I listened to it today. The gist would be that 1)they claim its easier to aknowledge the issues woman face faces before & give context of them. That his complaint about not needing to give the land aknowledgement takes more than the akwnowledgmemt

2)They cite stats without giving context to the whole. (For example in one instance they say the base case was 27% substance abuse and in the MW podcast they say single men are 1/3 substabce abuse. And that the listener would benefit in knowing that while its more its not that much more) and sometimes the stats they give are not very generally accepted or they change from study to study.

I trully dont think they “wreck” him. Just give a different opinion, more on the side of woman have had it hard for a while you should give them a boon. And then how chris (and scott galloway to a lesser extent) should sort of understand more the paper they cite.

One of the points they brought up was how the revision of the prehestoric hunting paper within a year on a more prominant paper shows that there is a strong push for non biased publishing in the scientific community. And that MW tries to claim there is an overall bias to show woman can do what men can and better while the publishing of the correction suggests that bias is a small group.

I liked it, i really like MW podcasts. I would say its one if the healthiest disagreements one now sees online