At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture


Megyn Kelly Meltdown

posted by Jack Kerwick

On May 30, Lou Dobbs had a panel discussion with Fox News colleagues Doug Schoen, Juan Williams, and Erick Erickson over a Pew Research Center study showing that women are now the primary or sole wage earners in 40% of American homes.

Dobbs views this phenomenon as a function of “society dissolving around us.”  Erickson, observing that all throughout the animal kingdom males “typically” assume “the dominant role,” remarked that “having mom as the primary breadwinner is bad for kids.” Williams sees this correlating with “the disintegration of marriage” while Schoen characterized it as “a catastrophic issue” that threatened to “undermine our social order.”

Bear in mind, while Erickson of redstate.com leans to the right, Dobbs is an independent and Williams and Schoen are both long-time Democrats.  Yet whatever political differences they have over other issues were forgotten while discussing this one.  As Williams asserted: “Left, right, I don’t see how you can argue” that Pew’s findings are a good thing.

Well, another Fox News celebrity, Megyn Kelly, did indeed try to do what Williams thought impossible. The very next day, she had Dobbs and Erickson on her show.

Kelly wasted no time in getting to the point.  To Erickson she asked: “What makes you dominant and me submissive and who died and made you scientist-in-chief?”

When the imperturbable Erickson replied that the much respected Pew Research Center determined that many in their own study were no less concerned about its findings than he, Kelly shot back: “Just because you have people that agree with you doesn’t mean that it’s not offensive.”

She continued: “I didn’t like what you wrote one bit.  To me you sound like somebody who’s judging and then wants to come out and say, ‘I’m not, I’m not, I’m not,’ and now let me judge, judge, judge [.]”

Kelly alluded to studies that supposedly suggest that children of homosexual parents and single mothers are just as well adjusted as the children of stay-at-home mothers.  She also mentioned that once upon a time that “science” established that the offspring of interracial unions were inferior.  “Tell that to Barack Obama,” she said.

Notice, Kelly didn’t just disagree with her colleagues’ assessment of the Pew study.  She was angry at them for it. She found their comments “offensive,” judgmental, and, in short, “didn’t like” them “one bit.”  From beginning to end, her exchange with Dobbs and Erickson was marked by sarcasm and hostility.

Yet it was also marked by illogic and irrationality.

It may come as a newsflash to Kelly, but the truth of a proposition doesn’t depend upon whether she—or anyone—is offended by it. There are still other lessons that she would be well served to learn.

In bullying one’s interlocutor by making insinuations against his character, one neither strengthens one’s own view nor weakens that of her opponent. Moreover, even if the charges are accurate, even if, say, one’s opponent really is the jerk, idiot, “sexist,” or “racist” that one suggests, he may still be correct.

The left-wing blogosphere lionized Kelly for combating “the sexism” of her colleagues.  If this is indeed the target upon which she set her sights, then Kelly must be deemed to have failed abysmally, for she only fueled the stereotypical image of the hyperemotional woman.

Meanwhile, Dobbs and Erickson remained as calm as could be and in good cheer.

That 40% of women are primary or exclusive wage earners is no cause for celebration. It is cause for concern.  It may not be an occasion for tears—or it may be so. But this is the point: we simply don’t and can’t know for certain the effect that a shift this dramatic, this unprecedented, in an institution as central as the family will have on the fate of civilization.  The prudent and wise would never think to treat any change of this magnitude as cavalierly as they would regard a change in bed sheets or lipstick brands.

And they certainly wouldn’t demonize those, like Dobbs and Erickson, who are reasonably pessimistic about such changes.

But Kelly has proven that she is neither prudent nor wise.

Nor, for that matter, is she particularly charitable to those with whom she disagrees—especially when they dare to deviate from the politically correct line on gender relations.

 

 

 



Previous Posts

Losing the Language: How the GOP Undermines Itself--and Liberty
As the mid-term elections approach, it’s high time for Republican commentators to walk the walk. Just the other morning, Mark Steyn, busily promoting his new book, made an appearance on Bill Bennett’s radio program. The latter agreed enthusiastically with the former that in order for conserva

posted 10:16:04pm Oct. 23, 2014 | read full post »

Political Correctness and Ebola
That there is a sensationalistic dimension to the Ebola coverage is something of which I have no doubt. Sensationalizing events is what the media does best. There may even be a sense in which it can be said that sensationalism is intrinsic to mass media.  Sensationalism serves the interests of t

posted 10:26:30pm Oct. 16, 2014 | read full post »

Capital Punishment Revisited
For a discussion of capital punishment, with no thinker is there a better place to begin than Ernest van den Haag. It is with justice that the latter’s seminal analysis of this topic is a staple of textbooks in college ethics courses nationwide: the author addresses the thicket of issues that are

posted 9:11:40am Oct. 14, 2014 | read full post »

Abortion Reconsidered III
Dan Marquis contends that except in “rare cases,” abortion is immoral, and it is immoral, he further argues, because the fetus has a “FLO”—a “future like ours.” Before arguing that abortion is wrong, Marquis first attempts to show what makes killing in general wrong. Killing is wron

posted 6:30:13pm Oct. 12, 2014 | read full post »

The Left, Columbus, and Why This Day is Still Worth Celebrating
Few holidays are as “politically incorrect” as is the day that Americans reserve to commemorate the birthday of Christopher Columbus. Such is the ferocity of the smear campaign to which Columbus has been subjected for decades that he has been made into a villain among villains in the rogues’ g

posted 6:11:01pm Oct. 12, 2014 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.