Everything Is Content - Louis Theroux's Painfully Awkward Interview, Thong Backlash & The 'Anti-Woke' Gen Z Influencer

Episode Date: March 13, 2026

Hello EICherry pies, we're back with a new episode for you <3Ruchira is back with a dispatch from her recent trip. We then dive into an excruciating interview with Louis Theroux that's dividing the internet. Next: Style-ish, the Australian fashion podcast under Shameless media, got into hot water after they discussed a TikToker's video on personal style. We wade into the discourse to work out what happened. Finally, Freya India is fast becoming the 'voice of a generation' in some circles and has been branded the 'anti-woke influencer' for Gen Z. We previously loved a piece of hers on social media slop... Were we wrong to like it?Thank you for Cue Podcasts for production. This week on the podcast, Oenone reccomended Line of Duty and the Bride bad reviews. Beth loved Netflix's new series Vladimir and Ruchira reccomended the March issue of Vanity Fair and Yesteryear.‘Would you like me to cry now?’: Louis Theroux on the manosphere, marriage and misunderstandingsHow to Develop Your Own Sense of Taste | TikTok“Private princess”: Carolyn Bessette Kennedy would hate thisUnpacking your feedback–Style-ish – Apple Podcasts The 26-year-old Brit who is the anti-woke voice of Gen Z women Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I'm Beth. I'm Richerra and I'm Anoni. And this is Everything is Content, the podcast that diligently tackles the week's best pop culture stories. We cover everything from internet trends to red carpets and your next best long read. We're a spring blossom drawing you out of winter every week. This week on the podcast, we're diving into a tense Louis Thruh interview, whether we can separate the anti-woke from the anti-woke writer

and beef between a fashion podcast and a fashion influencer. Follow us on Instagram at Everything as content pod and make sure you hit follow on your podcast player so you never miss an episode. So obviously I am going to ask you both what you've been loving this week. But first, this might sound wild, but I feel like I've a forgotten how to podcast in the week from being away and B, I actually need to hear how you both have been doing. It's so funny. Like we had two weeks you and I when we just weren't on the podcast together. But listeners, Ritia and I have made up. There was a feud and only had to mediate, but we are the feud. Just kidding. You were away and I

was ill. How was your your trip. Oh my God, it was so good. I went to India for a week and I had a cousin's wedding and it was just so colourful, so big, so loud, so grand. They do weddings a different way than what we know and I think everyone has to experience an Indian wedding at least once in their life. I've actually got my first Indian wedding to my cousins towards in September. I'm really excited. Oh, you're going have the best time. I know. And I was like, what do I wear? And I was like, can I wear? She was like, If you want to do proper like Indian dress, then definitely do. And I was like, okay, well, maybe, maybe I will.

Well, my wardrobe is here to raid because now I have 10 to 12 extra new items. Oh my God. Both of my upcoming wedding, but just because when we go, we shop until we bloody drop. So, yeah, come along. Wait, have you got your wedding dress now? I have my Indian wedding outfit, which I'm not going to say a word on because I am just unhinged and want it to be a big wow moment. But yeah, I have, I have that.

and I also just have some extras. Oh my God, I'm so excited. Does the podcast, does everyone know you're getting married? By the way, Ritra is getting married quite soon, actually. Yeah. Yeah, it's coming up soon. My God, we haven't planned anything. Probably from outfits now.

That's the most important. I think you've said it, we said on the Cheltenham episode, actually we've got a weird tie in later in this episode. I think you said it another time. I remember when like, as I say, Just Me and I know knew, but like, not released it. But like, we knew, but we hadn't mentioned it on the podcast. And like I was saying to real life friends of mine who listened to the podcast,

I was like, I've got some TV. And everyone was so excited. Oh, that's so nice. Because you have not done the left hand fingers played smiley selfie with your partner. No. That's, is that wrong? Are you going to hard launch the wedding? Like, are you going to, will you post wedding pictures, do you think?

I will absolutely post wedding pictures. And basically the whole ring, no hand thing is, is actually really fucking hard to get a graceful, elegant hand picture. And I've taken a few on my phone, but I just keep getting like, I don't know if it's hand dysmorphia, but I feel like they look like, you know, like an alligator's, like, foot or something. I think you have ham dysmorphia because you have such nice hands and also your ring is, Ruchero's ring is amazing and it's really flattering on the finger. Oh, thanks, guys. Even on my, even on my chody hand. Have you had a little go? I don't know, I think I might have asked you try on if I haven't. I think you did. I think I did. It sounds like

something I would have done. I did that to my sister all the time. I was like, my go. And she's like, this is actually not. It's not an us possession. This is mine, which you always let me have a little go. Okay, now I will ask you, what have you been loving this week? Okay, I've got two things.

And the first, please don't cancel me, guys. But I am going to be recommending Line of Duty. Oh, copaganda. No, more just because it's so old. Oh. That's what I thought. How have I never watched Line of Duty? it's like 15 years old

Emma Dale I don't even because of ACAP AAC or something Oh no that is No but that obviously is a problem Now I started watching it last night We were just before we came on ad It's talking about making bad decisions

I was like I need to go to bed early Because I'm training for another marathon That's literally all I'm up to So I have to keep getting up really early And I just was like just one more God it's good TV Can you remind us Because I have watched at least one or two series of that

Can you remind us the premise In the first episode goes Like a terrorist exploit if someone gets fired. I don't really... Yes. So the first episode is basically anti-counterrorism police

accidentally go to the wrong flat and kill a civilian thinking that they're going to kill a terrorist bomber. And the guy, one of the main police that's like on that refuses to tell a lie. Because the police basically want to say, make up some stories that doesn't make the police sound so bad.

And he's like, no, I refuse. Like a civilian's been killed. I can't believe this. And he starts to get disillusion by the police. So he joins the anti-corruption unit, which basically like the police that are police the police and their first job is to investigate this guy called DCI Gates and the new guy is like why he's obviously such a good police officer and then as it unfolds. So it's all about like bank

coppers, good coppers. Have you watched it, Ruchera? I've never seen it. It's one of the big gaps in my TV roster. I've literally never seen it. But I don't really, I don't really watch police shows. I watch detective stuff. I'd never have gotten into the police thing, but I've never tried either. This is, I would say that I don't watch police shows, but then when I do watch them, like I loved Happy Valley. I think we discussed this on that bit on here. But I wouldn't categorize myself as a police person, but then when someone puts me in front of a police show, I am hooked. And also, line of duty is so famous.

I do think it's one of those ones that I have lied about watching just for fear of people being like, have you not seen it. But I actually started watching it. I was like, I definitely have never watched this before. Oh, I do need to start. Police procedures in the UK, I just think that they are popular for a reason.

They are a staple of our... I mean, similar. More detective shows in the US, but we are quite good at it. actually recently rewatch Happy Valley, which the first few seasons came out, the early 2010s, and then they did a final season, which came out for years ago. And I rewatched it. And it's just, oh, it's fantastic. It's got James Norton in it. Sarah Lancashire. Like, it's just, it's smashing telly. It's so good. Okay. And then my second thing, which I'm really excited to discuss with you

both, I know you haven't seen it yet, but what else I've been loving, but not actually loving, is how much the bride is being panned after me singing its praises to Beth. Is it being panned? Yeah. Oh my God. I'm Richard. So Beth. So Beth, Beth, was like, what did Ritira think? And only, like, did you get her review on the day? I was like, we both loved it. Anyway, every review's like, worst film ever made. This is worse than cats. I've never seen such a bad film in my life. What the fuck is this? Like, genuinely, the headlines are the worst movie ever made. I was trying to remember. But fans, so I've been, obviously, I engaged with this on Twitter. So then I'm getting like loads of it. And basically, what I'm getting is a lot of movie goers are loving it, a lot of people predicting that it's going to end up being like a cult classic. But as far as critics are going, they are fucking slamming it. And then the reaction to that has been people saying basically that everyone's just misogynist because it's directed by women.

Look, it was a mess. But, Ritira, can you give us your actual review because I did speak for you? I'm sure what you said was word for word, what I would say. But I really enjoyed it. I thought it was really stylized, but in the right level of not style over substance. Jesse Buckley was amazing. Christian Bale was amazing. It was such a fun retelling of the story.

and I think it was just a romp. It was such a fun film. And also with some just interesting threads and that kind of weaving of feminism back into the story of Frankenstein, which really is basically all about him, less about the bride. I thought it was just really fucking fun.

I thought, I can't understand why it would be getting fun. Now I feel stupid. I know. It's now, I think it made $8 million on opening weekend and it had a $90 million pound budget. And I think it made... Oh, so it's that bad. That bad.

But I think it's because of the terrible reviews so everyone was then getting really angry. I feel the exact same way as you were cheery. People said that Jessie Buckley is her worst role. I genuinely think it's like my favourite thing I've seen her do. I don't even know what to say. Like did we watch the same film? Did we watch like a director's cut or something?

I genuinely have thought about writing a substack about what happens when you're on the like on the side of the film because we weren't with Wuthering Heights. Like we didn't like it. And you do get a bit of sort of shaddened from that. But being on the other side now, I feel so vindictive. I've genuinely thought about writing a piece being like what to do and you find yourself on the wrong end of the criticism.

Oh, please do that though, because I, through doing this podcast, I feel like time and time again I say with my chest, I thought this was excellent. And then like see the reviews the days after and just feel like an absolute fool. So I need to read the bees. One thing I saw, I don't think this is spoiler alert. Someone said that the closing credits are Monster Mash. Is that true? Yeah, and we fucking loved it. I thought that sounds so fun.

That sounds like fucking fun. I was like, it was a monster film. That's what's so genre-bunding. And my favorite thing was actually the dance sequence. I mean Ritira spoke about at the time. It was so good. What is this film? All the things that we were like, that was amazing. The bit I wasn't sure about is the thing that I got a bit worried about right at the beginning is what everyone says is the opening bit is Jesse Buckley is Mary Shelley and she goes, knock knock, who's there. It's just I, Mary Shelley, who wrote Frankenstein. That was a bit like someone should have cut that.

But apart from that, I really just, I just thought it was great fun. I can't wait to see this now. Please do. We need the third and final review. I think Beth might think it's shit. then I'll be cut then me and Ruechura and you will fall out yet again just kidding what have you been loving there

so I watched the entirety of Vladimir on Netflix have either of you watched it slash did you read the book no and no but I know about this and I've downloaded every single episode to watch so I am desperate to know what you think so it's the limited eight-part series on Netflix which is based on the book of the same name

by Julia May Jonas side note I've very been calling her Julia Mae Jones. I mean, it's not a big flub, but I just, someone called her Julia May Joan. I was like, you don't know. And then I googled. I went, I'm thick. I can't read. But it's about a middle-aged professor and writer played by Rachel Weiss. Side note, again, I hope I'm saying her name correctly. Rachel Weiss? Rachel Weiss? I would say Rachel Wise. I say Weiss. Oh, well, listen, Rachel, if you're listening to this, you probably are, just reach out. I hope she is. So she, in this, her professor husband, played by John Slattery from

Mad Men, called John in this, has been suspended and is facing faculty punishment, a kind of in-faculty trial for sleeping with students years ago. And while this is happening, she becomes obsessed with a younger new male colleague and Harshot writer, played by Leo Woodall, who's married as well. I really like the book. The series, I think it's great. It takes some liberties with that. And I think it pulls most of them off, but a big part of the book is that she's a 50-year-old woman. She's dealing with the effects of being older and she's kind of like, I'm aging out of desirability. Now, obviously, Rachel is one of the most beautiful women

who's ever lived, bisexual awakening, for many a millennial girl in The Mummy, frighteningly talented. So they do something different, I think, with that because it would be beyond the pale to really have her in that role exactly. But she pulls off this neurotic, desperate, lustful, confused, seeking character really well.

I think it's brilliant. I think it's so watchable. It really held my attention. Yeah, I just think it's great fun. I really think you both will enjoy it as well. In the baby girl canon of this new genre of older women, rediscovering their sexuality, kind of getting dignitized and ruining their lives.

Like, how spectacularly erotic is this? It does a very different thing to baby girl in terms of, because she has this kind of open marriage, which is we understand the boundaries of that in the first episode with her partner, which kind of came a part of. about, and she is this character who is not anti-woke, but she is defending her husband for having these affairs and her students of kind of Gen Z and millennials who are saying, like, this is so unacceptable because of the power and balance. And she's like, this is what youth is for to push the

boundaries and have these love affairs. And it's really interesting to think of desire from that era. And then this era, she was this younger woman, now she's this older woman. I think it's a great contender in that, in that category. I think anyone who enjoyed baby girl, but maybe the the emotional peril of baby girl took me out of it. I think there's less emotional peril in this, but there's a lot more real peril. I think it's great fun. I just quickly looked up some reviews,

and the first one that pops up is Rebecca Onion for Slate, who says Rachel Weiss is, I'm sorry to say, simply too pretty for this. Which seems to be the main criticism, and she's just too attractive. I would love that feedback on anything I ever do. Imagine the dream. Richerra, what have you been loving?

I feel quite fun doing this. read Vanity Fair, the March issue on the plane. And I loved it. They have a profile with Bianca Sensori. They have a profile with Margaret Qualley. And the thing that I love, and I think I've realized maybe Vanity Fair might be the perfect magazine for me. And I've never bought it before. But they had a really fun, just silly piece about Usha Vance and J.D. Vance's relationship through the eyes of astrology. And then the next page, they basically had this long read about the rise of these, you know, like one liberal takes on 25 students' style of videos that have been going viral, obviously very popularized by Charlie Kirk. And basically this one media company who is behind

most of these viral videos called Jubilee Media and how their ambitions are to become the primary way we absorb and understand politics, which is obviously really horrendous and really dangerous because these are so provocative, not genuine, thoughtful, insightful way of to engage with any kind of theory. So I was like, okay, so much highbrow and so much lowbrow and so much middle brow in this magazine. I loved it. Oh my God, Analog Queen.

I want to do that. My favourite thing when I was younger was getting Grazziah to sit and read on the plane. It's so chic. I really want to, and I love that. I've never bought Vanity Fair either, and I kind of forgot that magazines do have sort of like actual writing on them because a lot of them, have they got as many adverts?

Because I think that was at the beginning of sort of the downfall of the mag, the glossies, was when they're not. the pages literally just were those really thick cardboardy pages with ads on them. Is that still full up with that? No, this, this barely had any ads. Everything for the most part was a genuine piece, not an advertorial or an actual advert. And I completely agree with you. I think that's why I stopped buying magazines because I just kept going through them and then there would be maybe four pieces in this thick magazine. It would be so annoying and just so frustrating. So I think if you are looking for that, I would recommend specifically this issue. I'm not sure about any others, but I think I might be a

vanity fair girl. I love that we're like, you'll just buy this one coffee of Fanti Fair. It's one issue. I don't want somebody to say, oh, this issue is crap. Ruchero said it was good. I clicked on Twitter on a vanity fair article with, an interview with Lise Mellie, because she's got a new book out and there was like a pull quote where she was to her affair with Martin Scorsese and she described like addiction as like a lasagna. And I was like, obviously, I'm going to read that. So I love a profile on one and like an old Hollywood baddie, but also just like good, good interviewing is such. I mean, again, this is a tie into what we're going to talk about very soon. But like it's such a draw for me. It is like it's the one thing that I just cannot have replaced by influencer junkets or any kind of modern media. I want a glossy profile. Oh, so much. I'm going to absolutely butcher this. I'm hoping one of you saw this as well. But there was a tweet going around about Liza Minnelli. And I can't remember that. But it was basically about how she's walking along. with her husband and her boyfriend comes up to her and like accuses her of having an affair with another guy on him while she's with her husband or something like that and it's really good

and everyone's quoting it like this is how we're supposed to be living so she's got like three men on the go and in front of her husband her boyfriend's like you're having an affair but not with the husband with someone else so good I love mess who's it's her who is her is her is it is it's her right yeah yeah lies manelli and then isn't judy garland's mom one as well. She definitely had one, but I just don't, but yeah, I just don't know. Okay, well, the second thing is a bit of a pivot, but I know all of us have the book for this, but we got proofs for yesteryear by Carrow Claire Burke.

And I finished it in the week that I was away because I was racing through it. I had such a good bloody time reading this book, and I can't wait to discuss this when you're finished. It's so good. Tradwives, YouTube vlog, you know, family style. It's about performance. It's about delusion. It's about the ways in which we pit women against each other from the kind of third wave feminism and this more modern look to hide ourselves in the past. And this nostalgia for Americana is so good.

The premise is gold. It's gold dust. Like a trad wife imprimentser wakes up in like what appears to be the 1800s as a tradwife. Just the kind of thing you go like, fuck. I mean, I wouldn't have done justice to writing this book, but you're just like, fuck, that's a good fucking idea. So much, so much. Okay, I'm being later to the party. I have not opened it yet, but I have got it right next to me. So I will be starting at ASAP. Have you seen Anne Hathaway is either attached to produce and star in it, I think, and I say to rent this, which again, that's very exciting. Yes. So I read her, what's it called at the end? Acknowledgements, that's it. And she thanks Anne Hathaway for helping to tinker with some of the parts of the main

character called Natalie. And I was screaming in my head because I was screaming in my head because I was like, this is just every person's dream. This book, this idea, this premise, this situation is so good. I'm jealous and I'm thrilled. So last week, documentary maker and podcast legend, Louis Theroux had a rare Guardian profile come out that sparked both criticism, a little bit of backlash, and even more discourse. The piece was called Would You Like Me to Cry Now?

Louis Theroux on the Manusphere, Marriage and Misunderstandings by Charlotte Edwards. And this whole piece was essentially tied to his new. documentary on The Manorsphere. I think it's fair to say it makes for a really awkward and uncomfortable read at times and there's clearly some friction between the pair of them. And the result has been that a lot of people feel quite divided about Louis Ther and both this piece with some people calling him rude and abrasive while other people have said that he is clearly just a victim of the writer's projection. And then there's another camp, I guess, who are saying that the piece is just evidence that they clearly don't have

chemistry. So the piece starts straight away with this really weird tone with the writer saying Louis seemed, I don't know, prickly, a bit testy. I'm prone to rumination, so perhaps I'm overthinking, because Louis threw is a good guy, right? He skews the bad guys, and yet here I am baffled. Just to take you through some of the big moments, the first kind of real yikes moment comes when Edwards asks him if his parents' set up was patriarchal and essentially she seems quite unimpressed with his take, which was that despite his mum doing a lion's share of the household labour and her husband cheating on her regularly, he doesn't think it was a patriarchal structure. She then asks him which parent he preferred, and he very clearly bristles. So this is a quote.

He gets irritable when I ask whom he felt closer to growing up, and then it's a quote from him, come on, I'd get in terrible trouble if I answered that. They're alive. When you ask that, did you think, am I going to get away with this? He mimics, which one are you closer to? and in another possibly the most extreme example of this kind of discord between the two, she sets on this questioning towards the end of the piece saying, what makes him cry? And he replies, no offense, Charlotte, but that's kind of a cheap way of getting to a deep place. That's like a podcast interview where they go, what was your lowest ebb? I joke with my friends about those podcasts.

What was your lowest ebb? What's the worst thing that ever happened to you? Like, really? Oh, even just going through it makes me feel so uncomfortable. What did you both make of the piece? I do think that we covered a bit of the kind of anti-Louis through sentiment that has been growing over the past year. Do you think that people are a right to accuse him

of being rude and stuck up? Or do you think this is another kind of villain edit that's coming to the forefront? God, it's kind of like my worst nightmare. I actually don't know where to land on this because I do think maybe a part of it is like a massive personality clash. And I did see a Reddit thread that was basically like

saying that part of Louis' kind of shtick and personality is being like jokingly dickish. And the way that that's translated on the page just sounds like he's outright dickish. But there is every possibility that he was saying this with like a wink and a grin. It's also weird that it's kind of meta in that the interview stopped being an interview

and it became sort of like a documentary about the interview itself. And my last thing is, and this is, I'm only saying this because my natural inclination when I first read it was he comes across really badly. My last thing was, if this was a man interviewing a woman and those same questions have been pitched back to a woman and the woman was like, why are you asking me this? Ask me about my work. We often really champion

that when a woman really goes, actually, why are you asking me about my relationship with my parents? I'm here to talk about a documentary that I've made. I think that everyone would be like, yeah, why the hell are they asking her that? But I wonder, I'd love to know what he thinks. Like, is he, was he like, doesn't give a shit? Is he big enough that this can't really touch him? Or I wonder if he feels exposed by this. I mean, it certainly captured, it did something good. this piece of journalism has gone around. So it worked well, but I haven't quite made my mind upon what I think of it. Maybe because the whole thing feels very subjective from both of them, I actually feel like I can't take sides. What about you, Behr? Yeah, I found excruciating to read

because I always find anything like this excruciating as someone that does occasionally do interviews. It is that nightmare thing of you've gone to get something and you've gone to do a job and you realize the person, it's not going well or it's not going how you thought and your questions aren't landing and you've got to get something. And obviously she does get something. She gets a lot of really interesting discourse from him about the manosphere, but also she gets this discomfort, which she makes into the piece. So I find it really difficult to read it. I read a few more of her other pieces and her other profiles. I think it's quite clear from them. This is what her style is. It's kind of questions on the world and the culture, but it's also

questions about interiority and that person's like emotional beginning. And that is also what a profile is. You want to get a bit of colour and flavour about their upbringing, their schooling, their family life. That is what he's not receptive to or just says, you know, go and go and take this from my memoir. And I don't think that bit's particularly rude, but he really doesn't like the emotive line of questioning. But I read a fear for other pieces, like one with Alanis Morissette, which is very good, goes into real depth about mental health. Another one with Rami Malik, similar about like his racial background and his upbringing. And so, like, she's not this inexperienced journalist.

It's kind of an experience match with him, but something just does not gel at all. And I do, I think it's wrong to say, like, obviously your approach was wrong. But the approach isn't working. I personally think if I was interviewing Luther, I wouldn't really, I don't think he's a very interesting. Everything I know about him, I think, oh, fair enough, that's your background. You're a bit of, like, you know, NEPA babies before it was what they were called. You're from this connected family. You're an intellectual in this way, but also kind of a bit of, I think he calls him like something like this.

about being like the younger son less important. That's interesting. The rest of it, I just am not interested in him as a man. I'm just interested in his work. So it's an interesting approach to try and probe the layers of Louis through. Like even on Adam Buxton's podcast and there, the two of them are school friends and good friends. He answers those questions and they go to quite an intimate place, but he's obviously not comfortable even with his friend.

Maybe this man is just simply not one for the peeling. Yeah, it's interesting, isn't it? because he doesn't really do interviews and also with him being a documentary maker, but in the last few years, him also being a bit of a figurehead and a personality. It seems to be when he's lent more into the personality that people have had the problem with him. Also, all the kind of, you know, got to get through this t-shirts, all the kind of Louis obsession. I feel like there must be a better name for it, but I can't think of it.

All I can think is Millie Fandom, but something like that for Louis through. I think that was like nothing to do with him, really. it was just people retrospectively over COVID pouring over his documentaries. And it feels like the minute people are trying to make him this thing and he's trying to accept it and lean into it, they have a problem with him. And that's not me defending him in this interview. I just think maybe he's not meant to be that kind of figurehead, influencer type person that modern society kind of expects from every single type of person, regardless if they make documentaries and just do presenting or if they're a politician for God's sake. So I did think this interview also reminded me of that Hugh Grant famous, horrible red carpet interview where I think it was Ashley Graham. It was your fave. Was it Fantasy Fair?

Oh, was it Vanity Fair? I think Ash... It was a Fantasy Fair event or something and that was the... He mentioned that and he thought she was talking about the magazine and he was talking about the book. Something like that. Oh, God. And it was so painful. But at the same time, I don't think either of these people are bad people. I just think that not everyone is designed for this level of screwing. or kind of, you know, sparky chemistry style of interview, especially not video. Everyone's not bloody designed for video. It's a hard skill. So I just, it doesn't sit well. This interview is not palatable. It's very uncomfortable. But at the same time, I don't think it's necessarily a cancel him for take. Do you know, the more we talk about it, the more I'm not actually, I quite like it, because it's so jarring. It's so not what you expect. I kind of like the fact that it's not

polished and like there's an answer for everything and everything kind of is what you expect. Like, with every line, you're like, oh, no, why did that happen? Or like, why have you said that? I don't want to know. That's not nice. I even thought of points, I was like, I kind of wish she'd gone a bit further, actually, because there was bits where I'm like, maybe what she should have done is just kept pushing on that thread and asking like, why is this making you uncomfortable? Whereas what's interesting about it is in the moment he kind of rebuffs what she says or he goes, no, I don't want to talk about it. She then, in post, kind of goes, he looks bored, he laughs, It's not a happy laugh.

But in the moment she's not actually reacting to him, she moves on and kind of doesn't take it any further. And he is an interesting character. He's quite eccentric. He is prickly. You're right, Beth. Even with Adam Buxton, he does get a bit. He's actually quite easily riled, which is funny for someone that's whole job is sort of like poking and prodding and probing other people. Maybe that is why.

Maybe someone that's very naturally curious about other people has a fear of people being curious about them. I just think they really, their personalities didn't clash. I do think that there's maybe some truth to the fact that she was finding his personality quite abrasive and offensive, which maybe made him become that thing. I wonder if you'd gone from a different way, it could have gone in a different direction. But I think it is fun to read writing, as much as I do think he came across badly, it's quite a fascinating case study in like, what are we primed to expect from these interviews and why are we primed to expect that someone is going to react in a certain way? I would love to know how he,

feels about it. I really want to know if he's like, oh, whatever, yeah, I didn't want to talk about it or if he's like, shit, I should have actually acted a bit more professionally, yeah. Done this slightly differently. But I think that's the thing. It's like maybe there was no way that this could have gone better. It feels like there was two, he wanted to talk about the work and something he's comfortable with. She wanted personal flavour. I mean, there are some cases where it's the interviewer's skill that gets them to a place that's... they don't think they're going to go to. I was listening to NPR's Fresh Air, an interview between Delroy Lindo and Tanya Mosley, and she brings up the BAFTAs. And even before she's really brought it up,

he says, I'm just going to stop. I mean, he's laughing. He's so warm with her about it. He says, with all due respect, I'm not going to talk about it. But then he does, not exhaustively, but he does. And it's this example of an approach and a camaraderie and a real chemistry that does get an interview subject to tell you things that they don't think they're going to tell you and not to feel like you have squeezed blood from a stone. Maybe. Maybe that was never possible in this case. Maybe the chemistry was just so off. Maybe it's not that deep. But her approach didn't seem to change. And maybe that was so that she could write this piece of like, here's this fantastically interesting, talented marquee documentary maker who actually

is not comfortable discussing these things, how interesting, what a contradiction. But it's a hard job to profile people, especially beloved people in entertainment. And what came out of it was in arguably an interesting piece, but just not easy to read. agree. It's like when on a podcast, two people are bristling, I literally feel like my insides are shriveling up. Like I have such a low tolerance for people and discord and like that very public prickliness between people just clearly not getting on. I don't know what it is. I can't stand it. But you're right. The piece was so interesting. And the other thing I thought when I was reading it is, and I think I put this in the group, profiles are such a messy beast as it is because you're consuming

somebody's take of somebody else during a short window. So they are inherently so biased because, for example, we've known each other for years now. I still have a take on you. That's not somebody else's take on you. That's not your take on you. That's my take on who both of you are. And I have that for every single person in my life. Also, I was thinking about how in therapy, something that I've been working on is projection. And we are so prone to projection in everything, every single interaction we have. If somebody, I don't know, the library gives me a book and they don't smile and I'm having a bad day, then I'll take it as like, oh, maybe there was something about me in that interaction and I'll just read into it because that's what our brains do. We try to make sense of things. So when I say profiles just have to be a bit projection because it's a person going through that and they're not a therapist. It just makes all of this stuff so hard and naughty to understand. And actually, do profiles really reflect the person that they're talking about or do they reflect an interaction? I think it's more the second.

Yeah, the thing about projection and also what Beth was saying about the chemistry and stuff was making me think actually what was missing here was trust because like you were saying, Beth, what normally happens is someone goes in and I do this all the time, I'm very extremely easy to extract information. So I'm not a good example. But where you think you're not going to say something and then someone kind of lubes you up and then you just slide right on and you're like, okay, I guess I'm going to tell you this now. With this, it felt like I guess his paranoia dial is probably up really high because he knows every trick in the book. He's famously one of the most disarming documentary. because he gets people to tell him things,

even when they're bridging a massive gap of sort of like ideological and political views or whatever. He is very good at getting what he wants from people. So I assume that means when he walks into a room, his radar's really on for someone to try and get something out for him that he doesn't want to say. And she, I guess, is quite blatantly asking questions, which even we now as culturally understand from criticism of podcasts like Stephen Bartlett's, where often his thing, like the tagline, is basically like getting someone to cry. So I think there's just like a lack of trust there where he's going, right, you're pressing

every button to try and get me to do this thing that I don't want to do. She feels like he's not trusting her and not being open-minded and open-hearted with the interview. So they just clash throughout rather than there being this sort of slow kind of crescendo to the point where he goes and actually maybe my desire to, you know, make all these shows is because I want to understand myself better. whatever it was that she originally wanted. But you're right, Beth, it then became the whole piece becomes actually this profile, which is very much like, who is Louis through.

And actually, that is such a modern phenomenon, because we've spoken out as before, but like any writer, any creator, any artist, probably documentary makers often don't want to be the thing. It's the art they're making that they want to tell the story. And often with that interviews and documentary makers, it probably is slightly better if you don't know too much about them. So they're sort of like a blank canvas that you can project onto and also, also have as just sort of something that ideas bounce off of rather than someone that's

so well rounded in our mind's eye that you almost get distracted by their presence? 100%. I mean, for all this like analysis around this, I think it's clear like, I think I would find that very rude for him to have said those individual things, like the mocking tone. But I do think it's interesting to analyse just this relationship, yeah, between subject and interviewer when neither one wants to give an inch. Like I really, I feel like I want to read more of her stuff now because I feel like I would be cowed. I would be like, I'm so sorry. I, I, in an era of, not an era, but just in a landscape of fluff pieces, promotional pieces, for someone to just say the thing and be like, hmm, he was kind of, he was kind of prickly in there. I, this is why I do

enjoy reading these guardian pieces. The only thing I'll say is one time I had to do a profile for the guardian and I just don't, I won't name the person because there's no point. But it was a person in a TV show and I had to ask them a question which they get a lot and then during the interview their face just shut down and they were like I get this all the time why are you asking you that question and I like seized up but I tried to take it really earnestly and I said oh I'm asking you this question because as a young person like this is what I think about this and I am generally interested in what you think on this issue and you know actually affects me too and then she loosened up but that immediate kind of snip and the like venom, like I felt it and I had to just swallow it

and just like try and meet it with openness to get through it. So you are really in this live moment when these things happen. It's fucking difficult. So next up, some podcast drama between a style influencer and a style podcast. So I'll start for the basics, but anyone that's not aware, Tamzin Wong is a popular TikToker and influencer and she's very much in the luxury space making content about style, beauty, food, as well as running her own members club. And she made a video in February that caught the attention of the stylish podcast, which is a weekly Australian Style and Beauty Podcast under the Shameless Media Channel hosted by three women. I'll boil down Tamson's video.

She said that so many people nowadays have terrible taste or haven't developed their own sense of good taste because, and I quote, the internet and social media has become a digital wetness, spoon-feeding microchens and aesthetic. She advises viewers to stop listening to random people online, telling you what is chic and what isn't, and instead to go outside, try new things without fear of ridicule and not be dictated to by algorithms. She also says you basically need to stop trusting Pinterest mood boards and instead go into the world, feel the quality of materials, try things on, see how they fit and grow your own eye for detail. And she used the example of Caroline Perc Kennedy, who the internet is referring to en masse as CBK,

who is currently the definitive posthumous it girl and in online style spaces everyone currently is trying to dress like. And the stylish podcast discussed this video in an episode at the beginning of this month and they weren't super kind about it. They describe it as the biggest first world problem accuse her of being on her high horse

and then they said that Pinterest is a great tool. They went on to tell her to back the fuck off and that the whole thing really riled them up. This got a lot of attention online from Yasmin's fans And Yasmin even replied, then Stylish put out a 15-minute apology of sorts. We'll link the video and the episodes if you want to get across the whole drab of it. But it sparked so many discussions about taste and style and CBK specifically, which we'll discuss.

But first, what were your reactions to this whole palaver? So have you guys seen that tweet that keeps going really viral, which is like, people be saying itself so definitively, like, man, I think it depends. That is foundational. It's so foundational. Because that is kind of what I thought to their reaction. I think the, first of all, her video to me was so inoffensive. And also a take that I've seen across Substat.

Twitter is something that I also kind of agree with. It's like, you know, in order to have style, style does come from this kind of innate understanding of clothes. And my background for that is more something I've just spoken about so much since the podcast I won't bore you. But if you stop buying trend-led stuff because you're trying to avoid fast fashion, you do, by virtue of that, have to start figuring out your style because you don't have access to. a catalogue of trends and just whatever is available in fast fashion, you've got to work out how to sift through random shit and put an outfit together that you like. So her premise to me made total sense. Their reaction is where I'm like, I think it depends because they were so rude. It was the way they, she's fucking this, she's fucking that. It was so angry. But I also got their point of view.

Like I understand that also sure, style can come from you, you know, putting together a Pintest board from following influences. You can be inspired. Not everyone has access. to finding style an easy thing to have. I know it sounds weird, but obviously some people are genuinely born with natural styles. Some people accrue it and others actually find that's not like a language they can speak. They do need help. What did you guys make of it? I personally, I think Tamton was bang on in her video and I didn't read anything controversial in it. I saw her video first and then the algorithm served me up her rebuttal to them. I don't listen to stylish, but I was sort of surprised that a fashion and style podcast would

one calls something else first world problems and two the anti her messaging because her messaging is basically like good style is about like intentional immersion in fashion rather than just copying someone else's mood board like to me that feels like first principles of style and fashion that it's about personality it's about personal expression it's a way like it's a way for you to wear your personality like that to me as like a genuine outsider to this it's what sold to me as the most integral and interesting part I think they perhaps responded to something that wasn't there and something that was assumed in this, you know, she is in a luxury space. She does speak from perspective of having money and access, but she wasn't saying you must buy designer. She was saying, go and enjoy it physically. Go and see what you think is luxury and what you think is good materials, what you think hangs well on your body, what suits you and what you love, and then wear it versus you're all plebs. You should listen to me. I think they were responding to what wasn't there, which does happen. And like, podcasting is a public space, as much as even between the three of us, it's like catching up with friends. I think it's the same for them. You do sometimes

forget, we're not just dishing here. People will listen to this, including perhaps the person we're talking about. So I haven't checked in on the podcast for a while, but I still followed them on everything. So I saw the comments of this video, and I saw that they announced on their stories they were putting out an apology whilst I was in India. And I was like, huh? I've not seen this before. So I had to work backwards. And then you shared the original video. So I've now caught up. But seeing it that way was very strange because they're not, from my experience, really in this situation often. So I think it has been a big deal. Obviously, the apology, so having the founders, Michelle and Zara almost like interviewed them for this apology is a big deal because they rarely bring those two on. This is very much

meant to be a separate venture from the massive, you know, ubiquitous podcast that is like the leaders in pop culture commentary and the podcast space. But I also, the thing that it made me think about is their apology very much centered on we miss the tone. I do really empathize and sympathize with that. Sometimes when we do the podcast, I will have, you know, a spiral over the weekend because I'm like, oh, did I get the tone of that right? We obviously talk about so many different things. We obviously cover online creators. And sometimes, you know, we have to be really critical about things that they put out. And striking the balance between empathy and criticism is really hard. I definitely think they missed it here and I think that they veered into like quite aggressive commentary

that felt like if we're going to talk about projection it felt like a lot of projection actually they seemed to project onto her that she was a mean girl that she was being dismissive of engaging with the internet as inspiration but that really wasn't what she was saying at all and bizarrely by the end of their original episode on it they kind of landed on the same conclusion she did which I thought was really funny they were like you really have to develop your own sense of style think for yourself that's exactly what she was saying She was just coming at it from a different angle. So it could have been a really good conversation talking about what is inspiration and fashion.

But I think they seem to present this real triggered response from her video, which is interesting. Yeah, I guess it just made me reflect on our podcast not to get super meta. But it is really difficult. Tone is difficult. Sometimes when you have a conversation with two of your good friends, having a microphone doesn't make it feel any less intimate. but sometimes you have to kind of reel yourself in and you have to think with this person, if they were in the room, feel okay about this. And it is hard. Sometimes I don't know if I get, if I get the line right with what I say, I just wanted to put that out there, I guess.

The triggered thing is crucial to the whole thing and they talk about it when they're doing. They're like, I don't know why this has triggered me so much. What they're actually responding and reacting to is the feeling that someone has told them that they're not fashionable. Like, that's where the whole eye and anger has come from. And then around that they've sort of like built an argument that backs it up, which is that she's talking about first world problems and stuff, which is so irony laid in there because none of the stuff. I mean, actually, fashion is really important to culture, but whatever. It's so interesting that that was their response, because also it was such a personal reaction. And what she had said, it's not like she said

something that was upsetting or cruel or vilifying any one group of people. It was, it just, it more made me think how interesting it is. My friend's therapist once said this to her, but if you have a reaction that's hysterical, as in like it feels really outside for what you're experiencing, it's historical, meaning you're being triggered. So you're actually what you're reacting to is not something that's happening right now. It's something that's happened in the past and your body is going, this is really bad. I don't feel safe. So I wonder if, you know, maybe they're, now I'm just making stuff up, but like I guess if they've got taken an interest in fashion, maybe part of that stemmed from at some point, you know, someone saying to them,

they're not very fashionable. So it's like brought up. It's really interesting to think about because really none of it fits together as a neat puzzle piece. What she said was fairly innocuous. Yes, you could say, and she goes on to say in follow-up videos, she doesn't acknowledge that there's certain levels of privilege to having access to certain types of style and being able to buy certain clothes. And yes, there are certain things she could have addressed.

But I think the original TikTok video is like a couple of minutes. So you're not going to cover everything. So I think it's quite fascinating. Just again, even in light of like the Louis Theroux thing, it's funny how much we can show ourselves in ways that sometimes we don't even know that we're doing through how we react to things. And podcasts can be really dangerous,

which is why we do sometimes have to do some pre-chatting before. Because actually even in the motherhood app, we did not that long ago, I weirdly got really triggered about that and I had to really consolidate my thoughts before we recorded so that I didn't end up saying something which the creator didn't deserve or need because it was nothing to do with them.

It was simply my own body going. I don't like this. I really like that. If it's hysterical, it's historical. girl. I think that's quite, it's one of those little snappy things you're like, that, unfortunately, is now like a fridge magnet on my brain. This is not unrelated. It's not super related, but did either if you see the other big podcast controversy of the week with Jess Wright of Towie, her mom and her sister, who have a podcast? No. When they discussed another cornerstone

fashion item, the thong bikini, and they said how much they hated it. Did you see this? And it is, they've since put out an apology. And I think they've sort of had. the episode either scrubbed or you cannot find the audio anywhere at the moment. They basically said how much they hated the long bikini in public, how it leaves nothing to the imagination, women should like put it away. And Jess basically said her husband, who is apparently called Will, hates them and thinks they're really unsexy. And the response was huge. People being like, well, I'm not dressing for Will. Who's Will? I'm dressing to get a lovely tanned ass, fuck Will. And it was really, I mean, like I said, like, we didn't get this right. But it is the season for

podcast apologies. I fear that we might be due on. I'm sorry to say that we didn't get the tone right for something so unsurious is so funny to me. Like compared to the Tamzin one where it feels like there's like a real victim on the other side of it, like big thong is coming after the right. Well, no, because I actually, I never ever go on Daily Mail anymore. But yesterday, for some reason, I actually went on the Daily Mail and the first thing I saw, and I was really trying to make sense for it. I was so confused because it was all about how Carol Wright is such a bad mother-in-law to Michelle Keegan.

And the whole thing was based on them saying about this song, thing and then it was like a long side of picture of Michelle and a bikini. And I was really confused because I was like, what have they said? And it was literally just the thing about the thong bikini. And then there was another clip that I don't know if it's even for the same podcast where Carol Mark's mom is saying, Jess has something like you often get it in the stick about, you know, not being a good mother-in-law. I don't know. It was such a mess. And I was really, I was reading the whole thing. I was trying to find the links. And I was like, what did they say? And I was just pissing myself that what they had said was that they think thong bikinis are

unsexy because actually I don't really I didn't hear it something else difference but I don't care if they don't find them sexy like it's really whatever it's like I do think they're nice but I also think big pants are nice like if you're to I suppose if you're talking about wearing on your own body that's fine but I think the people the people have spoken and they think that it was about Michelle so yeah that was the first thing on the Daily Mail and I was really I was reading it and I was very confused I mean I would like to say to the thong bikini community we stand with you and your rights thank you the messiest part of this is now I everyone on the internet was like, this is sexist. Don't shame women for getting their ass out on the beach.

It's not to do with you and who's well. People were then digging up alleged screenshots of men in the right family who had either liked a picture of a big juicy bottom, followed particular accounts with, and I just thought, oh, it's the worst outcome. You say something off the cuss that you think, it's just my opinion. It's about thongs. What could go wrong? And then suddenly, daily mail, front page, everyone's slagging you. The internet detectives are out. Oh, it actually gives me To repeat my favorite phrase, the willies. Just for clarity, I think all bikini bottoms are sexy. Okay, kiss ass, literally.

No, it's songs only for me. So last year, we discussed a sub-sad titled We Are the Slop by Freya India, and I often dip in and out of her substack, and I really enjoy the pieces that I read. And I've never really interrogated who she is as a person, just that I quite like her writing. And I kind of assumed that her political leanings were aligned with mine. until a few weeks ago, the Times published a piece titled The 26-year-old Brit,

who is the anti-woke voice of Gen Z women, and the piece was ahead of her new book. So I decided to dig a little deeper and listened to it. I got about halfway through and it's called Girls, Gen Z and the Commodification of Everything. We'll get into that a bit later, but I then started reading various interviews and pieces that she's written for other publications where her political leanings are a bit more obvious, and I know that Beth and Ruchera read those two. And I think we were just all quite surprised to find out that the young woman whose words resonated with us so much and who came to so many of the same conclusions as us, especially around social media and internet use, among other topics, has such radically different politics to us. And Beth said something that I thought was so interesting. And she said that it kind of shows how useless the label wokeness or anti-wokeness has become. Because depending on who you talk to, she's both. I wanted to know from both of you. does this new framing of her as a sort of like conservative Christian change how you engage with her writing?

Honestly, it does a bit. And I reflected back on what I said about her original piece about Are We the Slop? And it was really hard not to now see that with a kind of puritanical morality induced approach to how we post online. And if we are going to talk about projections, sorry that I keep trying. trying to shoe on this fucking theme into every segment we do. But I think when I read that piece, I was in a state of my life where I didn't feel like I wanted to share things about myself online. And it really came at the perfect time reading that piece because I was like, oh, there's this societal reason. There's this bigger, wider thing that she identified that I really related to that was like, I guess, commodifying all of our personal experiences and that becoming a,

mindless content for other people. But the more I've thought about it, the more I just think objectively kind of reflecting on where I was at that time as well, I don't think I necessarily agree with that in the extreme way that I did back then. I do think celebration online, I do think sharing these moments doesn't have to be a bad thing. I don't think it has to be put in the box of just slop. And I do think I kind of had a bit of a puritanical approach to it of just being like, we're all commodifying ourselves. The internet has become useless. We are just, you know, bots for the algorithm and the machine. And yeah, it's a bit of that, but it's also not expressing that too. I think if somebody puts their baby's first picture online, I don't think that is slop. I think these platforms can make it

feel like slop, but that's why it's okay to use them in the way that we want and take control and not retreat back into our shells, which is what I was doing at that time in my life. So basically, with the guys of now understanding a bit more of her context and reading a really good piece in the new statesman called Freya India Can't Save Our Girls, where they talk about a lot of what she talks about in the book is this idea of, okay, well, you know, women are being commodified in all these ways. The best ways they can deal with it is retreat back into themselves, which is a very unempowered stance. I think it's maybe reflect on it. And I don't, I can't not see everything she's written a bit differently now. What do you think, Beth? So obviously she has written this book.

which when you write a book on something like this, people will consider it like a treatise on the thing and expect you to have solutions. And from the reviews that I read, the consensus for all the praise that is given to her ideas and her writing, the consensus seems to be, but she doesn't offer solutions. I think she's 26-year-old, so it would, I think, be a little bit out there to expect someone with insight to also necessarily at this stage in their thinking and their career have those solutions. as to her positioning, I think I grapple with this and I think what is useful in her writing and what I agree with and the places where myself and also the three of us align with her, which I guess would be like her work and our work is somewhat focused at least on the liberation and protection of women and girls. We talk about tech and social media. We talk about the predatory, hellish beauty industry, cosmetic surgery industry. She's very critical of family bloggers. so am I personally. I think ideologies and fundamentals of that are different, but what is

useful in her writing remains useful to me and remains a good idea whether or not we do agree on the ultimate solutions. So I think a few years ago, I probably, when I was her age or a bit younger, I probably would have said, this is all useless to me now. I can't really have anything in common with someone who perhaps is more on the right or anti-liberal. Speaking now, I do think I would be interested to watch her career and watch what changes as she gets older because a lot of her writing that I've read is it's very pro-love and commitment and partnerships as in this part of former idealised way. I felt similarly and now I don't with the difference of us being about six years. I think she's really talented. I do just think there are some flaws in her ideologies.

But again, like I said to you guys, I do think it's so interesting to see that she is labeled as anti-woke. Some of her takes, it's really, she looks to the protection of women, the actualisation of women. Women as like full human beings who deserve agency, but also like tender love and commitment. That is anathema to so many people on the far right. We have completely, the label never made sense. But this, I think, she really exposes how useless it is. Yeah, I find it. So I actually still, I cited that.

I haven't reread it since we've decided we're going to talk about her today. But I cited that We Are the Slot piece so many times because it still really does encaps it. And maybe that's because I'm so in and of social media and I'm really wrangling with it myself. I agree with so much of her writing and finding out that her framing often, the kind of the end point that she reaches, having read quite broadly now, like a lot of interviews that she's done, ultimately what she really believes in is nuclear family and not getting divorced of parents, staying together and that children really, really need two parents, that's fine. But also quite a sort of like conservative ideology behind that. And she talks about going to sort of Christian and conservative conventions. And it's interesting because even I agree with this idea that the loss of

religion has actually done something to society. And we've spoken about this. Like it gets rid of third spaces. It means that people don't really have sort of relationships with their neighbours. There's less trust. Whereas my solution to that is not to go back to the place where we were when we were more but instead to find a new solution that brings in community, third spaces, trust between neighbours, almost like those kind of seven commandment ideas, but without the religious undertones, whereas her solution to everything is actually this isn't working now. I've identified what we've lost, so I think we go back to that. And I think it's really interesting as a young woman who doesn't have any of the markers,

to me as a woman who's a 32-year-old millennial, who I think I thought knew, what the voice and face of a young conservative looked like. Reading her writing, it did not at all come across like that to me. And I think that's what kind of uprooted me a bit. Because even listening to her book, like you said, Beth, the Venn diagram between the topics that we cover and the topics that she covers has massive crossover. And actually she identifies things in a very similar way that we do. And it's interesting because she even is conscious of the fact that because she is a young conservative,

that young women might be turned off from her writing. And she is quite careful to not divulge too much of her beliefs. And there's an article with her with Ellie Halls in the telegraph where she kind of says, you know, I don't really like to say because I don't want to be put into a box, which is quite interesting because when you speak to someone who's maybe more liberal or more left-leaning, they often are quite vocal about what they believe in exact ways. You know, I have these views on abortion. I have these views on this and I'll tell you exactly what they are.

whereas she is more cautious to not divulge out necessarily, I guess, for fear of alienating people, which is maybe how I fell into the trap of not necessarily knowing. But she says, I think it's something particular to young women, especially who seem to feel very threatened by anything that's remotely conservative or sounds traditional or sounds different from what they're used to. There seems to be this faction of the left now who just want it removed. They don't want to even read about it. So yeah, it's been a struggle to write something, which I want to be aimed towards young women,

but as soon as they see anything that's remotely different in Worldview, they switch off. And so that also made me go like, God, well, I better not stop engaging with her writing because then I'm doing exactly the thing that she's accusing us of. But I agree with you, Beth, that she does feel very young. And I've listened to most of the book now. And she makes some good points. She does say some things I don't agree with. And I think it would be really useful for a parent of a Gen Z child.

And in one interview, she says, when I go to religious and conservative conferences, I find little effort to reach girls and young women or attract anyone on the outside. I see too little consideration given the possibility that young women might make certain choices because this is the only world they've ever known, that they might sleep around to fit in, might objectify themselves to feel loved, might feel confused about their identity because the world gives them nowhere to belong to. Maybe young girls behave as they do because they're desperate, wired to be seen, to be accepted, to belong.

And I was like, that's so interesting how she's localized, kind of what we might see as female liberation as actually women being lost and how like you said beth it kind of that could be framed as woke and that she's kind of calling to the right and saying you're not listening to these young women and she goes on to say well i often think it has the wrong answers at least the left listens to me it's like i've never experienced this because i can't quite work out where to place her or what i think of her and i wonder how many other young people feel like this because i guess the irony is i feel the opposite way i feel like she's perhaps a bit lost, is looking for somewhere to locate herself. And she's found a very

traditional sensibility towards the world and found safety in that. And it's interesting that she doesn't see that in herself. It is interesting hearing both of your points of view about it. And I do agree with you that this new frontier of what is left, right, woke, anti-woke, has become extremely useless. And it's kind of like the borrowing of what used to be principles from each side to now make this like amalgamation, which is very difficult to pinpoint. Like you mentioned Scott Galloway a few weeks ago. He would be considered a liberal, but that book that he released on masculinity has so many regressive points in it and so many, you know, mentions of biological gender differences and things like that, which is not particularly

quote unquote woke. And so you actually sent us a quote from a piece she wrote called The Right has forgotten feeling for a Christian magazine called First Things, where she said, The agony of knowing that pretty much every man you fall for has been raised on and is addicted to online porn and watches it behind your back because you can never be enough, the humiliation, how it feels to dream of romance, only to grow up and find it dead. That disappointment, I can't begin to tell you. And, I mean, that's like a really powerful quote because really, we have spoken about dissatisfaction with dating and we've spoken about heterophacialism. A lot of people would relate to that. But I read that and I thought that just seems like quite an extreme view

with kernels of truth, but it's blown them up to such a scary positioning that every man is lying to you, every man is addicted to porn and you will never be enough to them. I just don't agree with that. I just really don't. And I think that's the problem that now you having brought this piece about her being quote unquote anti-woke and just like kind of reading more into her, she has good points but then a lot of them can get blown out of proportion into these bigger myths and moral panics and that's the problem I have I think when it starts to balloon into these big issues which then feel like red flags for more right-wing ideology which is fear-mongering about the internet fear-mongering about gender fear-mongering about men and women and it just means

that we have to be so discerning when we read things in a way that we never used to have to be which is quite scary because I think of myself as quite internet literate, but I just feel like even I feel like I'm not catching up at the moment. It is definitely worth mentioning that she is not really writing for the three of us. She is a Gen Z writer writing for Gen Z readers. And this is a generation of girls and women who clearly and may want to do things differently in terms of sex and relationships differently, I mean to every generation before them, but then aren't taken seriously in that.

And I do think, I think with experience, some things will prove flaw. in her takes on marriages and families and singleness and divorce, etc. But she's kind of writing from this unique perspective, which is, I guess, like, what, five, six in my case years removed from us. And that time, that impact of like social media and digital trends in that time when, I mean, I remember being at university and maybe just out of university when Snapchat was the thing, Tinder was, I think I was in my second year of university. These things were in the landscape when she was a teenager.

secondary school. I think she is talking to a group of young women who I don't really have that much of a shared experience with on so many things. And I think it would be silly to put her in this camp of alt-right writers who, for the most part, what bristles me about them is that they don't live in reality. They will not acknowledge that women are put upon in any way. She is very clear-eyed. She knows the pain points. And she wouldn't have an audience on substack of 50,000 plus followers in this camp if she wasn't speaking to some dissatisfaction and some generational pain that perhaps I just can't fully understand as a millennial woman. Yeah, this comes across really strongly in the book actually is the fact that we are that

cusp generation that grew up without social media and then got it. Like she was born in the belly of the beast. Like this was happening to her throughout her young adulthood. And so she has quite unusually, I guess, probably feels like she sticks at like a sore thumb because she has shunned it all. She deleted all of her social media when she was 21. She definitely has kind of stuck her head above the parapet and gone, I don't like how this is going for me and women of my own age.

And I'm trying to find a solution to this. And where she's located that solution is not a place that any of us would have landed on because there is a lot of sort of like liberal theory kind of running through a lot of what she writes about. And she is really young. And it makes me wonder, and this was a conversation we were going to have this episode. If we don't have room for it, we'll definitely have to do this another week. but it's almost like she is, or we're always looking for this voice of a generation

and she's almost having to provide that because there aren't enough answers and there isn't enough space or there isn't anywhere to go for these women, they don't know what to do. And I think it probably does speak to something that if you can't find safety in the world that you're existing in, even though we know or we feel like we know as left-leading liberal millennial women

who grew up with a lot of change, when it came to feminism. Like that was a lot of the wins that we thought we had around the Me Too era. We now look back and say maybe they didn't really do anything. Maybe they were like feminism light, pink pussy hat feminism, whatever. We kind of saw the before where she was born into that

and was like, well, this isn't working and I don't like it and I don't get it. And she's gone, okay, the answer for me is actually conservative Christianism. And I feel sad for her anyway. I mean, I know that I wrote my memoir when I was 28, but you really think 26 is so young to be writing such. an enormous book. And she does not insert herself at all. And she really consciously says, I've made this pledge to not share my private life online. So I'm not about to start doing it in this book. But what happens then? And I do have to agree, unfortunately, with a slightly scathing Irish

Times review by Eiferooney, who says, the tone of the discussion always feels quite rudimentary. The format of point, quote, explanation is used repeatedly in the hope that it will satiate the reader and prevent the need for deeper discussion. She isn't as forthcoming about her political leanings. views on women's roles and marriage because at least then the reader could meet her where she is. So she's kind of got herself into a bit of a bind where maybe she's found comfort in these beliefs. But actually the internet is quite hostile. And we said this before, the arts are often full of very left-leaning liberal people. The kind of space she's occupying is a very liberal left-leaning space.

That's how she ended up on my timeline and I was reading her writing. So it's quite interesting to see where she will go from this, even though she is resistant. And like I said, she says in interviews, I don't want to be labelled. I'm fascinated to know whether in order to break through a bit further, she is going to unfortunately have to go down one or the other pipeline, either going, you know what, I don't think like that, or becoming more and more right wing in order to be, in order to arrive at a place where people do see her as this like voice of a generation, which does feel like she's kind of being funneled towards.

And a lot of the think pieces around her were kind of using that terminology. We would love to know if you are ever swayed by finding out. I guess it's like can you separate the art from the artist, but in a very slightly lighter way, would this colour your reading of Freya India? Would you be able to enjoy her substacks knowing that she doesn't agree with you politically? That's assuming that you guys all agree with us politically,

which I've got to stop doing. Thank you so much for listening this week. Before we go, just checking that you've listened to our latest everything in conversation episode where we discussed grief and AI. If you enjoy listening to us, please do leave us a rating or a view on Apple Podcast or a comment on Spotify. We read them all and love them.

Thank you. Please also give us a follow on Instagram and TikTok at Everything is ContentPod. See you next week. Bye. Bye.