WEBVTT - "I'm Done With Being Interviewed By Women" 0:00:10.622 --> 0:00:13.342 You're listening to a MoMA Mia podcast. 0:00:13.822 --> 0:00:17.182 Mamma Mia acknowledges the traditional owners of land and waters 0:00:17.222 --> 0:00:22.101 that this podcast is recorded on Hello and welcome to 0:00:22.142 --> 0:00:25.301 Mama Mia out Loud, where women come to debrief. I'm 0:00:25.302 --> 0:00:26.422 Holly wayIn Wright. 0:00:26.302 --> 0:00:29.502 I'm Meya Friedman, and I'm Jesse Stevens and I'm a 0:00:29.542 --> 0:00:32.262 little irritable. Would you like to know why I'm irritable today? 0:00:33.302 --> 0:00:35.821 It is because over the weekend I went to the 0:00:35.862 --> 0:00:38.902 gym because all the people on the Instagram a telling me, 0:00:38.902 --> 0:00:40.542 I need you got to limp and if you gotta 0:00:40.542 --> 0:00:43.142 lift heavy, however much you're lifting, lift more. 0:00:43.862 --> 0:00:45.542 Was a big conversation on mid the other. 0:00:45.462 --> 0:00:47.422 Wak exactly right, And I listened to that and I went, 0:00:47.462 --> 0:00:49.742 all right, bone density tick, gonna. 0:00:49.502 --> 0:00:50.222 Go and lift heavy. 0:00:50.462 --> 0:00:52.902 So I went and I lifted four kilos heavier than 0:00:52.942 --> 0:00:53.622 I normally would. 0:00:54.142 --> 0:00:56.622 I did well. This was like I was doing like 0:00:56.662 --> 0:00:57.462 a squat. 0:00:57.102 --> 0:00:59.742 Thing and I got a twelve kilo ped all bell 0:00:59.982 --> 0:01:03.182 whatever you call it. Anyway, I did a squat and 0:01:03.262 --> 0:01:05.822 I felt my lower back go and like it was 0:01:05.862 --> 0:01:08.782 in the first two minutes of being at the gym, 0:01:09.062 --> 0:01:10.981 and I have been limping all. 0:01:10.862 --> 0:01:13.182 Weekend, because it's not like you can stop lifting. 0:01:13.262 --> 0:01:17.182 I've got a twelve kilo toddler who isn't just a 0:01:17.222 --> 0:01:17.662 dead weight. 0:01:17.742 --> 0:01:19.301 She actually resists. 0:01:18.902 --> 0:01:21.022 Against me a lot of the time when I'm holding her. Now, 0:01:21.062 --> 0:01:22.262 I just have this terrible back. 0:01:22.382 --> 0:01:24.622 That's funny because I was also lifting on the weekend, 0:01:24.622 --> 0:01:26.542 and I lifted a bit hard too. I don't think 0:01:26.582 --> 0:01:29.862 I did twelve kilos, but somehow lifting a toddler doesn't 0:01:29.902 --> 0:01:32.062 feel as heavy as lifting a weight. 0:01:32.662 --> 0:01:34.822 It does mean when they're trying to throw themselves out 0:01:34.822 --> 0:01:35.182 of your hand. 0:01:35.222 --> 0:01:37.142 But I've also been lifting a little hard. 0:01:37.502 --> 0:01:38.862 Holly has your back, mate. 0:01:38.862 --> 0:01:40.462 The only thing I lifted on the weekend was a 0:01:40.462 --> 0:01:43.342 cup of tea in a sandwich, So my back's just fine. 0:01:43.462 --> 0:01:48.622 I'm ignoring all that wise health advice anyway. Friends, unless 0:01:48.662 --> 0:01:52.902 you're perhaps wisely avoiding everything news, you would know that 0:01:52.942 --> 0:01:56.662 this weekend America back to Israel's war with Iran, and 0:01:56.742 --> 0:01:59.902 talk of what this escalation means for the world is everywhere. 0:02:00.502 --> 0:02:03.982 If you want a calm headed explainer of that, please 0:02:04.022 --> 0:02:07.502 go and listen to today's episode of The Quickie, where 0:02:07.542 --> 0:02:10.062 Claire Murphy and Taylor Strano do what they do best 0:02:10.142 --> 0:02:14.582 and give a very clear overview, complete with some expert commentary. 0:02:15.262 --> 0:02:16.781 It's really good listen. 0:02:17.061 --> 0:02:20.422 But here is what is on our agenda for today. 0:02:21.502 --> 0:02:24.462 We're going to unpackage because the jury is out and 0:02:24.502 --> 0:02:25.382 I'm part of the jury. 0:02:25.502 --> 0:02:28.022 I tried to sneak it in twice last week. Now 0:02:28.102 --> 0:02:28.942 I'm doubting it. 0:02:29.662 --> 0:02:33.901 I am responsible for this new piece of podcast furniture 0:02:34.181 --> 0:02:38.222 agenda sogenda is vernacular that we use. We do when 0:02:38.262 --> 0:02:41.142 we're talking about put that on the agenda. Usually it's 0:02:41.222 --> 0:02:43.622 before we have dinner. I used this with a lot. 0:02:43.502 --> 0:02:48.982 Of groups, so a portmanteau it is of and agenda. 0:02:49.302 --> 0:02:52.182 It's not really clear why our agenda has anything to 0:02:52.222 --> 0:02:54.621 do with the vagina, but it does. Sometimes we actually 0:02:54.622 --> 0:02:57.221 have a vagenda notesapp going we do for dinner where 0:02:57.222 --> 0:02:58.062 we put the things in. 0:02:58.181 --> 0:03:00.262 Well, because I'm just like a group of women talking 0:03:00.302 --> 0:03:03.302 about some things, they have some things on the vergenda. 0:03:03.622 --> 0:03:05.942 Yeah right, it's tongue in cheek. It wasn't meant to 0:03:05.982 --> 0:03:10.062 be thought of this series. Well. Anyway, on our agenda 0:03:10.102 --> 0:03:12.182 for today, if you haven't heard about the wedding of 0:03:12.222 --> 0:03:14.782 the year that's happening in Venice this week, you won't 0:03:14.782 --> 0:03:17.542 be able to miss it. Pretty soon, Amazon founded Jeff 0:03:17.542 --> 0:03:21.062 Bezos and astronaut Lauren Sanchez and making it official, and 0:03:21.222 --> 0:03:23.782 we are going to unpack the twenty seven dresses, the protests, 0:03:23.942 --> 0:03:26.142 and the affair that kicked it all off. 0:03:26.462 --> 0:03:29.382 What you have heard of friends is let them. And 0:03:29.462 --> 0:03:31.781 if you came to our Mama Maya out loud live show, 0:03:31.782 --> 0:03:35.302 you've also heard a foul mouthed version of that. But 0:03:35.382 --> 0:03:37.862 there's a new one. There's a new let them. It's 0:03:37.902 --> 0:03:40.782 called who says, Oh, we're going to tell you about that? 0:03:40.822 --> 0:03:44.022 And Jamila Jamil is done being interviewed by other women. 0:03:44.302 --> 0:03:45.782 Does she kind of have a point? 0:03:46.182 --> 0:03:50.422 But first, if your dad was a Russian billionaire, would 0:03:50.462 --> 0:03:52.742 you expect a cut of his fortune? 0:03:53.102 --> 0:03:55.942 I think my dad is the opposite of a Russian billionaire. 0:03:57.182 --> 0:03:59.822 No fortune coming for you. What about if you'd never 0:03:59.902 --> 0:04:02.022 even met him? I want you to meet this guy 0:04:02.142 --> 0:04:06.862 called Pavel Durov. Now he founded the controversial messaging platform Telegram. 0:04:06.862 --> 0:04:08.462 You might have heard about him. He got arrested in 0:04:08.462 --> 0:04:11.422 France a while ago. He's a little bit dubious, but anyway, 0:04:11.462 --> 0:04:15.622 he is worth a rumored twenty one billion Australian dollars 0:04:15.982 --> 0:04:19.582 and He also, like other billionaires, really really really likes 0:04:19.622 --> 0:04:22.902 father and kids. Apparently between the kids his father in 0:04:22.942 --> 0:04:25.301 what you might call the conventional way with a partner, 0:04:25.582 --> 0:04:28.342 and the sperm donation that he kind of advertised, like 0:04:28.381 --> 0:04:31.142 want to have my baby, come and do it. He 0:04:31.222 --> 0:04:33.782 reckons he's got more than one hundred children, and so 0:04:33.941 --> 0:04:36.181 far that's quite typical. There are quite a few of 0:04:36.222 --> 0:04:39.582 these guys that called pro natalists, who believe that smart 0:04:39.662 --> 0:04:42.941 masters of the universe, like themselves, should breed more. But 0:04:43.022 --> 0:04:45.142 what's a bit different about him is that he's gone 0:04:45.181 --> 0:04:47.742 public saying that in about thirty years he's going to 0:04:47.821 --> 0:04:51.541 split his entire fortune between all of the children. So 0:04:51.662 --> 0:04:54.581 the more than one hundred children, whether they are children 0:04:54.621 --> 0:04:58.461 that he has fathered actively or just the sperm donory ones, 0:04:59.101 --> 0:05:02.301 that will probably mean, depending on how many more he has, 0:05:02.782 --> 0:05:04.981 that these kids will get about two hundred and sixty 0:05:05.022 --> 0:05:06.061 million each. 0:05:07.022 --> 0:05:07.502 Wow. 0:05:07.702 --> 0:05:10.662 So what he's done this is really interesting. He's essentially 0:05:11.022 --> 0:05:14.581 gamified it and it'll now become like a hunger game 0:05:14.662 --> 0:05:19.861 situation among women who want to have children and have 0:05:19.981 --> 0:05:22.621 access to that kind of life. The lottery. 0:05:22.941 --> 0:05:26.181 Yeah, there is this term that I learned over the 0:05:26.181 --> 0:05:30.501 weekend called accidental incest, which is being referred to because 0:05:30.541 --> 0:05:34.662 you do have some sperm donors who are donating so 0:05:34.861 --> 0:05:37.622 much and creating so many kids. There was an instance 0:05:37.621 --> 0:05:40.821 in Australia where woman was talking about it where she 0:05:40.941 --> 0:05:43.182 said that people that were half siblings were finding each 0:05:43.222 --> 0:05:45.702 other at parties not knowing that they were half siblings. 0:05:46.101 --> 0:05:49.021 Did you watch that documentary The Man with one hundred 0:05:49.061 --> 0:05:53.062 Children a thousand? That was about exactly this. And there 0:05:53.101 --> 0:05:56.341 are these men, the pro natalists or whatever their issue 0:05:56.381 --> 0:05:59.462 is or their reasoning for it, is that they are 0:05:59.541 --> 0:06:04.421 just spreading their sperm literally everywhere. And most sperm banks 0:06:04.421 --> 0:06:07.981 in most countries and states have limitations on how many 0:06:07.981 --> 0:06:10.782 times you can donate for this exact way, because in 0:06:10.821 --> 0:06:14.381 a particular town, for example, you can't have too many 0:06:14.501 --> 0:06:17.142 kids that are around the same age they might you know, 0:06:17.301 --> 0:06:20.462 hook up. But these men get around it by going 0:06:20.501 --> 0:06:24.702 to different countries because there's not like one international sperm 0:06:24.741 --> 0:06:27.501 bank that regulates these things. So it's a real issue. 0:06:27.662 --> 0:06:32.662 I'm worried about the proliferation of these precise genes right 0:06:33.061 --> 0:06:36.581 because it's like, what are we genetically privileging? If you're 0:06:36.621 --> 0:06:38.822 a pro natalist you're a particular type of person. Think 0:06:38.861 --> 0:06:42.061 about Elon Musk. What does that do to the human race? 0:06:42.262 --> 0:06:44.701 If you've got a very specific type of man who 0:06:44.741 --> 0:06:47.061 is fathering hundreds and hundreds of children like that is 0:06:47.101 --> 0:06:48.062 worrying going forward. 0:06:49.022 --> 0:06:50.302 Jamila Jamil is. 0:06:50.301 --> 0:06:54.902 Done being interviewed by women. Jamil is a thirty nine 0:06:54.981 --> 0:06:58.022 year old actress. People might know her from The Good Place. 0:06:58.181 --> 0:07:00.741 She was in that, but she's more so known as 0:07:00.782 --> 0:07:04.541 a body positivity advocate. She was very vocal when the 0:07:04.621 --> 0:07:08.222 Kardashians were spooking their dietees, and she hosted a podcast 0:07:08.301 --> 0:07:11.901 called Iway with Umila Jamil, which was very very popular. Recently, 0:07:11.941 --> 0:07:13.821 she was actually a guest on No Filter. She was 0:07:13.821 --> 0:07:14.422 in Australia. 0:07:14.502 --> 0:07:15.822 I have seen her in The Good Place. She was 0:07:15.862 --> 0:07:17.982 great in that, but more people would probably know her 0:07:18.062 --> 0:07:21.542 from Instagram. She's a feminist, well, she's identified as a 0:07:21.542 --> 0:07:23.821 feminism and speaks out about all different kinds of things. 0:07:23.862 --> 0:07:25.742 She's very outspoken on. 0:07:25.982 --> 0:07:26.941 A bit of a commentator. 0:07:27.062 --> 0:07:29.581 Yeah, and over the weekend she published a sub stack 0:07:29.622 --> 0:07:32.222 with the subject line I think I'm done being interviewed 0:07:32.262 --> 0:07:35.302 by women. I am disgusted, and she says her trust 0:07:35.302 --> 0:07:38.542 has been broken for the last time after a toothy 0:07:38.622 --> 0:07:41.382 opinion piece in the UK Times, which we're going to 0:07:41.422 --> 0:07:43.902 get to in a moment, but after being interviewed in 0:07:43.902 --> 0:07:46.941 print for more than seventeen years, she says she's only 0:07:46.982 --> 0:07:50.502 been treated fairly by women three times, where she says 0:07:50.542 --> 0:07:53.141 that male journalists have always given her a fair shot. 0:07:53.902 --> 0:07:57.062 When she read the profile, which was written to promote 0:07:57.102 --> 0:08:00.342 schod new podcast out called Wrong Turns and a Pixar 0:08:00.462 --> 0:08:02.901 movie called Elio where she voices one of the characters, 0:08:03.262 --> 0:08:05.302 she said it was like reading the gossip section of 0:08:05.342 --> 0:08:07.622 her Wikipedia page. She said it was cheap and bit 0:08:07.702 --> 0:08:10.702 she intended to embarrass her. And we don't interview men 0:08:10.782 --> 0:08:15.221 like this, opening with paragraphs about all of their controversies. Holly, 0:08:15.262 --> 0:08:17.021 before we go any further, can you give us a 0:08:17.102 --> 0:08:20.302 sense of our primary source here the Times piece? What 0:08:20.742 --> 0:08:22.502 was the vibe of the Times piece? 0:08:22.702 --> 0:08:26.102 Yes, so it was written by a journalist called Liz Edwards, 0:08:26.182 --> 0:08:28.502 and Jamala Jamil makes the point in her piece that 0:08:28.622 --> 0:08:30.581 usually she's a travel writer at the time, so that's 0:08:30.662 --> 0:08:32.702 kind of true. She does do a lot of travel content. 0:08:33.222 --> 0:08:35.702 But one of the things that is eye opening about 0:08:35.742 --> 0:08:37.502 this really is that when I read it. It didn't 0:08:37.542 --> 0:08:42.102 strike me as particularly toothy, but I see Jamala's points. 0:08:42.142 --> 0:08:43.342 So here's just a taste of it. 0:08:43.422 --> 0:08:43.542 Right. 0:08:43.582 --> 0:08:45.942 So the first thing is is that the online headline 0:08:45.982 --> 0:08:48.822 is Jamala Jamil I stood up for Megan long before 0:08:48.902 --> 0:08:51.942 I met her, referencing Meghan Markle. It has a different 0:08:52.062 --> 0:08:54.382 headline in the actuals. I think it's from the magazine 0:08:54.382 --> 0:08:57.142 from Sunday Time with magazine, and it starts like this, 0:08:57.302 --> 0:09:00.262 It says Jamala Jamal says she does not need your approval. 0:09:00.662 --> 0:09:03.182 I don't personally like that many people, so I think 0:09:03.222 --> 0:09:05.702 it's ridiculous for me to expect other people like me, 0:09:06.182 --> 0:09:08.422 says the thirty nine year old TV presenter Da Da 0:09:08.462 --> 0:09:11.462 Da Da Da. Talk about her social media rows, as 0:09:11.502 --> 0:09:14.062 they say, and they cherry pick a few comments when 0:09:14.102 --> 0:09:18.662 she called a famous actor a freshly wanked cock, for example, 0:09:18.782 --> 0:09:22.462 and she said some pissy things about several people. And 0:09:22.502 --> 0:09:24.662 then the writer says, all of this might mean you'd 0:09:24.702 --> 0:09:27.942 expect her to be prickly company, but she's more cats 0:09:28.022 --> 0:09:31.902 poor than cactus spikes. She's in velvet. She's funny and 0:09:31.942 --> 0:09:35.102 self aware and disarmingly polite to me, to the hotel 0:09:35.102 --> 0:09:37.022 bar staff, whose best efforts at finding us at the 0:09:37.062 --> 0:09:39.542 quiet table come to nothing, and to the waiters. 0:09:39.342 --> 0:09:40.022 Blah blah blah. 0:09:40.062 --> 0:09:43.102 So this to any journalist, they're establishing color right like, 0:09:43.142 --> 0:09:45.502 they're giving you a sense of the person. This is 0:09:45.542 --> 0:09:48.382 what profiles do. She goes on to talk about what 0:09:48.422 --> 0:09:50.862 she's wearing, what she looks like. She says that she 0:09:50.902 --> 0:09:53.862 looks great in what she's wearing. It takes a bit 0:09:53.862 --> 0:09:57.182 of a turn. The writer talks about some of Jamila 0:09:57.262 --> 0:10:00.422 Jamil's stated life story, which is she says she has 0:10:00.422 --> 0:10:04.182 had several different health issues, She's struggled with the eating disorder, 0:10:04.222 --> 0:10:06.462 She's been in two different car accidents. And the rider 0:10:06.542 --> 0:10:09.262 seems to be saying a lot of things have happened 0:10:09.302 --> 0:10:10.381 to Jamila. 0:10:10.022 --> 0:10:11.942 Which the writer isn't the first person to say that. 0:10:11.982 --> 0:10:15.862 There's been enormous controversy and kind of an internet massive 0:10:15.902 --> 0:10:18.582 discussion about whether or not some of those claims are true. 0:10:18.662 --> 0:10:22.102 Yeah, And the journalist brings up, for example, a spat 0:10:22.222 --> 0:10:24.622 I guess a social media spat she had with Piers Morgan, 0:10:25.022 --> 0:10:27.942 and Jamil says, I have no interest in even continuing 0:10:27.982 --> 0:10:31.022 this line of conversation. Jamil now says, coolly, echoed by 0:10:31.062 --> 0:10:35.062 alarmed murmurs from her publicists at the next table, foolishness 0:10:35.262 --> 0:10:38.342 is something we should discourage in the media. She records 0:10:38.382 --> 0:10:40.942 our whole conversation, if I go down in flames, I 0:10:40.942 --> 0:10:42.982 want to go down in flames based on my own words, 0:10:43.062 --> 0:10:45.942 not via made up nonsense. And then, and this line 0:10:45.982 --> 0:10:48.662 is one that Jamela particularly took issue with. The writer says, 0:10:48.742 --> 0:10:52.702 the clause retract and congeniality resumes. As we chat over 0:10:52.742 --> 0:10:54.662 the array of tapas that arrives. 0:10:55.102 --> 0:10:58.462 The clause is are loaded. There is something sexist about that. 0:10:59.222 --> 0:11:02.902 You would not use that terminology about a man. And 0:11:02.942 --> 0:11:07.942 a lot of what Jamila Jamil writes is true, and 0:11:08.062 --> 0:11:12.782 she's right, but there's an irony to it because I 0:11:12.862 --> 0:11:16.662 thought that some of what Jamil wrote in her substack 0:11:16.822 --> 0:11:19.222 was also laced with a little bit of sexism about 0:11:19.382 --> 0:11:19.822 the writer. 0:11:19.982 --> 0:11:21.142 Did anyone else notice that? 0:11:21.622 --> 0:11:23.782 Yeah. One of the things I think is hard to 0:11:23.862 --> 0:11:30.782 unpick here is celebrity profile writing suddenly feels very different now, 0:11:30.902 --> 0:11:32.742 and it's not as in the form is not like 0:11:32.782 --> 0:11:35.582 the way that this article starts. Jamila Jimil says she 0:11:35.622 --> 0:11:39.462 doesn't need to approval full stop. It's like classic magazine writing. 0:11:39.582 --> 0:11:42.982 You start with a really pithy line, a statement, and 0:11:43.022 --> 0:11:45.582 then you're building a case. Almost That's what every profile 0:11:45.622 --> 0:11:47.342 writer does, is they meet a person, they spend some 0:11:47.382 --> 0:11:49.462 time with them, and then they're kind of laying out 0:11:49.502 --> 0:11:52.582 their case. And this is what Jamil takes issue with. 0:11:52.742 --> 0:11:56.022 She says, you know, why are they always prosecuting me 0:11:56.222 --> 0:11:58.702 and whether or not I have a right to say things, 0:11:59.142 --> 0:12:01.502 you know, my personality rather than my work. And this 0:12:01.542 --> 0:12:03.702 is something we've discussed on this podcast a lot. Women 0:12:03.782 --> 0:12:06.862 do very often get judged much more for who they 0:12:06.862 --> 0:12:10.662 are than what they do. One of the things I 0:12:10.702 --> 0:12:12.662 have issue with here is I also think this is 0:12:12.702 --> 0:12:15.942 how male profile happened to a little bit less commentary 0:12:15.942 --> 0:12:18.381 on what they're wearing. But this is the nature of 0:12:18.422 --> 0:12:21.022 the beast with a celebrity profile. And now that we 0:12:21.062 --> 0:12:24.342 all speak so directly, like when Jamela, for example, was 0:12:24.382 --> 0:12:27.462 on Now Filter with kateline Brook, brilliant interview, really insightful, 0:12:27.902 --> 0:12:31.302 she is entirely presenting herself right. There's no editorializing, and 0:12:31.342 --> 0:12:33.342 that's one of the reasons why it feels so authentic 0:12:33.382 --> 0:12:37.582 and real, Whereas the whole point of a celebrity profile 0:12:37.662 --> 0:12:40.222 is it as editorialized right, Maya. 0:12:40.822 --> 0:12:47.062 I find this whole thing completely exhausting, completely exhausting. I 0:12:47.142 --> 0:12:51.942 find to be Frank Jamila Jamil pretty exhausting. I think 0:12:51.982 --> 0:12:57.862 she's quite typical of a certain type of online personality. 0:12:58.262 --> 0:13:00.862 And I probably used to be a bit this myself 0:13:01.302 --> 0:13:04.982 many years ago, until I made a conscious decision not 0:13:05.102 --> 0:13:08.502 to be. It's like, you want to dish it out, 0:13:08.982 --> 0:13:14.022 but then when someone criticizes you, despite her saying, including 0:13:14.062 --> 0:13:18.062 in this profile, she says, perhaps this is my superpower. 0:13:18.182 --> 0:13:21.782 It makes me untouchable and quite dangerous. I'm immune to 0:13:21.862 --> 0:13:25.062 being judged because I don't care. Except she does care, 0:13:25.622 --> 0:13:28.702 to the point where she's written this multi thousand word 0:13:29.542 --> 0:13:32.742 takedown on substack, which is absolutely her right, and I 0:13:32.782 --> 0:13:34.902 have to say I empathize. 0:13:34.382 --> 0:13:35.062 With her a lot. 0:13:35.302 --> 0:13:38.222 I've had profiles written of me that have made me 0:13:38.302 --> 0:13:39.782 feel exactly like this. 0:13:40.022 --> 0:13:43.222 I remember in the earlier years of me working with you, Mia, 0:13:43.262 --> 0:13:46.102 I remember in our old office, an esteemed publication was 0:13:46.102 --> 0:13:48.381 doing a profile. A journalist basically followed you around for 0:13:48.382 --> 0:13:50.542 a couple of days, right, sat in on a few meetings, 0:13:51.182 --> 0:13:54.582 interviews you like, this is how profiles work. Yeah, And 0:13:54.662 --> 0:13:57.302 how how do you feel about those or did you 0:13:57.342 --> 0:14:00.142 feel about those It's not necessarily that specific one, but 0:14:00.342 --> 0:14:03.342 those pieces that sort of conceit of journalism. How did 0:14:03.382 --> 0:14:05.422 it make you feel when you saw yourself reflected in 0:14:05.742 --> 0:14:06.382 those eyes. 0:14:06.422 --> 0:14:09.381 There's a good reason they don't do them anymore, because 0:14:09.782 --> 0:14:12.302 they have to find an angle. It's not a what's 0:14:12.382 --> 0:14:17.262 you know called a hagiography, It's not a fluff piece. No, 0:14:17.502 --> 0:14:19.702 And she says, why didn't she engage with me about 0:14:19.702 --> 0:14:21.582 the issues I talk about? It's like, it's not up 0:14:21.622 --> 0:14:24.342 to you. You're not the editor of the Times. You 0:14:24.382 --> 0:14:27.702 don't get to decide what this journalist says about you. 0:14:27.782 --> 0:14:30.582 Another one of her complaints is that this woman who 0:14:30.662 --> 0:14:33.662 didn't know me, who didn't know anyone who knows me, 0:14:34.422 --> 0:14:37.742 how very DAEs she write about me in this way? 0:14:37.822 --> 0:14:41.342 And it's like, well, that's how interviews work, Like that's 0:14:41.342 --> 0:14:44.102 actually how interviews work. And then she goes on to say, well, 0:14:44.142 --> 0:14:46.462 I've interviewed people and this is how I do it. 0:14:47.262 --> 0:14:50.742 What I thought about is, in this age of social media, 0:14:50.942 --> 0:14:53.582 when everybody's used to being able to speak for themselves 0:14:53.662 --> 0:14:57.382 and control the narrative, when someone else speaks about you, 0:14:57.822 --> 0:15:01.462 it's suddenly like, how very dare you, and again I 0:15:01.502 --> 0:15:02.902 also know how that feels too. 0:15:03.342 --> 0:15:07.742 If I was sitting in the editorial team for The Times, 0:15:08.262 --> 0:15:12.702 my defense would be, it is a profile promoting Jamila Jamil. 0:15:12.742 --> 0:15:14.542 There was a photo shoot involved in it. She was 0:15:14.582 --> 0:15:16.622 getting something very clear out of this. It wasn't a 0:15:16.622 --> 0:15:20.542 community service engagement, and she wasn't there being the face 0:15:20.582 --> 0:15:23.022 of a charity. She was there promoting her work, which 0:15:23.062 --> 0:15:26.662 is her right, and her work is a new podcast 0:15:26.742 --> 0:15:31.182 called Wrong Turns. That podcast is all about failures, embarrassing moments, 0:15:31.462 --> 0:15:35.702 perhaps vulnerabilities. Yes, what the author wrote about was thematically 0:15:36.302 --> 0:15:39.742 not irrelevant, like you could see how even I'm a 0:15:39.782 --> 0:15:43.582 pervert for failure or whatever was the line, It was 0:15:43.742 --> 0:15:46.342 sort of relevant to the subject matter. 0:15:46.542 --> 0:15:48.782 But I think that people have really got to understand, 0:15:48.982 --> 0:15:53.742 including people who are interviewed, is the journalist doesn't choose 0:15:53.782 --> 0:15:57.262 the headline, doesn't choose the pool quotes. So those quotes 0:15:57.262 --> 0:15:59.742 that come out, that's all chosen by the sub editor 0:16:00.262 --> 0:16:03.742 or by the editor, And of course it's designed to 0:16:03.862 --> 0:16:09.742 take the most interesting, controversial part of the interview in 0:16:09.782 --> 0:16:13.742 the same way that she did that with hers by 0:16:14.062 --> 0:16:18.942 using the very rage baity headline I'm done being interviewed 0:16:19.022 --> 0:16:22.342 by women, which she did the exact same thing. 0:16:22.502 --> 0:16:25.142 That's what I take issue in a bit, because I 0:16:25.182 --> 0:16:26.942 think she's got a lot, as we've discussed, she's got 0:16:26.942 --> 0:16:28.462 a lot of fair points about it. It is true that 0:16:28.502 --> 0:16:31.302 women can be very highly critical of other women. We're 0:16:31.382 --> 0:16:34.222 very aware of that. But by doing that and taking 0:16:34.262 --> 0:16:37.222 that headline, for a start, it makes every female journalist, 0:16:37.222 --> 0:16:41.502 probably including myself, very defensive because you're like, well, you know, 0:16:41.622 --> 0:16:43.902 we're not all out here trying to take people down. 0:16:44.422 --> 0:16:47.142 But also it is rage bait, just in the way 0:16:47.142 --> 0:16:50.102 that she complained that the reason that the Times Online 0:16:50.542 --> 0:16:53.302 editor chose the Megan Markel quote, which was one tiny 0:16:53.342 --> 0:16:55.862 bit of the interview where basically the journalist says, do 0:16:55.902 --> 0:16:57.502 you know Megan, do hang out? And she's like no, 0:16:57.862 --> 0:17:00.902 Like I was interviewed by I once, I defended her 0:17:00.982 --> 0:17:02.782 publicly in the same way of defendants of women who 0:17:02.782 --> 0:17:04.022 are criticized. 0:17:03.982 --> 0:17:06.502 Which was a very understandable question. And I have to 0:17:06.542 --> 0:17:08.462 say all three of us have read the original source 0:17:08.502 --> 0:17:12.341 materials as well as Jamila Jamil's piece, and that was 0:17:12.341 --> 0:17:14.262 in the context of her talking about how her and 0:17:14.302 --> 0:17:17.421 her boyfriend moved to La You know She's also been 0:17:17.422 --> 0:17:20.341 interviewed on Megan's podcast Jamila Lamil. So it wasn't a 0:17:20.381 --> 0:17:22.982 crazy question to say, hey, did you hang out? There's 0:17:22.982 --> 0:17:24.942 another couple there that have also moved from the UK 0:17:25.022 --> 0:17:27.462 and around the same time, do you guys hang out? 0:17:28.061 --> 0:17:30.182 It was a reasonable question and she was like, yeah, 0:17:30.182 --> 0:17:31.142 we've had dinner a bit like. 0:17:31.621 --> 0:17:33.341 I know, but it's been pulled as the news line, 0:17:33.422 --> 0:17:35.702 which is what every journalist does, right as you pull 0:17:35.742 --> 0:17:38.581 the news line the most interesting, sallacious bits. 0:17:38.661 --> 0:17:40.782 That's not the journalist's fault because they write the piece 0:17:40.821 --> 0:17:42.261 and they don't know what's going to be pulled out 0:17:42.262 --> 0:17:45.061 as the headline or as the pull quote. That's not 0:17:45.182 --> 0:17:45.862 in their control. 0:17:46.061 --> 0:17:48.302 So what I struggle with, and I've seen this within 0:17:48.462 --> 0:17:51.422 feminists fears quite a bit lately, which is that someone 0:17:51.702 --> 0:17:55.821 sees something that they think is sexist or misogynistic by 0:17:55.821 --> 0:17:59.302 another woman, and then in the name of feminism, they 0:17:59.302 --> 0:18:01.982 call that woman old or ugly or a pick me 0:18:02.141 --> 0:18:06.662 girl or something, or a misogynist, which which I still go, mate, 0:18:06.702 --> 0:18:09.061 you're using the same trope. So for example, there was 0:18:09.101 --> 0:18:11.782 one line where she said, please God, may I never 0:18:11.821 --> 0:18:14.021 find this is Jimi La Jamil Please, God, may I 0:18:14.022 --> 0:18:17.462 never find myself middle aged dedicated to taking women trying 0:18:17.462 --> 0:18:19.462 to do something positive in the world down a peg 0:18:19.542 --> 0:18:23.101 or two. I hope I'm still directing my energy towards progress, 0:18:23.182 --> 0:18:25.341 not taking the bins out for the patriarchy for a 0:18:25.341 --> 0:18:28.302 paycheck and a pat on the head. There were lines 0:18:28.341 --> 0:18:30.741 like that in it that I just thought that just 0:18:30.821 --> 0:18:33.782 feels as though it's laced with sexism in the same way. 0:18:33.942 --> 0:18:37.462 Yeah, there's a certain type of online feminist who I've 0:18:37.462 --> 0:18:41.181 read described as a self aggrandizing and abrasive version of 0:18:41.222 --> 0:18:45.782 feminism that they're peddling. So it's they'll really dish it out, 0:18:46.022 --> 0:18:48.621 but then when it comes back to them, they cri misogyny, 0:18:48.661 --> 0:18:51.621 they cry how unfair it is, and it's just very 0:18:52.742 --> 0:18:54.622 I don't know, either you're in the arena or you're 0:18:54.621 --> 0:18:55.742 not in the arena. 0:18:55.502 --> 0:18:59.662 But well, yes, but not everything's fair in the arena, right, 0:18:59.782 --> 0:19:01.902 Like I think it's fair enough to call out when 0:19:01.901 --> 0:19:04.502 you've been misrepresented. I think it's fair enough to call 0:19:04.542 --> 0:19:08.341 out when something's damaging or defamatory or whatever. Like, I 0:19:08.381 --> 0:19:10.661 don't think it's fair to go in the name of 0:19:10.702 --> 0:19:13.222 selling a TV show. You should be fair game for 0:19:13.262 --> 0:19:13.862 all kinds. 0:19:13.661 --> 0:19:15.502 But whole Why does she keep saying I'm immune to 0:19:15.542 --> 0:19:17.262 being judged. I don't care what people think of me. 0:19:17.302 --> 0:19:18.862 I don't care what people think of me. And then 0:19:18.861 --> 0:19:22.702 there's a profile and again she talks about I did 0:19:22.742 --> 0:19:27.142 contact the journalist. There's been no response, no apology, no deletion, 0:19:27.742 --> 0:19:30.942 no removal of the piece. And it's like this other 0:19:30.982 --> 0:19:33.302 media the world, this is the Internet. And if you're 0:19:33.341 --> 0:19:35.022 going to again, if you're going to be in the arena, 0:19:35.462 --> 0:19:37.901 you're probably going to get a bloody nose in the arena. 0:19:37.942 --> 0:19:41.262 And as a woman of color, she cops so much 0:19:41.302 --> 0:19:46.222 more than most women. And it's true, she gets trolled. 0:19:46.861 --> 0:19:50.421