All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 29, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
53:03
Gloria Allred | The Ben Shapiro Show Sunday Special Ep. 83
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
We'd like to think that there is some kind of burden of proof, that facts matter, that the law matters, that the Constitution matters.
But these politicians can make up their decision any way they want to.
And for many of them, it's just about, will they be able to keep their jobs if they make it one way or another?
will they be reelected or not.
Hey, hey, and welcome.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show Sundays special.
Today, we're joined by attorney Gloria Allred.
Gloria has been a women's rights and discrimination lawyer for 44 years.
She's been involved in many high-profile cases.
She's the subject of the Netflix documentary, Seeing Allred.
Get it?
Seeing Allred.
The national trial lawyers have recognized her with the Lifetime Achievement Award for her battles against injustice for women and minorities.
And Gloria was also recently inducted into the Women's Hall of Fame.
Gloria, thanks so much for stopping by.
Thank you very much for inviting me, Ben.
Well, in just a second, I'm going to start asking you questions.
But first, reminder, we'll be doing some bonus questions you only get to ask if you are a subscriber.
Head on over to dailywire.com.
Become a subscriber.
You'll have access to all of the full conversations with every one of our awesome guests.
Also, It is the holiday season, and you know what that means.
It's time to think of your upcoming death.
Well, actually, if you don't feel like thinking about your own death, probably you should just think about life insurance, and then you don't have to think about death anymore.
See, here's the thing.
If you go over to PolicyGenius.com, they'll find you the right life insurance at the best price and do all the work to help you get covered.
PolicyGenius makes finding the right life insurance a breeze.
In minutes, you can compare quotes from the top insurers and find your best price.
You could save $1,500 or more a year by using PolicyGenius to compare life insurance policies.
Once you apply, the PolicyGenius team will handle all the paperwork and the red tape.
And PolicyGenius doesn't just make life insurance easy.
It can also help you find the right home in auto insurance, disability insurance.
So, if you need life insurance, but you aren't sure where to start, why not start at PolicyGenius.com, where competitive shopping can help you.
It only takes a few minutes to find the right life insurance policy, apply, cross another thing off that holiday to-do list.
PolicyGenius.
When it comes to life insurance, it is nice to get it right.
And then you don't have to think about plotting anymore.
Because if God forbid something happens to you, your family is taken care of, go check them out at policygenius.com.
Again, that's policygenius.com.
So again, thanks so much for stopping by.
I really appreciate it.
Thank you.
So for those of us who aren't familiar with sort of how you got to where you are, like my first familiarity with you was not just you were on KBC and I used to listen to KBC out here in Los Angeles for years, but also my sister's favorite movie was Rat Race.
And so your cameo in Rat Race was definitely the first time I'd ever actually seen you.
So how did you get to be Gloria Allred?
Well, there were very few women's rights lawyers when I started out in the 70s, and the National Organization for Women asked me to be the president of the Los Angeles chapter.
Uh, essentially because I did care about women's rights and also no one else would do it at the time.
No one else wanted to be called a feminist.
And, um, so I did that.
And then, uh, I decided that because I was blessed to become a lawyer, there were very few women lawyers at the time, 93% of my law school class, but they were men that, uh, I felt that I had a duty to give back and at least do some cases.
that would help women to assert their rights and vindicate their rights in a court of law.
And so I took on some cases, and the more cases that I took, the more people wanted to come to me, also because we were developing an expertise in those cases, and almost nobody else would take those cases.
So we began to do sexual harassment, employment cases, pregnancy discrimination, sex discrimination, rape, sexual assault, child sexual abuse cases for plaintiffs, that is for victims.
And so that's how we became the leading women's rights law firm in the United States, which we have been for 44 years.
So historically, how have you chosen your clients?
Because obviously you've had an enormous number of high-profile clients, you've been very present in the media.
How do you choose which clients you want to focus in on?
Very carefully.
We get requests for representation from almost every state in the United States and sometimes from women living abroad or minorities living abroad.
And so we have to be very selective.
And we screen and we vet.
We're probably more conservative than the most conservative judges in the case that cases that we ultimately choose.
In other words, we want to make sure that there's a probability of success, that it's within our area of expertise.
We have to look at the evidence that they have the timeliness of the case and the client.
And what their goals are and whether these are achievable goals or not.
So we do screen very, very carefully.
If we cannot assist someone at our law firm, which is all red, Morocco and Goldberg, and we have offices in New York and Los Angeles, some licensed in both states, as well as being licensed in Washington, D.C.
But if we cannot assist them, we will try to provide them with a referral.
Because we'd like everyone to be able to have access to justice.
So in terms of sort of the big public debate that's been happening over Me Too, and there have been so many high-profile cases regarding sexual harassment or sexual assault in the recent past, how do you determine credibility issues?
So one of the things that we've heard a lot from the media, and there's a hashtag that's been trending very prominently, the Believe All Women movement.
And as a lawyer myself, I've always thought that doesn't make a lot of sense in the sense that lots of people don't tell the truth.
Obviously the percentages are not great in terms of women who are lying about something bad happening to them, but how do you determine what amounts to a credible accusation and what amounts to a non-credible accusation?
Well, we look at all the evidence.
Not just the word of the person who wishes to be our client, but also, you know, is there some sort of corroboration?
For example, if there's a rape, have they told anyone kind of what we call a spontaneous or contemporaneous outcry soon after or at any point prior to their coming to us?
Have they told a friend, a family member, a co-worker, a therapist, a doctor?
a priest, a rabbi, a minister, who have they told?
Anyone?
Has there been any documentary evidence?
Has there been emails?
Have there been texts?
What other kind of evidence exists?
So there are a lot of things to consider.
It's not just a question of whether we believe them.
It's a question of evaluating the evidence.
And do we think that a judge or a jury would likely find in their favor?
And of course, we do a lot of confidential settlements without any litigation as well.
And so there's a lot to consider.
I will say that fortunately, we just won and probably Possibly the biggest sexual harassment verdict ever in the United States.
We haven't found anyone that's larger.
We won for our client, Mahim Khan, a verdict by a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury who found that Alki David, who is a billionaire and who was the defendant, In our case, that the jury found in Maheem's favor and came back with an award of compensatory damages $8,250,000 and punitive damages, damages to punish Mr. David of $50 million.
and punitive damages, damages to punish Mr. David of $50 million.
And so for a total of $58,250,000.
So again, we haven't found any larger verdict ever in a sexual harassment case for one victim against one employer.
And just prior to that case, within a month, my partners also tried another case against Mr. David.
Again, another victim who alleged sexual harassment.
Uh, and in that case, the jury came back with $5 million verdict in favor of our client, Lauren Reeves, against Mr. David.
So he's now owing us once all the judgments are entered in excess of $63 million.
And, of course, I have also gone to the Beverly Hills Police Department on behalf of and accompanied by Mahim Khan and asked them to open now a criminal investigation into Mr. David.
So we'll see what happens.
But we are looking for accountability from perpetrators who inflict injustices on our clients, most of whom are women, but we also represent a lot of men who are victims of sexual harassment.
and we have won victories for them.
And also, of course, we represent minorities who are discriminated against or in some way hurt either because of their sexual orientation, because people perceive they have AIDS or HIV, or in fact, they do have AIDS or HIV.
And so because everybody should be treated equally, everybody should be treated with respect and dignity.
And everybody should be afforded their rights and there's no point in having rights that on the books that people have marched for, lobbied for, testified for, and sacrificed for if there's no way to enforce those rights.
So Ben, we're like private attorney generals in our private law firm and we go about enforcing those rights.
And when it comes to this corpus of law, do you think that there is any economic downside for some of the groups that are specifically being protected by the law?
So this argument has been made before by libertarians particularly, where they say, let's say you have laws that are on the books to protect women against sexual harassment, and so employers decide they don't want to face the possibility of liability, and so they're less likely to hire a woman.
What do you make of the argument that the best remedy to some of this is to basically work for companies where men are not going to be pigs?
As opposed to legal remedies that create an entire risk liability scenario for companies that may be willing to treat women fine but now are afraid of the possibility of legal action in the future.
Well, of course, then they can be charged with sex discrimination.
Right, of course.
And so that's kind of a no-win situation for them.
I would say the best option for companies is just to monitor your workplace.
educate people about the policy of the company and the law of the United States, which is equal employment opportunity, and there should not be any sexual harassment on the job because that's considered generally sex discrimination, and sex discrimination interferes with the right, and sex discrimination interferes with the right, the law, which mandates that a person has a right to equal employment opportunity.
So I think that nobody should take this to extremes.
Sexual harassment does interfere with equal employment opportunity, but the answer is not sex discrimination, excluding a class of people solely on account of their gender.
The answer is just make your workplace a workplace and not something that is interfered with by placing people in a no-win situation where if they say yes to sexual harassment, Later the guy or whoever's harassing them may get tired of them and then they lose their job.
Or if they say no, then that person who's the employer may go into ego shock because they said no, they didn't want to go around along with it.
So, you know, it's, it's, this is doable by employers if they want to make it doable.
And if they don't, then they do risk lawsuits.
And so there is a cost for them.
And it's better for them just to make sure their workplace is not hostile or toxic because of sexual harassment or race discrimination, sex discrimination, discrimination on account of sexual orientation or age or any other reason.
And that way they can have their workers do what they were hired to do.
Just do your job.
So, you play sort of a dual role in the American public.
Obviously, you're a high-profile lawyer winning these big cases, and on the other hand, you also are commenting publicly on sort of issues of the day.
The nice thing about the legal sphere is at least there seems to be, maybe it's not always applied, but a sort of standard.
So, for example, you have to, by a preponderance of the evidence, prove a charge, or beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, prove a charge.
Or, for punitive damages, damages to punish, because it shocks the conscience of the community, there's a different standard.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Right.
And so that's higher than preponderance, but lower than beyond a reasonable doubt.
But in the public mind, when it comes to a lot of these cases, which sort of hit, you know, the front pages, and then the public is asked to make decisions about them.
And here I'm thinking specifically about, for example, the nomination of Justice Kavanaugh, where that was not a criminal trial.
But in that particular case, this became a very hot button issue for all of the United States.
And there was no clear standard as to what sort of evidence was necessary in order for people to convict or not convict in the mind of the public.
So not just with specific to Kavanaugh, but generally, what do you think, you know, as somebody who litigates in this area, what do you think the American public, they see a charge on the front page, what do you think is the standard of evidence that we should apply in our own mind when we determine is an accusation tantamount to guilt or what sort of evidence should be necessary in order for us to go along with the idea that what do you think is the standard of evidence that we should apply in our own mind Is an accusation tantamount to guilt, or what sort of evidence should be necessary in order for us to go along with the idea that somebody's career, for example, should be affected?
Great question.
Parenthetically, I just had an opportunity to have a chat with Justice Kavanaugh at a reception at the Supreme Court, to which I was invited.
But of course, I didn't talk about the allegations that were made against him, nor would I ever say what he said to me.
I've also met other justices of the Supreme Court and had a chance to chat with them.
So I don't I don't talk about what they said.
But in any event, what it should be, the standard in the political setting is exactly what you're asking.
And it's pretty much the same standard as applies to your show and people who watch it or listen to it or both.
And anything on the Internet, which is everything goes in the court of public opinion.
There is no standard.
There is no burden of proof.
People can reach a conclusion without any facts whatsoever or with just using the facts they choose to recognize or acknowledge or with no fact, however they want to.
It's not like a court of law.
And that is important also on the impeachment issue.
And because people say, oh, it's not like a court.
It's not like a trial.
This is happening.
That's not happening.
Well, because it's not a court.
It's just political theater and political decision making.
And that's just the way, I mean, the Constitution has it.
It's a political body that is going to be making these decisions.
And so for their purposes, the politicians' purposes, as anything goes, we'd like to think that there is some kind of burden of proof, that facts matter, that the law matters, that the Constitution matters.
But these politicians can make up their decision any way they want to.
And for many of them, it's just about will they be able to keep their jobs if they make it one way or another?
Will they be reelected or not?
So in a second, I want to ask you about the role of television and media in the justice system generally.
But first, what kind of earbuds are you using to listen to this riveting program?
Well, if you are listening on those old-fashioned earbuds, the one with the wires, and you take them out and then you put them in your pocket, and when you take them out again, they're all tangled up like a Birds nest, and it takes you half an hour to untangle them.
Why don't you have wireless earbuds?
What are you living in, 1992?
Well, instead of getting the really expensive wireless earbuds, you should try Raycon's.
Raycon just released their best model yet, the E25.
They have six hours of playtime, seamless Bluetooth pairing, more bass, a more compact design that gives you a nice noise-isolating fit.
Raycon's wireless earbuds are so comfortable, they're perfect for on-the-go listening, for taking phone calls as well.
That noise isolation, it works great when you have small children, I know.
Listen.
Raycon wireless earbuds.
These things, they sound great.
They're not going to cost you a fortune.
Also, they have a variety of fits.
If you've got a weird ear, then it's a really good piece of machinery.
Unlike some of your other wireless options, Raycon earbuds are both stylish and discreet.
No dangling wires, no stems.
You've heard me talk about how the company was co-founded by Ray J. Other celebrities are obsessed with Raycons.
Pick some up at Raycon.com.
Now's the time to get the latest and greatest from Raycon.
Get 15% off your order at BuyRaycon.com slash Ben.
That is buyraycon.com slash ben for 15% off Raycon wireless earbuds.
B-Y-R-A-Y-C-O-N dot com slash ben.
Again, they're really comfortable, they're high quality, and you're not going to spend a fortune.
Buyraycon.com slash ben for 15% off.
And get rid of those old earbuds, they're not going to do you any good.
Buyraycon.com slash ben for 15% off.
Okay, so let's talk a little bit about the fact that, as an incredibly high-profile attorney, you're on TV a lot, and the big critique that's been launched against you typically is that you are looking for attention, that you're looking for cameras.
What role should publicity play in judicial proceedings?
Because obviously, when you are attempting to mobilize public opinion in a particular case, and this does make a difference, you need the cameras there.
So, in an ideal world, what role would media play?
And in the real world, what role does the media play?
Okay, well, it's not about publicity at all.
It's about Uh, coverage of, uh, important issues of our time.
Issues that are of public interest or public importance or both.
And also, I'm not a person who believes that women and minorities should suffer in silence.
I believe that what they are suffering, the wrongs against them, the injustices against them, in certain cases, if they achieve the goals of the client or can help to achieve those goals, should be made public.
So yes, I know that certain people who are in power would not like those who are not in power to speak out about the wrongs that have been inflicted on them.
But I do think it's important for elected officials and for members of the public to know, because we need to establish and create a climate of opinion that is favorable to change.
And I do believe what Gandhi said, that we must be the change we wish to see in the world.
And so my clients, Often want to speak truth to power.
And by speaking to truth to power, they are also not only empowering themselves, but they're empowering many others who are in similar situations to speak out.
So, for example, in the Jeffrey Epstein case where I represent a number of accusers of Jeffrey Epstein, and we have filed to date three lawsuits for our clients who were underage when they alleged that they were sexually abused and sexually trafficked.
By Jeffrey Epstein.
So when they want to speak out, they should have that right to speak out.
And that also encourages others just to know what their rights are, perhaps to assert their rights, perhaps to vindicate their rights in courts of law.
So no, they shouldn't have to be silenced.
The victims of Harvey Weinstein, if they can prove that they are victims, they can speak their truth.
And they should be able to speak out.
And we have with a number of persons who allege they are victims of Harvey Weinstein, by the way, the trial starting the criminal trial January 6.
I represent one of the two victims for whom charges have been filed by the Manhattan D.A.' 's office.
And I also represent another witness in the case, Annabella Shora.
Who will testify on the issue of sexually predatory conduct?
So yeah, I think that they should be able to make known what they allege has happened to them.
Likewise, in the case of R. Kelly, where I also represent a number of accusers, And I represent the majority of the persons who are alleged to be victims in the criminal case now pending against him in New York, brought by the United States Justice Department for the Eastern District of New York.
And they've been very brave.
And many of those women, some of whom are African-American, were ignored for a long time.
I don't know if it was because they were African-American, perhaps.
But yes, they have their right to speak truth to power.
In this case, power is a powerful celebrity, R. Kelly.
Just like I represented 33 accusers in Bill Cosby, he's now where he belongs, convicted of indecent sexual assault against Andrea Constant, and he is now classified as a sexually violent predator.
Here you've got a celebrity who was, you know, had a very, maybe he had the highest Friendly public rating, Q rating, they call it in television, when he was doing his show in the 90s.
And yet now, you know, he says he's a political prisoner.
I said he's not Nelson Mandela.
He's just a convicted felon, a convicted sexual predator.
So, but, you know, it takes courage to speak out to a powerful figure.
Like Bill Cosby or R. Kelly, Jeffrey Epstein when he was alive, but even now when there's an investigation of whether anyone conspired with Mr. Epstein to sexually traffic underage girls.
And also in reference to Mr. Weinstein, who was a very powerful producer in Hollywood.
But this is what's happening and women are becoming empowered.
They're equalizing the power.
And that's important.
So now, what we've done now in this Me Too era, which is a form of the reckoning, is, you know, instead of the victims waking up in fear, now often the men who have hurt them every day wake up and like, oh my God, is this the day where the women I've hurt in the past are going to speak out and my career is going to be ruined or in shambles?
Good.
Let them be fearful of that.
You know, maybe they should reconsider in the future, do they want to continue hurting women?
And now maybe they better think twice about it, because there can be serious consequences.
Well, as an out-and-proud prude and religious Jew, I'm very much in favor of men treating women with tremendous respect and ensuring that women's boundaries are upheld.
What are the boundaries, and what should the boundaries be when it comes to MeToo?
Because we've seen some interesting cases where the boundaries seem to have been blurred.
The one that comes to mind off the top of my head is the Aziz Ansari case.
Aziz Ansari is this famous comedian, and there's this big report that a woman goes on a date with him.
Basically, it sounds like a date that goes wrong.
It's covered widely in the media.
It's seen as a Me Too moment, and now Aziz Ansari is sort of on the hook.
And there have been a lot of men who are complaining that the boundaries of Me Too are not clear.
That, well, they're very much in favor of the Harvey Weinsteins, who are clearly abusing women, and the Jeffrey Epsteins, who are clearly engaged in rape and sexual abuse.
And even cases like some of the ones that you've moved forward with on sexual harassment, where they're very much in favor of clear evidence of sexual harassment and sexual abuse being prosecuted or sued upon.
they don't know where the limiting principle is with regard to how to behave toward women.
Now is that a subjective thing, or do you think there's an actual objective standard as to when an activity belongs in the category of Me Too and when a category does not belong in the category of Me Too? - Well, we only take cases where we think, you know, there is severe or pervasive sexual harassment or sexual battery or just simple battery.
So, for example, what the jury heard in our case against Alki David, the billionaire, that case which we just won, Um, you know, they heard testimony about, uh, Mr. David allegedly, uh, taking my client's head and driving her by the neck and forcing her head down, uh, towards his penis.
They heard testimony about, uh, you know, other, uh, unconsented to, uh, behavior that would constitute sexual battery.
And there's some that I can't even say on the air that is so disgusting that it happened in the workplace.
So where are the boundaries?
I would say to the men, you could consult the law.
That's a good place to start for what boundaries are, in case you don't know that you should not force a woman's face onto your penis.
Again, these are areas where there should be broad agreement, yes.
No, but I'm just saying, in case you didn't know that, in case you shouldn't take a woman's breasts and pop them out of her brassiere and then take your bare hand and place it on it in the workplace.
Guess what?
That is against the law.
Okay.
That would be a sexual battery if proven.
And I could go on.
Okay.
So I do think that most men know where the boundaries are, They're gamblers.
They decide, hey, I'm going to do it.
Maybe they've even rationalized in their head.
Hey, I can do it.
She likes it.
Okay.
In the workplace, if it's not welcome, it's not even a question of consent, the workplace, not welcome.
And there's a power differential.
You need to be very, very careful.
I would say, if you're not sure, err on the side of caution.
Don't touch a woman.
Period.
She's not your wife, but even then she needs to be able to consent.
Or don't touch a man unless he consents.
If she's under the influence of alcohol, if she's under the influence of drugs, or both, don't try to guess whether she's consenting to being sexually touched by you.
If she can't consent, as Bill Cosby found out, under the influence of drugs, there's no power to consent because she's under the influence of drugs or alcohol or both.
So just don't get involved in sexual activity with her until she's at a point where she could consent.
So yeah, be careful.
Just even asking the question is going to help a man.
And don't just give yourself the answers that you want to hear.
You know what the answer is.
If you're in doubt, just assume it's a no.
So in a second, I want to ask you about, obviously, you've been a formative voice in American feminism over the last 40 years, 50 years.
And I want to ask you what feminism means and what it doesn't mean in just one second.
First, every so often there's a natural disaster in the United States, and you see all of the horrific tape.
People who weren't prepared for the natural disaster.
And sometimes the government can't get to you.
And you see all of the supermarket shelves and they're empty.
And you wonder, how are people taking care of themselves?
Well, don't be one of those people.
Instead, check out Wise Company.
Wise Company takes an innovative approach in providing dependable, simple, affordable freeze-dried food for emergency preparedness and outdoor use.
Wise Company meals are designed to protect your most valuable asset.
Your family.
When government resources are strained, it could be days if not weeks before you can get to fresh food or water.
You really can't rely on somebody else.
You have to rely on yourself.
The government says this.
The government says you should have enough food in your home to make sure that you are taken care of in case of an emergency.
You can't know what tomorrow may bring, but you can have peace of mind knowing that you'll be ready with everything you need.
Don't put yourself in a situation where you need something you don't have.
Get prepared today.
Wisefood makes it super easy to get prepared.
You just go over to their website, you check them out, And you get all the products that you need.
You don't have to worry about it anymore.
This week, my listeners can get any Wyse Emergency or Outdoor Food product at an extra 25% off the lowest mark price at wysefoodstorage.com slash Shapiro.
Plus, shipping is free.
Wyse has a 90-day no-questions-asked return policy, so no risk in taking the initiative to get yourself and your family more prepared today.
That's wysefoodstorage.com slash Shapiro.
Again, wysefoodstorage.com slash Shapiro, and get 25% off and free shipping any Wyse Emergency or Outdoor Food product.
So you've obviously been a very active feminist for a long time.
There are various sort of definitions of feminism that float around.
I give you simple ones from the dictionary.
I'd be happy to hear them because there's kind of first wave feminism, there's second wave feminism.
Okay, well I don't get involved in how many waves, I get involved in how many injustices.
Alright, so a feminist is simply a person who believes in legal, economic, social, and political equality for women with men.
Are you a feminist, Ben?
By that definition, sure.
That's it.
Thank you.
I rest my case.
Okay, but the problem is that it's not quite as simple as all of that.
I wish it were quite as simple as all of that, right?
I mean, you'd be hard-pressed to find many people in America who would say no to that question, but obviously there's widespread disagreement about where the lines are drawn.
Well, there doesn't have to be any disagreement.
Just go to the dictionary.
And then ask yourself, how would you want your daughter to be treated?
And most people, when they think, especially fathers, When they think about how they would like their daughter to be treated without going into, well, what's the definition of feminism?
They want their daughter to be treated with respect, with dignity, not to become a victim of gender violence, not to be paid less than men, not to be treated in a way that would constitute sexual harassment, not to be discriminated against if they become pregnant.
Well, that's really what feminists believe.
So among other things, You know, not to have a problem collecting their child support if somehow the marriage breaks up or there is no marriage.
And so just think about it.
If you had daughters.
Or plan to have daughters how you'd want them to be treated, and then you're probably a feminist.
I have fathers that come up to me all the time, if I'm walking down the street or elsewhere, and say, thank you, we know you're doing this for our daughters.
I may not agree with everything you say, Gloria, but I know that's what you're trying to do, and I appreciate that.
So, how should feminism view the institution of marriage?
If you look at some of the more famous feminist writers, the Betty Friedans of the world, for example, they're very critical of the institution of marriage, seeing it as a sort of patriarchal imposition On women, how should feminists see marriage?
Well, actually, marriage, the institution of marriage was begun because men wanted to know who their children were.
Because they didn't know if it was their children or somebody else's children if the wife or their significant other became pregnant.
And this is when women were considered property.
So they made rules.
Marriage, okay, then she's mine.
No other man better disturb her because if they do, you know, it might be that they would get her pregnant.
He wouldn't know who his children are.
So, but in any event, people can get married or not get married.
That's up to them.
I'm not going to criticize that.
I do think that people should treat each other as equal partners.
If they are married, not a master-slave relationship, not one person dominating the other person, and if people treat each other as best friends, as equal partners, and they have good communication, and they are fair with each other, and honest with each other, then it's going to work.
And if they're not, one person starts to lie or, you know, do things they shouldn't with someone else after they made a commitment, taken a vow, for better or for worse.
A lot of people think it's just for better, but it's better or worse.
And then ultimately, you know, it's probably going to work.
But it's very difficult to be married these days because we live in a very mobile society where people move around, they change careers.
Sometimes they have other people in their life as you know as intimate partners.
It's it's very challenging but I think people generally start out with good intentions and Sometimes it kind of deteriorates from there on a philosophical level there's been sort of an interesting conversation about with regard to feminism when it when it Speaks for the equality of women does does that mean the equality or does it mean the sameness between men and women?
I mean take for example It's all about that's why I said Equal.
It's about improving the condition and status of women to help to bring women into the mainstream of American life in equal partnership with men.
In each and every aspect of life, we don't have an equal number of women elected to Congress or to the United States Senate.
Yeah, but we have more women than men going to law school and more women than men going to college.
Okay, well that's good for, you know, it's the beginning.
It hasn't.
They're not an equal number of women as partners in law firms and partners are the ones who make the decisions as to which cases.
I mean, a lot of women are making the choice to take time out of the workforce to have children.
My wife's a doctor.
She's taken time off twice to have kids.
OK, well, you know, that's your choice.
That's her choice.
I agree.
And that is reflected in aggregate statistics.
OK, well, that isn't the reason.
Or the only reason why women don't become partners in law firms.
We've had a lot of cases where we represent women who have been denied partnerships on account of their gender.
Having said that, you always have to prove the case, which we're very happy to be able to do.
Treating women with equal respect and dignity.
And that's what this is about.
If you do it, it's right.
And women can be a very big asset to business.
I agree.
But to take a case that's sort of more controversial.
So women and men agreed as far as the goal of equal treatment.
Now you have a biological man who wants to race with women in female sports.
This has come up recently in Connecticut.
It's coming up in the Olympics as well.
Where do you stand as a feminist on this question?
Because there are feminists who say, listen, Women are a category.
Men are a category.
Men who identify as women are not, in fact, biological women, and so having them race against biological women— Oh, now you're talking about transgender?
Mm-hmm.
Because feminism—this is why I'm asking the question between equality and sameness, because obviously either these are malleable categories or they are not malleable categories.
I mean, that's a mutually exclusive proposition.
So, the idea of a man identifying as a woman for purposes of competing, or generally, and then competing with biological women.
They're generally not identifying as a woman just for the purposes of sport.
Agreed, that's why I amended the statement.
So, a man who identifies as a woman because he believes he is a woman, and he is competing with women.
As a feminist, is that something that you are pro or against?
Not only believes, self-identifies.
And perhaps should be considered.
Well, now you're making a moral statement.
No, I'm also making a legal, drawing a legal conclusion.
But let me get back to the heart of your question.
It's a challenging one.
It's a difficult one.
I represented, by the way, a transgender woman, you know.
I'm aware of this case.
In a case against Trump before he became president.
And she was, once someone sent an anonymous tip to the Miss Universe Miss Canada pageant that she was going to be in, that in fact, she was born with a male anatomy, then they excluded her from the pageant, which Trump owned.
But then of course, I raised that issue in a significant manner, and Mr. Trump and I just kind of kept challenging Mr. Trump on it, challenging him on it, appeared on 2020 or Barbara Walters special.
And then bottom line is he ended up putting her back in and they eliminated the rule, which I wanted them to eliminate.
You have to be a naturally born female to be in a pageant.
But having said that in his pageant, but the point is it is very difficult where it comes to sports, But I just don't think anyone should be denied the opportunity to compete solely on account of their gender or because they are transgender.
And it's just difficult, but I think that's the way it is.
So would you-- I don't want to deny anybody an opportunity.
So why does self-identity make a difference there?
Meaning if a man just wants to compete in a female sport, why should he not be able to?
Why should the self-identity be the deciding factor?
Uh, well, uh, again, that's a hard one.
I don't really have an answer.
It's, I'm kind of thinking about it myself, but I think, you know, in certain sports it would give an advantage, uh, to the men and deny an opportunity to the women.
So... A similar question to be asked about... At this point, it may be that, that it makes sense to deny a man to be in a woman's sport.
Well, you take public education, for example.
I went to an all-girls high school back in the cave age.
I went to an all-boys high school.
Much younger, okay.
But that's a publicly funded high school.
It was in Philadelphia, still is.
And we didn't have, really, men didn't want to be, or boys didn't want to be in it at the time, all-girls high school.
Because women were considered of less value.
Some of the girls decided they wanted to go to the all-boys high school, also publicly funded.
Men being considered of more value, maybe having more programs there, maybe it was better funded, because after all, they were men, considered to be more important than women.
There have been core challenges and since then, The courts have decided that, yes, boys should have the opportunity to go to Girls High.
Girls should have the opportunity to go to Central High School, which was the all-boys high school in Philadelphia.
Both top schools.
Is there any area of American life where you believe that there should be the ability to have a female-only space or a male-only space?
I mean, there's pretty good evidence to suggest that, for example, girls tend to actually do better in girls-only classes because, thanks to, in many cases, a sort of patriarchal view of boys, women actually perform better when they are not confronted with boys in classes.
I think there's some evidence of that.
I would have to agree with you on that.
And I would say, if it's completely private, That they have the right to do it.
If, however, they accept any taxpayer funds, they don't have the right to do it.
You're not talking about a lesser quality of education for the girls, though.
You're actually talking about a protection of the girls, even in the public sphere.
I'm talking about excluding someone on account of their gender, that they shouldn't be able to do that if they're receiving any public funds, any taxpayer funds at all.
In a school.
So are you for the abolition of male and female bathrooms completely?
It's not a bathroom argument.
No, but it's a separate space argument.
By the way, I remember that bathroom argument presented to me by a judge back in the 70s when I was representing a man in Santa Monica who wanted to be on the Commission on the Status of Women.
And they only had women.
And they wanted to exclude a man.
And the judge said to me, well, Ms.
Allred, what about bathrooms?
And I said, Judge, this has nothing to do with bathrooms.
This has to do with a commission on the status of women, which is government funded, government supported.
And therefore they should not be excluding anyone on account of their gender, like this man that I represent.
Because, I mean, men have a stake.
I would be remiss if I didn't ask you about your perspective on abortion, because I want to give you the opportunity to give a good pro-choice view on abortion.
Oh, good.
I'm so glad.
So we'll talk about that in just one second.
First, let's talk about those horrible stories you see on the news about some celebrity who's been hacked, and now their nude photos are out there.
Rule number one, don't take nude photos of yourself using a phone.
I mean, Gloria Allred's sitting right here.
She will tell you that's probably a bad idea.
I don't know, maybe Gloria won't say that.
In any case, make sure, secondly, that all your data is protected.
There are tons of VPN providers out there.
You've probably heard of a couple of them.
Some of you may have even used a VPN before.
ExpressVPN does not log your data.
Lots of really cheap or free VPNs make money by selling that data.
You know, the stuff they're supposed to be protecting to ad companies.
ExpressVPN has developed a technology called Trusted Server that makes it impossible for their servers to log any of your data.
Second, they've got speed.
I've tried lots of VPNs in the past.
Many will slow your connection down, make your device sluggish.
I've been using ExpressVPN for a couple of years.
My internet speed's blazing fast, which I need.
I run an internet company.
Even when I connect to servers thousands of miles away, I can still stream HD quality videos with zero lag.
The last thing that really sets ExpressVPN apart from other VPNs, it's really easy to use.
Unlike other VPNs, you don't have to input or program anything.
You fire up the app, you click one button, and you're connected.
It's so easy, even your grandparents could use it.
You will benefit from ExpressVPN because there are just too many people out there who are looking for your data.
So, protect yourself with the VPN I use and trust.
So, Gloria Allred, I want to ask you about your perspective on abortion, because I've gotten a lot of people who want me to ask you that question, and I'd love to hear your perspective also.
Okay, so obviously I'm very pro-life, you're very pro-choice, so I wanted to get your take, and I know obviously you have a deeply felt personal story about how you came to this conclusion, but why are you pro-choice as opposed to pro-life?
Well, I'm pro-choice because I don't think that the United States government, or for that matter any government, should be making laws which restrict or eliminate a woman's right to choose safe, legal, affordable, available abortions.
Because when government tries to restrict or eliminate a woman's right to choose, what they're saying is essentially that
They think they're saying, or maybe they purport to be saying, that a woman should not be able to get an abortion, but of course women will still continue to get abortions, only they will be illegal, unsafe, and many women will die, as they did before Roe v. Wade, perhaps hemorrhaged to death, which I almost did, because I had to have an abortion provided by
Someone who is not a licensed health care provider because it was not I was not able because of the laws To be able to have access to a licensed health care provider like a doctor to perform an abortion so many women had what's called back alley abortions where they almost bled to death or were maimed or did die and I don't want that to happen to anybody else's daughter or sister or mama and
And the people who are hurt by these laws attempting to restrict abortion are young women, poor women, rural women, and mainly women of color.
Maybe they can't afford the bus fare to go to another state where abortion is still legal.
Maybe they can't even get there because they're working two jobs or three jobs or have other kids to support.
So in other words, I don't believe in mandatory motherhood, perhaps like you do, where women are forced to take a fetus to term and deliver.
I don't believe that a fertilized egg should have more rights than an adult woman.
And I think this is all very dangerous to women's health.
It's a hot button issue for millions of women around the country.
Do you believe there should be any period-based restrictions on abortion or abortion should be available up to point of birth?
I think that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 United States Supreme Court decision, which found that women have a fundamental constitutional right to choose abortion at certain stages of their pregnancy, which cannot be interfered with by the government or anyone else.
I think that is a decision which should remain, even though the anti-choice activists I want to try to reverse Roe v. Wade and allow states to make ridiculous and dangerous restrictions on abortion.
One state even trying to make an abortion illegal for a woman to try to get one, even before she's even pregnant, knows she's pregnant.
It's just absurd.
But worse than that, this is, I can't emphasize the word dangerous enough.
And it's wrong.
And we're going to fight against it.
Yes, I had an abortion and I almost died when I was in my 20s.
So I know what it's like to be a young woman who doesn't know where to go, what to do.
But, you know, yes, I know I've seen pictures of the protests where there are a lot of men and teenagers from certain religious schools out there protesting.
I know a fair number of women.
Well, some women too.
I'm not saying there are no women, but I'm saying I know they have religious beliefs about forcing women to take pregnancies to term.
They say they're pro-life, and what about the life of the mother is my question, or the woman who's carrying the fetus.
I'm not aware that anybody's wanting to kill my mother.
But you know, I just don't believe anybody should be able to impose their religious ideology on others who don't necessarily subscribe to that, those religious beliefs.
Everyone is entitled to be respected for their religious beliefs, but not to have the government Weaponize those beliefs into law.
What about the scientific life interest of the fetus?
What I mean there is that I speak to pro-life groups, I'm sure, far more often than you do.
I'm sure you speak to pro-choice groups far more often than I do by converse.
And the main argument that I articulate and that pro-lifers around me articulate is not a religiously based argument.
It's an argument based on the science of fetal development.
The question that I'm asking is, even Roe v. Wade acknowledges that at a certain point in the pregnancy there is a countervailing interest in the life of the child.
Do you acknowledge that there is a countervailing interest in the life of the child and the preservation thereof?
And on what basis in the fetal development would you place that countervailing life interest?
I mean, how much do you care about the life of the woman?
Versus the life of the fetus or, you know, the future of the fetus.
How much do you care about that?
Slightly more than the life of the child in that if the child endangers the life of the woman, I'm in favor of abortion.
But that is the only circumstance.
Okay, well, I'm not in favor of abortion and I'm not in favor of no abortions.
Okay, so I'm in favor of choice.
I don't think that elected officials sitting in Washington or Sacramento or any other capital of any state Who have never met any of these women who are getting pregnant should be making a decision for them that is going to affect their lives.
That is what's happening and that is why we have such a stake in the next election because whoever is elected as President of the United States is going to be able to select I promise, I'm only going to ask it one more time and then I know we have to run.
The question again is about the life interest of the fetus.
I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge the life interest of the mother, which is why, again, I'm in favor of the possibility of abortion when a mother's life is in danger.
That's really big of you.
No, because it's about the definition of life.
No, it's about the law.
Well, it wasn't the law until 1973.
It's about the law.
I know, because states could criminalize abortion before that and force women to have unsafe, illegal abortions.
That is the alternative.
And you are too young to remember what it was like I'm old enough to know that there are a million abortions a year, some of them late term.
You're too young to know, being that you're, what, 36, to know what it was like before 1973 in the U.S.
Supreme Court decision on abortion.
And you don't know, and I do, how many women had illegal abortions, and who will never tell you.
They will tell me.
And they suffered.
I'm not willing to inflict that suffering and that danger.
Are you on the unborn child?
On women.
I mean, does the unborn child have any interest?
It's the third time I've asked it.
It's the third time you've asked because your priority is the fetus and not the life of the woman.
No, I've already acknowledged that I'm perfectly in favor of abortion.
Okay, but words alone are not enough.
No, I'm in favor of codifying that legally.
We need laws.
We need laws that protect the right of the woman to make that choice.
Okay.
I'm not going to insist that Every sperm of yours.
be used to impregnate a woman.
I'm not going to force you to make women pregnant, is what I'm saying.
And I'm not going to stop you either.
I'm not in favor of laws which restrict you into choices you're going to make, as long as they're legal, in reference to your sexual activity.
But apparently you want to impose a whole set of laws on women.
Which it's going to make them risk their lives.
Okay.
So again, thank you.
I respect your right to want to advocate to restrict a woman's right to choose and what she does with her body.
She's not your body.
No, it's the baby's body that's being affected.
It's not a baby if it's a fetus.
It's a fetus.
You want to use scientific terms?
Use them.
It's called a fetus at certain stages.
Actually, it's called a fertilized egg at other... I assume you're against birth control as well, right?
Are you against birth control?
No.
Okay.
Are you against the morning-after pill?
Yes.
Okay.
In other words, even if a woman is raped, you want to restrict her ability to choose to have an abortion.
Is that correct?
If you want to argue about the edge case in which... I don't want to argue about it.
I'm asking you a question which you've not answered.
Yes.
The answer is yes.
The answer is yes.
The rapist should be captured, killed, put in jail forever.
I'm not talking about the rapist.
I understand you're not talking about the rapist.
I'm talking about the woman and the rape victim.
Does she have access?
The case that you're making is that based on cases of rape, we should then legalize abortion for all other cases.
Rape represents an extraordinarily small number of abortions.
Each one of those is a horrific situation, a tragedy.
It's a horrific situation any time a woman has to make a decision about whether she's going to have an abortion or not.
So, we're just saying that she's the one who gets to decide.
Why is that so hard for you?
Because no individual gets to define the way somebody else's life.
Why do you think a legislator knows better than she does?
Some elected official she's never met, sitting thousands of miles away, has a right to decide what she can do in her own life.
What that teenager has a right to do.
What that woman living in a rural area has a right to do.
What that woman of color has a right to do.
What that poor woman has a right to do.
Because, again, you refuse to acknowledge that there is a countervailing interest in this equation, other than the woman.
I'm not refusing to acknowledge... Apparently the baby does not exist, or the fetus does not exist, or any of this doesn't exist.
It's all about a balancing of interests, where the United States Supreme Court comes to it as always trying to balance interests, okay?
They're the court.
They made their decision in 73.
Ever since, people have been trying to reverse it, cut back on it.
Why?
Mainly for political reasons.
But I don't think a womb Of a woman should be a political football.
Okay, so obviously you've been following impeachment proceedings since the Clinton days.
I want to ask you whether you think President Trump merits impeachment or whether the evidence just isn't there.
If you want to hear Gloria Allred's answer, you have to be a DailyWire subscriber.
To subscribe, head on over to DailyWire.com.
Click subscribe.
You can hear the end of our conversation there.
I know that you have to run.
I really do appreciate your time.
Gloria Allred, thank you so much for joining the show.
Thank you.
My pleasure.
Thank you so much.
The Ben Shapiro Show Sunday special is directed by Mathis Glover and produced by Jonathan Hay.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Associate producer, Colton Haas.
Our guests are booked by Caitlin Maynor.
Post-production is supervised by Alex Zingara.
Editing by Donovan Fowler.
Audio is mixed by Mike Caromino.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
Title graphics by Cynthia Angulo.
The Ben Shapiro Show Sunday Special is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
Before we go, I just want to give you all an important update on next year's edition of The Sunday Special.
The Sunday Special will be returning to your podcast feeds on March 1st, 2020.
We'll be delivering 13 straight weeks of bold, exciting interviews with iconic guests.
So, hang tight for new episodes this March, because we've got some great things planned out for you.
We've had an amazing year full of terrific interviews with guests like Dave Ramsey, Dr. Phil, Andrew Yang, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Nikki Haley, Piers Morgan, and more.
And we're so excited to bring you another fantastic lineup coming March.
If you haven't seen any of these great episodes yet, check out the Sunday special at dailywire.com, the Daily Wire YouTube channel, or anywhere you get the Ben Shapiro Show podcast.
So again, the Sunday special will be returning to your podcast feeds, social media channels, and dailywire.com on March 1st, 2020.
So mark your calendars.
The best is yet to come.
▲
Export Selection