December 5, 2025 • 33 mins
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
It's that time, time, time, time, Luck and load.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
From Michael Very Show is on the air. It's Charlie
from BlackBerry Smoke. I could feel a good when coming on.
It's the Michael Berry Show.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
Any attempt to restrict drinking and driving?
Speaker 4 (00:29):
Here is our guest is a professor at the University
of South Florida. He wrote a piece recently, a paper
entitled Evolutionary Psychology and the Crisis of empirical rigor in
Feminist study. In other words, how did we get to
the point that these people, in the name of feminism
are defying biology beating up on boys. I would argue
(00:53):
feminizing boys and not using any science to get there. Well,
that's what he's trying to lay out and discuss. It
happens to be in port. You can see that this
social issue is one of the issues of our day
in the way that in the past we would have
dealt with others and they marked the zeit. Guys, this
is what we're talking about all day, every day. Professor
Martin Defant, you note that you drew on research in
(01:15):
evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, and behavioral biology examining topics such as
the gender pay gap let's talk about that.
Speaker 5 (01:26):
Okay, if I could just follow up real quickly, this
is the things you're saying is it's precisely why feminists
are so against evolutionary psychology, because if it's not evolutionary
psychology and it's due to culture, then they can change men.
They can also say that men and women are equal,
(01:47):
so you can make movies where you see a woman
beating up to ten guys. It's absolutely gotten insane. And
many studies show, as you mentioned, the difference is between
boys and girls. Right from the start, boys and girls
are different, and study after study shows that many done
(02:08):
by women. Okay, let's get into the pay gap, because
I think you know that's going to open up some
interesting discussion. I think the first thing I should say
is when I started to study the pay gap, I
went to economics research, much of it being done by women,
good examples of Claudia Golden at Harvard University, and they
(02:30):
were showing I mean, it's almost shocking how different the
economic research is from what feminists are saying. The economic
research is telling us that the pay gap is due
to women's choice. Basically, women tend to be risk adverse,
they tend to be looking for jobs that give them
(02:53):
freedom to raise children. They also tend to like to
take off time in their career to raise children. So
we have a pay gap developing not because a bunch
of men out there are pressing women through discrimination. Primarily
according to these economists, that they are basically women, that is,
(03:15):
are choosing to work in fields caregiving fields like education,
like social work like nursing, and other medical care. Whereas
men tend to like risk, they go out and get
into these high risk, high reward performance They work fifty
sixty hours a week, and oftentimes women are raising the
(03:36):
children that help them do well in their jobs. So
it's a nice synergy between men and women there if
it works correctly women And I don't want to say
all women in this way. I want to say all
men are this way. But I'm just saying what the
biology is telling us and what the economists are telling us,
(03:57):
and the gender payback gap. The best scenario I can
give you here to summarize is that the gender pay
gap is not due to discrimination. It may have been
partly due to discrimination decades ago, but certainly today is not.
It is due to female choice.
Speaker 4 (04:14):
Once again, Yes, and we can when we consider that
the various roles that people play, you know, dangerous jobs
often have higher pay attendant, and women choose not to
engage in dangerous jobs, for instance, the patriarchy. You said,
drawing on research in these these various forms of biology,
(04:36):
I examined topics such as the patriarchy and rape theory
through an evidence based lens. Talk about what rape theory
is and what you came to learn about.
Speaker 5 (04:46):
This, Well, well, I want to I want to be
careful here because it's a sensitive subject, but I do
I got into rape theory because there's this attitude in
feminist studies that rape is and I still can hardly
(05:07):
believe that that feminists believe this at one time and
still do to some extent. When they're saying that rape
is basically men colluding to oppress women with fear at
about rape, I don't think anything could could be further
(05:28):
from the truth. In fact, I got a well I
can read it later, but one of the top feminists
in this field claimed that men use rape to subjugate women.
And when you start looking at who rapes and why
they rape, it turns out to be a whole different
(05:49):
story from and you can see why I'm worried about
the rigor and feminist studies when they seem to be
in this echo chamber where they get a good idea
what they think it's a good idea, and then everybody
just expounds on that and nobody goes into the lab
to test what they're saying. And that's where I have
the real problem. Let's go back to rape, though. Rape.
(06:12):
Rape has some interesting characteristics. For one thing, men rape
women not in their eighties or sixties or fifties. They
rape women in the peak of their fertility, in their
late teens and twenties. And so that should tell us
right there that rape has little to do with oppression.
(06:33):
If men were trying to oppress women through fear, seems
like we would rape all kinds of women, not just
women that are attractive and at a very fertile age. Now,
most evolutionary psychologists believe that it's not an evolutionary adaption.
It's a byproduct of our evolution in hunter gathered society.
(07:01):
My disagreement is not that it's not evolution. My disagreement
is that they're saying that it's a bunch of men
trying to outpress women and the data just simply isn't
telling us that at all.
Speaker 4 (07:12):
Professor Martin Defunt, let me ask you. I have found,
at least anecdotally, that a number of feminists, particularly feminist academics,
are lesbian, and I suspect that informs some of their
opinions toward men, particularly because the path to a full
(07:37):
blown lesbian often starts as not realizing their lesbian young
in life and maybe having unpleasant experiences due to that,
and later. I'm not saying they become lesbians because men
are asses to them. I'm saying they were lesbian or
had tendencies, and they did not have a functional relationship
(08:00):
with a male, and they had a bad experience, and
out of that bad experience they developed they developed, perhaps
opinions of men that are not entirely healthy, and so
that informs, if not fully motivates their writing, which becomes
almost this the opposite of misogyny, this man hating. Professor
(08:23):
Martin Defant is our guest. Will continue our conversation and
ask him.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
pSer to that you've got the Michael Berrys Show.
Speaker 4 (08:29):
Professor Mark Dafont of the University of South Florida is
our guest. He's written a piece called Evolutionary Psychology and
the Crisis of empirical rigor in feminist studies? In other words,
how did we end up to the point that feminists
on campuses, for instance, and in writing and scholarship and
in speeches, this feminism wildfire that has that has spread
(08:53):
across the country. He says, it lacks the traditional underpinnings
of science, the imperial rigor that asking tough questions, debating things,
studying things, studying data and analysis. You can't have your
own facts, you can have your own opinions about your
own facts. And I have asked them the question, to
what extent are lesbian academics who are angry at men
(09:18):
leading this charge?
Speaker 5 (09:22):
Well, I'm already catching a lot of the wrath from
my publication, so I want to be careful here not
to generalize. It would be I haven't read any articles
on how many women are lesbians in feminist studies, although
like you, I have noticed that there are some, if
(09:45):
not the majority, And I think that this does you
in your observation. It would tend to skew in terms
of working. I think I think the woman's movement, which
I consider very different than the feminist movement. The women's
movement has had a very positive effect. I think on
women it's you know, if they want to leave the
(10:08):
house and work, you know, that's great. But where I
think feminists may abscuted it is they seem to be
interested only in working women and not women who choose
to stay home and raise children. And I oppose that
kind of view. I think we should be open to
(10:29):
both kinds of behaviors. And it may be, and I
don't know this for certain, but it may be due
to the fact that there are many lesbians who do
not have children that populate women's studies programs. It's something
I don't have any data on, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Does that make sense?
Speaker 4 (10:50):
It does, and delicately, answered Professor Martin Defont is our guest.
Let me go back into some of the things.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
That you.
Speaker 4 (11:02):
Described in your piece. You said I examined topics such
as the gender paid gap, patriarchy in rape theory. I
think I've glossed over patriarchy. First of all, I'm not
sure that patriarchy in and of itself is necessarily a
bad thing. Throughout history, there is typically a hierarchical relationship
(11:23):
to the family unit, the community, the nation far and
beyond modern America, that has typically been the strongest in
one way or another, particularly throughout most of history. Why
wouldn't it be the case, as you noted, empirical rigor
requires you look at the biological differences. Why wouldn't the
(11:46):
stronger of the species be the head of the household?
Speaker 5 (11:50):
Well, you're very clever to see that. I think, yes,
it's a subtle point, but it's a point that I
make in this paper and several other papers that I've written,
and that is that there's a difference between what I
call evolutionary patriarchy and the feminist patriarchy. I think we
do have a patriarchy if you're going to define it
(12:11):
as a society that's run by men, but it's a
patriarchy that's due to choice by women. In other words,
women are choosing men that are aggressive, men that take
risks throughout the history of evolution. So we would expect
(12:32):
men to be in leadership roles if that were the
way or that was the way that women were choosing.
And so you can see, I hope you can see
how the kind of patriarchy we have today is the
result of women's choice, and not due to a bunch
of men getting together and saying we want to oppress women.
(12:53):
I have an interesting quick story if I might talk
to about a wonderful study that was done in the
nineteen nineties. It involves the kibbutz in Israel. It turns
out that the kibbutzes were formed by Eastern European basically communists.
It's certainly socialists who moved from Eastern Europe to Israel
(13:17):
where they had the freedom to develop the society they
wanted to develop, which was they believed men and women
should be treated exactly the same, and they set up
the kibbutz to be basically a communist system where everyone
was treated equally, and some very interesting things happened in
the early goings on of the kibbutz. Women worked in
(13:41):
the fields right along with the men, the hard labor.
It was mainly a farming community, and men and women
took care of the children. In fact, the children were
raised without parents. Basically they were given over to the
commune and the commune raised raised the children, both men
and women. And then as it developed through the nineteen hundreds,
(14:04):
it evolved and we find that women didn't like so
much working away from children in the fields. They didn't
like the labor, and they didn't like being away from
their children. So it evolved in the sense of, you know,
changing over time that the women ended up taking care
of the children more and the men were out in
(14:25):
the fields doing most of the hard labor. And it's
kind of funny because one of the things that set
it off was they believed that the children should do
everything together, and they treated boys and girls the same way.
But as the girls got older and past puberty they
were supposed to take showers and bathe with the boys.
(14:47):
They started raising hell about that, and so the commune
decided it might be a good idea if we didn't
have them bathing together, because women were embarrassed dressing and
undressing in front of other bull in front of boys.
So it evolved that way also. And finally, women also
gave up their rights to control the kaboots in leadership roles.
(15:10):
Most women wanted to raise the children and they let
the men take leadership leadership roles. And this all happen
even though men and women wanted equality. So I'm not
sure that if we give one hundred percent equality, which
I think, you know, we're getting close to today that
it's going to make much difference in society. I think
we're finding that women are predisposed towards enjoying raising children,
(15:34):
and men are predisposed towards working hard and competitively.
Speaker 4 (15:39):
I'm also not certain that I guess it depends on
what we define as equality or in what space. My
wife was a very successful professional before retiring, and she
had every opportunity that every man did. I would consider
that equality. I don't know that you're ever going to
(16:00):
achieve the equality for men with women, that men are
going to birth a child out of their womb. And
I think this desperate desire by feminists to suggest that
men can get pregnant and all this nonsense, and then
the playing with words to deprive them of their meaning.
Talk about a crisis of empirical rigor. Professor, I find
(16:21):
this to be a very brave subject for you to
have tackled, and in an academic setting there is an
absence of bravery.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
I admire you for that.
Speaker 4 (16:31):
I commend you for that. Thank you, Professor Mark Defont.
You want to look him up. D E F A
n T. Keep up the good works or I'm out
of time. Alas you're listening to the Michael Berry Show.
President True had this dire warning for the drug lords
flooding our country with poison. We know where you live,
(16:52):
we know where your front door is. Congressman, well, let's
hear the clip.
Speaker 6 (16:58):
Firsts Ago, they know how I stand. We're losing hundreds
of thousands of people to drugs. So now we've stopped
the waterways, but we know every route. We know every route,
we know the addresses of every drug lord.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
We know their.
Speaker 6 (17:16):
Address, we know their front door, we know everything about
every one of them. They're killing our people. That's like
a war.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
Would I do it.
Speaker 6 (17:26):
I'd be proud to it, probably going to Congress and saying, hey,
and you know what, the Democrats and the Republicans would
both agree unless they're crazy, and they are a little
crazy on the Democrat side. But we have lost hundreds
of thousands of people. That your death, and that's not
(17:48):
talking about family destruction. That's talking about that and much
of it comes through Mexico. So let me just put
it this way. I am not happy with Mexico.
Speaker 4 (17:59):
Okay, we have heard this language from Trump before. Houston
Congressman Wesley Hunt and Byron Donalds sat down with the
lovely and brilliant Sage Steel and they were talking about
President Trump and a threat he made to the Taliban leader.
(18:20):
And it sounds strangely similar, which gives credibility to the original.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Point when we were negotiating with the Taliban.
Speaker 7 (18:28):
While President Trump was to the president, President Trump wanted
to get out of Afghanistan, but he wanted a conditions
based withdrawal, meaning that you do what we tell you
to do, and then we will start pulling troops back
slowly as.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
Long as you abide by our rules.
Speaker 7 (18:45):
It's President Trump and Mike Pompeo and they're talking to
Taliban leadership in the room, and they had one translator
in the room. President Trump looked at the Taliban leader
and said this I want to leave Afghanistan. Was going
to be a conditions based withdrawal, and translator translated, and
he said, if you harm a hair on a single American,
(19:09):
I'm going to kill you. And translator goes, and Trump
goes what I said, reached in his pocket, pulled out
a satellite.
Speaker 2 (19:24):
Photo of the leader.
Speaker 7 (19:26):
Of the Taliban's home and handed it to him, got
up and walked out the room.
Speaker 4 (19:32):
Where would we be in this two front war against
the cartels and illegal invasion if the Supreme Court hadn't
voted the way it did back in May.
Speaker 1 (19:46):
The Supreme Court just cleared the way for Trump to
deport illegals even faster. The High Court ruled that Trump
can use the Alien Enemies Act to send Venezuela and
gang bangers to a mega prison in El Salvador. This
is a huge ruling in Trump's faith. We're in a
major win for the country after as you know, DC
Judge James Boseburg ordered a stop to the deportations, so
(20:10):
this is pretty significant. These deportations, Caroline can keep going.
Speaker 8 (20:14):
This is a massive legal victory, Jesse, a massive victory
for law and order and for our constitutional republic in
the sovereignty of the United States of America. We called
on the Supreme Court to reign in these activist judges
like Judge Bosburg, who was completely out of line and
trying to say that the President didn't have the executive
(20:37):
authority to deport foreign terrorists off of our soil. We
have always maintained the position at the White House that
the President was well within his constitutional authority to do so,
and this decision proves that President Trump in our administration
have always been right from the beginning. He will continue
to utilize the Alien Enemies Act to remove for war
(21:00):
in terrorists and trendy Aragua members, vicious gang members from
American communities. And because of this ruling, the United States
of America is a much safer place. Our team will
get to work tomorrow to deport these heinous, violent foreign
terrorists from our neighborhoods.
Speaker 4 (21:19):
We told the story of Jasmine Crockett trying to rescue
the republic the Democrats over the Epstein issue. So she
had jumped up when the Democrats were in trouble because
Stacey Plaskett, one of their own, had been in contact
with Jeffrey Epstein while she was in a congressional hearing
(21:40):
trying to burn Trump. Epstein's trying to help her because
he's mad at Trump, and so the Democrats are looking
really stupid, and Jasmine Crockett steps up and says, yahotewln,
I got this, And she jumps up and announces that
there were Republicans who received money from Jeffrey Epstein, which
(22:03):
was true, just a different Jeffrey Epstein. So once again
a swing and a miss by Jasmine Crockett, the DEI congressman.
Now she goes on with that, what does he call her?
That nasty person?
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Trump calls Caitlyn Collins.
Speaker 4 (22:25):
She goes on with Caitlyn Collins and pretends, Oh, I
never tried to mislead anybody. No, no, no, no, no. Anybody
that got that impression that's wrong. I never tried to
mislead anybody.
Speaker 3 (22:36):
You talk about Republicans taking money from a Jeffrey Epstein,
here's what you said.
Speaker 9 (22:41):
Who also took money from somebody named Jeffrey Epstein. As
I had my team dig in very quickly, met Romney,
the NRCC Lee Zelden, George bush Win, read McCain, palin
Rick Lazio.
Speaker 3 (23:02):
You mentioned the Leizelden there, he's now a cabinet secretary.
He responded and said it was actually doctor Jeffrey Epstein,
who's a doctor that doesn't have any relation to the
convicted sex trucker. Unfortunate for that doctor, but that is
who do it to a prior campaign of his. Do
you want to correct the record on the people.
Speaker 9 (23:19):
And I never said that it was that Jeffrey Epstein,
just so that people understand when you make a donation,
your picture is not there. And because they decided to
spring this on us in real time, I wanted the
Republicans to think about what could potentially happen because I
knew that they didn't even.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
Try to go through the FEC.
Speaker 9 (23:37):
So my team what they did is they googled, And
that is specifically why I said a Jeffrey Epstein. Unlike Republicans,
I at least don't go out and just tell lies
because it was not the same one. That's fine. But
when Lee Zelden had something to say, all he had
to say was it was a diffrey jeff Jeffrey Epstein.
He admitted that he did receive donations from a Jeffrey Epstein,
(24:00):
So at least I wasn't trying to mislead people. Now,
have I dug in to find out who this doctor is?
I have not, So I will trust and take what
he says is that it wasn't that Jeffrey Epstein. But
I was not attempting to mislead anybody. I literally had
maybe twenty minutes before I had to do that debate.
Speaker 3 (24:20):
Yeah, but people might see that say, well, you're trying
to make it tell him like he took money from
I did not register tex offender.
Speaker 9 (24:26):
No, but I literally did not know when you search
FEC files, And that's what I had my team to do.
I text him and I say, listen, we're going up
there saying that she took donators, right.
Speaker 3 (24:37):
But someone might say, well, your team should have done
the homework to make sure it wasn't.
Speaker 9 (24:41):
Within twenty minutes, you could not find that out, not
from just doing a quick search on FBC. So number one,
I made sure that I was clear that it was
a Jeffrey Epstein, but I never said that it was
specifically that Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 4 (24:56):
Michael, Well, here's the story. It says a lot about
what most of us think of art, particularly what would
be called fine art. A museum volunteer was cleaning the
museum voluntarily, big fan want to help, accidentally destroyed an
(25:23):
art piece. No, not moving it, not lifting it or
hanging it, after mistaking it for a dirty mirror and
cleaning it because it well, if you see a picture
of it, it looks like a dirty mirror. The work
(25:46):
by Chin Sung Chi is said to symbolize quote the
distorted self awareness of the middle class. A volunteer at
the Key Lung Museum of Art in Taiwan and accidentally
destroyed a valuable artwork by cleaning it.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
With toilet paper.
Speaker 4 (26:04):
The piece, entitled Inverted Syntax sixteen, features a dust covered
mirror mounted on a simple wooden board with a smudge
in the center. The piece, which symbolized the cultural consciousness
of the middle class, was created by Chin Sung Chi.
I guess you're supposed to know who that is. The volunteer,
(26:26):
thinking the mirror was dirty, wiped away forty years of dust,
irreparably damaging the artwork. Oh no, the dust was part
of the artwork. The museum's management has apologized to the
artist and is discussing potential compensation. The artwork was part
of the We Are a Me exhibition, showcasing works created
(26:47):
from building materials and everyday objects. The report mentioned that
some critics even argued that the accidental cleaning has become
part of the artwork and should be left as it is.
So there you talk about a class differential when when
(27:10):
you see cases like this, you know Rauschenberg did did
the white painting where there was nothing on there and
it represented I guess infinity or limitlessness, and you know
your average rednecks going, well, hell, I could have done
I could have done the blank canvas. I mean I
(27:32):
could have done that. There is a disconnect, and there's
nothing wrong with it. There are people who would say,
when I walk in and look at that stuff, I
don't see anything. I see a bunch of I see
people making a mockery of their hoity toity ways, and
(27:54):
a lot of people standing around pretending that they love this.
Because if you don't love it, you don't get it.
And if you don't get it, you're a heathen. So
in order to show how much you how smart you are.
We see this with bands. It's less pretentious, but still
the same mindset. People will say they like a particular
(28:14):
song or a particular band because you're supposed to, if
you're sophisticated, you're supposed to like that particular thing. And
so we see this, and we see this with caviar.
I don't believe caviar tastes good. And in fact, caviar
was cheap until relatively recently, until it was made available
(28:37):
to a larger until it was until it was.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
Oh, what was the story?
Speaker 4 (28:43):
I just read this the other day. How the price
of caviar spiked. Oh, it doesn't matter. But the point
is caviar used to be considered trash, and then once
the value shot up, you had sturgeon being pulled out
of the water, cut open for the caviar or the eggs,
(29:04):
and just discard it as trash because the price went up.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
It does feel to some of us.
Speaker 4 (29:12):
I think a lot of people that there are things
that are given an artificial value because they are supposedly
so rare, or so elegant, or so special. And there
is a class of people who reinforce this notion because
it adds to their unique I get it, and you don't.
It's hipsterism writ large, just refined and more expensive. It's
(29:39):
as simple as that. But I also understand that there
is a place in the world for art and for
artistic beauty and for stopping and smelling the roses. That's
just not what I sense when I go to an
art gala, or I don't go to art gallows to
an art gallery. That's not what I sense is going on.
I just I don't see that as I don't see
(30:02):
that they are celebrating art in natural beauty story out
of well it's out of Florida, but it involves three
Houston men. They were involved in the scheme with another
man to try and cash a US Treasury check worth
more than twenty seven million dollars in Florida. Go big
(30:25):
or go home, I guess. According to the federal criminal complaint,
agents arrested Carlos Manuel Villa via Nueva, thirty seven, of Hyalia, Florida,
Eric Renard Bedford forty four of Houston, Jorge CRUs Garcia
thirty of Katie, and John Ryan Boxey forty three of Houston.
(30:46):
The four men faced one count of conspiracy to defraud
the United States and one count of theft of government property.
The tax refund check, which totaled twenty seven million, nine
hundred ten thousand that's almost twenty eight men, was supposed
to go to an unnamed company in Richmond, Virginia, and
it had not been cashed. According to the criminal complaint,
(31:08):
a source of information told federal agents that Vieanueva had
access to the check. On November fifth, Vianueva opened talks
with a man called Banker in the complaint, who he
believed could help him cash the check. The banker was
an undercover officer with the US Treasury Inspector General for
(31:30):
Tax Administration. Vianueva showed the undercover officer photographs and videos
of the check and said that three other men who
lived outside Florida had it. He added that the trio
could travel to Florida, but stressed that he needed help
cashing the check because the company was closed and the
check was expiring on November twelfth. Vienueva told the agent
(31:53):
that his cut of the check could be five point
six million, and he asked the officer to create separate
bank accounts to disperse the funds. He allegedly added that
the men had quote access to other checks of a
large amount and can get more. According to investigators, Garcia
quote claimed to have extensive experience in negotiating stolen checks,
(32:18):
particularly US Treasury checks, and also mentioned that he operates
a business that is used to funnel the proceeds from
these stolen checks. The four men made their first appearances
on November twelve in a federal court in Fort Lauderdale.
So these people are running a syndicate to get a
(32:42):
hold of foreign checks, to get i mean stolen checks,
to get these checks, to steal them, take possession of them,
cash them, and then launder the money afterwards. These are
very sophisticated operations. This is happening all around us. And
(33:05):
what about the person or company who's checked it really
is that maybe went under and wouldn't have but for that,
the number of frauds and schemes that are being carried
out in this country and not being prosecuted sufficiently. If
people feared that they would be locked away for a
very very long time, I don't believe they'd do this.
If they believed they'd be caught and then prosecuted thoroughly,
(33:28):
I don't believe they would do this anymore.
Speaker 2 (33:33):
Ladies and gentlemen, Eldus has left for killing me.
Speaker 5 (33:36):
Thank you, and good night.
It's that time, time, time, time, Luck and load.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
From Michael Very Show is on the air. It's Charlie
from BlackBerry Smoke. I could feel a good when coming on.
It's the Michael Berry Show.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
Any attempt to restrict drinking and driving?
Speaker 4 (00:29):
Here is our guest is a professor at the University
of South Florida. He wrote a piece recently, a paper
entitled Evolutionary Psychology and the Crisis of empirical rigor in
Feminist study. In other words, how did we get to
the point that these people, in the name of feminism
are defying biology beating up on boys. I would argue
(00:53):
feminizing boys and not using any science to get there. Well,
that's what he's trying to lay out and discuss. It
happens to be in port. You can see that this
social issue is one of the issues of our day
in the way that in the past we would have
dealt with others and they marked the zeit. Guys, this
is what we're talking about all day, every day. Professor
Martin Defant, you note that you drew on research in
(01:15):
evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, and behavioral biology examining topics such as
the gender pay gap let's talk about that.
Speaker 5 (01:26):
Okay, if I could just follow up real quickly, this
is the things you're saying is it's precisely why feminists
are so against evolutionary psychology, because if it's not evolutionary
psychology and it's due to culture, then they can change men.
They can also say that men and women are equal,
(01:47):
so you can make movies where you see a woman
beating up to ten guys. It's absolutely gotten insane. And
many studies show, as you mentioned, the difference is between
boys and girls. Right from the start, boys and girls
are different, and study after study shows that many done
(02:08):
by women. Okay, let's get into the pay gap, because
I think you know that's going to open up some
interesting discussion. I think the first thing I should say
is when I started to study the pay gap, I
went to economics research, much of it being done by women,
good examples of Claudia Golden at Harvard University, and they
(02:30):
were showing I mean, it's almost shocking how different the
economic research is from what feminists are saying. The economic
research is telling us that the pay gap is due
to women's choice. Basically, women tend to be risk adverse,
they tend to be looking for jobs that give them
(02:53):
freedom to raise children. They also tend to like to
take off time in their career to raise children. So
we have a pay gap developing not because a bunch
of men out there are pressing women through discrimination. Primarily
according to these economists, that they are basically women, that is,
(03:15):
are choosing to work in fields caregiving fields like education,
like social work like nursing, and other medical care. Whereas
men tend to like risk, they go out and get
into these high risk, high reward performance They work fifty
sixty hours a week, and oftentimes women are raising the
(03:36):
children that help them do well in their jobs. So
it's a nice synergy between men and women there if
it works correctly women And I don't want to say
all women in this way. I want to say all
men are this way. But I'm just saying what the
biology is telling us and what the economists are telling us,
(03:57):
and the gender payback gap. The best scenario I can
give you here to summarize is that the gender pay
gap is not due to discrimination. It may have been
partly due to discrimination decades ago, but certainly today is not.
It is due to female choice.
Speaker 4 (04:14):
Once again, Yes, and we can when we consider that
the various roles that people play, you know, dangerous jobs
often have higher pay attendant, and women choose not to
engage in dangerous jobs, for instance, the patriarchy. You said,
drawing on research in these these various forms of biology,
(04:36):
I examined topics such as the patriarchy and rape theory
through an evidence based lens. Talk about what rape theory
is and what you came to learn about.
Speaker 5 (04:46):
This, Well, well, I want to I want to be
careful here because it's a sensitive subject, but I do
I got into rape theory because there's this attitude in
feminist studies that rape is and I still can hardly
(05:07):
believe that that feminists believe this at one time and
still do to some extent. When they're saying that rape
is basically men colluding to oppress women with fear at
about rape, I don't think anything could could be further
(05:28):
from the truth. In fact, I got a well I
can read it later, but one of the top feminists
in this field claimed that men use rape to subjugate women.
And when you start looking at who rapes and why
they rape, it turns out to be a whole different
(05:49):
story from and you can see why I'm worried about
the rigor and feminist studies when they seem to be
in this echo chamber where they get a good idea
what they think it's a good idea, and then everybody
just expounds on that and nobody goes into the lab
to test what they're saying. And that's where I have
the real problem. Let's go back to rape, though. Rape.
(06:12):
Rape has some interesting characteristics. For one thing, men rape
women not in their eighties or sixties or fifties. They
rape women in the peak of their fertility, in their
late teens and twenties. And so that should tell us
right there that rape has little to do with oppression.
(06:33):
If men were trying to oppress women through fear, seems
like we would rape all kinds of women, not just
women that are attractive and at a very fertile age. Now,
most evolutionary psychologists believe that it's not an evolutionary adaption.
It's a byproduct of our evolution in hunter gathered society.
(07:01):
My disagreement is not that it's not evolution. My disagreement
is that they're saying that it's a bunch of men
trying to outpress women and the data just simply isn't
telling us that at all.
Speaker 4 (07:12):
Professor Martin Defunt, let me ask you. I have found,
at least anecdotally, that a number of feminists, particularly feminist academics,
are lesbian, and I suspect that informs some of their
opinions toward men, particularly because the path to a full
(07:37):
blown lesbian often starts as not realizing their lesbian young
in life and maybe having unpleasant experiences due to that,
and later. I'm not saying they become lesbians because men
are asses to them. I'm saying they were lesbian or
had tendencies, and they did not have a functional relationship
(08:00):
with a male, and they had a bad experience, and
out of that bad experience they developed they developed, perhaps
opinions of men that are not entirely healthy, and so
that informs, if not fully motivates their writing, which becomes
almost this the opposite of misogyny, this man hating. Professor
(08:23):
Martin Defant is our guest. Will continue our conversation and
ask him.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
pSer to that you've got the Michael Berrys Show.
Speaker 4 (08:29):
Professor Mark Dafont of the University of South Florida is
our guest. He's written a piece called Evolutionary Psychology and
the Crisis of empirical rigor in feminist studies? In other words,
how did we end up to the point that feminists
on campuses, for instance, and in writing and scholarship and
in speeches, this feminism wildfire that has that has spread
(08:53):
across the country. He says, it lacks the traditional underpinnings
of science, the imperial rigor that asking tough questions, debating things,
studying things, studying data and analysis. You can't have your
own facts, you can have your own opinions about your
own facts. And I have asked them the question, to
what extent are lesbian academics who are angry at men
(09:18):
leading this charge?
Speaker 5 (09:22):
Well, I'm already catching a lot of the wrath from
my publication, so I want to be careful here not
to generalize. It would be I haven't read any articles
on how many women are lesbians in feminist studies, although
like you, I have noticed that there are some, if
(09:45):
not the majority, And I think that this does you
in your observation. It would tend to skew in terms
of working. I think I think the woman's movement, which
I consider very different than the feminist movement. The women's
movement has had a very positive effect. I think on
women it's you know, if they want to leave the
(10:08):
house and work, you know, that's great. But where I
think feminists may abscuted it is they seem to be
interested only in working women and not women who choose
to stay home and raise children. And I oppose that
kind of view. I think we should be open to
(10:29):
both kinds of behaviors. And it may be, and I
don't know this for certain, but it may be due
to the fact that there are many lesbians who do
not have children that populate women's studies programs. It's something
I don't have any data on, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Does that make sense?
Speaker 4 (10:50):
It does, and delicately, answered Professor Martin Defont is our guest.
Let me go back into some of the things.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
That you.
Speaker 4 (11:02):
Described in your piece. You said I examined topics such
as the gender paid gap, patriarchy in rape theory. I
think I've glossed over patriarchy. First of all, I'm not
sure that patriarchy in and of itself is necessarily a
bad thing. Throughout history, there is typically a hierarchical relationship
(11:23):
to the family unit, the community, the nation far and
beyond modern America, that has typically been the strongest in
one way or another, particularly throughout most of history. Why
wouldn't it be the case, as you noted, empirical rigor
requires you look at the biological differences. Why wouldn't the
(11:46):
stronger of the species be the head of the household?
Speaker 5 (11:50):
Well, you're very clever to see that. I think, yes,
it's a subtle point, but it's a point that I
make in this paper and several other papers that I've written,
and that is that there's a difference between what I
call evolutionary patriarchy and the feminist patriarchy. I think we
do have a patriarchy if you're going to define it
(12:11):
as a society that's run by men, but it's a
patriarchy that's due to choice by women. In other words,
women are choosing men that are aggressive, men that take
risks throughout the history of evolution. So we would expect
(12:32):
men to be in leadership roles if that were the
way or that was the way that women were choosing.
And so you can see, I hope you can see
how the kind of patriarchy we have today is the
result of women's choice, and not due to a bunch
of men getting together and saying we want to oppress women.
(12:53):
I have an interesting quick story if I might talk
to about a wonderful study that was done in the
nineteen nineties. It involves the kibbutz in Israel. It turns
out that the kibbutzes were formed by Eastern European basically communists.
It's certainly socialists who moved from Eastern Europe to Israel
(13:17):
where they had the freedom to develop the society they
wanted to develop, which was they believed men and women
should be treated exactly the same, and they set up
the kibbutz to be basically a communist system where everyone
was treated equally, and some very interesting things happened in
the early goings on of the kibbutz. Women worked in
(13:41):
the fields right along with the men, the hard labor.
It was mainly a farming community, and men and women
took care of the children. In fact, the children were
raised without parents. Basically they were given over to the
commune and the commune raised raised the children, both men
and women. And then as it developed through the nineteen hundreds,
(14:04):
it evolved and we find that women didn't like so
much working away from children in the fields. They didn't
like the labor, and they didn't like being away from
their children. So it evolved in the sense of, you know,
changing over time that the women ended up taking care
of the children more and the men were out in
(14:25):
the fields doing most of the hard labor. And it's
kind of funny because one of the things that set
it off was they believed that the children should do
everything together, and they treated boys and girls the same way.
But as the girls got older and past puberty they
were supposed to take showers and bathe with the boys.
(14:47):
They started raising hell about that, and so the commune
decided it might be a good idea if we didn't
have them bathing together, because women were embarrassed dressing and
undressing in front of other bull in front of boys.
So it evolved that way also. And finally, women also
gave up their rights to control the kaboots in leadership roles.
(15:10):
Most women wanted to raise the children and they let
the men take leadership leadership roles. And this all happen
even though men and women wanted equality. So I'm not
sure that if we give one hundred percent equality, which
I think, you know, we're getting close to today that
it's going to make much difference in society. I think
we're finding that women are predisposed towards enjoying raising children,
(15:34):
and men are predisposed towards working hard and competitively.
Speaker 4 (15:39):
I'm also not certain that I guess it depends on
what we define as equality or in what space. My
wife was a very successful professional before retiring, and she
had every opportunity that every man did. I would consider
that equality. I don't know that you're ever going to
(16:00):
achieve the equality for men with women, that men are
going to birth a child out of their womb. And
I think this desperate desire by feminists to suggest that
men can get pregnant and all this nonsense, and then
the playing with words to deprive them of their meaning.
Talk about a crisis of empirical rigor. Professor, I find
(16:21):
this to be a very brave subject for you to
have tackled, and in an academic setting there is an
absence of bravery.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
I admire you for that.
Speaker 4 (16:31):
I commend you for that. Thank you, Professor Mark Defont.
You want to look him up. D E F A
n T. Keep up the good works or I'm out
of time. Alas you're listening to the Michael Berry Show.
President True had this dire warning for the drug lords
flooding our country with poison. We know where you live,
(16:52):
we know where your front door is. Congressman, well, let's
hear the clip.
Speaker 6 (16:58):
Firsts Ago, they know how I stand. We're losing hundreds
of thousands of people to drugs. So now we've stopped
the waterways, but we know every route. We know every route,
we know the addresses of every drug lord.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
We know their.
Speaker 6 (17:16):
Address, we know their front door, we know everything about
every one of them. They're killing our people. That's like
a war.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
Would I do it.
Speaker 6 (17:26):
I'd be proud to it, probably going to Congress and saying, hey,
and you know what, the Democrats and the Republicans would
both agree unless they're crazy, and they are a little
crazy on the Democrat side. But we have lost hundreds
of thousands of people. That your death, and that's not
(17:48):
talking about family destruction. That's talking about that and much
of it comes through Mexico. So let me just put
it this way. I am not happy with Mexico.
Speaker 4 (17:59):
Okay, we have heard this language from Trump before. Houston
Congressman Wesley Hunt and Byron Donalds sat down with the
lovely and brilliant Sage Steel and they were talking about
President Trump and a threat he made to the Taliban leader.
(18:20):
And it sounds strangely similar, which gives credibility to the original.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Point when we were negotiating with the Taliban.
Speaker 7 (18:28):
While President Trump was to the president, President Trump wanted
to get out of Afghanistan, but he wanted a conditions
based withdrawal, meaning that you do what we tell you
to do, and then we will start pulling troops back
slowly as.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
Long as you abide by our rules.
Speaker 7 (18:45):
It's President Trump and Mike Pompeo and they're talking to
Taliban leadership in the room, and they had one translator
in the room. President Trump looked at the Taliban leader
and said this I want to leave Afghanistan. Was going
to be a conditions based withdrawal, and translator translated, and
he said, if you harm a hair on a single American,
(19:09):
I'm going to kill you. And translator goes, and Trump
goes what I said, reached in his pocket, pulled out
a satellite.
Speaker 2 (19:24):
Photo of the leader.
Speaker 7 (19:26):
Of the Taliban's home and handed it to him, got
up and walked out the room.
Speaker 4 (19:32):
Where would we be in this two front war against
the cartels and illegal invasion if the Supreme Court hadn't
voted the way it did back in May.
Speaker 1 (19:46):
The Supreme Court just cleared the way for Trump to
deport illegals even faster. The High Court ruled that Trump
can use the Alien Enemies Act to send Venezuela and
gang bangers to a mega prison in El Salvador. This
is a huge ruling in Trump's faith. We're in a
major win for the country after as you know, DC
Judge James Boseburg ordered a stop to the deportations, so
(20:10):
this is pretty significant. These deportations, Caroline can keep going.
Speaker 8 (20:14):
This is a massive legal victory, Jesse, a massive victory
for law and order and for our constitutional republic in
the sovereignty of the United States of America. We called
on the Supreme Court to reign in these activist judges
like Judge Bosburg, who was completely out of line and
trying to say that the President didn't have the executive
(20:37):
authority to deport foreign terrorists off of our soil. We
have always maintained the position at the White House that
the President was well within his constitutional authority to do so,
and this decision proves that President Trump in our administration
have always been right from the beginning. He will continue
to utilize the Alien Enemies Act to remove for war
(21:00):
in terrorists and trendy Aragua members, vicious gang members from
American communities. And because of this ruling, the United States
of America is a much safer place. Our team will
get to work tomorrow to deport these heinous, violent foreign
terrorists from our neighborhoods.
Speaker 4 (21:19):
We told the story of Jasmine Crockett trying to rescue
the republic the Democrats over the Epstein issue. So she
had jumped up when the Democrats were in trouble because
Stacey Plaskett, one of their own, had been in contact
with Jeffrey Epstein while she was in a congressional hearing
(21:40):
trying to burn Trump. Epstein's trying to help her because
he's mad at Trump, and so the Democrats are looking
really stupid, and Jasmine Crockett steps up and says, yahotewln,
I got this, And she jumps up and announces that
there were Republicans who received money from Jeffrey Epstein, which
(22:03):
was true, just a different Jeffrey Epstein. So once again
a swing and a miss by Jasmine Crockett, the DEI congressman.
Now she goes on with that, what does he call her?
That nasty person?
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Trump calls Caitlyn Collins.
Speaker 4 (22:25):
She goes on with Caitlyn Collins and pretends, Oh, I
never tried to mislead anybody. No, no, no, no, no. Anybody
that got that impression that's wrong. I never tried to
mislead anybody.
Speaker 3 (22:36):
You talk about Republicans taking money from a Jeffrey Epstein,
here's what you said.
Speaker 9 (22:41):
Who also took money from somebody named Jeffrey Epstein. As
I had my team dig in very quickly, met Romney,
the NRCC Lee Zelden, George bush Win, read McCain, palin
Rick Lazio.
Speaker 3 (23:02):
You mentioned the Leizelden there, he's now a cabinet secretary.
He responded and said it was actually doctor Jeffrey Epstein,
who's a doctor that doesn't have any relation to the
convicted sex trucker. Unfortunate for that doctor, but that is
who do it to a prior campaign of his. Do
you want to correct the record on the people.
Speaker 9 (23:19):
And I never said that it was that Jeffrey Epstein,
just so that people understand when you make a donation,
your picture is not there. And because they decided to
spring this on us in real time, I wanted the
Republicans to think about what could potentially happen because I
knew that they didn't even.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
Try to go through the FEC.
Speaker 9 (23:37):
So my team what they did is they googled, And
that is specifically why I said a Jeffrey Epstein. Unlike Republicans,
I at least don't go out and just tell lies
because it was not the same one. That's fine. But
when Lee Zelden had something to say, all he had
to say was it was a diffrey jeff Jeffrey Epstein.
He admitted that he did receive donations from a Jeffrey Epstein,
(24:00):
So at least I wasn't trying to mislead people. Now,
have I dug in to find out who this doctor is?
I have not, So I will trust and take what
he says is that it wasn't that Jeffrey Epstein. But
I was not attempting to mislead anybody. I literally had
maybe twenty minutes before I had to do that debate.
Speaker 3 (24:20):
Yeah, but people might see that say, well, you're trying
to make it tell him like he took money from
I did not register tex offender.
Speaker 9 (24:26):
No, but I literally did not know when you search
FEC files, And that's what I had my team to do.
I text him and I say, listen, we're going up
there saying that she took donators, right.
Speaker 3 (24:37):
But someone might say, well, your team should have done
the homework to make sure it wasn't.
Speaker 9 (24:41):
Within twenty minutes, you could not find that out, not
from just doing a quick search on FBC. So number one,
I made sure that I was clear that it was
a Jeffrey Epstein, but I never said that it was
specifically that Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 4 (24:56):
Michael, Well, here's the story. It says a lot about
what most of us think of art, particularly what would
be called fine art. A museum volunteer was cleaning the
museum voluntarily, big fan want to help, accidentally destroyed an
(25:23):
art piece. No, not moving it, not lifting it or
hanging it, after mistaking it for a dirty mirror and
cleaning it because it well, if you see a picture
of it, it looks like a dirty mirror. The work
(25:46):
by Chin Sung Chi is said to symbolize quote the
distorted self awareness of the middle class. A volunteer at
the Key Lung Museum of Art in Taiwan and accidentally
destroyed a valuable artwork by cleaning it.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
With toilet paper.
Speaker 4 (26:04):
The piece, entitled Inverted Syntax sixteen, features a dust covered
mirror mounted on a simple wooden board with a smudge
in the center. The piece, which symbolized the cultural consciousness
of the middle class, was created by Chin Sung Chi.
I guess you're supposed to know who that is. The volunteer,
(26:26):
thinking the mirror was dirty, wiped away forty years of dust,
irreparably damaging the artwork. Oh no, the dust was part
of the artwork. The museum's management has apologized to the
artist and is discussing potential compensation. The artwork was part
of the We Are a Me exhibition, showcasing works created
(26:47):
from building materials and everyday objects. The report mentioned that
some critics even argued that the accidental cleaning has become
part of the artwork and should be left as it is.
So there you talk about a class differential when when
(27:10):
you see cases like this, you know Rauschenberg did did
the white painting where there was nothing on there and
it represented I guess infinity or limitlessness, and you know
your average rednecks going, well, hell, I could have done
I could have done the blank canvas. I mean I
(27:32):
could have done that. There is a disconnect, and there's
nothing wrong with it. There are people who would say,
when I walk in and look at that stuff, I
don't see anything. I see a bunch of I see
people making a mockery of their hoity toity ways, and
(27:54):
a lot of people standing around pretending that they love this.
Because if you don't love it, you don't get it.
And if you don't get it, you're a heathen. So
in order to show how much you how smart you are.
We see this with bands. It's less pretentious, but still
the same mindset. People will say they like a particular
(28:14):
song or a particular band because you're supposed to, if
you're sophisticated, you're supposed to like that particular thing. And
so we see this, and we see this with caviar.
I don't believe caviar tastes good. And in fact, caviar
was cheap until relatively recently, until it was made available
(28:37):
to a larger until it was until it was.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
Oh, what was the story?
Speaker 4 (28:43):
I just read this the other day. How the price
of caviar spiked. Oh, it doesn't matter. But the point
is caviar used to be considered trash, and then once
the value shot up, you had sturgeon being pulled out
of the water, cut open for the caviar or the eggs,
(29:04):
and just discard it as trash because the price went up.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
It does feel to some of us.
Speaker 4 (29:12):
I think a lot of people that there are things
that are given an artificial value because they are supposedly
so rare, or so elegant, or so special. And there
is a class of people who reinforce this notion because
it adds to their unique I get it, and you don't.
It's hipsterism writ large, just refined and more expensive. It's
(29:39):
as simple as that. But I also understand that there
is a place in the world for art and for
artistic beauty and for stopping and smelling the roses. That's
just not what I sense when I go to an
art gala, or I don't go to art gallows to
an art gallery. That's not what I sense is going on.
I just I don't see that as I don't see
(30:02):
that they are celebrating art in natural beauty story out
of well it's out of Florida, but it involves three
Houston men. They were involved in the scheme with another
man to try and cash a US Treasury check worth
more than twenty seven million dollars in Florida. Go big
(30:25):
or go home, I guess. According to the federal criminal complaint,
agents arrested Carlos Manuel Villa via Nueva, thirty seven, of Hyalia, Florida,
Eric Renard Bedford forty four of Houston, Jorge CRUs Garcia
thirty of Katie, and John Ryan Boxey forty three of Houston.
(30:46):
The four men faced one count of conspiracy to defraud
the United States and one count of theft of government property.
The tax refund check, which totaled twenty seven million, nine
hundred ten thousand that's almost twenty eight men, was supposed
to go to an unnamed company in Richmond, Virginia, and
it had not been cashed. According to the criminal complaint,
(31:08):
a source of information told federal agents that Vieanueva had
access to the check. On November fifth, Vianueva opened talks
with a man called Banker in the complaint, who he
believed could help him cash the check. The banker was
an undercover officer with the US Treasury Inspector General for
(31:30):
Tax Administration. Vianueva showed the undercover officer photographs and videos
of the check and said that three other men who
lived outside Florida had it. He added that the trio
could travel to Florida, but stressed that he needed help
cashing the check because the company was closed and the
check was expiring on November twelfth. Vienueva told the agent
(31:53):
that his cut of the check could be five point
six million, and he asked the officer to create separate
bank accounts to disperse the funds. He allegedly added that
the men had quote access to other checks of a
large amount and can get more. According to investigators, Garcia
quote claimed to have extensive experience in negotiating stolen checks,
(32:18):
particularly US Treasury checks, and also mentioned that he operates
a business that is used to funnel the proceeds from
these stolen checks. The four men made their first appearances
on November twelve in a federal court in Fort Lauderdale.
So these people are running a syndicate to get a
(32:42):
hold of foreign checks, to get i mean stolen checks,
to get these checks, to steal them, take possession of them,
cash them, and then launder the money afterwards. These are
very sophisticated operations. This is happening all around us. And
(33:05):
what about the person or company who's checked it really
is that maybe went under and wouldn't have but for that,
the number of frauds and schemes that are being carried
out in this country and not being prosecuted sufficiently. If
people feared that they would be locked away for a
very very long time, I don't believe they'd do this.
If they believed they'd be caught and then prosecuted thoroughly,
(33:28):
I don't believe they would do this anymore.
Speaker 2 (33:33):
Ladies and gentlemen, Eldus has left for killing me.
Speaker 5 (33:36):
Thank you, and good night.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.