Note that acid-faced woman's behaviour. She starts by adopting the eyes fixed, lips set, very serious, involved, 'thinking deeply' and all too obviously hostile look that media females commonly employ with male guests they intend to get the better of. I take that not as a sign that she is paying close attention to the guest's argument so that she can discuss it rationally, rather that she's in a heightened state of alertness for triggers she can react to, and this one takes the hook at 0:40 when Paul Elam states 'there is a very strong feeling that marriage has become unsafe ground for men'. Watch how she reacts: first there's a look of feigned surprise, her eyebrows raised, lips slightly parted, ready to challenge the assertion, which she does by repeating 'marriage' in a mockingly questioning tone, suggesting that PE's position is absurd and intended to humiliate him before his, and her, audience. The pronounced nod emphasises the challenge and effectively throws it at PE as a counter blow. That is followed up by the question 'why is marriage unsafe for men', asked in a condescending tone - more appropriate as a rhetorical response to a stupid question from an obtuse child than as an interview technique between intelligent adults - and vigorous head shaking intended to deny the validity of her opponent's opinions.
Being a man, Mr Elam has facts and reason to draw upon whereas his interlocutrix (2) has only her emotions; in answer to his reply she can only adopt precisely the same modus operandi and ask, in the same tone and with the same looks and gestures, another question: 'why don't they get a fair deal?' Less than a second's thought should tell one that this is a very stupid question. How on Earth can Mr Elam know why the legal system colludes with misandrous feminists to assault the natural rights of men and boys, to enslave and imprison us and to criminalise our masculinity? Without considerable analysis of the individual actors and actresses in the process, he can only show how that happens and not why. That probably doesn't occur to the woman but would it matter otherwise? All she's interested in doing is to humiliate another presumptuous male into shamed silence.
This wasn't an interview intended to ascertain and examine emerging alternative, divergent and dissenting intellectual positions, it was simply another hostile interrogation intended to break the victim. It's ironic that, despite the 'sophisticated' power woman hairstyle, the reassuring female armour of carefully applied make-up and heavy jewellery, the aggressive and all conquering female weapon of shiny red lipstick and an 'I'm way beyond your reach so don't even think about approaching me' pink sleeveless cocktail dress (for an interview) the interrogatrix showed herself to be precisely what she clearly intended to portray the object of her ire as: an unintelligent and immature child.
(1) The hyperlink given in the introduction at YouTube leads to the same clip at another site, with attendant irritating advertisement, so is pointless.
(2) As usual the feminine form of the noun is not recognised by the browser's spelling and grammar checker and the masculine form is suggested as a replacement.