Mamamia Out Loud: The Commonwealth Games Of It All

You're listening to a Mamma Mia podcast.

Mamma Mia acknowledges the traditional owners of land and waters that this podcast is recorded

on.

Mamma Mia Out Loud!

Hello and welcome to Mamma Mia Out Loud.

It's what women are actually talking about on Wednesday, the 19th of July.

I'm Holly Wainwright.

I'm Mia Friedman.

And I'm Claire Stevens.

And on the show today, everything's more expensive these days, including hosting a major sporting

event for 56 nations, inside the kerfuffle of the cancelled Commonwealth Games, also

why no one wants to be a Miranda anymore.

The internet is furious with Sex and the City's most kick-ass character and the book-banning

storm blowing up right here in Australia over sex education.

But first, in case you missed it, there is a new bachelor looking for love on the new

US edition of the franchise, The Bachelor.

It's not interesting, but the fact that he's 71 possibly is.

He's called the Golden Bachelor and I think that is a throwback to Golden Girls.

Here's the trailer.

He posts his thirst traps in a leather-bound album.

His DMs have postage.

He gets the early bird special any time he wants.

If you call him, he'll answer the phone.

He doesn't have gray hair.

He has wisdom highlights.

Florida wants to retire and move to him.

He's Gary.

And I'm your first Golden Bachelor.

Oh, I love that with all of my heart.

Oh, my lord.

How good is the Golden Bachelor?

It's so funny.

His name is Gary.

He's a retired restaurateur.

He has a number of hobbies, including golf.

That's really not surprising.

Guys, he loves hosting barbecues.

He was married once before.

He actually married his high school sweetheart, but sadly, she died in 2017.

He's got two daughters and two granddaughters.

And when I first saw the promotional photo, it's him surrounded by four young women.

I was like, that's a bit creepy, but they're his daughters and granddaughters, I think.

It's unclear what age the bachelorettes will be because that's what people are asking.

That's the key piece of info we want, right?

Yeah.

And it's very timely because when I heard that there was going to be a 71-year-old bachelor,

I said, is that my ex-boyfriend?

Because on this subscriber episode of Out Loud yesterday, I talked about a very big age-gap

relationship I had when I was very young.

Actually he would be older than that.

Now, no spoilers there.

You can click the link in the show notes if you want to hear me talk about something that

we thought was a bit too controversial to talk about on the main show.

Tuesday morning, Victorian premier Dan Andrews gave a press conference where he announced

that the 2026 Commonwealth Games, which would have been held in Victoria, had been cancelled

as a result of funding issues.

Last year, when the Commonwealth Games authorities approached us, they needed someone to step

in to host the 2026 Commonwealth Games.

As a state, we were happy to help out, but of course not at any price.

And only if there was lasting benefit for Victorian communities and benefit for the

whole state.

What's become clear is that the cost of hosting these games in 2026 is not the $2.6 billion.

It is, in fact, at least $6 billion and could be as high as $7 billion.

And I cannot stand here and say to you that I have any confidence that that even $7 billion

number would appropriately and adequately fund these games.

You won't take money out of hospitals and schools to fund an event that is three times

the cost as estimated and budgeted for last year.

The Commonwealth Games Federation has said it is committed to finding an alternative

host and blamed the Victorian government for the cost blowout, saying they'd made decisions

to include more sports and an additional regional hub and change plans for venues which all

added considerable expense.

They said they only got eight hours notice and there was no opportunity to discuss the

situation and perhaps find a joint solution.

Now the response to this news has been split.

A lot of Victorians seem to be broadly supportive of the decision agreeing that they do not

want billions going into the Commonwealth Games when hospitals are underfunded, for

example.

But other commentators have called the decision a disgrace that's embarrassing for the country

and the state and one that's let down Commonwealth athletes and put the future of the games in

a precarious position.

Mia, what was your response to the news?

My response was hard relate.

I mean, I've often organised a party and then really wanted to cancel it.

Or even just like a social arrangement.

This is much more complicated than I thought it was going to be.

Yeah, like I'll often commit to things in the morning when I've had my first cup of

tea and I'm feeling quite perky.

And then by the afternoon, I'll be like, no, don't do that.

So I feel like that's what's happened to Dan on a big scale.

I do.

Holly, were you embarrassed to be Australian?

No, I'm not embarrassed.

I can see why people are mad because it does definitely seem like a rather large mess because

it's very hard to argue with the premise.

I certainly wouldn't argue with the premise that the money could be better spent elsewhere.

If they thought it was going to be two billion, but it's actually going to be six or seven,

then that extra money, everything has changed.

The economic climate has changed.

How much everything costs has changed.

This is a different proposition to the one they agreed to after their first cup of tea

in the morning, Mia.

You know, it's like things are different now and also there were clearly like big ambitions.

Let's take it regional.

What will really benefit areas that don't normally get this kind of, because Melbourne

considers itself to be the sporting capital.

You know, it has the Grand Prix, it has the Grand Final.

And it's got amazing sporting facilities.

And so obviously the plan here was to spread the love, put important money into regional

areas, which I really appreciate as a, you know, newly moved to the region's person.

You know, that there are not good facilities in these places.

What a good idea.

However, it's added all these layers of complexity that have just made it untenable and I get

that.

I mean, that first meeting should have gone, you know, how we're building a velodrome for

cycling in Shepparton and then we're going to knock it down afterwards because that was

honestly the proposal and same with like building new Olympic pools.

Even though there were Olympic pools and velodromes already in Melbourne, surely in that first

meeting someone went, hmm, I cannot stop thinking about what a great episode of Utopia this

would make.

But anyone who doesn't watch it, Utopia on the ABC is a comedy about a government department,

a nation building authority that shows how big projects are derailed by constant shifts

in priorities, self-interest, publicity stunts.

And it's always about how things will look and sound and what's a great announcement

to make rather than the reality of implementing.

I know you're really keen, but I just don't think we can make a very fast train work.

Really?

The numbers just don't stack up.

You've got to look beyond the numbers of vision time in each gym.

If we'd listened to the bean counters, we never would have built the snowy.

Victoria, we've had this huge lockdown, but we're back and we're doing this huge thing.

And you just know that it's like, this is going to look great.

Like, woo, Victoria Commonwealth Games, look at us go and someone in the background the

whole time was like, I'm doing the maths.

Yeah.

And the maths isn't mapping.

Guys, guys, guys, guys, guys.

And then you just know.

Stop being so negative, barrel.

Stop it.

Stop it.

Stop being a drain.

Stop yucking my yum.

And it's like, I don't want to hear noes.

Like, I only want to hear yeses.

And in Utopia, there's the guy who runs that department who just every episode, the solution

seems to be, we need to let you go as like, we need somebody to take the fall for this.

And he's like, I've been telling you this the entire time.

So I just need to see Utopia.

The only thing is on a more slightly more serious level, I think a, you know, no one

wants to host the Olympics anymore either, right?

No one wants to host the World Cup.

Like this stuff has become so expensive, the stakes have gotten so high, we have to build

15 new stadiums.

It has to be the best stadium that ever happened.

It has to have built-in drones, everything.

And it has, you know, like the stakes are getting higher and higher for anything to

be interesting and exciting and new.

And I think the tide is turning on the desire to spend money on that stuff.

So if you push ahead with this, because you promised to do it, when it comes and people

are like, I mean, I don't live in Victoria, but I live in New South Wales and I would

be, why can my daughter not go to school when it's raining because her high school

ceiling leaks?

And yet we have spent $6 billion on the Commonwealth Games.

And the other thing, and I'll get in trouble for saying this, the Commonwealth itself,

it's on the nose, people, because the thing is, is that I know that the Commonwealth does

a lot of good things, but it's a voluntary organisation, 56 nations, but its roots are

the British Empire and they just are, and you can't get away from that.

Why don't London host it?

That's exactly right.

Well, I think that in a previous era, that would have been seen to be very imperialist,

very like, and you shall all come to the mother country to play, you know, to play your games.

But I think that now, because after Victoria, it was supposed to be Canada and then New

Zealand and neither of those countries want to do it either.

So it's like family Christmas, isn't it?

And no one wants to host.

And so a lot of people are saying, take it back to Birmingham where it was last time

because the facility's already there and that just feels more of the moment.

Let's use the stadiums we've already got rather than built the new ones.

And people have said exactly that, Holly.

Yeah, stuff the Commonwealth games also by extension, stuff the Commonwealth while we're at it.

It is interesting that there are 56 countries in the Commonwealth and really when you look

at this Commonwealth games, there were kind of two contenders and it's like Australia

and the United Kingdom because nobody can afford it, nobody wants to do this.

And if all of those countries are not in the position to host it, then like, what is this?

Really? What is this?

Is it just about Western countries showing off their wealth when it turns out we don't even have it?

Well, no, it's about sporting rights.

It's about broadcast rights and media rights.

And now that the whole media landscape's changed, I mean, when there was nothing else on,

you'd watch the badminton and the archery and all of those things.

So there's a lot less money in it.

I do reckon there are two types of people.

There are the people who double down on an initial commitment because they want to save face.

Not me.

Like Fire Festival Guy.

And there are the people who pull out even though it's unpopular.

The thing is, Dan Andrew is pulling out at this point is probably the right decision.

Like clearly, it's not a popular one.

He clearly didn't particularly want to make it.

And it's that sunk cost fallacy of so many of us when we have put a lot into a course of action,

we're reluctant to pull out because we've got the idea of what we've invested

when the right decision is probably to pull the plug.

I very much think it's the right decision to cancel it,

but you can't then ignore all the issues, all the utopian issues,

as you said, that led to this moment need to be examined.

And the other thing is, is that I do understand the athlete's disappointment

because one of the things about the Commonwealth Games is it's not the Olympics.

So it actually gives a different group of athletes an opportunity to participate

in an event that gets a lot of eyeballs.

So even though I'm a little bit eye-rolly about,

oh, what is the Commonwealth Games even matter anymore?

I totally understand that side of it too.

As a state, we were happy to help out, but of course not at any price.

And only if there was...

Mother be out loud!

Being a Miranda used to mean something, goddammit.

How does it happen that four such smart women have nothing to talk about but boyfriends?

It's like, what about us?

Being a Miranda was a badge of honour.

No one wanted to be a Miranda.

Oh, they did.

Oh, by the end, by the end of Sex and the City.

I know it became kind of cool at the end.

It became cool to be a Miranda in the last few years before the reboot came back.

Being a Miranda meant you were staunchly independent,

you were career-focused, you were industrious, you were smart as hell.

You were the kind of friend who would call your friend out on her shit

while also being fiercely loyal.

You were never a pushover.

But increasingly, in and just like that, last season and more so this season,

nobody wants to be Miranda anymore.

Why?

Well, let's check in on where she was in the last episode.

And if you want to hear us talk about that more,

our subscriber recaps are just like that, even if I say so myself.

Excellent.

Anyway, in the last episode, we found Miranda trying to sleep at her partner Che's place,

even though Che wanted to stay up all night smoking bongs and playing video games

and drinking beer with their friends.

Because Che's a fuckboy.

Yes.

But Miranda was putting up with it and then she was getting up at dawn

to go all the way across town to fold up her teenage boys underpants.

I told you, you don't have to come all the way over here every morning just to make me breakfast.

I know, but I like it.

And the two of you would starve if I didn't.

She was swallowing all her feelings in therapy.

She couldn't even work out how to use a mobile phone anymore.

Like basically she was looking a bit pathetic.

She didn't work anymore.

The internet is really mad with her.

Lots of hot takes like, and just like that, fans are totally over Miranda Hobbes.

What has this show done to Miranda in all caps?

And just like that has done Miranda dirty.

So I wrote a hot take of my own because I don't agree.

What's your hot take?

I'm not mad with Miranda.

I'm going to tell you why in a minute.

I actually think that the portrayal of Miranda in this season is quite accurate and poignant

for what it's like being a midlife woman trying to juggle with all the consequences of your choices.

But Claire Stevens, please tell me why you are on team mad with Miranda.

Firstly, if that's accurate and poignant, that's the most depressing thing I've ever heard.

Well, this is my point.

Is everybody likes to think, young people like to think that midlife women are steady rocks

who are there for everybody else and who've got everything sorted out.

And I'm here to tell you, sister, that's not true.

It's not so much that that's what I expect.

It's that I expect something different from Miranda.

It's like who she was in the original show has been completely forgotten and abandoned.

If I didn't know the makeup of the writers room,

I would think that there was a new group of writers and they hadn't watched Miranda in the original series.

I don't agree with that.

It's like there is this divide between who she was then, who she is now

and all the things that made her so brilliant are gone.

She also doesn't feel like a real woman at all.

She's just not feeling...

Oh, none of them do, though. That's beside the point, surely.

But in particular, there's something wildly hysterical about her, but she was always...

Oh, I totally get those hormones.

No, but the hysterical thing was never her.

Wait till you get here.

She didn't even have the 1% of that that gets exaggerated.

I know.

And then it happens.

And then her reaction to Brady the other week when Brady was away and got a call

and she's just like losing it and then she's running to wake him up in the morning.

I couldn't relate to all of these.

She would never...

She was the realist.

She was the one who was puncturing her friend's romanticized ideas of love and happiness

and now she has become the thing that she always hated.

Because she's having really good sex for the first time in a really long time.

I think that actually when you blow up your life, which is what Miranda did last season,

she left a marriage that wasn't working for her.

She left a career that wasn't working for her.

She wants to study.

She wants her next act to look different.

Everybody would like the narrative to be,

I blew up my life and now on the other side of that, everything's great

and I'm so happy and everything's perfect, but the world isn't like that.

Sorting through the rubble of the mess you made blowing up your life is a very real thing.

I've got plenty of people in my life who left marriages that were making them unhappy,

but they didn't the next day wake up and go,

I'm happy now.

There's guilt to deal with.

There's all the complexities of divorce and parenting and money.

She loved her career for a time, but then she got to where she is and she's like,

corporate law, not my vibe.

Why was I doing that?

Why did I give some?

And so many women could relate to that too.

So I actually think she is quite a realistic portrayal of midlife.

I felt that at first.

I'm still mad that she's not working, but this show is not realistic.

She gave up her internship to go to LA, which she would never have done.

This show is not realistic in terms of that, but I've made peace with that.

What I really relate to about this, you're exactly right, Claire.

She feels unrecognisable and that's what I relate to.

Because I know so many women, myself included, who don't recognise how we feel.

We cry.

We've lost our confidence.

We don't know what our identity is.

I had a complete meltdown with my family and I'm like, why don't I cook for you?

I feel such deep shame and now I've been cooking for them.

100%.

Who am I?

Exactly.

This is why, and I wrote in my piece yesterday, I said the reason we're uncomfortable with

her is because she's a mirror and she is.

I think if you're not at that stage, you don't get it.

You're like, women in their fifties, we all know who we are now.

I don't put up with any bullshit anymore, blah, blah, blah.

That's not actually how you feel every day.

For me, it's not even what's happened to her or the position that she's in or anything

like that.

It's how it's all been executed.

There are all these plot points that kind of go nowhere.

For example, even her alcoholism.

Remember that?

Exactly.

It seemed a little bit realistic.

I didn't mind the whole storyline about finding Steve boring and things have dried up a little

bit.

Even though I do get the argument that what she was annoyed at Steve for was what the

original Miranda loved doing, which was staying at home watching.

People change.

Clara is uncomfortable with this idea that people change.

But then it's like, okay, so she leans on alcohol.

That is the easiest resolution of an alcoholism storyline I've ever seen.

All of it's easy.

You're asking too much of this show.

You really are.

And I've made peace with this too, because I also spent the first season and the first

few episodes of this season going, oh, this is unrealistic.

It's not a documentary.

It's not even a very well written show, but it's just kind of fun and familiar.

They are all caricatures.

And she is the hot mess, which is a lot more interesting creatively.

You're a writer.

That's a lot more interesting creatively.

And from an acting point of view, then having Miranda still be the capable one.

And also the thing is, is that she wasn't the hot mess.

And now she is and say, like Carrie, for example, always been the hot mess.

But at the minute, Carrie's quite sensible.

People do change.

Like we're talking 25 years.

We've been looking at these characters.

And I think that lots of women fall apart a bit after blowing up their lives in lots

of ways, or some days they're amazing on top of it.

Thank God I did that.

I'm living my truth.

And the next day they're like, oh my God, I've ruined everything.

I kind of get it.

The biggest thing I reckon is missing from the original quintessential Miranda is a

sense of humor.

She used to be.

She was really good in that last episode when she was like.

When have you ever seen me wear bows in my hair like this?

I don't know.

Wednesday?

That was one line, Holly.

And that's why you remember it.

Because for the rest of the time, she just ain't funny.

She just lost all of her funny.

Well, she's going through a lot, Claire.

She's in the storyline.

That's why I'm sick of the hysteria.

I just, she wasn't the hysterical one.

Charlotte was people.

How many times do we have to tell you?

I don't believe you.

I don't believe you.

Well, and this is my thing is I think it freaks people out.

They really want midlife women to be steady.

They want them to be the leaning post for everyone else to count on, but we're not.

We're still moving.

We're still figuring it out, especially.

I totally buy that Miranda gave up her job.

I just do.

I think she's given her whole life to it.

And she's going, what's it given me?

And we all know millions of women who've done that.

And she's going, I want to study.

I want to do something different.

I get it.

It doesn't mean it's right.

It's just kind of real.

My Miranda has moved out of that house and got her own apartment.

Yeah, I do.

I really wish she would.

Well, actually, no, she needs to kick Steve out of her house.

Yes.

Make a decision.

Stop being a doorman.

My Miranda has also not abandoned that internship.

And he's actually like, she just kind of sometime.

I don't want to go back to it.

Yeah.

Sometimes you want to know what on earth we're talking about.

We do recap it on our subs episodes,

which drop usually on Thursday,

but one episode of our two subs episodes per week is,

and just like that recap, and it drops on Friday.

We're going to be recording one shortly.

God damn it.

What?

How could I miss a call when the ringer is on?

This Android has a mind of its own.

I can't believe I let the salesperson tuck me into it.

If you want to make mum Mia out loud part of your routine five days a week,

we release segments on Tuesdays and Thursdays just for mum Mia subscribers.

To get full access,

follow the link in the show notes

and a big thank you to all our current subscribers.

And it's a new book.

An actual book.

Welcome to sex.

You're no silly questions guide to sexuality,

pleasure and figuring it out is billed as a Frank age appropriate

introductory guide to sex and sexuality for teens of all genders.

This is actually the latest edition in a series of books

and they're written by coincidentally,

former Dolly Doctor herself, Melissa Kang,

along with presenter, Umi Steins.

Now I worked with Melissa when I was in charge of Dolly many years ago.

She is an actual doctor, Dolly Doctor.

The answers were always written by actual doctors.

She was like the medical one and then there was also like a psychologist doctor

that would answer the, you know, other stuff.

The series also includes welcome to your period,

welcome to consent and welcome to your boobs.

This new one was released in May

and it's sold in book shops and stores like Big W and Target.

But this week there was a big campaign started by a small

but very vocal group of people

who objected to this book being on sale

and started these petitions for retailers to remove it.

In like big variety stores.

Why is it in a place that I didn't go and sit out?

Correct.

They didn't want it to be in the book section

that was aimed at the young people.

I'd personally be stoked to see my kids reading a book, any book,

regardless of the subject matter.

A catalogue?

A brochure?

Just something with words and pages maybe.

With all the pearl clutching,

there've been a lot of sex education books written before.

Remember where did I come from?

That came out in 1973

and what's happening to me came out in 1975

and that's where I learned that sex can feel a bit like skipping

and having an orgasm can feel a bit like a sneeze.

Oh, I've always thought about the thing about the sneeze.

It's actually like a great description.

Really great description.

The relief at the end of a sneeze.

I love those books.

And also let's take a moment to remind ourselves

that the average child seeing porn for the first time

is eight years old.

Holy, you've read the book.

Did you learn anything?

You know what, I always learn things

when I look at these books that are aimed at kids.

So as you've said, this is the latest in a series

and I brought home for my daughter.

I got welcome to your period.

I bought it.

Got welcome to consent.

And the thing is that's ridiculous

about all this kerfuffle in my opinion.

I know there are lots of, you know,

very ordinary people who are not necessarily extremists

of any stripe who are a bit uncomfortable

about the illustrations,

anything that depicts genitalia

or anything that depicts sex visually

is always going to rile a few people up.

And also the gender stuff.

The clue is in the words all genders.

So it talks about different genders

and different sexualities.

So I understand that there are always going to be

a group of people who are not comfortable with that.

And I know it's the most basic advice ever,

but just don't buy the book, those people, please.

Because actually the audience for this kind of book

is very specific, right?

It's a well-meaning parent

who kind of hopes their kids do still read books,

despite all evidence to the contrary,

who's going to take it home,

which is exactly what I did with period and consent,

and show it to their children.

And their children are going to react in one of two ways.

They're either going to go,

get that away from me, how dare you?

And you're going to leave it lying around the house

hoping that maybe they'll flicker it in private,

which they probably will, right?

And learn something they don't want to talk to you about

or that very specific kind of parent

who I've definitely interviewed over the years,

but I am not, who's going to sit down and go,

let's read this together, kids,

because mommy isn't afraid of any confronting words.

I'd like us to talk about vaginas at the dinner table

and orgasms when we're driving to school.

That's me.

You are that parent, but most parents are not, right?

And so these kind of books are actually very helpful for parents.

The idea that your child might be somehow sexually activated

by walking past this book on a shelf in a variety shop

is crazy to me.

But they're saying it shouldn't exist.

So it's that new internet school of thought,

oh, it's called censorship, really.

It's not about what I want.

It's about what I believe everybody should have access to.

And we're seeing this particularly in the U.S.

I mean, book burnings and library books being banned.

I just always think of kids laughing,

like, lol, what's a book?

Gee, that's sad.

You're burning some books that we never read before.

Sounds like you have no idea what I'm looking at on the internet.

That's why I think this infuriates me so much,

that there's a certain section who are trying to kind of import

that outrage from America.

And I broadly and perhaps optimistically believe

that Australians are a bit too sensible and smart for that shit

and can kind of understand that if this is something that I want to seek out

and show my child and they will react however they choose to react,

then that's my choice.

But my child is not going to be sexualized accidentally by walking past it.

I've been dealing with this for a really long time

with the occasional flare-up that would come around Dolly Doctor.

It was always the dads that were really uncomfortable.

And I honestly can say I understand why,

because it can be quite confronting when you think of your child

and you are reading, this is what oral sex is,

because thinking of your child or your parent in any kind of way like that

is really, really confronting.

What we always used to say, and what I would still say,

is that you can either look at this approved, edited information

written by an expert that you can also read,

that's sold in a shop,

or you can outsource your child's sexual education

and their education about their body to pornography.

And it's one or the other.

It's not going to be nothing.

I went deep on this and read all the commentary

and the accusation that this is grooming children

needs to seriously be retracted.

Like this idea that we can just chuck the word grooming

at anything that's about sex, it's simply not true.

And I think when we use grooming to describe a kid's book about sex,

we are completely losing sight of what grooming actually is.

There's no wildly defamatory to the authors.

It is. I mean, my God.

There are all sorts of ways to groom a child with sexual material,

and it wouldn't be with an age-appropriate research-based book

that's like in the framework of consent.

It's so bizarre.

And to think about somebody like Dr. Melissa Kang,

who is an associate professor in the General Practice Clinical School

at Sydney Medical School,

and who has devoted her life to the health and healthcare

of children and adolescents.

To be honest, I trust that she is on the cutting edge of research

and what's best for kids when it comes to consent,

sexual health practices.

I think what's really got people up in arms

that's probably a bit different to where did I come from,

which I looked at when I was a kid,

was not scared, was not groomed, was absolutely fine,

is that this book depicts same-sex sexual acts

and queer sexual acts,

and it has, you know, a cartoon

where one of the people involved has a disability.

So there are clearly people looking at it

and having a visceral reaction.

And then you think about it,

and there's absolutely no reason those acts shouldn't coexist.

I'm going to play devil's advocate,

walking in the shoes of the critics of this book.

They would say that sex education is one thing,

but sexuality and gender are, for some people,

moral issues or they are ideological issues.

And their view is that that shouldn't be something

that is outsourced,

that should be something that they are in control of.

And I guess it's about, we're seeing this a lot,

this idea of parents wanting to control

what information their child has access to.

But it's in their world, it's in the kid's world.

You could not write a credible book about this space right now

that is aimed at this market,

which as I discussed at the outset,

is a very specific kind of well-meaning market.

You couldn't write this book and not address that.

You couldn't.

You couldn't write this book and not address queer sex.

You just can't because it's in their world.

It's not ideology being pushed on them.

It's in their school.

It's the kids talking to them all the time.

Like, I think that's a kind of willful ignorance.

And also, if you don't want your kid exposed to that,

then again, just don't buy the book for them.

And it kind of ignores the fact

the way the human brain works even when you're a kid.

You dismiss information that isn't relevant to you.

And I genuinely believe I knew my sexual identity

and my sexual orientation at a very young age.

And so you just go,

okay, that bit isn't relevant to me.

This bit is.

To me, something like this,

it's been accused of sexualizing children

or radicalizing children, ideologically.

But it simply answers their curiosity.

And the gender ideology stuff is going to come up.

It's going to come up because they're going to have a kid

in their class who identifies as non-binary.

Exactly.

That's what I mean.

It's in their world.

It's not a foreign idea.

We're all in sort of furious agreement about this to a point.

I mean, I think it is important to note that,

like, people who are skimming headlines about this online,

you're seeing depictions of cartoons in the book

that are showing things that we were talking about before.

That's really confronting because you think,

oh, this is a little kid's book

because that's what we associate with cartoons, right?

And I think that's often a very clear entry point for outrage

because if I can put a headline that says,

kid's book tells kids we're grooming them.

And then I can put next to it an image of a cartoon

that immediately makes me think child.

It's very visceral.

It can really kick off a lot of protective instincts.

I think it's important to note that the authors say

that they think the main market for this is kid's 11-up.

But I think that Yumi Stein said,

I can imagine a very mature eight-year-old looking at it.

I think it's interesting to acknowledge

why books like this do use illustration

rather than photographs.

That would be a whole other issue.

You can't use photographs.

You can't use photographs.

So the choices that you have

for how to depict this information visually,

which all of these books are very beautifully art designed

to obviously try and hold a kid's attention,

is limited.

And cartoons are kind of where it lands.

I love the cartoons.

I learnt from this book.

I don't think I've ever fully understood why 69 is called 69.

Perfectly explained it.

Are you kidding?

I got it.

I got what it was,

but I didn't understand like 69.

Are you kidding?

No, I just, I never thought that hard.

So I have learnt things from this book aimed at 11-year-olds.

I've got a recommendation before we go,

which is very holly.com, where, as you know,

on holly.com we record gardening gloves

and very specific nostalgia products.

Last week it was the WAM documentary.

This week, also nostalgia, but a little further back,

I've been watching a doco series on binge

called The Last Movie Stars.

Right before the pandemic started,

one of Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward's kids

approached me to direct a documentary about Paul and Joanne.

Paul had begun working on a memoir.

They did over a hundred interviews.

He said to them, tell the truth,

stuff they would never say if they weren't with friends.

What happened to these tapes?

He poured gasoline on them and let them on fire.

Wow.

They had had them all transcribed.

I'm trying to turn it into kind of like a play with voices,

a community looking back.

It's about Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward.

Now, if you don't know who Paul Newman is,

he's one of The Last Movie Stars.

He's a massive, massive movie star of the 50s, 60s, 70s,

and then he became famous later for putting his name

on some salad dressing,

which a section of proceeds from all of his salad dressing

went to charitable causes.

So he's a good dude all around, great actor,

a bit of a legend, and he was married to Joanne Woodward,

also a brilliant actress, always a little bit overshadowed

by him in the public narrative.

He was like the Brad Pitt of his time.

So much so.

Looks a lot like Brad Pitt.

Were they like the Brad and Jennifer of their time?

Oh, my gosh, yes.

So the thing that everybody knows about Paul Newman

and Joanne Woodward, if you know anything about them,

is that they were married for 50 years.

They were married until one of them died.

And in Hollywood, that is an unusual thing,

a 50-year marriage.

And so everybody said, wow, isn't that awesome?

And this documentary is very much about their relationship,

and it's made by Ethan Hawke, who is a creator

that I just think he is brilliant

and he's never made anything boring ever.

But anyway, it follows their relationship,

and it's so good because, yes,

this is an amazing Hollywood love story.

But like any marriage, when you start nosing,

lifting things up and looking underneath,

it was by no means like a fairytale business.

So when they met, he was already married.

He already had children.

He was living in New York, struggling actor.

She was a struggling actress.

They were part of this big Bohemian movement kind of.

And they fell like so intensely in lust.

He says lots of times that she introduced him to sex,

even though he was already married with children,

and she turned him into a sexual being.

Oh, wow.

He's poor ex-wife.

I know, right?

So they talk about that a lot.

There are interviews from almost everyone involved,

like recorded interviews,

because what made Ethan Hawke want to make this,

is finding this treasure trove.

One of their children, one of Newman and Woodward's children,

found this treasure trove of recordings

and notebooks and journals.

And so it's impeccably sourced.

He says that Joanne activated sexuality in him,

and they had this very passionate physical relationship

that endured, apparently.

But also, he was an alcoholic.

There were affairs on both sides, no question.

But at the same time, the core of their relationship

and their union and what held them together

was a beautiful thing.

Mutual respect of the charts.

He thought she was the most talented, smart person

in the world and vice versa.

It is so beautifully made. It is so great.

It's like just disappearing into old Hollywood

but with a really smart, kind of not whitewashing vibe.

Oh, that sounds great.

And Ethan Hawke is brilliant, and he's in it.

And lots of famous people are interviewed throughout

who were influenced by them or worked with them

or knew them, their children are in it.

It's really, really great.

I can't tell you how good it is.

It's called The Last Movie Stars. It's on binge.

And if you want a dose of old Hollywood nostalgia,

it doesn't get better.

Thank you for listening to Australia's number one news

and pop culture show.

This episode was produced by Emily and Gazillas

and Susanna Makin with audio production by Leah Porges.

We'll see you tomorrow.

Bye.

Shout out to any Mum Mia subscribers listening.

If you love the show and want to support us,

subscribing to Mum Mia is the best way to do so.

There's a link in the episode description.

Thanks for watching.

Machine-generated transcript that may contain inaccuracies.