've been like, come over to the
substack where the kind people are, come over to the
stack where the literary people are. Come over to the
substack and be with us in the gentle corner of
(23:09):
the world. And finally it happened that Lennon is with
us on the substack.
Speaker 3 (23:15):
Nothing sounds more generic than the use of the substack.
Speaker 2 (23:18):
The substant drop, the gentle place.
Speaker 1 (23:20):
That didn't go that well, it didn't go that way night.
So what happened was she moved an audience or her community,
because she builds communities, and she wanted to write again.
And like many of us, she finds writing books a
huge lift and very solitary. She likes the idea of
something a little less restrictive and a little faster. So
she moved over to substack. She straight away got a
(23:42):
following of over two hundred thousand people. She did have
a paywall. I think she put everything that she was
writing behind the paywall. And that's when people started to
lose it. There was a woman who kicked it off
by writing an open letter to Glennan Doyle saying that
she was a big Glennon Doyle fan, and she even
published a photo of herself with Glennon which she'd been
(24:02):
to a book signing. But she said, the way you
came onto the platform was too confident. You needed to
be more gentle, needed to be more humble, You needed
to be more respectful, and you also shouldn't have taken
followers away from some of us who are smaller. What
you should have actually done was just be quiet and
elevate the work of other writers on substack.
Speaker 3 (24:25):
That's so weird. Your tone changed when you were telling
that part of the story.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
So that's started a bit of an avalanche. I try'd
imagine what we have been about this, with people saying
it's not fair, Glenna needs to be more humble, she's
doing it wrong. How very dare you? And she was
on for about six weeks or eight weeks, and as
I said, she gained this big following who would have
followed her anywhere. And the thing about substack is that
(24:49):
it's kind of networked, so there's the more followers she has,
the better it is for the platform. But this sort
of started a bit of a backlash and an avalanche
and a pylon and people saying Glenna shouldn't be here
and she's not doing it right and she needs to
learn and listen. And so this week she sent a
letter to her followers and deleted her account. She said,
I'm changing. I've left substack and I'm returning this beautiful
(25:12):
community here to this simple newsletter. If you became any
kind of paid subscriber over there, I'm refunding every penny
I received. There's nothing else you need to do. I
will keep writing to you here straight in your inbox.
So she just moved off the platform. Essentially. She said,
I'm deeply sorry for the disappointment. I feel disappointed too.
All I can ask is that you trust I made
none of those decisions lightly, and I am doing what
(25:32):
I believe is best for my own health and the
health and protection of this community that I love so much.
I finally love myself and ask too much to stay
in any situation that feels bad. It is okay to
try a new thing and then say, actually, that didn't work.
Leaving a place as soon as it feels bad, even
if it's inconvenient, I think is embodiment progress.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
Holly, I feel genuinely worried for Glennan Doyle. To be honest,
I read that statement and she said it felt unsafe,
and she said, you know, she felt very threatened there.
And I mean, I'm not as much of a Glennon
stan as you, Mia, but I'm familiar with her work.
And I listened to a week and do hard things
quite often, because that's really interesting. And she's in vreridibly
open about her mental health struggles and the fact she's
(26:12):
in recovery from this eating disorder, and she goes to
meetings every day, and she talks a lot about her vulnerability.
And so when I read that, I felt genuinely worried
for her, actually, because it feels terrible to be piled on, criticized, harassed.
It feels extra terrible. Maybe, well, I was going to say,
(26:34):
if you're a vulnerable person, but actually it feels terrible
for everybody. That the thing is is, if I was
going to put my hat on of the people who
have written all those very caring, open letters, I would say,
and this massive generalization, right creatives are sensitive people. If
you are a creative who would desperately love for your
(26:54):
art to be your living, because let's remember, and I
speak from a place of privilege on this too, that
for the enormous majority of writers, it is not their living.
It is a tiny, tiny percentage of creatives who actually
make a living from being a creative. If that's you,
it can feel like genuine pain that there are people
(27:15):
who you don't believe are necessarily as talented, or as
hard working, or as worthy, or as deserving or whatever,
who appear to have everything, and now they also want
some of what you've got. Right now, I know that's
not true. I know that Glennon being on substack wasn't
taking people from the woman who wrote that letter or
anybody else.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
I hope they said that they yes.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
But then the cold hard facts of it are that
if you're forking over money for subscriptions, which if you're
following a lot of writers on substack, that can really
mount up, and you're making your choices, there is some
merit to the argument that paying Glennon means you won't
pay someone else. So I understand the instinct in a
way of the creatives who genuinely felt their hackles rise
(27:59):
because they were, like, I thought this was a lovely
little community just for us, and then here's one of
the biggest dogs coming in.
Speaker 1 (28:06):
Why do you think they thought it was that? Like,
it's a tech platform. Substack is owned by a bunch
of tech bros who are making no secret of the
fact that it's a tech platform with an algorithm, just
like everyone.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
But look at what Liz Gilbert said. That's why they
think that. Liz Gilbert literally said, welcome to the kind place,
the literary place, the gentle place. It's positioned that way
for writers and creatives like come away from the toxic
soup of social media and build a community who opt
in and who care about you. Right, That's how it's positioned. Now,
I'm not saying that's necessarily true, but I think that's why.
(28:42):
And so the people who believe that the reality is,
as you just said, tech bros making lots of money.
But the people who genuinely believe and invested in that community,
I can understand why their hackles rise at Glenn and
entering their space, But I have to be on the
record as saying that I just think this sort of
hounding her off their stuff is so depressing, Jesse.
Speaker 3 (29:02):
Don't you think I find it depressing to although I
read that open letter and I went, you've written the
open letter to the wrong person, and I think we
do this with women a lot. You've written it as
an open letter to Glenn Doyle, and you've meant to
write an open letter to substack because all your frustrations
are with substack. And I started by writing blogs on
(29:23):
the internet, right, and I might get one hundred page views,
and it was impossible to grow. It was impossible. And
I think that the frustration now is that there are
a lot of creatives. There are artists, there are musicians,
there are writers, there are designers. There are business owners
who want to get their work out there, and they
want to produce stuff and not be beholdened to an algorithm.
(29:47):
And then they don't want to feel as though they
have to play a game like at a casino. And
substack is increasingly becoming that because every tech platform becomes that. Right,
So it's got new features that make it more like Twitter.
It's oh, now you've got to make video, and now
you've got to you know what, if you were getting
advice from substack, or people who understand substack, they would
(30:08):
probably say, write about glennar Doyle this week, because that's
the conversation going off, right, And if you want to grow,
and maybe this is a shameful I can't speak for
all creatives, but as someone who started a little blog,
you want to grow. You want people to read your
stuff because you want to feel like it's worthy, and
you find that, I don't know, it's very satisfying to
(30:29):
have people read your work. And I also think that
in an age where we have never had more subscriptions,
I am subscribing to so many streamers, and then I
subscribe to media companies, and now I'm having individual creators
ask me to support them totally.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
And to be clear, that's because the whole system of
media is broken and has been broken by the tech platform. Yes,
so it used to be that there were magazines and newspapers,
and then Facebook and Google and Matter came and gobbled
it all up, gobbled up all the advertising that we
all used to use to survive. And that's why all
the magazines closed and all the newspaper to stop printing,
(31:10):
and everyone struggling to survive. Now and every day you
hear of another media organization going out of business, and
so people are then going, all right, I'll go out
and I'll build my own audience. But as you say,
there's only so many individual writers that we can pay
to subscribe to.
Speaker 3 (31:27):
Yeah, money is finite.
Speaker 1 (31:28):
Do you think that the money is the problem. Did
anyone say to Joe Rogan, Hey, Joe Rogan, don't come
onto YouTube. You're getting enough money from Spotify.
Speaker 3 (31:36):
I think that there is an irritation or a sensitivity
to pay walls at the moment. I think that, because
it's all happened quite quickly, we got very used to
getting content for free as consumers of the Internet. And
I do wonder if there is a sense. I don't
know if it's gendered necessarily, but it is gendered.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
Do you have enough? Because I agree, so I think
there's that. So I think a lot of people would
look at the Glennons of the world, who, obviously, with
not her life but by all the external measures, seems
to be doing fine financially and probably going and now
you want more. And there's a grist to that to
the point of whether or not we hold the men
to the same standard. We don't, but there are plenty
of people who don't like Joe Rogan. There are plenty
(32:18):
of people who criticize all of those guys too. It's
just that there's a very particular but high weight pile
on it.
Speaker 1 (32:25):
They don't criticize their right to be somewhere. They might
criticize what they say. And if people criticizing what Glennon says,
that's a different thing. What they're saying is you shouldn't
be here. And what Glennon herself often says is that
when a man puts work into the world, the world
debates the work. When a woman puts work into the world,
people debate her right to put that work into the world.
Speaker 3 (32:46):
And I do think, and we talked about this a
little bit with the Nagi and Brookie conversation recently, there
is a real distaste and discomfort with people with big
followings at the moment. I think it can be used
to undermine a creator, like almost you're not a writer,
you're an influencer.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
So even though these are women who've built their own businesses.
Speaker 3 (33:06):
Yes, but there is this allergy to influencer. And it's
also like there isn't an acknowledgment of how hard this
is a career. Glennon has worked for fifteen years to
grow that following. And then the whole point of that
following is that she can yell at them to buy
her stuff and subscribe to you.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
I have a question, Mia, I'm a little bit irritated.
And this is easy for me to say that Glennon
bowed to them. I'm a little bit irritated by that
because the thing is is that we sit here and
we do this quite often, where we'll talk about a
pylon and we'll go But two hundred thousand people subscribed,
Like maybe I didn't subscribe in that minute. Maybe some
of them have come with her, but there were plenty
(33:42):
of people who want to read Glennan Doyle's work. It's
not like a blanket rejection. It's some loud voices who are,
as you've already pointed out, Jesse, gaming an algorithm to
make their voices louder. Should the Glennons of the world
be a little bit more? And again, I don't mean
this is criticism, but a bit more fuck them, like
a bit more, you know what I mean? Like I'm
(34:04):
going to be here and you're going to criticize me,
and that storm will blow over, because it will blow
over that storm. Why do you think she did decide?
I mean she said didn't feel safe, it didn't feel good,
and I'm.
Speaker 3 (34:17):
Yeah, it's part of her brand.
Speaker 2 (34:19):
She should have lived through it.
Speaker 6 (34:20):
Well.
Speaker 1 (34:20):
What I think is interesting is the way it has
been weaponized against Glennon and also Liz Gilbert. The idea
that they are building communities of women and they care
about women, and so that when women come out, individual
women and you know a number of individual women come
out and say I don't like this, it hurts me,
(34:42):
then they're put in a really difficult position. Remember when
Liz Gilbert wrote that entire novel that was said in Russia.
It was a historical novel, and Simukrainian people came out
and said, this is upsetting to us that you are
having these carries. It wasn't about the war, but they
say that anything that's even mentions Russia is upsetting to us.
And she pulled her entire novel. You know, it was
about to be released, So I can have my hat
(35:05):
on that. I'm like, I wish they wouldn't capitulate, because
then the people who pushed them feel, you know, and
it's been called bullying, and I think it's an interesting idea.
Can you bully someone who's really successful, Yeah, you kind
of can.
Speaker 3 (35:17):
I think I read a substack that said, when there's
a pylon, yeah, you feel like you're David fighting Goliath,
but very quickly you become Goliath. And I think that
that's a really interesting way of putting it in terms
of the.
Speaker 1 (35:30):
Little David's together are like one Goliath. And I understand.
I mean, imagine being in a because I thought the
same thing whole. Imagine being in a restaurant and you're
at a table with all your friends who want to
be there, and you're having a lovely dinner, but all
the people at the other tables in the restaurant are like,
she shouldn't be here, Why is she in here? Who
let her in here? We don't like her that she's here.
She's doing terrible things to us, She's making our meal worse.
(35:53):
You wouldn't want to stay.
Speaker 3 (35:54):
Yeah. I worry that it gives more power to the
critics though, and the next time it's like, well, you
should be doing what Glennon and Elizabeth did, and we
expect women to bow down.
Speaker 1 (36:04):
I also don't think anyone has a right to earn
money from something that they love doing. I just don't
like if you're on substack and you don't have many
followers and you can't earn a living from it, don't
blame Glennon Doyle, blame substack, or blame the system, or
try something else. I mean, surely there's enough room for
all of us.
Speaker 3 (36:23):
After the break. The rise of Quiet Proposals.
Speaker 2 (36:27):
One unlimited out loud access. We drop episodes every Tuesday
and Thursday exclusively for Mamma Mia subscribers. Follow the link
at the show notes to get us in your ears
five days a week, and a huge thank you to
all our current subscribers.
Speaker 3 (36:46):
Apparently we are seeing the rise in the quiet proposal,
and I know in particular that Holly likes to stay
abreast of proposal trends as she waits for Brent to
pop the questions.
Speaker 1 (36:55):
So Brent's proposing so quietly she can't even hear it.
Speaker 3 (36:58):
She has not heard it after this many years, really proposal.
So I like to keep Holly in the loop so
that she knows what to expect. In an article by
The Guardian, quiet proposals are said to be championed by
Z's so those under twenty eight, and it's about a
rejection of the surprise, the splashiness, and the public element.
Now this has come from a survey by Diamond Factory
(37:20):
Jewelers they're called, and they surveyed all these people and
they found that more than half of shoppers for engagement
rings are accompanied by their partner. Right, engagements are also
being kept more quiet and private. We know gen Z's
don't love taking risks. There's been a lot written about that.
And mix that in with a cost of living crisis,
(37:42):
because who has hidden money to fork out on a
ring without their partner knowing? And you've got yourself a
very different kind of proposal, Holly. Now, I know that
you are probably hoping for a grand gesture and a
revolting ring that Brent thinks is just lovely. So is
this stressing out a little bit?
Speaker 2 (37:58):
Oh? It's really stressing me. I'm delighted go gen Z
because I know it's one of my most unpopular opinions
is that I find engagements and weddings really weird, and
I love going to them. I love supporting my friends
in their love.
Speaker 3 (38:14):
You love a wedding, but you just don't want to
get married.
Speaker 2 (38:16):
But the artificial nonsense that goes along with it, like
that whole oh my god, he popped the question, how amazing,
Oh my god, Oh my god, when you know that
she's been saying every month for years. If you don't
pop the fucking question, I'm leaving.
Speaker 3 (38:29):
Excuse me. I project that that's.
Speaker 2 (38:30):
Not always true, but it often is that we have
to still make all the like, oh my god stuff
when we all know it was coming. Like, I find
that really strange. It really confuses me. I don't understand it.
It seems to me that marrying someone is a big decision,
and so ideally it should be a mutual one.
Speaker 1 (38:48):
Well that's not very No, it should be between a
man and the father of his betrothed, of his intended betrothed.
Speaker 2 (38:55):
And I've always really rankled with the idea that women
have to wait to be chosen. So I love everything
about this. I love the lack of pretense of all that, like.
Speaker 3 (39:05):
Oh, he just happened to choose the perfect.
Speaker 2 (39:07):
Ring when really you'd been sending in pictures of five
minutes all that whole, Like he said he chose me,
when it's like, didn't you choose him? I don't It's
always confused me.
Speaker 1 (39:18):
Do you know what it makes me think of is
the way that now we all text someone to say
can I call you? Like we don't just call them.
And so it's like you're right when you said, no
one wants to take risks. No one likes things happening
that are out of their control. So the idea of
it being a joint decision. I was listening to another podcaster,
(39:39):
I like John Lovett, who was talking about his engagement
and it's his second engagement. The first one was a
surprise but that didn't work out, but the second one,
he and his partner had talked about it. They'd planned it,
they knew what day they were going to do it,
They went out to dinner, they decided that they were
going to do it when the dessert was put on
the table, but before they ate the dessert. I don't
(40:00):
know it was planned within an inch of its life.
Speaker 2 (40:03):
Why did they need to do it at all, Like
as in, if they'd planned and we're getting married, why
did they need this particular moment with the dessert for
the ground.
Speaker 1 (40:10):
No, they didn't put it on the gram.
Speaker 3 (40:12):
I think it's a like a right of passage, a right.
Speaker 1 (40:15):
Of passage, but also like a bookmark, like it's an
actual instead of just bleeding into yeah, should we get married? Yeah, yeah,
we probably should.
Speaker 3 (40:24):
See My parents always say they were at the joint
thirtieth birthday party, sitting at you know, my father's parents' house,
and they were like, guess we should get married, and
then they got married. And I've always found that so depressed.
Speaker 2 (40:38):
My parents have the same story. They were and they
were really young. My parents got married really young, and
they were just like, let's get married. Then they got married. Like,
but I don't explain to me the point of a proposal.
Explain it to me, like I live on another planet.
Speaker 1 (40:50):
Interesting like story, like there aren't many people.
Speaker 3 (40:55):
Do love the story. I must story. But well for
a lot of so I think if someone comes in
to work and they go, I'm engaged, probably the first
question I'd ask is tell me how it happened?
Speaker 1 (41:08):
Yeah, how did you?
Speaker 3 (41:09):
Yeah? Which I see what you're saying. And a lot
of gen Z's have said that it's a far more
equal power dynamic to go we're going to decide. I
love it when women propose to men. Obviously, there are
same sex couples where it's like you know, someone proposes
to someone. I think that that's all really exciting. But
the idea that all women are kind of sending their
(41:32):
ring ideas.
Speaker 1 (41:32):
I do know women.
Speaker 2 (41:34):
I know that, not all, yes, but I have some
in my life ye who have done that for a
long time or have said things like I'm giving you
a year deadline. I know that, and yet we still
have to all act really surprised when it happens. It's
just fakery that I don't get.
Speaker 3 (41:48):
I was genuinely very surprised, and as someone who I think,
Luca just looked at me and went, look, she doesn't
have any taste, so I probably won't confer with her.
Speaker 1 (41:57):
He knew that you, so I like.
Speaker 3 (42:00):
Looking down and going Luca thought that this ring was
me like, and I've always loved that about it. But
I found this interesting.
Speaker 1 (42:07):
He planned it with me, I designed it, and I didn't.
I didn't know anything about it.
Speaker 3 (42:10):
Well, I was going to say, no, I don't think
the data says that eighteen percent of people who are
buying a ring. If you're not bringing in your partner,
you're bringing in like your mum or your dad. I
would say, mom. I love that Luca had the foresight
to go. I'm not conferring with Jesse, and I'm definitely
not conferring with me. Can you imagine what you would
have chosen me.
Speaker 1 (42:26):
I did go with him to get your wedding rings
and wedding bands. Yeah, but I wasn't involved. I just
chose one for myself. Yeah yeah, I bought myself shopping opportunities.
I went and bought myself a different wedding ring because
I get bored of mine, I just change it.
Speaker 2 (42:40):
I have a confession. I have a quiet judgment for
people who redesign their rings. I'm sorry. It's all the
out louders who did it. But Megan, my friend who
I don't like to criticize.
Speaker 3 (42:49):
You know, she's my criticized.
Speaker 2 (42:51):
Three times she's redesigned that Harry gave her. They've been
married for six years. Seven years. Maybe that's a lot
of times. Why do I have a quiet judgment about that?
What's my problem?
Speaker 1 (43:01):
Just to be clear, When I said I buy new
wedding rings all the time, I just like it might
be from sports girl. Like, I'm not a ring person either,
so I've never had a big fan your ring. I
just like it's whatever ring I wear. On that wedding
finger is my wedding ring. I feel like.
Speaker 3 (43:17):
If I went and got my ring redesigned, I feel
as though that would be probably an active repettiness. But
you know what, I respected as someone There are people
who know jewelry and they understand and face is probably that.
Speaker 1 (43:31):
But what are you going to do if you get
an ugly ring. You're going to wear it forever, have
to look at it every day.
Speaker 3 (43:35):
Yeah. So I have a friend who recently was talking
to his friends, going, I'm going to propose, here's the ring,
and he showed them and they all went, that's the
most disgusting thing I've ever seen. It was the size of,
you know, a small iPad that's going.
Speaker 1 (43:48):
To get caught on things.
Speaker 3 (43:50):
She's gonna hate it. It was the wrong color, and
they had a champ on him. They had exactly they
had a different finger. Yeah, I don't your vagina that
it goes all the way up you lose your ring
and then.
Speaker 1 (44:05):
Yeah, it must fash. I don't know. It's been a while, everyone,
even I forgot how they work.
Speaker 2 (44:12):
And here we've we've ended up here from wedding chat
to MIA's vagia out loud at.
Speaker 1 (44:19):
Least I haven't got Rosa Parks.
Speaker 6 (44:21):
That's all.
Speaker 2 (44:21):
We have time for friends probably just as well.
Speaker 3 (44:24):
Shall we wrap things ahead?
Speaker 2 (44:26):
I think so. Thank you out louders for being with
us through another big show, and of course to our
wonderful team for putting it together. We're going to be
back in your ears tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (44:34):
And if you're looking for something else to listen to,
don't forget about our met Gala subscriber special. There is
a link in our show notes. Bye bye.
Speaker 1 (44:42):
Shout out to any MoMA mia subscribers listening. If you
love the show and want to support us as well,
subscribing to MoMA Miya is the very best way to
do so. There is a link in the episode description.
You're listening to Amma Mia podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Mamma Mia acknowledges the traditional owners of land and waders
that this podcast is recorded on.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
The biggest reason is that it is a case that
is so highly unusual. That a suburban woman would be
on trial for murder is very, very unusual. The alleged
method is very very unusual.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
One of the things that's on display there is a
very ordinary, very sad disintegration of relationships between this family. Hello,
and welcome to Momma Mia. Out loud, what women are
actually talking about? On Wednesday, the seventh of May, I'm
Holly Wainwright.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
I'm mea Friedman, and I'm Jesse stevens An.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
On today's show, the world's true crime podcasters, novelists and
documentary makers are all camped out in one small Victorian town,
transfixed by a woman called Aaron Patterson. Why are we
all so obsessed with the so called mushroom murders? Also,
Glenn and Doyle can do hard things, but this week
(01:18):
the iconic writer was forced off one of the world's
biggest stages. Why and welcome to the age of the
quiet wedding proposal? And why Jesse thinks this new trend
might finally see me married off, but first, Mia Friedman.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
In case you missed it, it's rude to wear a
famous civil rights activist on your volva. Apparently this is
what Lisa from Black Pink and the White Lotus fame
did at the met gala, which was yesterday, and it's
kind of one of the only sort of controversies that
have come out of it. What happened was she wore
an outfit by Louis Vuton that was like tights with
(01:57):
Louis Vton logo on it, and a black lace blazer
and a pearl chain belt. She looked great, and she
had this sort of crystal embellished underwear or bodysuit that
was kind of lacy, and that seemed to have well,
did have the faces of women on it, or seem
to have the faces of women on it. Now some
people have said, wait a minute, that's Rosa Parks, the
(02:18):
famous black civil rights activist. She shouldn't be on your volver,
she shouldn't be on your.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
Bum And I had a look because everyone went Rosa Parks,
Rosa Parks, and then suddenly that felt like it became
fact and it's a woman who has glasses. But when
I had a look, I went, oh, well, we've not
really got confirmation, and the designer hasn't confirmed, and Lisa
hasn't confirmed, and it could be anyone.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Really, do you know what's creepy about it is that
all of us, including me, are doing close up zooming
into Lisa's vulva area, which I felt a little bit
icky about, to be honest.
Speaker 3 (02:48):
But I think that people have jumped on and kind
of gone, and I think that it's worth acknowledging. There's
been this barrage of criticism towards Lisa, and the context
of that is that there was a clip released a
few months ago by a disgruntled former employee who basically
showed Lisa and other members of that band using the
N word. So it's really incriminating, right, and that mixed
(03:11):
with potentially having Rosa Parks on her crotch is not
a great mix. So there are a lot of activists
and black Americans going, I'm offended by this. And also,
if you're gonna wear Rosa Parks on your underwear, then
know it's Rosa Parks. Because she didn't say in any
of her statements, is it fair to say she appeared
to not understand the relevance of what she was wearing.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
Yeah, what was really interesting on the Red carpet was
the celebrities who hadn't been very well briefed. Yeah, because
pretty much all of the people who attended, who were
asked who were celebrities, they had some really interesting, often
very touching, interesting educational things to say about the significance
of their outfit and why it was designed and how
(03:53):
it related back to the theme of the night and
respecting black culture and black designers and the civil rights movement.
But she didn't, and neither did Jenny, who was also
from Black Pink. She was like, I just wanted to
do a tribute to Coco Chanel. So they were not
briefed well by their team.
Speaker 3 (04:10):
And you told us yesterday in the subscriber episode that
I'd learned for the first time that these people are
dressed like in terms of someone comes and dresses them
and then Wintur comes in.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
And walk the Red carpet with their designer. This is
why I don't really like the criticism that's directly about
Lisa and Jenny, because they don't even choose what they're wearing.
They're put in the thing, and then they're given talking points,
and so if she's stuffed it, it's not really her fault,
that's my view.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
But do you reckon that it's her job to kind
of go all right, I'm walking this, I need to
know the significance. I ask a few questions.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
Absolutely. That's why something smells wrong to me about all
this criticism and the rosa parks of it all, because
I just don't think it's possible, in this hyper scrutinized
age that they would not have discussed that and foreseen
any backlash and had a statement pread. That's why something
about this story doesn't feel right to me. Also, the
other thing is is she is We kind of dismiss
(05:04):
her a bit, I think because if you're not familiar
with black Pink. But as everyone involved in White Loada
said in Asia in particular, but in plenty of other
place around the world, she's Taylor Swift, She's Princess Diana.
She is an enormously high profile, influential artist, so I
just dont by it.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
I also learned from someone at work who knows things
about fashion that none of the people dressed by Louis
Vuitton what pants interesting. I cannot wearing pants.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
Sabrina Carpenter didn't wear pants, and she said that Forrell,
who designs for Louis Vuton, he said, you're very short,
shorter than I thought. You won't be wearing pants. No
pants for you.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
I don't want to wear pants.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
We should wear pants to the out Loud show, Jesse,
you and I were short. We should not wear pants countless. Yeah,
at all times.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
I think anyone under five to seven. It's just a
good rule of thumb, no pants for you. If you
want to hear us talk at length, not about Lisa's
vulva area, but other things are the looks on the
red carpet, including Sabrina Carpenter's in Daya Rihanna. We've done
a special subs episode about it, an emergency meeting. In fact,
there is a link in the show notes.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
There's a trial going on in a real Victorian town
at the moment that the world's content creators have descended upon.
Here's a little grab of the kind of people who
are hanging around outside the courtroom.
Speaker 4 (06:20):
We thought we'd give you a little behind the scenes
look and how the highly anticipated Mustering trial is being
covered by the media. It was a case that fascinated
us at the time and continues to draw an immense
amount of attention with all eyes on more Well right now.
So as well as a huge contingency of Australian media,
there are novelists, there are book writers, there are podcasters
(06:41):
and filmmakers. There's even the team from a stand down
here working on a three part Donkey series. I've spoken
to a number of journalists who flew in from the
UK at the start of this week just to cover
this trials. We've had the BBC down here doing crosses
throughout the day.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
It is, of course, the trial of Aaron Patterson, who
is pleading not guilty to knowingly killing three of her
in laws and attempting to kill another when she invited
them to lunch back in July twenty twenty three and
then served them homemade beef Wellington's made with dehydrated death
cap mushrooms. So the people invited to lunch at Eron's
(07:20):
house that day was her former husband, Simon Patterson. Now
he's the father of her two children, and he declined
the invitation. They were separated and things had got pretty
testy between them. But the people who did come were
Simon's parents, so Erin's mother and father in law or
former mother and father in law, Don and Gail Patterson,
(07:42):
also Gail's sister, so Erin's aunt in law. I suppose
Heather Wilkinson and her husband, Ian Wilkinson. Now, tragically it
was Don and Gail, so Erin's mother and father in
law who lost their lives after that lunch, as well
as Heather. Now Ian Wilkinson, Heather's husband was the one
survivor of that lunch and he gave evidence in the
(08:04):
trial last week. Now Erin's former husband, Simon, is the
father of their two children. Obviously those children lost their
grandparents that day. The family, the Pattersons, are Baptists and
quite religious. That became talked about a little bit as
one of the points of tension between Erin and her
husband playing. Now, to be clear, what is not under
question here is that those four people who all went
(08:27):
to Erin's house in Leongatha, Victoria that day eight death
cap mushrooms. That has been established. That is not under discussion.
It was established at the hospital relatively soon after they
were admitted seriously unwell. What is being prosecuted in court
is whether Erin who interestingly is a former air traffic controller,
but who was apparently supporting herself largely with an inheritance
(08:50):
from her grandma. Did it deliberately or by mistake? She
says it was a tragic accident, that she'd bought the
mushrooms from an Asian supermarket and had no idea there
was a problem with them. The prosecution says that Erin
was a known forager of mushrooms, that she owned a
dehydrater that she later denied owning and dumped at a
local tip, and that our phone record show that she
(09:11):
was present at several sites around the town where death
cap mushrooms were known to be. Now, we're not here
to debate Eron's innocence or guilt, because there's a judge
and jury employed to do that at the moment, But
we want to unpack why we think the entire world
is obsessed with this case and why we're likely to
see many books. We're already seeing many many podcasts. There
(09:33):
is going to definitely be of dueling documentaries. They'll probably
be a movie. Jesse, does this real life tragic case
tickle every one of our true crime obsessed sensitivities.
Speaker 3 (09:45):
There are a few things it has that I think
to anyone who consumes true crime. I used to host
a true crime podcast, there are a few elements that
make a case particularly interesting, and I think in this
case as well appealing internationally. The biggest reason is that
it is a case that is so highly unusual. That
(10:06):
a suburban woman would be on trial for murder is
very very unusual. The alleged method is very very unusual.
I think as well that if the allegations are proven
in court, then the audaciousness of that choice, because we
(10:26):
know that toxology reports they were able to you know,
identify the death cap mushrooms. You look at that and go,
it wasn't very easy to hide if those allegations are true.
And I think as well, what a true crime documentary
podcast anything needs is primary sources. And the fact that
this has a wealth of text messages of interpersonal relationships,
(10:50):
of divorce of in laws makes it particularly interesting. Like
Maya even you saying it's unusual that she's got really
her ex in laws at her house, and then of
course she gathered them there and announced that she had
a cancer diagnosis that she was navigating. It has since
come to light that she did not have a cancer diagnosis,
(11:13):
which makes the whole story even more curious. And you're
seeing on all the homepages as well every day the
things that are coming out. The fact as well that
there is a person who was there who survived, means
that he is able to say there were plates served,
and her plate was a different color, and I can
tell you how sick I was. And before three of
(11:35):
the people did die, they said, hang on, why was
her meal on a different colored plate? Like there was
suspicions being aroused. And I think that for those reasons
it's particularly interesting.
Speaker 1 (11:48):
And the living witness is unusual in a case like this,
isn't it. And also I think what you say about
the method, this idea that there's this potentially lethal substance
or what is a lethal substance that's just available, Yes,
I didn't know that.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
I think that's part of it too, isn't it right?
Is that the idea that there is this lethal thing
that just growing in the ground and on bushes and
on trees in the Australian suburban bush. Every piece of
this story, and I don't want to lessen the absolute tragedy.
Three lives are lost, lots of people love those people
still do love those people. It's a horrible tragedy. But
(12:24):
every detail of this story is so ripe for storytelling,
fictionalizing analysis. And we live in a world now, don't we,
where everybody is doing their own investigations alongside the actual investigations.
And you can find out because there's a storyline in
my book that's adjacent to this in a way, And
I went down some rabbit holes about mushrooms, and you
(12:47):
can find out where all different kinds of mushrooms grow.
You can find out which ones are poisonous, which ones aren't.
Some people are really really into foraged fungus and they
cook with it all the time. What are the things
that came out this week, which again is a fascinating turn,
is that she was in all these true crime groups.
She was really interested in the Kelly Lane story, and
so she was in groups around that and they talk
about mushrooms and dehydrating them and getting the kids to
(13:09):
eat them. It's like you couldn't write it.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
Yeah, And the analysis of a female alleged murderer is
something that Kelly Layne is another example. It captures the
public imagination because we believe that women, especially mothers, are
the picture of innocence and sacrifice and martyrdom. So it's like,
I think that the other question that everyone has is motive.
(13:35):
Is like what drives a woman? And that's a big question.
It's like we almost with men. And again this is
because of the statistics of how many percentage of men
and women are murderers. But what makes someone decide to
potentially do that is a big question. And I think two.
I was reading NPR, which is an enormous US media company.
(13:56):
We're talking about how in April twenty twenty three, a
pharmacist in this small town was going about his business
and noticed under a tree that these deathcap mushrooms were
growing and reported it and said, this is quite dangerous.
It appears if she is found to be guilty, that
she may have heard that and then kind of learned
a bit about what what happens.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
Oh, when you said some people are really into it
and they like foraging and cooking with things they find,
It's true. I know someone who does that, but I've.
Speaker 5 (14:26):
Never asked them.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
Why is it to save money? Is it because it's
just interesting, like growing your own vegetables.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
It's because if you're really into fungi. You think they
taste better the wild ones. There's obviously almost like the
sport of going and finding them and hunting them down.
And I watched some really interesting videos of people who
would test the mushrooms that they've picked on themselves, kind
of to see how sick you get, because some mushrooms
can kill you, like death caps, and lots of other
(14:54):
mushrooms can just make you a bit unwell. There can
also be hallucinogenic, and of course there's that too, right, Yeah,
So there's a subset, just as there almost is a
subset for anything, of people who are fascinated by fungi.
And this idea that you can go and you can
get these beautiful mushrooms and then turn them into something
is not always a sinister thing, of course, but it's
one of those things that if you didn't know, you
wouldn't know.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
But why don't more people die accidentally? Then if more
people are doing it, is there a process by which
you can establish whether something's poisonous or hallucinogenical, whether it's just.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
And you can food also identify them, like if you
wanted to know whether or not this is a death cap,
you can find out very quickly, so it's you know,
obviously you can argue that there are mistakes going to
be made in that way, but there's a lot of
information about where to find different kinds of mushrooms out there,
which is really interesting to motive.
Speaker 5 (15:42):
Though.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
I think this is a divorce story at its heart
if it turns out, and of course we're not saying,
but what has been presented in court. Her ex husband,
Simon Patterson, gave a lot of evidence last week, and
one of the things that were striking to me is
the disintegration of their relationship is very relatable. Apparently when
they first broke up, it was relatively amicable. They'd had
(16:02):
disagreements about religion. She wasn't religious, he was. They'd had
disagreements about money, they'd had disagreements about the way the
kids are being raised. But it started out quite amicable,
and then it had obviously escalated to a point where
it wasn't And a lot of text messages were shown
that seemed to be a lot about money and financial dispute,
and the in laws were involved in.
Speaker 3 (16:21):
That, and of course he was meant to be at
that lunch then and.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
The night before pulled out I think that one of
the things that's on display there is a very ordinary,
very sad disintegration of relationships between this family.
Speaker 1 (16:35):
After the break, who gets to decide how successful a
woman is allowed to be? We explain the internet drama
surrounding Glennon Doyle this week.
Speaker 3 (16:46):
In case you missed it, a TikTok user who goes
by the name of pp poo pooh Emily. Sorry, can
we just pause?
Speaker 5 (16:52):
I put it.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
Wow, that's not a line I hear every day.
Speaker 3 (16:56):
Is this where we're at as a culture? Because I
will have everyone reminded that I went to university and.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
That's kind of level of humor I have to say.
Speaker 3 (17:05):
And my toddlers that would be her username onto we
have great chats. So I am now referencing in a
podcast Poo poo poo Emily. Anyway, she posted a video
about a fun fact she just learned, and a doctor
named doctor Souge jumped on to confirm or deny. Here's
what she said. So last night I proceed a video
(17:25):
mentioning that some people apparently can't smell ants, and apparently
the majority of people can't smell ants.
Speaker 5 (17:32):
If you can smell ants, congratulations, you've been blessed with
one of the most useless superpowers on Earth, And yes,
it is real. It comes down to the chemicals that
ants release when they're squished or stressed or they're trying
to warn the colony. One of the big ones is
form of acid. It's sharp, it's vinegary, and if your
nose is sensitive to it, you will know straight away.
And then there are odorous house ants. These guys release
(17:55):
meth al ketoes. These are the same chemicals in blue
cheese and rotten coconuts. Have actually never smelled rotting coconuts.
So if you've ever thought that ants smell like sweaty
socks or expied stilton, you're not wrong. People describe it
in all sorts of ways, rust cleaning, spray, sour chemicals,
and only about twenty percent of people can say that
they can smell ants. Scientists think it might be genetic.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
How many ants did to congregate to admit to smell
How stressed do they need to be?
Speaker 3 (18:21):
Oh, guys, I'm so glad you asked, because I watched
this and went, oh my god, I can smell ants,
Like as soon as they brought it up, I could
smell it.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
Give me an example of a time and a place
where you can smelt as.
Speaker 3 (18:33):
I smell ants before it rains. I've been outsider, I've
been on the street, and you know the smell as well,
like you see the sky change and whatever.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
Smelling rain.
Speaker 3 (18:41):
No, the smell of the rain comes when it hits
the concrete, right. But when I see the ants running
because they're stressed, right, because I know that's train.
Speaker 1 (18:49):
And wanting the other ants get out. You're about to drown.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
Yeah, And I see them fretting, and there is a
damp I would say a wet, earthy smell that I get.
I wouldn't describe it as anything strong enough to be
like a blue cheese smell.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
So you don't have to be very close to the ants.
You don't have to actually be going.
Speaker 3 (19:06):
No, no, no, because that would be awkward.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
They might go smelly.
Speaker 3 (19:10):
It is like a smell that where like I can
nearly taste it.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
I remember being I'm not in the percent.
Speaker 3 (19:16):
And I remember I think I remember my dad saying
something about the smell of ants. So the fact that
this is a business thought to be genetic interesting.
Speaker 1 (19:23):
There are other things. Because I was interested to go
and find what other things can only some people smell coriander. Yeah,
you either fine with coriander or you hate it. People
smell it.
Speaker 3 (19:34):
I hate it the taste to some people it literally
taste like dish.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
So yeah, exactly one of these people. Yeah, is cat urine. Oh,
some people have strong I'm like, you have strong reaction
to cat urine. Other people it's just not that big
of a deal, or they can't smell it at all.
Speaker 3 (19:53):
Fascinating.
Speaker 1 (19:53):
I don't know how these things are helpful in evolution.
It's true in case you missed it, and you probably did,
because even I did. And I'm a big glen and
Doyle fan. She's had a very shitty week on the internet.
This story has made me really puffer fish and I'm
going I unpack it in a very top lane way
because it might seem a bit weedy and a bit petty,
(20:14):
but at the heart of it, it's about what can
happen to women when they become too successful and how
other women feel about it. Now Glennon Doyle, For those
of you who aren't familiar with her, she's a hugely
successful author, podcaster. She most recently wrote a fantastic book
called Untamed about women breaking free from constraints in their lives.
(20:36):
She's written also a lot of books and blogs and
spoken on her podcast We Can Do Hard Things about
her personal life and about struggle she's overcome, like addiction,
infidelity in her first marriage, meeting her now wife, and
you know, getting married to her, and her lifelong battle
with a eating disorder.
Speaker 3 (20:55):
She's in the same world as you're Elizabeth Gilbert's your Oprah's.
She's on Oprah.
Speaker 1 (21:00):
Yeah, she is. In fact, Oprah optioned her book either
Love Warrior or Untamed I can't remember which one, and
has turned it into a really thingy oh, I didn't
know that a movie. Yes, a TV series. All her
books are being turned into TV series. Fat anyway, she
has had a bad week. She was forced to quit
(21:21):
substack after she was essentially harassed off the platform.
Speaker 2 (21:26):
First of all, tell us about substack.
Speaker 1 (21:27):
I'm so glad you asked now Louders may have hurt
us referencing substack a lot. It's basically a platform where
you can write a newsletter. Anyone can sign up. Think
of it like social media in a way, but for writing.
Speaker 3 (21:39):
It's like what blogging used to be.
Speaker 1 (21:41):
Yeah, it's like a tool, really I'm on substack. I've
always done a newsletter, but I move my newsletter onto
substack because it's just very easy to use. The back
end of it is very easy.
Speaker 3 (21:52):
So mummy are out loud our newsletter.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
It's also on subject I have a substackle, though I
always forget to so people.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
The word substack has almost become synonymous with the word newsletter.
So a lot of people. Small writers are on their
bigger writers are on there. Your sister Claire Stevens has
got a substack. You can't manetized, so you can choose
to charge people or not. It's all sort of very
easy to use anyway. So Glennon a little while ago
decided she didn't want to be on social media anymore because,
(22:20):
like many of us, she felt that it was just
all a bit toxic, it was a bit big. She
was sick of being a victim to the algorithm. She
also didn't like who she was when she was scrolling
through social media. So her good friend Liz Gilbert, who
has a substack, convinced her to come over. And here
is a video that Liz and Glennon made on substack
(22:42):
and sent out to their followers. Liz was welcoming Glennon
onto substack. Here's what they had said, and here.
Speaker 6 (22:48):
As Glennon Doyle's beloved friend to welcome back to the substack.
Because I have been trying to convince her to come
to the substack. I've been like, come over to the
substack where the kind people are, come over to the
stack where the literary people are. Come over to the
substack and be with us in the gentle corner of
(23:09):
the world. And finally it happened that Lennon is with
us on the substack.
Speaker 3 (23:15):
Nothing sounds more generic than the use of the substack.
Speaker 2 (23:18):
The substant drop, the gentle place.
Speaker 1 (23:20):
That didn't go that well, it didn't go that way night.
So what happened was she moved an audience or her community,
because she builds communities, and she wanted to write again.
And like many of us, she finds writing books a
huge lift and very solitary. She likes the idea of
something a little less restrictive and a little faster. So
she moved over to substack. She straight away got a
(23:42):
following of over two hundred thousand people. She did have
a paywall. I think she put everything that she was
writing behind the paywall. And that's when people started to
lose it. There was a woman who kicked it off
by writing an open letter to Glennan Doyle saying that
she was a big Glennon Doyle fan, and she even
published a photo of herself with Glennon which she'd been
(24:02):
to a book signing. But she said, the way you
came onto the platform was too confident. You needed to
be more gentle, needed to be more humble, You needed
to be more respectful, and you also shouldn't have taken
followers away from some of us who are smaller. What
you should have actually done was just be quiet and
elevate the work of other writers on substack.
Speaker 3 (24:25):
That's so weird. Your tone changed when you were telling
that part of the story.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
So that's started a bit of an avalanche. I try'd
imagine what we have been about this, with people saying
it's not fair, Glenna needs to be more humble, she's
doing it wrong. How very dare you? And she was
on for about six weeks or eight weeks, and as
I said, she gained this big following who would have
followed her anywhere. And the thing about substack is that
(24:49):
it's kind of networked, so there's the more followers she has,
the better it is for the platform. But this sort
of started a bit of a backlash and an avalanche
and a pylon and people saying Glenna shouldn't be here
and she's not doing it right and she needs to
learn and listen. And so this week she sent a
letter to her followers and deleted her account. She said,
I'm changing. I've left substack and I'm returning this beautiful
(25:12):
community here to this simple newsletter. If you became any
kind of paid subscriber over there, I'm refunding every penny
I received. There's nothing else you need to do. I
will keep writing to you here straight in your inbox.
So she just moved off the platform. Essentially. She said,
I'm deeply sorry for the disappointment. I feel disappointed too.
All I can ask is that you trust I made
none of those decisions lightly, and I am doing what
(25:32):
I believe is best for my own health and the
health and protection of this community that I love so much.
I finally love myself and ask too much to stay
in any situation that feels bad. It is okay to
try a new thing and then say, actually, that didn't work.
Leaving a place as soon as it feels bad, even
if it's inconvenient, I think is embodiment progress.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
Holly, I feel genuinely worried for Glennan Doyle. To be honest,
I read that statement and she said it felt unsafe,
and she said, you know, she felt very threatened there.
And I mean, I'm not as much of a Glennon
stan as you, Mia, but I'm familiar with her work.
And I listened to a week and do hard things
quite often, because that's really interesting. And she's in vreridibly
open about her mental health struggles and the fact she's
(26:12):
in recovery from this eating disorder, and she goes to
meetings every day, and she talks a lot about her vulnerability.
And so when I read that, I felt genuinely worried
for her, actually, because it feels terrible to be piled on, criticized, harassed.
It feels extra terrible. Maybe, well, I was going to say,
(26:34):
if you're a vulnerable person, but actually it feels terrible
for everybody. That the thing is is, if I was
going to put my hat on of the people who
have written all those very caring, open letters, I would say,
and this massive generalization, right creatives are sensitive people. If
you are a creative who would desperately love for your
(26:54):
art to be your living, because let's remember, and I
speak from a place of privilege on this too, that
for the enormous majority of writers, it is not their living.
It is a tiny, tiny percentage of creatives who actually
make a living from being a creative. If that's you,
it can feel like genuine pain that there are people
(27:15):
who you don't believe are necessarily as talented, or as
hard working, or as worthy, or as deserving or whatever,
who appear to have everything, and now they also want
some of what you've got. Right now, I know that's
not true. I know that Glennon being on substack wasn't
taking people from the woman who wrote that letter or
anybody else.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
I hope they said that they yes.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
But then the cold hard facts of it are that
if you're forking over money for subscriptions, which if you're
following a lot of writers on substack, that can really
mount up, and you're making your choices, there is some
merit to the argument that paying Glennon means you won't
pay someone else. So I understand the instinct in a
way of the creatives who genuinely felt their hackles rise
(27:59):
because they were, like, I thought this was a lovely
little community just for us, and then here's one of
the biggest dogs coming in.
Speaker 1 (28:06):
Why do you think they thought it was that? Like,
it's a tech platform. Substack is owned by a bunch
of tech bros who are making no secret of the
fact that it's a tech platform with an algorithm, just
like everyone.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
But look at what Liz Gilbert said. That's why they
think that. Liz Gilbert literally said, welcome to the kind place,
the literary place, the gentle place. It's positioned that way
for writers and creatives like come away from the toxic
soup of social media and build a community who opt
in and who care about you. Right, That's how it's positioned. Now,
I'm not saying that's necessarily true, but I think that's why.
(28:42):
And so the people who believe that the reality is,
as you just said, tech bros making lots of money.
But the people who genuinely believe and invested in that community,
I can understand why their hackles rise at Glenn and
entering their space, But I have to be on the
record as saying that I just think this sort of
hounding her off their stuff is so depressing, Jesse.
Speaker 3 (29:02):
Don't you think I find it depressing to although I
read that open letter and I went, you've written the
open letter to the wrong person, and I think we
do this with women a lot. You've written it as
an open letter to Glenn Doyle, and you've meant to
write an open letter to substack because all your frustrations
are with substack. And I started by writing blogs on
(29:23):
the internet, right, and I might get one hundred page views,
and it was impossible to grow. It was impossible. And
I think that the frustration now is that there are
a lot of creatives. There are artists, there are musicians,
there are writers, there are designers. There are business owners
who want to get their work out there, and they
want to produce stuff and not be beholdened to an algorithm.
(29:47):
And then they don't want to feel as though they
have to play a game like at a casino. And
substack is increasingly becoming that because every tech platform becomes that. Right,
So it's got new features that make it more like Twitter.
It's oh, now you've got to make video, and now
you've got to you know what, if you were getting
advice from substack, or people who understand substack, they would
(30:08):
probably say, write about glennar Doyle this week, because that's
the conversation going off, right, And if you want to grow,
and maybe this is a shameful I can't speak for
all creatives, but as someone who started a little blog,
you want to grow. You want people to read your
stuff because you want to feel like it's worthy, and
you find that, I don't know, it's very satisfying to
(30:29):
have people read your work. And I also think that
in an age where we have never had more subscriptions,
I am subscribing to so many streamers, and then I
subscribe to media companies, and now I'm having individual creators
ask me to support them totally.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
And to be clear, that's because the whole system of
media is broken and has been broken by the tech platform. Yes,
so it used to be that there were magazines and newspapers,
and then Facebook and Google and Matter came and gobbled
it all up, gobbled up all the advertising that we
all used to use to survive. And that's why all
the magazines closed and all the newspaper to stop printing,
(31:10):
and everyone struggling to survive. Now and every day you
hear of another media organization going out of business, and
so people are then going, all right, I'll go out
and I'll build my own audience. But as you say,
there's only so many individual writers that we can pay
to subscribe to.
Speaker 3 (31:27):
Yeah, money is finite.
Speaker 1 (31:28):
Do you think that the money is the problem. Did
anyone say to Joe Rogan, Hey, Joe Rogan, don't come
onto YouTube. You're getting enough money from Spotify.
Speaker 3 (31:36):
I think that there is an irritation or a sensitivity
to pay walls at the moment. I think that, because
it's all happened quite quickly, we got very used to
getting content for free as consumers of the Internet. And
I do wonder if there is a sense. I don't
know if it's gendered necessarily, but it is gendered.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
Do you have enough? Because I agree, so I think
there's that. So I think a lot of people would
look at the Glennons of the world, who, obviously, with
not her life but by all the external measures, seems
to be doing fine financially and probably going and now
you want more. And there's a grist to that to
the point of whether or not we hold the men
to the same standard. We don't, but there are plenty
of people who don't like Joe Rogan. There are plenty
(32:18):
of people who criticize all of those guys too. It's
just that there's a very particular but high weight pile
on it.
Speaker 1 (32:25):
They don't criticize their right to be somewhere. They might
criticize what they say. And if people criticizing what Glennon says,
that's a different thing. What they're saying is you shouldn't
be here. And what Glennon herself often says is that
when a man puts work into the world, the world
debates the work. When a woman puts work into the world,
people debate her right to put that work into the world.
Speaker 3 (32:46):
And I do think, and we talked about this a
little bit with the Nagi and Brookie conversation recently, there
is a real distaste and discomfort with people with big
followings at the moment. I think it can be used
to undermine a creator, like almost you're not a writer,
you're an influencer.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
So even though these are women who've built their own businesses.
Speaker 3 (33:06):
Yes, but there is this allergy to influencer. And it's
also like there isn't an acknowledgment of how hard this
is a career. Glennon has worked for fifteen years to
grow that following. And then the whole point of that
following is that she can yell at them to buy
her stuff and subscribe to you.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
I have a question, Mia, I'm a little bit irritated.
And this is easy for me to say that Glennon
bowed to them. I'm a little bit irritated by that
because the thing is is that we sit here and
we do this quite often, where we'll talk about a
pylon and we'll go But two hundred thousand people subscribed,
Like maybe I didn't subscribe in that minute. Maybe some
of them have come with her, but there were plenty
(33:42):
of people who want to read Glennan Doyle's work. It's
not like a blanket rejection. It's some loud voices who are,
as you've already pointed out, Jesse, gaming an algorithm to
make their voices louder. Should the Glennons of the world
be a little bit more? And again, I don't mean
this is criticism, but a bit more fuck them, like
a bit more, you know what I mean? Like I'm
(34:04):
going to be here and you're going to criticize me,
and that storm will blow over, because it will blow
over that storm. Why do you think she did decide?
I mean she said didn't feel safe, it didn't feel good,
and I'm.
Speaker 3 (34:17):
Yeah, it's part of her brand.
Speaker 2 (34:19):
She should have lived through it.
Speaker 6 (34:20):
Well.
Speaker 1 (34:20):
What I think is interesting is the way it has
been weaponized against Glennon and also Liz Gilbert. The idea
that they are building communities of women and they care
about women, and so that when women come out, individual
women and you know a number of individual women come
out and say I don't like this, it hurts me,
(34:42):
then they're put in a really difficult position. Remember when
Liz Gilbert wrote that entire novel that was said in Russia.
It was a historical novel, and Simukrainian people came out
and said, this is upsetting to us that you are
having these carries. It wasn't about the war, but they
say that anything that's even mentions Russia is upsetting to us.
And she pulled her entire novel. You know, it was
about to be released, So I can have my hat
(35:05):
on that. I'm like, I wish they wouldn't capitulate, because
then the people who pushed them feel, you know, and
it's been called bullying, and I think it's an interesting idea.
Can you bully someone who's really successful, Yeah, you kind
of can.
Speaker 3 (35:17):
I think I read a substack that said, when there's
a pylon, yeah, you feel like you're David fighting Goliath,
but very quickly you become Goliath. And I think that
that's a really interesting way of putting it in terms
of the.
Speaker 1 (35:30):
Little David's together are like one Goliath. And I understand.
I mean, imagine being in a because I thought the
same thing whole. Imagine being in a restaurant and you're
at a table with all your friends who want to
be there, and you're having a lovely dinner, but all
the people at the other tables in the restaurant are like,
she shouldn't be here, Why is she in here? Who
let her in here? We don't like her that she's here.
She's doing terrible things to us, She's making our meal worse.
(35:53):
You wouldn't want to stay.
Speaker 3 (35:54):
Yeah. I worry that it gives more power to the
critics though, and the next time it's like, well, you
should be doing what Glennon and Elizabeth did, and we
expect women to bow down.
Speaker 1 (36:04):
I also don't think anyone has a right to earn
money from something that they love doing. I just don't
like if you're on substack and you don't have many
followers and you can't earn a living from it, don't
blame Glennon Doyle, blame substack, or blame the system, or
try something else. I mean, surely there's enough room for
all of us.
Speaker 3 (36:23):
After the break. The rise of Quiet Proposals.
Speaker 2 (36:27):
One unlimited out loud access. We drop episodes every Tuesday
and Thursday exclusively for Mamma Mia subscribers. Follow the link
at the show notes to get us in your ears
five days a week, and a huge thank you to
all our current subscribers.
Speaker 3 (36:46):
Apparently we are seeing the rise in the quiet proposal,
and I know in particular that Holly likes to stay
abreast of proposal trends as she waits for Brent to
pop the questions.
Speaker 1 (36:55):
So Brent's proposing so quietly she can't even hear it.
Speaker 3 (36:58):
She has not heard it after this many years, really proposal.
So I like to keep Holly in the loop so
that she knows what to expect. In an article by
The Guardian, quiet proposals are said to be championed by
Z's so those under twenty eight, and it's about a
rejection of the surprise, the splashiness, and the public element.
Now this has come from a survey by Diamond Factory
(37:20):
Jewelers they're called, and they surveyed all these people and
they found that more than half of shoppers for engagement
rings are accompanied by their partner. Right, engagements are also
being kept more quiet and private. We know gen Z's
don't love taking risks. There's been a lot written about that.
And mix that in with a cost of living crisis,
(37:42):
because who has hidden money to fork out on a
ring without their partner knowing? And you've got yourself a
very different kind of proposal, Holly. Now, I know that
you are probably hoping for a grand gesture and a
revolting ring that Brent thinks is just lovely. So is
this stressing out a little bit?
Speaker 2 (37:58):
Oh? It's really stressing me. I'm delighted go gen Z
because I know it's one of my most unpopular opinions
is that I find engagements and weddings really weird, and
I love going to them. I love supporting my friends
in their love.
Speaker 3 (38:14):
You love a wedding, but you just don't want to
get married.
Speaker 2 (38:16):
But the artificial nonsense that goes along with it, like
that whole oh my god, he popped the question, how amazing,
Oh my god, Oh my god, when you know that
she's been saying every month for years. If you don't
pop the fucking question, I'm leaving.
Speaker 3 (38:29):
Excuse me. I project that that's.
Speaker 2 (38:30):
Not always true, but it often is that we have
to still make all the like, oh my god stuff
when we all know it was coming. Like, I find
that really strange. It really confuses me. I don't understand it.
It seems to me that marrying someone is a big decision,
and so ideally it should be a mutual one.
Speaker 1 (38:48):
Well that's not very No, it should be between a
man and the father of his betrothed, of his intended betrothed.
Speaker 2 (38:55):
And I've always really rankled with the idea that women
have to wait to be chosen. So I love everything
about this. I love the lack of pretense of all that, like.
Speaker 3 (39:05):
Oh, he just happened to choose the perfect.
Speaker 2 (39:07):
Ring when really you'd been sending in pictures of five
minutes all that whole, Like he said he chose me,
when it's like, didn't you choose him? I don't It's
always confused me.
Speaker 1 (39:18):
Do you know what it makes me think of is
the way that now we all text someone to say
can I call you? Like we don't just call them.
And so it's like you're right when you said, no
one wants to take risks. No one likes things happening
that are out of their control. So the idea of
it being a joint decision. I was listening to another podcaster,
(39:39):
I like John Lovett, who was talking about his engagement
and it's his second engagement. The first one was a
surprise but that didn't work out, but the second one,
he and his partner had talked about it. They'd planned it,
they knew what day they were going to do it,
They went out to dinner, they decided that they were
going to do it when the dessert was put on
the table, but before they ate the dessert. I don't
(40:00):
know it was planned within an inch of its life.
Speaker 2 (40:03):
Why did they need to do it at all, Like
as in, if they'd planned and we're getting married, why
did they need this particular moment with the dessert for
the ground.
Speaker 1 (40:10):
No, they didn't put it on the gram.
Speaker 3 (40:12):
I think it's a like a right of passage, a right.
Speaker 1 (40:15):
Of passage, but also like a bookmark, like it's an
actual instead of just bleeding into yeah, should we get married? Yeah, yeah,
we probably should.
Speaker 3 (40:24):
See My parents always say they were at the joint
thirtieth birthday party, sitting at you know, my father's parents' house,
and they were like, guess we should get married, and
then they got married. And I've always found that so depressed.
Speaker 2 (40:38):
My parents have the same story. They were and they
were really young. My parents got married really young, and
they were just like, let's get married. Then they got married. Like,
but I don't explain to me the point of a proposal.
Explain it to me, like I live on another planet.
Speaker 1 (40:50):
Interesting like story, like there aren't many people.
Speaker 3 (40:55):
Do love the story. I must story. But well for
a lot of so I think if someone comes in
to work and they go, I'm engaged, probably the first
question I'd ask is tell me how it happened?
Speaker 1 (41:08):
Yeah, how did you?
Speaker 3 (41:09):
Yeah? Which I see what you're saying. And a lot
of gen Z's have said that it's a far more
equal power dynamic to go we're going to decide. I
love it when women propose to men. Obviously, there are
same sex couples where it's like you know, someone proposes
to someone. I think that that's all really exciting. But
the idea that all women are kind of sending their
(41:32):
ring ideas.
Speaker 1 (41:32):
I do know women.
Speaker 2 (41:34):
I know that, not all, yes, but I have some
in my life ye who have done that for a
long time or have said things like I'm giving you
a year deadline. I know that, and yet we still
have to all act really surprised when it happens. It's
just fakery that I don't get.
Speaker 3 (41:48):
I was genuinely very surprised, and as someone who I think,
Luca just looked at me and went, look, she doesn't
have any taste, so I probably won't confer with her.
Speaker 1 (41:57):
He knew that you, so I like.
Speaker 3 (42:00):
Looking down and going Luca thought that this ring was
me like, and I've always loved that about it. But
I found this interesting.
Speaker 1 (42:07):
He planned it with me, I designed it, and I didn't.
I didn't know anything about it.
Speaker 3 (42:10):
Well, I was going to say, no, I don't think
the data says that eighteen percent of people who are
buying a ring. If you're not bringing in your partner,
you're bringing in like your mum or your dad. I
would say, mom. I love that Luca had the foresight
to go. I'm not conferring with Jesse, and I'm definitely
not conferring with me. Can you imagine what you would
have chosen me.
Speaker 1 (42:26):
I did go with him to get your wedding rings
and wedding bands. Yeah, but I wasn't involved. I just
chose one for myself. Yeah yeah, I bought myself shopping opportunities.
I went and bought myself a different wedding ring because
I get bored of mine, I just change it.
Speaker 2 (42:40):
I have a confession. I have a quiet judgment for
people who redesign their rings. I'm sorry. It's all the
out louders who did it. But Megan, my friend who
I don't like to criticize.
Speaker 3 (42:49):
You know, she's my criticized.
Speaker 2 (42:51):
Three times she's redesigned that Harry gave her. They've been
married for six years. Seven years. Maybe that's a lot
of times. Why do I have a quiet judgment about that?
What's my problem?
Speaker 1 (43:01):
Just to be clear, When I said I buy new
wedding rings all the time, I just like it might
be from sports girl. Like, I'm not a ring person either,
so I've never had a big fan your ring. I
just like it's whatever ring I wear. On that wedding
finger is my wedding ring. I feel like.
Speaker 3 (43:17):
If I went and got my ring redesigned, I feel
as though that would be probably an active repettiness. But
you know what, I respected as someone There are people
who know jewelry and they understand and face is probably that.
Speaker 1 (43:31):
But what are you going to do if you get
an ugly ring. You're going to wear it forever, have
to look at it every day.
Speaker 3 (43:35):
Yeah. So I have a friend who recently was talking
to his friends, going, I'm going to propose, here's the ring,
and he showed them and they all went, that's the
most disgusting thing I've ever seen. It was the size of,
you know, a small iPad that's going.
Speaker 1 (43:48):
To get caught on things.
Speaker 3 (43:50):
She's gonna hate it. It was the wrong color, and
they had a champ on him. They had exactly they
had a different finger. Yeah, I don't your vagina that
it goes all the way up you lose your ring
and then.
Speaker 1 (44:05):
Yeah, it must fash. I don't know. It's been a while, everyone,
even I forgot how they work.
Speaker 2 (44:12):
And here we've we've ended up here from wedding chat
to MIA's vagia out loud at.
Speaker 1 (44:19):
Least I haven't got Rosa Parks.
Speaker 6 (44:21):
That's all.
Speaker 2 (44:21):
We have time for friends probably just as well.
Speaker 3 (44:24):
Shall we wrap things ahead?
Speaker 2 (44:26):
I think so. Thank you out louders for being with
us through another big show, and of course to our
wonderful team for putting it together. We're going to be
back in your ears tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (44:34):
And if you're looking for something else to listen to,
don't forget about our met Gala subscriber special. There is
a link in our show notes. Bye bye.
Speaker 1 (44:42):
Shout out to any MoMA mia subscribers listening. If you
love the show and want to support us as well,
subscribing to MoMA Miya is the very best way to
do so. There is a link in the episode description.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.