Marriage, Feminism and Abortion with Gloria Allred

Abortion, Feminism, and Marriage in the Ben Shapiro Interview

Rutgers Health takes an integrated approach to educating students, providing clinical care for our communities, and conducting innovative research to create life-changing health for all. As New Jersey's academic health center, Rutgers Health brings discoveries in the lab directly to patients across the state and around the world.

Our eight schools, Behavioral Health Network, and four centers and institutes are located just outside New York City, in Newark and New Brunswick. Together, we're breathing new life into health. With Luckyland Slots, you can get lucky just about anywhere.

This is your captain speaking. We've got clear runway and the weather's fine, but we're just going to circle up here a while and get lucky. No, no, nothing like that. It's just these cash prizes add up quick, so I suggest you sit back, keep your tray table upright, and.

Start getting lucky. Play for free at Luckylandslots .com. Are you feeling lucky? No purchase necessary. Void where prohibited by law. 18 plus terms and conditions apply.

See website for details. I'm not willing to inflict that suffering and that danger.

Are you on the unborn child? On women. I mean, does the unborn child have any interest? I keep,.

It's the third time I've asked it. It's the third time you've asked because your priority is the fetus and not the life of the woman. No, I've already acknowledged that I'm perfectly in favor. Okay, but we're the loner, not enough.

No, I'm in favor of codifying that.

Laws. We need laws. Welcome to the Wrap Report with Andrew Rappaport, where we provide biblical interpretations and applications. This is a ministry of Striving for Eternity and the Christian podcast community.

For more content or to request a speaker for your church, go to strivingforeternity .org.

Opening Banter and New Year Catch-Up

All right, well, I am your host, Andrew Rappaport, and this is the Wrap Report. Welcome to 2020. Wow, that sounds weird to say. I am joined with the man who used to have hair. I actually saw a picture.

Virgil Walker, you had hair. You know, I'm just saying, it was hard for me to recognize it.

Yeah, yeah. I mean, yeah, I definitely had hair at one point. Yeah, I mean, I didn't come out well. Maybe I came out bald. I mean, but I've had hair. Yeah.

As everyone's doing now, right? It's 2020. Everyone's taking these pictures of where they were 10 years ago and how they looked. And, you know, there's some people you look at them from just 10 years and go, wow, wow, I didn't recognize that at all.

Some people don't seem to change and, you know, but I would like to think that I didn't change.

In 10 years, but let's be realistic. Yeah, everybody changes to some degree. I think I did a 10 year and I had actually 10 years ago, I weighed a lot more. So I had been on a weight loss journey. So I actually look a little bit younger.

Now, if you look at my face close, you can kind of see the wrinkles in the corners of the eyes. But other than that, you know, I think I held up pretty good the last 10 years.

Well, I was going to mention, you know, the fact that, yes, you looked much heavier 10 years ago. It was something that you've been on a weight loss kick. Today's day one. I'm going to do like you. I'm going to try to post a picture and motivate myself to start running again.

I was going to start first thing this morning. We're recording on January 1st. And so day one so far, I'm a miss. But as our friend, Dwayne Atkinson from the Bar podcast, you know, he may not make it out at four in the morning when he goes, which is insane.

But he'll say not missed, just delayed. So I still have time. There's still hours left in the day for me to get on a treadmill and get five minutes in. All right. Just to say day one. Hey, listen, let's start off before we get into our topic.

We do have to mention that there was a shooting recently in Texas in a church. And I do want to address this briefly for folks who, unless you've had your head in the sand and don't know about this, but most people have heard about this.

But there was a Texas man that came into church, waited until communion, and he pulled out a shotgun. There was a person I think if I remember correctly, he was a police officer, retired. And he pulled out his service or his weapon and he shot the man.

The man ended up killing one person. And Jack Wilson ended up killing him. There were actually seven people who pulled out guns, weapons at that church to protect the one man that was killed and then one that was injured.

Now, so we understand about this individual who did this shooting. He actually had an arrest record. In 2011, he was sentenced to 90 days in jail for misdemeanor and assault. 2012, he was charged with arson.

Both those were in Oklahoma. Actually, I missed in 2008. He had aggravated assault in Fort Worth. And then he was later sentenced to a year in jail for misdemeanor with property damage. He ended up, so this is, you know, 2016 arrest in New Jersey, where the police found him with a shotgun near an oil refinery.

Now, a gun in New Jersey, I mean, that's just like, sorry folks, this isn't America. This is the communist state of New Jersey. We don't allow things like that there. But so this is the character of the man.

Now, what you end up seeing is that this guy came to the church. The pastor of the church said that this guy was coming several times asking for food and was getting very upset when he wasn't being given money.

He wanted cash. And so he ends up taking it out on the church during communion. 71-year-old former Reserve Sheriff Deputy Jack Wilson ends up saying he said he did what he needed to do, which was to put an end to this individual who came in.

He was dressed in disguise. He had a wig and different things so that he wouldn't be recognized. He had baggy clothes and pulls out a shotgun. Now, I find it interesting he does this during communion.

This is a time where the church gathers together to celebrate not only what Christ did on our behalf, but we do it at a time of communion where we corporately would do self-examination and publicly announced our union in one body of Christ.

And so this gentleman takes that opportunity to try to end people's lives because this church doesn't give him money. Now, my church, every church I've been in where I've been in leadership, whether it be the pastors or years ago as a deacon, we always had a policy we don't give cash.

We don't give money. Now, Virgil, you're a pastor of a church. I don't know if you are because you have more staff than the churches than I've been in. So I don't know if you actually get the calls. But as a pastor, I've gotten plenty of calls around this time of year where the government will send people to churches.

They need money for their kids. Oh, go to your local church. Ask them for money. Ask them for food. And people would do that. And what I've even found people doing, we would always give gift cards. And ever since the internet, now people sell those gift cards online.

You give them a gift card to ShopRite and they go sell it for 90 of the values because all they want is the cash. And we've always had that policy. But it's amazing the government will always tell people go to the church.

They know who it is that has a concern for caring and providing for people. But what I end up seeing is here you got someone that obviously this church must have had a similar policy. He's upset that he's not getting money because that's what he wanted.

And so he's going to take it out on them. And this is one reason why we don't have churches. We shouldn't be giving money because this is a problem. There's people who just go to the churches and they pray on the churches for the sake of money and trying to get for themselves.

I think this is something that is we've got to be praying for those who were involved whose lives were affected by this. I unfortunately am sure that you can understand that now this guy who should be a hero will probably be a villain in the media.

I did see that he's being called out by China. China is saying that because of him we need gun, you know, the United States needs gun control laws. I'd like to one person said, yeah, how about you get your human rights things in order first before you start telling us about gun laws.

If we gave up the gun laws, we would have a country where we don't have the rights of basic human needs like those in China. So let's get into the issue that we want to discuss. Now for folks, maybe you've heard this, maybe you listened to Ben Shapiro, but on Ben Shapiro's Sunday show, episode 83, he had Gloria Aldrich on and I'll have the full link to that in the description so that you guys can listen and know that we're not taking anything out of context.

We have about 45 clips that we may or may not get through all of them. And so this is a very enlightening interview that they had on issues that ranged from feminism, marriage, abortion, gender issues, a lot of different things.

And I'll start off with this. There's, and I'll put a link to this in the show notes, but discern that's d i s r n .com. That's a Christian news site. They, they announced as so many people are doing with the end of 2019, they announced that abortion was the leading cause of death worldwide in 2019 with 50 or 42 .4 million abortions.

So that is the number one factor or leading thing if what's the cause of death. Now, obviously we realized that the liberals don't want to count that number, but that far out seeds any other, I think cancer was, was next up.

And that was like, I think it's more than twice the number of actually, let me read the arc. He says 42 .4 million deaths from abortion in 2019 was more than twice the number of all worldwide deaths caused by cancer, smoking, alcohol, traffic accidents, malaria, and HIV AIDS combined that more than twice all of those.

So it's a, it's a real problem. And what we're going to hear today is the way some try to argue and defend it. So let, I want to play some of these clips. I'm going to play a long, the long ones. We can hear things in context.

Then what I want to do is break some of this up so that we can deal with it. But this is Gloria Eldridge on Ben Shapiro, defining marriage and then Virgil Walker. And I should mention, I should've mentioned this already, but Virgil Walker is from the just thinking podcast.

If you are going to the G3 conference, you're going to get to see him and his, his cohort there. He calls them Batman. But, but the problem is he uses a wrong translation of the Bible. So I don't know if we can really call him a superhero.

He uses that, that new Armenian standard Bible where you and I prefer to use the elect standard Bible. And so I'm going to hear it if he listens to this podcast, but, but you're going to be doing a live podcast as you did at the truth matters conference.

You're gonna be doing that G3. Yeah. We're excited. We're really excited about that. Getting teed up. In fact, he sent me notes and, and, uh, that's just one more, one more list of the, of the things that I've got to walk through in preparation for G3.

So.

Yeah. Which is coming up really soon. My wife just pointed me. She's like, we're leaving like a week from Saturday. Um, yeah. Cause I head out early. I'll be preaching at, uh, Ray Rhodes church down there in Georgia, which I'm really looking forward to.

And, uh, yeah, it's, it's going to be good. I'm going to be dealing with the old Testament, those passages that no one really focuses on, you know, but, but let's, let's deal with Gloria's definition of marriage.

Marriage as Ownership, Equality, and the Secular View of Feminism

And this was, this, this is going to really, uh, it's going to blow people's minds in how the leftists who reject God, this is their view of what marriage is and how it got started. How should feminism view the institution of marriage?

If you look at some of the more famous feminist writers, the Betty Friedans of the world, for example, they're very critical of the institution of marriage, seeing it as a sort of patriarchal imposition on women.

How should, how should feminists see marriage?

Well, actually marriage, the institution of marriage was begun because men wanted to know who their children were because they didn't know if it was their children or somebody else's children, if the wife or the, their significant other became pregnant.

And this is when women were considered property. So they made rules marriage. Okay. Then she's mine. No other man better disturb her because if they do, you know, it might be that they would get her pregnant.

He wouldn't know who his children were. So, um, but in any event, uh, people can get married or not get married. I, that's up to them. I, I'm not going to criticize that. I do think that people should treat each other as equal partners if they are married, not a master slave relationship, not one person dominating the other person.

And, um, if people treat each other as best friends, as equal partners, and they have good communication and they are fair with each other and honest with each other, then it's going to work. And if they're not, one person starts to lie or, you know, do things they shouldn't with someone else after they made a commitment, taking a vow, um, for better, for worse.

A lot of people think it's just for better, but it's better or worse. And then ultimately, you know, it, it, it's probably going to work, but it's very difficult to be married these days because we live in a very mobile society where people move around, they change careers.

Sometimes they have other people in their life as, you know, as intimate partners. It's, it's very challenging, but I think people generally start out with good intentions and sometimes it kind of deteriorates from there.

So that is her view. Let's break this up because there's some segments here. The one clip I didn't, I didn't get that I meant to was where she says they took a vow. I just think that's amazing because she acknowledges this is a religious issue because she's going to then give this argument, but let's break this up and start with this first part.

This is a 30 second clip where she defines that, how, how marriage started and why. So let's play this again.

Well, actually marriage, the institution of marriage was begun because men wanted to know who their children were because they didn't know if it was their children or somebody else's children, if the wife or the, their significant other became pregnant.

And this is when women were considered property. So they made rules marriage. Okay. Then she's mine. No other man better disturb her because if they do, you know, it might be that they would get her pregnant.

He wouldn't know who his children were. Okay. So that's very different than what we see in.

Genesis chapter one and chapter two, isn't it? Quite a bit different. I mean, my initial thought was what I would have loved for her to, to give us an idea of how she was informed or from where she, she got her information that this was the foundation of institutional marriage, like cite a source, uh, give us a background so that we could examine if that's actually true.

But man, this is, this is obviously a secular view, um, a feminist view of marriage. I mean, this, this doesn't in any way, shape or form, uh, biblically inform us with regard to the issue.

Of marriage. Well, Virgil, Virgil, let me explain something to you. This is a liberal. She doesn't have to give sources. The fact that she feels this way is enough of an authority for your life, you know?

I mean, but we do have an account like that. We can cite sources. We can cite what God, the one who actually created men and women, male, female, what he actually said. And he gives it to us in Genesis chapter two, he said, he's the founder.

And he says he created man and woman to be a created man as a headship, create woman as a helpmate. That that's what he did. And he did it. He has the right to tell us about it. And this is what we see that's missing.

This whole idea. And you can see the underlining argument though, because she, we're going to get into this again in a moment, but her whole argument is this ownership issue that, that women are oppressed.

Now, anyone that listens to the just thinking podcast understands this whole issue of victim status and oppression and how it's used in critical race theory. We're actually, now they dropped the race and it's just critical theory theory, right?

Because they want to use it for more than just race. And so you end up seeing this, and this is what's the underpinning here is to say, somehow men are evil and that's going to justify everything else.

She's going to end up saying abortion is going to be justified. Feminism is going to be justified all because this view she has of marriage that's unfounded.

Right. Right. You, you, you, you, I think you stated it well, this, this already establishes from her definition of marriage and an oppressed oppressor class, which are women and that they were to be owned by men on the basis of men's desire to know who, you know, who the, who the, who the child that they were, that the woman was bearing actually belonged to it, that, that whole ideological position sets up everything to the point you made just moments ago.

It sets up everything so that, so that all her other arguments can follow. But again, earlier we stated, where's the source for this? Like, what can we go back to and point to objectively and say, oh, marriage started on that basis, the basis she's making the claim for, and here's the founding document by which we can ascertain that that's how and why any of this took place.

She sourced nothing. I mean, when you, when you began, when you began to define marriage, you defined it biblically, you sourced an objective document as a standard. Anyone can go back and take a look and examine what you said to determine whether or not, whether or not the claim was, was true on that basis.

No one can do any of that with, with, with Gloria Aldridge, her, her statement, no one.

But, okay, let's take the, for example, so you believe in evolution, you're going to try to go down that road, but let's think about that. If her argument, because her argument's not based in anything, there's nothing for her to cite, but if her argument is that, well, this is the way evolution is, okay, evolution, why in the world would a man and a woman, they evolve, why would the man even care whose kids are his, right?

I mean, what makes the man feel like, oh, I got to have my kids and not raise someone else's kids. No, you wouldn't care. You just, it would be sleep with whoever, and you have whoever many kids who cares as long as you don't have to take care of them.

In fact, I would argue that it may be the reverse. You, you, you want, you may have wanted more kids. You don't care who's there from so that they can work the farms. Now you might want to give away the kids because you got to pay for college.

You know, it's the.

Culture. This is evolution. And if the evil man who wanted to own women in the first place, really, you know, really walked out that ideological position, he, like you said, he would care less whose kids they were.

In fact, the woman having kids would be all the more reason for him to walk away and find the next woman that he could, you know, have intercourse with so that he could, you know, enjoy his freedom rather than having to worry about whose.

Children they are in the first place. But here's the thing, and this is the next clip is what she does in saying this is sets up for her master-slave relationship. Listen to what she said in that.

Clip. Let's listen. I do think that people should treat each other as equal partners if they are married, not a master-slave relationship, not one person dominating the.

Other person. Now, that is essential. You have to understand something. Gloria Aldridge has said in the past, I don't have the clip of that, but she has said that all sex is rape. Okay, this is her view.

Now, she's married. Like, so I don't know if there's any sexual relation she has with her husband, but is it always rape? It's like, but this is the mindset that a marriage is by default in her mind a master-slave relationship, and somehow we have to change that.

She defines it this way in that clip we played. I'll play this clip where she she defines how marriage could work well, and it's not a master-slave relationship, and really the issue of master-slave relationship is an issue of differences in roles, because the way that she's thinking a master is if you have one person that has headship over the family.

That's what they're really against. We see this countless times. You've dealt with this on your podcast. I've dealt with it on my podcast. The whole issue of women being completely equal as men, especially in the area of church leadership, and they would say, no, they have to be completely equal.

That's what she's arguing for marriage. Now, it's going to be funny when we get to issues of transgenderism. We're going to see a little bit of a change in that. She's going to see it. There should be some differences, but she has a hard time with it,.

But this is how she defines a marriage working, and if people treat each other as best friends, as equal partners, and they have good communication, and they are fair with each other and honest with each other, then it's going to work, and if they're not, one person starts to lie or do things they shouldn't with someone else after they made.

A commitment, taken a vow. Taken a vow? What's a vow? That's a religious thing. The amazing thing with this, Virgil, is you listen to what she's saying. Where does she get a standard to say that it should matter if one takes advantage of the other or if one lies to the other?

In fact, if her worldview is correct, shouldn't it be that we should try to take advantage of our spouses? We should be trying to take advantage of everyone because it's all survival of the fittest, and the more fit I am, the better I can survive, and the better my offspring should survive.

Therefore, I should do everything just for my.

Own fitness. Right. This is the backwards view of a secularist in that they have no objective standard except for the subjective standard that they determine, and when they establish any truth claims on that basis, they're expecting others to behave accordingly.

They've created in their own mind that vows are to be taken or that things shouldn't be held in a slave-master dichotomy, but at the same time, there's no objective basis for that, so I don't know how they can say that that should apply to anyone outside of themselves and their own relationships because they're the ones who determined it, and no one is obligated, not by any moral standard or religious belief, to follow it.

Yeah, so they set up a standard that they.

Don't give citations for, can't support in any objective way, and then say it applies for everyone. Right. But your standard, when it comes to relying on what God the Creator said,.

No, we know that can't be the standard. Right, right. Now, it's interesting because I know you're going to get to this because what she will do, for the most part, her God becomes the law, and the reality is laws change.

I mean, it was one time legal to hold slaves, right? I mean, if her God is the law, that's an ever-changing subjective standard that she holds herself to. He, Shapiro asked her a number of different questions, and her response is always driven by.

A legal standard. Well, she is a lawyer, so we can understand that, but he's even going to bring up, as we'll get to later, that abortion was illegal at one point, and it changed, which is always the interesting thing.

People want to say, but it's the law, but it wasn't always the law. Like, people are saying, well, we need to accept this whole thing with gender, and people can identify whatever gender they are, and that's only the last 10 years this has come up, so we should ignore 6 ,000 years of history and everything else, and just say, okay, now we suddenly are going to change, and everyone else has to accept this.

It's the insanity. Now, I want to play this longer because it's about two minutes, and this is her explaining feminism, which, again, you're seeing this is her argument from the marriage, but here's the play this.

We'll break it up, but I want you guys to listen to how she defines feminism. This is basically a logical fallacy, and it's the fallacy of equivocation. The reason I say that is the term feminism, she's going to provide a dictionary definition that's so broad, it encompasses every reasonable person, but then what people actually use when they refer to.

Feminism is a very specific political definition. When she gives this definition, I almost thought, oh, that's biblical patriarchy. Yes, that was exactly what I thought,.

And this is the thing. It's so broad, but the interesting thing is Ben Shapiro even tried to bring out these different definitions. She's like, oh, I'm just going to sweep that all aside. I'm just going to go to this general one.

Now, why do people do it? People do that so that you go, oh, well, I agree with her, and then she says, okay, if you agree with me on this, then just slowly slide into the area you wouldn't have agreed, but now she's actually going to say that Ben Shapiro is a feminist.

Listen to this. There are various definitions of feminism that.

Float around. I give you a simple one from the dictionary. I'd be happy to hear them because.

There's first wave feminism, there's second wave feminism. Okay, well, I don't get involved in how many waves. I get involved in how many injustices. All right, so a feminist is simply a person who believes in legal, economic, social, and political equality for women with men.

Are you a feminist, Ben? By that definition, sure. That's it. Thank you. I rest my case.

Okay, but the problem is that it's not quite as simple as all of that. I wish it were quite as simple as all of that, right? I mean, you'd be hard-pressed to find many people in America who would say no to that question, but obviously there's widespread disagreement about where the.

Lines are drawn. Well, there doesn't have to be any disagreement. Just go to the dictionary and then ask yourself, how would you want your daughter to be treated? And most people, when they think, especially fathers, when they think about how they would like their daughter to be treated without going into, well, what's the definition of feminism?

They want their daughter to be treated with respect, with dignity, not to become a victim of violence, not to be paid less than men, not to be treated in a way that would constitute sexual harassment, not to be discriminated against if they become pregnant.

Well, that's really what feminists believe. So, among other things, you know, not to have a problem collecting their child support if somehow the marriage breaks up or there is no marriage. And so, just think about if you had daughters or plan to have daughters, how you'd want them to be treated, and then you're probably a feminist.

I have fathers that come up to me all the time if I'm walking down the street or elsewhere and say, thank you, we know you're doing this for our daughters. I may not agree with everything you say, Gloria, but I know that's what you're trying to do, and I appreciate that.

See, that is such a general definition that everyone that is in favor of biblical justice, not social justice, those are two very different things, but those that are in favor of biblical.

Justice would agree with that definition that she laid out. As would anyone who claimed to be hold to biblical patriarchy or hold to complementarianism. I mean, you could ask those same questions of her in the way that she did, Ben, because of the generic nature of what we all agree upon.

So, do you think all people should be treated fairly and with respect, with dignity and respect? Absolutely. Well, then, welcome to biblical patriarchy, Gloria. I mean, that's the equivalent of what she did.

Well, and you saw, this is a lawyer,.

This is someone who's like, case closed. She's just trying to argue. But she does the emotional appeal, and they play these clips because you hear the emotional appeal in these three clips.

Where she refers to daughters. And then ask yourself, how would you want your daughter to be treated? They want their daughter to be treated with respect, with dignity. Just think about it. If you had daughters, or plan to have daughters, how you'd want them to be treated.

And then you're probably a feminist. Okay, so you're probably a feminist. Gloria,.

This is going to blow your mind. If she's listening, I doubt. Someone send this to her. I'm sure someone out here knows her well. Gloria, do you know that the majority of Muslims in Muslim countries want their daughters to be treated as second-class citizens under their husband?

So, if you're going to use that as your argumentation, just think about how you want your daughters to be treated. Gloria, would you accept the Muslim man's definition of how he wants his daughter to be treated?

Just think about that, because that's your argumentation. So, your definition wasn't clear enough to be able to explain the real position that you have, because you have other cultures that don't have the same view as you expect everyone to have for their daughters.

The only place that you get that right view is from God and His Word, because God is the standard. And this is what's absent from Gloria Aldridge. And because it's absent, she makes statements that show that they cannot be universal to all people of all time, all cultures.

She would not want to be subjected to the Muslim definition where a man can slap, hit, whatever to his wife, and she has no recourse. She wouldn't say that that's appropriate, but that's exactly what a father would expect of his daughter, because the father in Islam would expect the daughter to be subservient to the man, which is the whole thing that she really is against.

That is the master-slave relationship that she's saying shouldn't be, but yet, that's what those fathers expect of their daughter. You see, she's not saying the American father. Right. She's saying fathers.

Well, it's not a standard that.

Would hold up in court, Gloria. It wouldn't. And she knows that. Again, she recognizes where she's at. She recognizes the audience. And so her goal was to appeal. And again, this is the mask worn by secularists.

One of the things that we do in Christian culture is we try to be very clear. I mean, most of the folks that I know try to be very clear about what we believe and why we believe it, and hold an objective standard, which is the Word of God.

Most secularists don't want you to know with specificity all that they truly believe. So they'll tell you what they think you need to hear for you to side with them, and then you'll walk down this slippery slope that they'll have, this trail, this ideological trail that they'll have you on that will land you in pretty rough patches.

So Gloria Aldridge would not do well if she was.

To fit into the Just Thinking podcast model, where you guys deal with the term, you define the term, you walk through the Bible giving the biblical definition and refutation of the things, and then give the application.

She would be stuck on that very first one with her definitions or.

Lack thereof. Yeah, definitely. She wouldn't be able to uphold the definition portion.

Feminism, Equality, and the Problem of Redefinition

Now she ends up saying that her goal, the goal of feminism is equality, right? For the number of.

Women. Let's listen to this. With regard to feminism, when it speaks for the equality of women, does that mean the equality or does it mean the sameness between men and women?

It's equality. It's all about, that's why I said equal. It's about improving the condition status of women to help to bring women into the mainstream of American life in equal partnership with men. Each and every aspect of life.

We don't have an equal number of women elected to Congress.

Or to the United States Senate. Yeah, but we have more women than men going to law school.

And more women than men going to college. Okay, well that's good for, you know, it's the beginning.

Okay, I'm going to stop it there, even though I had the clip longer, because do you see what just happened? She's talking equality and what happens the moment some facts come into her argument that Ben brings up that don't work with her?

It's like, okay, that's nice for them.

Let's move on. Right. I thought it was interesting when she said that's a beginning. I think she tipped her hand, right? Because what he stated was that there are more. She was talking about equality.

She should be fine at the point that there's parity. When there are an equal number of women as men who are in law positions or in law school, that should be sufficient. Her statement after he said that there are more women was, that's a good start.

That's a start, right? It wasn't. So again, it's the point that I was making earlier. They're not giving you what really is at the core of the ideological position that they hold. I mean, they're holding things close to the vest and then things leak out over time as their conversations become more emotionally based.

You begin to see what's really at hand. Well, as you and I have dealt with with.

The social justice issue, they say this is what they want, but it's never where they're going to stop. They're always going to push it. She's arguing for equality and she's defining it as the number of women.