The Comedy Cellar: Live from the Table - Rebecca Traister, Joyelle Nicole, and Andrew Schulz

Episode Date: September 22, 2017

Rebecca Traister is a writer for New York Magazine, where she recently published a widely-read profile on Hillary Clinton. She is the author of the bestselling book, "All the Single Ladies." Joyelle Nicole and Andrew Schulz are prominent standup comedians who may be seen regularly performing at the Comedy Cellar.  

You're listening to The Comedy Cellar, live from the table, on the Riotcast Network, riotcast.com. Good evening, everybody. Welcome to The Comedy Cellar Show here on Sirius XM Channel 99. My name is Noam Dwarman. I'm the owner of The Comedy Cellar. We're here at the back table of The Comedy Cellar with... You still have with MTV Guide Code? What's your credit now? I got... How about my podcast? I have the Brilliant Idiots podcast. Andrew Schultz of the Brilliant Idiots podcast.

There we go. Joyelle Nicole is a prominent stand-up comedian who may be seen regularly at the Comedy Cellar. Yeah. And our guest of honor today, Rebecca Traister is a writer for New York Magazine, where she recently published a widely read profile on Hillary Clinton. She's the author of the best-selling book All the Single Ladies.

Hi. It's great to be here. So, before we start arguing about feminism. Yes. I can't wait. We have to find common grounds. I love it. I like how we're seated. It looks like we're ready to fight. It's awesome. And I do have a daughter.

I just want to make sure that before you get up and walk out on us. Was that your black friend? Yes. I have a daughter. I just want to let you know. You also have a wife. I just want to make sure. No, but I want my daughter to have a great future.

Like, you know, any view I have about feminism, I weigh against, well, what about Mila? You know, anyway, but at least I'm human. But anyway, tell us about your book, All the Single Ladies. My book, All the Single Ladies, is about unmarried women. The population of unmarried women has grown exponentially over the past 30 years, basically after sort of the 1980s, beginning of the 1990s. For the first time in American history, women in mass numbers really stopped marrying at the beginning of their adulthoods. It wasn't like, oh, I turn 18 or I turn 22. I'm leaving my parents' house and I'm moving into my husband's house. There were a whole bunch of reasons, economic and political and social and sexual,

that that began to happen. Tell us about the sexual one. I bet you can guess about the sexual ones, right? You got birth control. You have a sexual revolution. There are other things to do with your 20s, including not only the sex, the work, the money. Different possibilities open up that make it less attractive to move straight from your dad's house to your husband's house

and to move straight from being a daughter house to your husband's house and to move straight from being a daughter to like a housekeep. Right. And of course that's, I'm, I'm simplifying, but what happens is that you have a massive change in how women are spending their adulthoods. And when you are a woman growing up past the nineties, the expectation on the one hand, isn't that you're just going to get married and that's going to be the start of your adulthood. So the median age of marriage moves from 22 and it only, through our whole history that we've tracked it, it had only been between 20 and 22 for women. That's like as high and as low as it went. And now it's over 27 nationally, and it's over 30 in a lot of cities. So that's like a whole additional decade of adulthood that women aren't

spending within marriages. And so that's what the book is about. And then it also traces the history of women living unmarried in America in other eras when it was far less comfortable to do so. Well, I want my daughter to not get married right out of high school or college or whatever it is or graduate school. But,

okay, so let me just jump into it. Two things that come to mind. Okay. When I was a kid, basically all of us were raised by our moms at home. I'm talking about like in kindergarten,

first grade, second grade when I was a kid. Yeah. Now, all my daughter's playmates, not all of them, but quite a few of my daughters and my son's playmates

are being essentially raised by hired childcare. My wife is home and works part-time because I own a business where we have that flexibility. But their friends are being raised by strangers who get paid to do it. And I can't help it. I say to myself, is this progress? Well, what about you staying? What about you? You have a job.

You have a business. Do you stay home? And is it just your wife who's home with the kids during the day? Or what about, I mean, you're a parent too, right? Well, I'm not talking about me. I'm not ducking the question. I'll answer. I just want to answer because I don't want to pull off the road and get on another highway. I'm saying that

is it progress as a society that so many children are being raised not by their parents? Do we know the psychological ramifications? Is this what we want? What are the statistics of that though? Do you know the statistics of

how many children in what areas economically are being raised by? No, it's incredibly difficult to trace because there are differences between are you sending kids to child care? Is it a grandmother or an aunt or is it a nanny?

A nanny, a hired nanny, right? So there are different socioeconomic conditions and of course some areas have, like New York City has pre-K that comes in. Some people stay home, work part-time. You have stay-at-home dads. You have increased, you know, it's very hard to track with any certainty. And there are obviously big arguments about what is the impact on kids, about having a parent home versus not having a parent home.

Here's the deal. When you ask, is it progress? One of the things to consider is for whom? Because if the alternative is going back to how it was before, where it was the mom, where the default was, okay, you decide as a family unit, however your family unit is construed, that you want a parent home because you think that's the like morally, emotionally better thing for your kids. If the default is always that it is the mother, and that that means that that mother, in addition, she may be somebody who has career aspirations,

she may not, but what it does mean is she's not earning money, which means she doesn't have power, she doesn't have economic independence. If things are bad in the marriage, she doesn't have the power to leave because she doesn't have a job, she doesn't have her own health insurance. It makes women as a class dependent on men, which has been the history of women and men, right?

It's not just like, okay, so we make these decisions based on what's best for our families. It doesn't work that way. It's a whole structural thing. All that being said, which I think we can all agree on, right? We don't want to put women in a position where they have a lack of power or a lack of possibility. Right. But just in terms of raising a child, can't we agree

that it is in the best interest of that child that a parent raises it because the parent has the most at stake, if you will. I feel like it depends on the parent, first of all. I agree. But also, as far as

I come from the premise of it takes a village to raise a child, so it can be progressive if you make it progressive. I know people that have certain nannies or au pairs that speak a different language or are from a different country so that they want their kids to learn different languages and things like that, so that's progressive to me. But if you

just drop your kid off... Do you guys have kids? I don't. I do have kids. Do you raise them? Yes, I raise them, but they also have a babysitter. They have a nanny. Babysitters are necessary. Don't you want to take care of your kid? I would definitely want to take care of my child. However, I think if you don't...

If you leave a child with a nanny and you don't have any influence on the child, that's not good. But if you just have somebody who's helping you lift the weight as it's heavy to have a child. Help is different. Help is different. But we're talking about, isn't there like a biological instinct to raise your kid? But you aren't not raising your kid.

First of all, the idea that it's this formulation where the mom stays home, that is in many ways like a mid 20th century invention, the nuclear family, right? So this idea. No, that can't possibly be right. It is right.

There used to be nursemaids, you know, like centuries ago, women didn't even breastfeed their own kids. They handed them off to other women to breastfeed. Really? No, no, no. No, we did. Black women did that as well. I'm sorry. I'm calling.

I want to push back on that. I'm sure that the ultra wealthy throughout history have done whatever the ultra-wealthy did. Well, that's what we're talking about. So did working people. The ultra-working also didn't have time to stay home with their kids. We're talking about 1%. Another 99% of women were taking care of their children. That's not true.

Working women, poor women have always worked, right? This notion that women stayed home. How did they nurse? What do you mean, how did they nurse? Well, formula. Baby formula is a pretty modern invention. In certain areas. And then they nurse? What do you mean, how did they nurse? Formula. Baby formula is a pretty modern invention. In certain areas and then they also passed off babies.

Baby formula on the planet Earth is a modern invention. Prior to that, there was only nursing. Right, and other people nursed your babies. Not in every case, but it happened. What I'm saying is it's not the only... Just out of curiosity. I've heard of nursing, but only in...

Just let me clarify. Yeah. You think the majority of women throughout history didn't take care of their baby? I didn't say that. I didn't say that. Part of my argument, I think it's not an entirely new model to have other people taking care of your children. Let me just ask you a couple questions.

Just a couple questions. Yeah. So you wouldn't say the majority of women didn't take care of their kid throughout history? No, I have no figures on that. None. So would you say the majority of women have taken care of their kids throughout history? No, I have no figures on that. None. So, would you say the majority of women have taken care of their kids throughout history? Yeah.

I mean, that's not a crazy statement, right? No, of course not. But the question of the question of my family That's why I'm privileging. Right, I will check my privilege. But you guys are talking listen, you guys are talking about raising children as if that's like, that only form that raising children takes is a woman who's with their kid all day long, morning till night, right?

Here's what has happened in other eras. Did women, yeah, were women actually expected to, and because of their economic dependence, their role in the world, the way that the world's power, money, families were organized were around this idea that women were going to be domestic and men were going to be... Can I stop you there? No. Because the way your breasts have milk in it. I think it's the opposite now. You say it's because of economic dependence. I say it's because... Your tits got milk in it. You drink milk

out the tits. That's why you take care of the kids. I think it's because economic dependency or economic anxiety now that they can't stay home when they would like to. In part, that's true. But some of them like to. But plenty of men would like to, too. And they can't either.

But I want to go back to the thing about. I mean, every animal in the animal kingdom, when they give birth, if you try to take them away from that litter, they freak out. Right. Women certainly have the same instinct. My mother would follow around my babysitter. She would let a babysitter babysit me and would take me to the park up on Central Park West.

She would follow the babysitter in the bushes. She would hide in bushes because once she saw a bruise on my leg and she thought the babysitter was beating me. That is the insane, irrational connection between a mother and child. But where was your mother

while you were getting a baby? She didn't even babysit her? She's banging the postman. I was like, what's happening? I was having sex with a lot of men. There was a lot of men in and out of my life. So she wasn't working?

I had a very, maybe untraditional, in some ways, upbringing, in which my father worked for my mother. So my mother had a business, and my father worked for my mother,

but they had their own business. Whoa. mother, but they had their own business. Whoa. Yeah, so they had their own business. Originally, my father was in the news business. He worked at NBC. And then my mother's business was more lucrative, so he came in and worked for that business. But essentially what was able to happen is my mother was able to work at night and take care of us during the day.

I have a little brother as well. And my father was able to work during the day. So they flip-flopped to take care of us. But she would have a babysitter help her during the day. I have a little brother as well. And my father was able to work during the day. So they flip-flop to take care of us. But she would have a babysitter help her during the day? No. That was just a random answer. The only time there was a babysitter. I'm going to give you the last word on this one.

I want to move on to other topics. I do want to go on. I just want to go back to the definition of what it means to raise somebody. Because, again, for centuries before this, you had multi-generational families. You didn't have every family have their own house and it was just these two parents. Multi-generation of women raising the kid. It wasn't men raising the kid. We were hunting. We were going to get results.

Somebody's got to get the meat. You guys pick berries. We get the meat. It was a nice deal for you. You got the easy part of the deal. Yeah, it was a great deal for women who had no autonomy and no possibility of exerting control over their reproductive lives. And we were getting skewered by buffaloes.

What do you want? You waited for the perfect time to fight for equality. Let's admit it. It was very convenient. Because until 50 years ago, it was definitely buffalo swell. We were getting stabbed by buffaloes. You guys were like, I don't want to do it. They put air conditioning in office buildings.

You stepped in with the equality. It was very good. It was well done. Anyway, I'm happy that to do it. They put air conditioning in office buildings. You stepped in with the equality. It was very good. It was well done. I'm happy that my child is raised by us. The answer to your question I didn't answer before is I'm home all the time with my kids. I'm like a mommy. But I'll tell you this. We have a

four-month-old, and I've noticed that at the infant level, I believe that my mother is just preternaturally equipped to deal with that better than I am. And that would make sense. Of course it does. If you believe in

evolution, then you believe in that. Yeah, but I mean, I could certainly take care of the infant and love it. I wouldn't. But there's a, I just see it. There's a certain pleasure that she gets out of the infant, even before that, even before it can respond and smile at you and whatever it is. And I've spoken to a lot of dads like, yeah, yeah.

Once you turn about a year old, then it really kicks in for me. I had that. So I have two kids. Yeah. And with my first, I had a terrible C-section. I couldn't get like, I couldn't do anything. Right. I was incapacitated.

Yeah. And it was like, my husband learned everything. I was like out. I was like, I don't, my entire job was I'm trying to nurse this baby. My tits hurt. Like, it's terrible. I'm not doing anything else. He learned how to give her a bath.

He learned about her clothes and the things you put over the paws so they don't scratch themselves. I didn't know anything. The belly button thing. I did not know anything. And after, like, three weeks, I felt better. I like emerged from the cave and he had to teach me everything. And that was actually, I think part of it is that from the beginning, people are telling women from the time they're children. Yeah. It's the biological, of course there's that component, but then every message about like,

how do you take care of a child? How do you hold a child? How do you obey the child? This is what you're going to have to do is sent to women and it's not sent to men. And as soon as that kicks in in the hospital, the nurses are talking to the woman. And in my case, when the man got the instruction, he was the better natural caregiver in our case with our first baby. He had to teach me all of it. And he's had an incredible bond with her ever since. I agree with you. I think it's great if the man or the woman I would never say that the man shouldn't say. I know someone who was a partner for Vath

one of the best lovers, stayed home with his kids. I'm all for that. I am not happy with the fact that economically people don't have enough money to stay home and raise their kids and they have to hire strangers. It bothers me a lot. I don't think that's progress.

I think that we have a lot of issues, psychological issues with people growing up now that we perhaps didn't have. So you're a fan of paternity leave? Yes, that's parental leave. That's family leave right there. I'm not against paternal leave, but you're talking about months of paternal

leave. I'm talking about years. I'm talking about paid leave for a year, which is what most economically developed countries have. All other economically developed countries have months and months. As long as the employer doesn't have to pay for it, I'm for it. That's not true. As long as the employers don't have to pay for it. The Scandinavian countries kind of have a year, but most don't have a year.

A lot of them. It's usually like six months. But lots of places have six months, eight months. You just said all have a year. Okay, okay. But it needs more than a year. I think it really needs until... Like, my daughter's starting first grade now.

And now I think it's okay. But also, leaving aside what's best for them, if you've done it, if you've spent all the time... I spend a lot of time with my kids. You're missing out on one of the ultimate, like, the most joyous things in life to not be... Like, I have a friend who's my attorney. one of my attorneys said to me, he says, you know, I was just not, I was so busy working, I just wasn't able to raise my kids. And it's heartbreaking to hear that because he's got to make a living, you know.

But I don't disagree. My mother was like that. Even if the kid is great, it's not progress. But I don't disagree with you about that necessarily. I just don't think that the solution is going back to a system in which it's always the woman. And of course, it still is right now. Okay, so now the next question is

what about single mothers? There's no state support for that. There's no structural support for single mothers. It's an economic disaster. The Brookings Institute, which is not a conservative outfit, I learned about this in an article by Nicholas Kristof, who is, you know, pretty left-wing,

concludes that the rise in women having children out of wedlock will preclude any increase in prosperity in the poorer classes. In other words, the damage done by the increase in single motherhood will outpace any possible increases in wages and economic gains in the same community. As long as it continues, progress is a dead end against poverty. So what's your solution to this?

Birth control and abortion rights. Because I have things I think about this, but what do you think should happen to stem the tide of single motherhood and its relationship to poverty? And there's a huge relationship. I sent this to you, and it actually also said

that some of this was caused by the ease, at certain points, the ease of getting checks from the government. This is the Brookings Institute. And by the way, my Puerto Rican wife would concur, based on her own experience growing up poor in Bushwick and all her relatives. And she's adamant that this is true, that the checks both helped and hurt. Explain that for people that aren't familiar.

You're saying that the welfare state, in a way, empowered... Well, that women who were pregnant, let's say, at some point, if they knew there was no option, either we'd be more careful about getting pregnant or we'd have an abortion. Right, but now that they know there's an option... When they know that they can get a safety net, obviously that makes the decision.

It changes the pluses and minuses of the decision. Absolutely. And over time, that can have a deleterious effect. That's not an argument against the safety net. That's just trying to describe the world as it is. So I obviously think the exact opposite of that, right? But you have that data. Well, there is data.

There are two studies. Here, impact on marriage rates, for example, right? There's a big argument that if— Real quick before we go there. Yeah. Just to clarify the argument. What are those, for example, right? There's a big argument that if- Real quick before we go there. Yeah. Just to clarify the argument. What are those trapeze, right? Have you ever tried trapeze?

No. I have. You have. Yes. Now, there's a net there. So you're like, all right, I'll do this trapeze. If there was no net, would you still try? Well, here's the thing.

There's a difference. Just out of curiosity. I'm not trying to make a false equivalence or anything, but just answer this hypothetical. Would I try trapeze without being a professional? No, I would not. You'd have an abortion. I have had an abortion.

I have had an abortion. I think that's what you're trying to say. It's like having a kid a lot of ways is trapeze. But it's trapeze. If you fall from trapeze, maybe you break your leg. You're back in six months. You're back 18 years if you have the kid. I think that's what you're saying.

You have a kid. You're married. You're right? I am married, yeah. Now imagine your child being raised by just one of you and half the money. That's what it is. But I don't have to imagine. Don't we all know single mothers right now?

No, I'm saying, and then say, well, that is not a good thing for society. That is just not what I would do about it. I don't know if there's anything you can do about it. What's the alternative? Are you saying don't give them any support and then see what happens? No, I didn't say anything like that. I was asking. I think the alternative is that there needs to be a cultural change where people try to talk them out of this kind of thing.

Yes, sex education is one of those things. We talk about privilege a lot, right? And white privilege, and we can acknowledge white privilege, right? No, no, but I'll let you continue. You don't acknowledge white privilege? No, I do not. Then let's not get into a fight. Let's not get into a fight. I'm not a fight.

I know white privilege exists. The reason why I said it is because it has nothing to do with the argument. Okay, so let's acknowledge that, sure, white privilege exists, right? But what if we have data to prove that having two parents in the household is the greatest privilege that you can have?

I would agree with you. Then shouldn't we do everything that we can to market that with the same fervor that we market white privilege? That's what I agree with you. I agree that we should have two parents in the household. And so whenever I talk, I travel the country and I fight for abortion rights. And there's men always outside of the clinics who are telling these women they need to have these babies. I tell these men, you need to fight for the men

that are abandoning these kids. There need to be laws in the books that they need to help take care of these kids both financially and hopefully emotionally and all that type of thing. If you want people to have babies, we also need to have laws to make sure the men can't abandon us because the women, we're always the ones who are stuck.

That's a child support. Oh, you got child support. Go ahead. You also have to. Yeah, we need those laws. The idea that just two parents are better is fairly, it's problematic in the United States where divorce rates are extremely high. Okay? So two parents, the quality of the life of a child with two

parents and you say, okay, so higher income. Okay. Maybe the parents hate each other. And in fact, it's an emotionally destructive place, but okay. If there are two incomes, then at least there's economic stability that one parent wouldn't have. Okay. But there are lots of instances in which there are not two incomes. Okay. I see your method here. What you do is you take a situation, and of course there's a bell curve, there's sum of everything. You take the outlier. You focus on the, exactly,

you focus on the outlier. No, it's not an outlier. You know, in impoverished communities, rates of depression, abuse, addiction are higher. It's the first thing you always turn to, rather than the... Acknowledging the statistical data. Here's statistical data.

Do you acknowledge that having two parents in the household is beneficial for a child? On average. It's unequivocally true. No, it's not true. I would disagree. I would say yes. Barack Obama said it was the most serious

obstacle facing young black men. Here's the thing. That's Barack Obama, not my wife. Pope is Catholic. Water is wet. Two parents in a household with parents who fight every single day is still better

than one parent. I don't agree with that. That's not true. It is not true. I don't agree with that. That's not true. I actually admire parents who stay together

until the kid is 18 and then have boys. What parents do psychological damage? What type of abuse? Where there's abuse. Are we talking about abuse? Yeah. What's argument? Define abuse.

Now you got sucked into the outlier argument. It's not an outlier. Why do you think women aren't marrying at the same rates that they used to be? It's because you don't wind up. Because you get a job now that has a career. Before you didn't have that. You were a secretary until you got knocked up. And because you don't have to be dependent on potentially crappy relationships with men

that don't always produce happy families. I actually think it's the opposite. I think men are more picky, but... Let's turn to politics. Yeah, yeah. You interviewed Hillary Clinton. Yes. I did, yes.

Was she awesome? I'll tell you, she's human. I mean, which comes as a surprise to a lot of people. She's very funny. What do you mean by human? Well, I mean, don't you think she has a reputation as not being particularly human? Robotic and inauthentic.

Yeah, quite robotic. Yes. Yeah, that, you know, that I interviewed her once at length during the campaign. And I got a little bit of, I mean, she was a little more controlled and more as you. Was it in person or over the phone? In person. And then after, I interviewed her this spring. Oh, wow.

And she was much more forthcoming and frank and candid and funny and human and all that. Yeah, well, she is. She's a human? No, there was that famous... How low is the bar? Right. Oh, it's so low right now. There's that audio clip of her when she was a lawyer, when she was talking about getting that child molester off.

The rapist. The rapist. But leaving that aside, when you hear her, she was relaxed and funny and had a little bit of a southern drawl. You're like, who is this woman? This is going to sound fucked up, but I was not at all turned off by that. I actually thought her almost sociopathic ability to look at a situation and do what her job was in that moment would make her a good president. Yeah, so I said Trump was Sonny. She's Michael. She is.

Michael. That's Michael. That is. Trump is. She is. No, no, Trump is Sonny. No, Trump is definitely Sonny. but that was a Michael moment right there. And a lot of people...

Just this one time, I'll let you know. That's it. No, for real. A lot of conservatives used it against her, but you have to make incredibly hard decisions as a president. And I saw her able to make that kind of almost frivolously talking about this. Of course. Okay, that's good. She can do it.

That's her job. My husband's a public defender. He defends rapists all the time. That's the job of a public defender. Yeah, I know. Yeah. That's rough. I don't know if I could do that one.

I couldn't do it. I couldn't do it. You gotta do it. Our system relies on it. You know. It has to be done. You definitely don't have to do it. You don't have to do it.

Somebody has to do it. Somebody has to do it, yeah. You couldn't pay me enough. Well, listen, can I speak frankly now since we're kind of friends? Yeah. That column in the New Yorker really bothered me.

Which one? The one about Hillary. I've written a hundred about Hillary. The most recent one. The one about anger? About her book, yeah. Okay, yeah. For instance, now maybe I'm not being fair.

You said, I'm quoting you, you said, Hillary Clinton is a woman and there is almost nothing that Americans view as more repellent in a woman than anger. And you say recall that every time Clinton spoke too loudly into a microphone while debating her screamy opponents, Americans seem to rear back. What are you basing

this on? Is that an emotional feeling? Because I would agree with that. I remember when Howard Dean spoke into the mic, screamed into the microphone. Howard Dean is actually a great example.

He was, that ended him. I don't even remember a particular time. Now, I'll tell you something. Hillary was, I mean, listen, I've been making my living

for 35 years judging performers. She's a terrible performer. Okay? And I'm serious. She is robotic. That's a great sentence. She's stiff. She's a terrible performer. I'm serious. She is robotic. She's stiff. She has an awkward fake

laugh. She's top to bottom. Even her audio book when you hear it, it's like, my God. She's terrible. I think the audio book is pretty good, actually. I thought she sounded good in the audio book. I don't disagree with you that she has real trouble on the stuff.

But when somebody is a terrible performer, it burns me up to have people who respond to that terrible performance and call them sexist. But wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. She sucked. Wait a minute.

She was great. Elizabeth Warren was terrific. I hate Elizabeth Warren, but she was terrific. When she was on stage with Hillary, she was a natural, Elizabeth Warren. But then she got attacked as well. But nobody was turned off by her. It, she was a natural, Elizabeth Warren. But then she got attacked as well for... But nobody was turned off by her. It wasn't her performance. It was her ideology.

And that's the last thing. Then you took Mika Brzezinski out of context. It's not out of context. I watched the clip. She calls her shrill and she hates the anger. I mean, Mika Brzezinski said that about Elizabeth Warren. Mika Brzezinski said, there's a huge part of the country that doesn't think Trump is a disaster

and she might want to be a little inclusive instead of sounding like the people she's accusing of being exclusive. She's just got to stop. I'm sorry. It's getting exhausting. Blah, blah, blah. She says it's not going to work, and at some point we have to look at what happened and look at the people we lost all the way. I'm just so small.

I can't read it. These are the people Elizabeth Warren has been fighting for decades. These are the people who have been left out because of a rigged system. Those are the people those were her people and now she's leaving them out of the conversation. And then she criticizes the shrill anger.

But this is not a sexist attack of Elizabeth Warren. The way that we hear women's anger is totally different from how we hear men's anger. And you can Google Hillary Trump and her criticism. The criticism here is that she's bashing the wrong people and that she's double downing on the mistake, which is the Michael Moore warning of bashing these white people in the working class.

But you can't pretend that in lodging that complaint, she didn't rely on a criticism of how Elizabeth Warren was expressing anger. She calls her shrill and that I don't have it in front of me and that the anger is too much and she's tired of it. She actually uses those words. You said she's very sexist? You can't use the word shrill about someone being shrill? Let me just clarify this. I'm not saying you can't use the word.

You can't say a woman is angry? I didn't say that you can't say the woman is angry. If a woman's acting angry, how do I say she's angry? Well, you can say that she's angry. The question is... But just be very clear. She's saying that she's angry when it's going to be self-defeating to be showing that anger because she's turning off the very people she needs to appeal to.

That would be a fair description of what Mika Brzezinski said. Right. And it's okay for women, it's okay for men to be angry. When was Trump angry? There's nothing about gender. 24 hours of every day? When is Trump angry? All the time.

Give me an example of when he was angry. When he calls Mexicans rapists? No, that wasn't angry. We're not defending it. You don't see anger in calling a group of people rapists. You don't see anger in ginning up a crowd, in stirring his rallies and saying, I remember in the good old days when a protester would leave here on a stretcher, which is something he said to his rallies.

So let's define anger. When he gets people cheering, lock her up. You don't see anger in that? He did get angry at one point when the guy was going. Don't make her argument for her. Trump is all anger. Don't help her argument for her. Trump is all anger. Don't help her. Okay, so let's do this.

Let's define anger. Because to me, saying words that include violence don't necessarily correlate with anger. Anger is, fuck, what the fuck is going on? This is bullshit. I'm upset. I've never seen Trump be happy or angry. I've never seen him laugh. And I've never seen Trump be happy or angry. I've never seen him laugh and I've never seen him be furious. He is very

neutral in tone. So to say that he's always angry when you can't point out a single time. I just pointed out 12 times. Listen to any... Define anger and then we'll go there. So anger is words or anger is emotion? Anger is any number of... You define anger. We'll go off of your metric.

Anger is aggression, is expressed aggression. Anger is aggression. And Trump is wildly aggressive and Trump stirs aggression and he stirred aggression from his followers. His convention was people doing guilty... Lock her up. Lock her up is happy and aggressive. Lock her up. Lock her up. Lock her up. That was happy and aggressive.

That wasn't. Lock her up. Lock her up. Let USA. When people yell USA. I'm kind of taking Rebecca's side on this one a little bit. I'm just saying, when people yell USA. I don't know how to argue with anybody who suggests that Donald Trump isn't expressing anger.

Yeah, I don't know. I can't. We can't have a argument like that. That's not fair. Can I try to make your argument? Elizabeth Warren was accused of being shrill and angry in tone, in vibe, in emotion. Right, sure. You're using, say, when it was Trump angry, you're using a different aspect of anger. You're saying that the views themselves are angry views.

But those angry views can be expressed in a very bland, calm way. Like Richard Spencer, this white supremacist, his pulse rate doesn't get above a 60. You could describe him as angry in one sense, but that's not what they were describing him in Elizabeth Warren. So I would say there are views that are disgusting. I would say there are views that definitely induce anger in me. But for me, anger is a tone and it's unbecoming of people. So, for example, if Elizabeth Warren is being angry,

it doesn't matter what's coming out of her face. She'll be talking about pecan pie, but I'm like, why is she so fucking angry about pecan pie? But if she's neutral, then okay, maybe this pie's good. But you don't agree that men think when women are angry and seen as different than when men are angry? It's definitely annoying when you're angry.

Okay. So you want to agree with that? That is seen. So it's not annoying when a man is angry, but it's annoying when a woman is angry. No, it's scary when a man's angry. It's annoying when a woman is. Okay.

Right? Because I have a physical repercussion for the man's anger, and I just have to hear you. I don't know. This is, you know, like, just to zoom out a little bit, this is the thing about feminism

that I'm never quite sure of. Like, am I supposed to vote, am I supposed to take into account that Hillary is a woman and maybe that's a, and she can run on that and she can appeal to that and that's a reason to vote for her?

Or is feminism supposed to mean it doesn't matter to me what sex she is? Because we would hopefully think it wouldn't matter. Yeah, the ideal would be that it doesn't matter to me what sex she is. We would hopefully think it wouldn't matter. The ideal would be that it doesn't matter. But we're so far from it not mattering. That is not at all the way it is packaged. It's packaged as you need to go out there and do your thing. But in part that's about getting to equality.

I wouldn't agree with that. That's what she ran on that way. I voted for her. But in part, that spirit is about I voted for Bernie. getting to equality. It's because there's already

such a discrepancy that there's a kind of cheering section to be like, let's get a lady because we never had one. Why should we have one because we never had one?

Because we should have a whole bunch of white men. Barack Obama. I'm sorry. Barack Obama was the best candidate in that election. Hands down, regardless of his skin color.

I'm not saying you don't say that, but you're making the argument right now, like, we should have a chick, we should have a chick. Listen, Jesse Jackson ran for president. Nobody voted for Jesse Jackson.

You're imagining that I made that argument. Hillary over Obama in the sense that she was the most qualified person we ever had run for president. Obama wasn't even the first person that she was in. Charm is part had run for President Obama. Was it even? She wasn't qualified in that she wasn't Charmander.

Charm is part of a qualification for president. Unfortunately so. And this brings me to my thing. I don't know if you're going to agree with me or disagree with me. But this is the thing about Hillary's book. And Andrew led us right to it. She does bring up a number of things which I'm sure did or could have swung the election against her. The Comey letter at the last minute.

Sanders. I mean, what Sanders did was interesting. He normalized, which is the word of the day, the Fox News attack on Obama, except now it came out of Sanders on the left that the economy really isn't good, that the underemployment, and now that it was coming from the left,

she was hamstrung. He brought up the fact that she wouldn't release her transcripts from Goldman, which was totally legit, but if it had come from the right during the general, nobody would have taken up that. So he really damaged her. However, first of all, she ran against the most unpopular candidate ever. And going into it, prior to the Comey thing, she had a tiny, even by Nate Silver's thing,

I asked Harry from Five Thirds, tens of thousands margin. If Comey hadn't released a letter, she might have won by 40,000 votes. That is a, she failed before she ever got into it because obviously there's always going to be things that hit you that are unexpected. But in life, when you drop the ball on the things that were within your control, then it's really kind of a nerve to start blaming the things that were out of your control. And this is what was within her control. She was warned and she knew and was told.

Listen, she was warned by her husband, Michael Moore, and various others. You need to back off this identity politics a little bit and appeal to the aggrieved white voters in the Midwest who have high economic anxiety. That's not what it was. Hold on. It wasn't the economic anxiety of white people. Because white people across the board voted for Trump. Hold on. Let me finish because that's been disproven.

But hold on, we'll just hold. You can continue. We'll come back to it. Hold on, we'll come back to it. The point is that she opted not to do that. She lost by 50,000 votes. A few campaign stops, as her husband urged her and as Michael Moore urged her, in those soft things, and she would be president today.

And if that's true, then the rest is all bull. You lost yourself. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Why is this a complaint about the book? Because she writes about those errors. I'm a business owner. She does write about those errors. She does.

She blames herself in the book, too. All the advanced press about her blaming everybody else was all kind of— She blamed herself in a perfunctory way. No! I read the 450-page book. All the advanced press about her blaming everybody else. She blamed herself in a perfunctory way. No! I read the 450-page book. I haven't read it, but I've seen the interviews. I read every word of it.

The best comment I've heard about the book is it's the first book that has both the question and the answer on the title, on the cover. What happened? Hillary Clinton. Did you read the book, though? Absolutely not. I want to read it. I want to read it. I want to read it.

So I actually have no interest in reading it, and I'll tell you why. She's never been good at winning elections. She almost lost to Rick Lazio. You don't come in with a Clinton name after your husband is president of the United States of America, one of the most popular presidents,

especially in a democratic state like New York, and then almost lose to Rick Lazio. She complained about him in the debates too, by the way. She did. So we have a track record or something. And it can come back to, maybe Hillary never had to earn it. Bill earned it.

She never had... No, she rode on her husband's coattails. She rode on her husband's coattails. She never had to win over people. She never learned how to win over people. Do you know how much she won by after she'd been senator of New York for her re-election? She was an incumbent senator. Who loses? Did she have the talent to become the candidate for president of the United States if she had not?

I'm not criticizing her, but I just think he's right. You wouldn't think she would have become. She didn't learn the skill of winning people over. She's not a natural politician. Bill knows how to make you fall in love with him. She's a natural administrator, I think. She's a great administrator. Appoint her to a position, she'll do it phenomenally.

Have her have to win that position, she will fail miserably. But I don't think that anybody, including Hillary Clinton... But that's most women running for office. Then women got to figure that shit out. Statistically, women are unpopular when they run for office. They're popular when they actually get in office because of sexism. And they are socialized to be administrators, not candidates. They're socialized.

Men are trained to go out and tell the world that they're terrific and going to be better than their opponents for this position. We are running out of time. I want to ask you about the pussy grab thing. Yeah. Yeah. Now, you think that that should have been disqualifying for Trump. Sure. Absolutely.

Now, I want to ask you a question. Yeah. And I want you to answer me honestly and think about it. Bill Clinton is running against Robert Dahl. And Robert Dahl has campaigned that he is going to provide the fifth vote to overturn Roe versus Wade. That's his platform. Now, Bill Clinton says,

over my dead body, Roe versus Wade forever. Now it comes out that Bill Clinton... Do you believe Juanita Broderick? I mean, he has right charges. Now, would you vote for Robert Dahl? Would you vote for Robert Dahl? No, I would not vote for Robert Dahl. So why would they vote for Hillary?

The people who felt that Trump was important to them. They were able to look past something for something that they wanted more. I'm saying that what matters to them is the policies. But what was it that they wanted more? A white president. That was a man. Whatever it is, that's what they wanted more. Can I address that really quickly?

Please. Just really quickly. Because I hear this a lot, and Bannon had a great 60 Minutes interview where he spoke very candidly. You watch that? Yeah, you should definitely watch it. I will not. You see, I do not respect that. You cannot respect it, but I can't listen to a person like that.

I can't listen to a person like that. So then you're going to miss out on a good impression of what's true in the world. No, no, no, no. So here's the issue. And this is a perfect microcosm why the Democrats will still lose elections. And I'm a lifelong Democratic voter. I just want to point this out. This is why we will continue to lose elections, right?

Because we stick ourselves in an echo chamber and we just listen to the sweet things we want to hear and we don't listen to what reality is. Now, Bannon said very clearly. I did not do that. Well, whatever. Okay. So the reality of the matter is there's two candidates in this election that came out of absolutely nowhere. Who were they?

Trump. Donald Trump was what, 17th? And the other person was Bernie Sanders. Now, what did these two people run on specifically? More than anything else, what did both of them run on? How bad Hillary Clinton is? Wrong. The economy. That's what you will see if you're trying to look at that. The forgotten man economy.

Wait a minute, you said xenophobia? So Bernie Sanders ran on xenophobia? I mean, I have personal experience with Bernie Sanders and why he is not good with race and racism and all that type of thing. But, yeah. For the image of America. So I think both of them ran on one specific thing that I heard both of them saying, which is we are going to get the working class working. Economic anxiety, jobs, they needed jobs. So this is something that resonated and brought two people out of

obscurity to the forefront of an election. Bernie should have won if Hillary didn't pull some shit. But if Hillary didn't pull some shit, then he probably would have won. No, he lost by three million votes. He definitely lost. He lost and lost and lost. He should have even been that close. But he's running against Hillary. He ran a great campaign. He ran a great campaign. He lost it badly and lost. He should have even been that close. But he's running against Hillary.

He ran a great campaign. He lost it badly. So that's why we're saying that this is more about economic anxiety than it is. I just want to raise this white guy as president. Economic anxiety doesn't matter when white people across the board economically voted for Trump. I would tell you to... The average income of the Trump voter was $72,000. You need to create the 538.com, the Nate Silver analysis of how Trump won.

He won by flipping the precincts that had voted for Barack Obama. And they voted for Barack for the exact same reason, economic anxiety. Here's another thing that's not in conflict with your evaluation of Hillary, but I'm just going to say this. Hillary Clinton talked about jobs. She talked about jobs every day. I was on the trail with your evaluation of Hillary, but I'm just going to say this. Hillary Clinton talked about jobs. She talked about jobs every day. I was on the trail with her. She was talking.

She was unbelievable. Well, she was. What was her strategy for jobs? That's one. Oh, she had a million fucking strategies. What's just one? That's the problem. But that's the problem.

She had strategies. She definitely had strategies. No, no, no. The whole point was she had strategies that you couldn't talk about as like free college or in a soundbite. You couldn't say build a wall and you couldn't say free college because you had to go and listen to her talk. I listened to her explain child care policy. It was brilliant.

You're describing a bad candidate. No, I know. I said I'm not disagreeing with you. That's exactly what makes her bad. He just wants to fight. He just wants to fight. Look at him. He's angry.

Yeah, angry. Your view that— Angry white man. That was angry. That was angry. And it's unbecoming. I have to say it with a smile. Angry and shrill.

The view that they were talking about it and she was not isn't right. The view that, A, from one perspective, she wasn't good at talking about it, or, B, we didn't want to hear her talking about it, that's the other side of that. Just make it digestible. We're in a Twitter generation, 140 characters. If you have to say more than one tweet, it's not even a Borth policy. Another thing from your column that I...

By the way, this has been a really good interview. There's another thing from your column that I disagreed with. Great. That's what you want, right? No, no, no. I'm good. I'm good. Consider that one... How do you pronounce it? Deprecatory remark she threw out,

calling those who responded enthusiastically to Trump's open racism deplorable. It's still something I caught off in the print. That's why it's no. Many pundits believe it was her fatal error. I'm paraphrasing because some words are missing here. Never mind that she said it while running against a candidate who called Mexicans rapists. Censorious anger from women is off. I don't know.

It's a liability. It's something like it's a liability, and in men it's often just speech. Now let me tell you why I reacted negatively to that. Okay. The mistake that she made in the deplorables, and it goes back to my other point, was that she offended the very people whose votes she needed to be trying to win. It's a political mistake. I don't think she was going to win those votes.

She lost in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania. How did Barack win those votes? Hold on. Trump, by saying the Mexican thing, offended the people who were never going to vote for him anyway. That is the difference. I don't know that that's. Hillary made a Romney 47% mistake.

But when Romney did it, it wasn't because he was a man. It's like, it has nothing to do with her sex. No, no, no. Do you really think it has absolutely nothing to do with her sex? A man or a woman running for office who called them deplorables. I'm just saying, in general, you think her losing had nothing to do with her sex? I think it had

nothing to do with her sex. I just want to know what it feels like. I think it had nothing to do with her sex. Let me ask you this. I just want to know what it feels like right now. I think the better way of saying it is not an effective amount. Okay. No, that's the same thing. That's the same thing. There could have been 5%, 10%.

Who knows? Let's say the same thing. First of all, she lost married women. Yeah. Are they sexist? Yes. Yes. Listen to their husband.

By that, you're definitely not sexist. Anybody who doesn't support Hillary is a sexist? Yes! Yes! By that, by that, you're talking about sexist. Anybody who doesn't support Hillary is a sexist. I didn't say that. They're more race-based. Those white women are more race-based. Just out of curiosity. You say stuff, but the data does not back it up.

But go ahead. I would believe you. Wait a minute. I have race-based data. Here's data. Hillary Clinton did three percentage points better with the white women than Barack Obama did in 2012 against Mitt Romney. Yes. No, no, no.

Look, I say yes. Here's the deal. You know, if Obama had lost, everybody would be saying he lost because he was black. And it'd be impossible to prove that it was otherwise. But you're setting up a situation where if a minority candidate loses, therefore it was because they were a minority. No, no. I want to be really clear about this. I just said it has something to do with it. I want to be really clear about this.

You can't say it has something to do with it. I want to be really clear about this. It has something to do with it. Making an argument that race and gender played into this election is not the same thing as saying she lost because everybody's a sexist. And it's that conflation that to try to point out, look, here's the deal.

If Hillary Clinton, if her challenges had nothing to do with her gender, how come she's the first woman in 240 years? If it's that we don't have a problem with women, how come she's this hated woman who everybody can't stand and is a bad politician?

How did she get to be the first major party nominee in 240 years if this country doesn't have fundamental structural problems? Hold on, I will answer that. Number one answer is women have only been had access to that in less than 30, 40 years. So she's the first woman in 30, 40 years. Right.

Number two, I think there have been some women who could have won. I think Condoleezza Rice might have actually been able to win. You say that until she runs. Number three, she was a bad candidate, so it seems right that she would have lost. Right, but to argue that gender has to do with the reasons that she lost is also to say, it's not to say, I think in part she lost because she didn't go to Wisconsin. I think in part she lost because she was a bad candidate. I'm not disagreeing with that.

I'm saying, A, that there are other reasons that do have to do with gender come into play, and B, and here's where it gets complicated, that part of the reason that we just have to consider about how she was a bad candidate and why she was a bad candidate, you can't divorce from the fact that she was the only woman in a man's world for her entire career. Real quick. So,

a hurricane hits Puerto Rico and rips the shingles off of a house. Right? Right now. That happened today. Right now. That's happening all over Puerto Rico. We can make the argument that those shingles could have been made of a different material, different nails, et cetera,

but the real reason they got ripped off is because of the hurricane. You see what I'm saying? So, yes, maybe her being a woman might have been the nails that were used to knock down the shingles, but the real reason she lost was not because of the nails. It was because a fucking hurricane came through, and she couldn't handle it. Also, that she's wearing shit. You guys know she won three million more votes, right? Yes, she did. But in all hurricane came through and she couldn't handle it. Okay. Also, you guys know she won three million more votes,

right? Yes, she did. But in all the discussion of how she couldn't handle anything, it means nothing. Three million more people. It does mean something. It's perspective.

In all the thing about how terrible she was and she lost by, you know, she won three million more votes. If it was a popular vote, she would have still lost because more people would have come out in the states

that voted for Trump. It would have come out in droves. Like a lot of people didn't vote. Because they figured a popular vote, she would have still lost because more people would have come out in the states. That may be true. They voted for Trump. It would have come out in droves. Like a lot of people didn't vote. Because they figured the popular vote. I don't know. I don't think I buy that. For example, people in Alabama were like, I know it's going to be Republican no matter what. I don't need to go out and vote.

A lot of people in blue states didn't bother voting because they knew the electoral college being what it is, their vote wasn't worth it. But listen, this is my problem. And I know that I'm right, even though I can't make traction on it. You can't just use disparities as shorthand. We have very few female comics here. That is not

because we are sexist. Hold on. There are very few Asians on the NBA. Do you want to tell me why that is? No, I don't want to tell you why that is. But if you can't have statistics... 90% of the people that go to jail are male. Is that because the justice system is sexist?

Here's the deal. The majority of African Americans go go to jail because the justice system is racist. You can't cherry pick the instances of disparities that you want to say, well, that must be because of bigotry. But what he just said, he said 90% of males, what did you say?

90% of the people in jail are males. That means the justice system is sexist. And I further purpose that the fact that the majority of African American and Latino males are in jail, is that because the justice system is racist? We don't know that. Yes, we do.

Sure, but that just proves my point. How does that prove your point? Because I get the opposite point for what you said. I don't want to get into an ugly conversation. It's sensitive. 60% of people that go to college are women. Are college admissions sexist? No, not at this point because there have been...

So why are there more women going to college? We spotted you? So is it... No, no, no. Women are on an... Women are. You're absolutely pointing to something that's really key. Women, and in this case, when it comes to college admissions,

white women and black women are making tremendous inroads. Now, the men who are going to college are still predominantly white men, right? We're not talking about white. Just tell me if it's sexist that college admissions accept more women than men. There's more women than men in America. They're overrepresented by their demographic. It's 60-40.

Women are 55 to 45. What? So that's... They're better students. That's not part of the demographic. So they're better students. That's not part

of the demographic, though. Are women better students? Maybe that's why they're accepting them? Of course they are. Better students? There's more of us? So you can accept

that women are better students and that's why they get into college, but you can't accept that Trump was a better candidate and that's why he won. You think Trump was a better candidate? No, I was saying that there may be something about politics, the ego and the hubris and all that it takes to be a politician

that may attract men in a different way than women. Right, but that's not so... And white people. Why aren't there as many women in comedy? What's your view of that? That it's not about sexism? Okay. I have a view on that.

You want me to answer? You don't need to be funny to get laid. I think comedy is a masculine trait. Oh, there you go. I'm going to say that. It is. Comedy is a masculine trait. It's a survival tool.

It's a tool that men who are unattractive use to get pussy. Comedy is a masculine trait. I will stand by that. So that is why less women are in comedy than men. So let me ask you a question. There are growing numbers of women who are successful in comedy. Is it that women, so what's changing? The fact that we are allowed to be funnier now.

We are allowed to not give a fuck. I don't think there's growing numbers of women. There's not. Successful women? It seems the same as it's ever been to me. Are you kidding? Individuals. One. Phyllis Diller. Moms Maybelline.

I've been asking her about me. Jessica Williams. Are you kidding? She was the black correspondent of the Daily Show. Gilda Radner, Jane Crane. We've been a comedy seller for a long

time. I don't see any significant uptick in the number of first-rate female comics out there. I don't. That's interesting. There's not an ounce of sexism that goes into the booking. There's no sexism in comedy. There's no sexism in comedy. There's no sexism in comedy.

I don't know about other places and other planets. I know that this is the best comedy club. And we are not... I mean, I've asked, are there any really super funny women that are killing that we're not booking? Let me know because I want to book them.

Nobody can give me these names. I can't give you those names. Are they white? I will slip you. There are some white ones there are some black ones but I can give you those names. I will predict that the names

that she gives me they will not kill. But if they do let's use them. Okay. But here's the deal. You want some names? Absolutely.

To talk about sexism and is this booker sexist? This is the thing. This is about the individual intentions. This idea that when To talk about sexism and isn't, is this booker sexist? This is the thing. This is about the individual intentions. This idea that when we talk about sexism or racism, we're talking about individual people and their attitudes about other individual people. You're often talking about far larger sources. So what you said is comedy is a masculine trait. We encourage and reward different kinds of expression in men and women from the time they're little. And it may be that men, the survival instincts for getting laid and you're not attractive and you do this, that has not been something that women have been taught.

And so that's a larger structural thing. You don't need to be funny for me to fuck you. Bingo. No, you actually need me to not be funny. So there you're describing a gender difference that has an impact on how... That's a man. That's a man. And I use the term in a colloquial sense.

We have to wrap it up because a very famous female comic is sitting here. Amy Schumer's over there. But I wanted to take you on about Bill O'Reilly. And I can't believe I let Tyra... You want to defend Bill O'Reilly? I want to defend him O'Reilly? You're defending him? That's bold.

I want to defend Bill O'Reilly for the following reasons. I think it is wrong. And I will defend the woman on ESPN as well. I want to first of all say that I think this idea of people losing their careers for things so easily, threatening and boycotting all this stuff is a bad trend,

and it's mushrooming, number one. Number two, I don't like anybody being taken down based on allegations rather than proof. And I always thought that out-of-court settlements were never to be taken as proof of anything. But let me tell you, and you'll probably be surprised, I actually took the time to read Andrea Macris' complaint. Yeah, from like 10, 15 years ago. Which was, now the most recent

one, the one who said the hot chocolate, apparently she was arrested one time for making a false complaint against somebody. This came out in the news. So she may have been knocked out of the box. But this is the sequence of events in Andrew Mackers. And you tell me if this doesn't sound fishy to you. May of 2002, she starts at Fox.

And by her account, this is her complaint, O'Reilly immediately was talking inappropriately to her. This is what she says. January 2004, she leaves for CNN. Now this is where it gets interesting. In April 2004, she meets Bill O'Reilly for dinner and says to him that she'd come back to work if he no longer engaged in inappropriate conduct. She says, this is her complaint. At the dinner, she says O'Reilly, after dinner, I'm sorry, at the dinner, she said that O'Reilly rambled bizarrely. She found his paranoid rambling both

strange and alarming. After dinner, what do you think she did? After dinner, O'Reilly invites her upstairs to his hotel room to watch the election, and she goes. Then O'Reilly, two months later, O'Reilly goes to CNN. I mean, O'Reilly goes to CNN I mean O'Reilly goes to Fox

to try to get her the money that he promised her Fox turns her down but O'Reilly says don't worry I will pay the difference out of my pocket

so this man this woman who had left because he was in a zone of probate meets him meets him for dinner goes up to his hotel room comes back for the same money

except this time it comes out of his pocket. Two months later, and then she begins to record his sexual conversations, and then she gets $9 million. But that's a bad example. But this was the meat of the accusation of Riley. No person with that fact pattern should be assumed to have done anything wrong.

I don't think that means, I'm not excusing sexual harassment by any means. But if this happened to my daughter, and then she went back and met him and went up to his hotel room and then started taking money from him out of his pocket, I guess, come on now. You would say to your daughter that you deserve to be sexually harassed since you went and met him after dinner? I would say to my daughter, this is what I would say, sweetheart. Are you sure there was nothing flirtatious, something else going on here because this doesn't make sense.

This is not the way a woman acts when she is being sexually harassed. She would never go back, let alone meet him for dinner, let alone, right after saying

he was acting paranoid and strange, go up to his hotel room where there's just a bed and watch. This is not the kind of fact pattern that anybody ought to be losing their job for. Okay, but he didn't lose his job for Andrea Macris. This was the big one.

But he didn't. It was 2002, and it was reported in whatever year, 2005. Yeah, but then the Times did that whole article. That plus the one at the end, which is now discredited. In between, this woman, her complaint, she made her complaint. It was public.

I can't remember. Was it 2005? He loses his job in 2016 after other allegations come to light and, in fact, multiple allegations about this pattern at Fox News. But Roger Ailes was out of the picture to defend him. Roger Ailes would have never fired him. He had, what, 11 intervening

years of making millions of dollars, having best-selling books. Andrea Macris did not bring this man down. What brought this man down was the revelation of a pattern, that he'd done this and he'd been part of a culture that did this, that disadvantaged. He didn't do anything. This was the event that got the most oxygen. Literally, he didn't lose his job. The next one, he was accused of sexually harassing Roger Ailes' goddaughter. But she sued him, but Roger Ailes didn't buy it.

His own goddaughter. There was one other. Then there was, which was, you know, I don't know. But we don't know. And then there was this last one where the woman turns out to have made a false charge in the past. I hope that if Bill O'Reilly were Rachel Maddow, I would say the same thing, that this just doesn't seem right, that if somebody should be convicted in a court of law, and if so, then let them go if it violates a thing.

But like Chris Rock famously said, every divorce, oh, it was Bill O'Reilly's divorce papers. He says every divorce paper accuses a husband of everything. Of course. If you want to believe divorce papers, Bill O'Reilly's divorce, let's believe that Paul McCartney was beating his one-legged wife.

Yeah. I mean, it's so much confirmation bias here. We hate Bill O'Reilly. We hate Bill O'Reilly. So we just eat this stuff up. But Juanita Broderick and Bill Clinton, oh, I don't know. Maybe he did it.

But that's real evidence. So I want to defend Bill O'Reilly. In closing, Bill O'Reilly. Nothing at all to do with his politics. Okay. I'm a boss. I have had someone come to me and accuse a comedian of raping them.

What was I supposed to do, fire them? I can't assume it's true and let them go. someone come to me and accuse a comedian of raping them. What was I supposed to do, fire them? I can't assume it's true and let them go. I have plenty of opinions on that. Because I know women who have put themselves in certain situations where they could have avoided it. But they don't have to avoid it. But also, just because I go to your hotel room, does that mean I need to get raped?

No, but he wasn't accused of raping anybody. Because I've done that before. I've gone to somebody's hotel room at night. He was not planning to have sex with them. He was accused of talking dirty and jerking off on the phone. The other thing is that power imbalances, the reason that sexual harassment in the workplace is criminal is in part because you're dealing with power imbalances. And so the fact that she goes to him and says, I want this job, and she comes back to him

after having gone to CNN. Look. It's a little fishy, isn't it? I mean, as I read it to you. You know what? Yeah, it's not the best situation. No, even the last, the girl who went on trial for Bill Cosby, she wasn't a good example.

He's not defending sexual harassment. The New York Times, truly to their discredit, didn't mention any of those facts which were in the complaint, which they certainly would have bent over backwards to mention the obvious exculpatory facts of somebody that they kind of wanted to not see thrown under the bus. The fact that she went up to his hotel and that she went back. How could they leave that out of the story?

How can they expect anybody to make up their minds about this incident when you leave out the facts that anybody, if your husband or son were accused of this, and they didn't tell you these facts, you'd be outraged. You'd be outraged. That's all I'm saying. I agree.

Okay. You are a pleasure. I hope you come on our show every week. Not shrill, not angry. I'm cool with being both shrill and angry, by the way. Plug your book again. All the Single Ladies, about single women in America, past, present, and future. At Joelle Nicole on Instagram, Twitter. I just put out this comedy project, and I put it right out up on my YouTube.

And two of the sets are filmed here, actually, at the Comedy Cell in the Village Underground. But it's called 441, and I do four sets in four different clubs in one night and film the cab rides and everything in between. So it's a cool little thing. It's only like 17 minutes. It's up on my YouTube. So if you could watch that, check that, and share it, that'd be amazing. I'd love that.

Andrew Schultz. Thank you very much, everybody. YouTube.com slash the Andrew Schultz. Thank you very much. Good night. Thanks.