PAUL writes:

Here is an eleven-minute video of Megyn Kelly at Fox News defending her choice not to stay at home in a discussion of the recent Pew report.  She does not want to address the issue about whether men and women have natural roles to play.  She wants to disassociate that issue from whether the failure of single parent households stems from the failure of men and women to fulfill their natural roles.  She fails to realize her conclusion is based on the premise that women and men are interchangeable, that they have no roles.  Yet history tells us that this idea coincides with the destruction of the family.  The idea results in single parent families.

—- Comments —-

Daniël O. writes:

It appears to me that Megyn Kelly perfectly illustrates Erick Erickson’s point. Her behaviour is dominant, her looks are immodest, and her opinions are overly ’emoliberal.’ According to Wikipedia, she is a ‘re-married’ Roman Catholic; so if there is no legal annulment of her church marriage, then her second marriage is not a real marriage, and her children are, sadly, extramarital children (or as would have been said two generations ago: bastards).

Given Kelly’s dominant behaviour, it is likely that her new boyfriend will have or develop traits of an absentee father; and given her immodest looks, it is likely that her children will be nurtured with a wrong conception of womanhood. In effect, their children will grow up with an unbalanced father and mother relationship. Kelly will not be able to counterbalance this situation, because her emotive liberal opinions –mate with whoever you want, live however you want, because all is equally okay, just look at the research– effectively prevent her from doing so. This does not mean that her children are bound to grow up badly, but for sure it does not work in their favour.

I do believe, nonetheless, that Erickson’s argument needs strengthening. His argument is: first, there is the natural order which can also be found in the animal kingdom, and secondly, there is scientific research on family structures. Yet, this is a realm in which facts can easily be disputed by looking at other animal species and different ‘scientific’ research. There needs to be a normative anchor; a moral norm that is just as evident as it is normal that people have two legs (if someone misses a leg, then this is not the normal situation, but the result of an accident etcetera.).

And I want to end by saying that I enjoyed Dobbs’ remark ”oh dominant one” — that was absolutely brilliant and exactly at the right moment.

The square-jawed, strangely robotic Erickson is pathetic against this harridan. His argument that sex differences are good because animals display them is very weak. He should have pointed not to the animal kingdom but to the rise of human beings out of it. Motherhood is not just a private affair, but a social institution that preserves a certain kind of human culture. By promoting the large-scale abandonment of it, mothers such as Kelly expose children who will never have private nannies and intelligent parents who can manage every crisis and cover over neglect with material luxury to immense harm. They set a standard that others cannot maintain and create a society that is unable to support male breadwinner or the single-income home, thus forcing many women who would rather be home to work. He should have said a mother cannot do her best or create a home at its best when she is in a demanding job and that mothers guard and protect the moral essence of society — and we can see the results of their absence everywhere. To her complaint that he was judging, he should have said, as Paul points out, “Of course, I am judging. I am judging you because you have made an inferior choice. And I think your choice was motivated by greed and ambition, not love for your children.” I realize he couldn’t have spoken those exact words (nor could he have said that journalism is much worse off for the emotionalism and blatant flirtations of female anchors), but something like them would have been possible. It would have been nice if he could have also mentioned that she has taken a job that could have been filled by a man and that men generally do not have the luxury of deciding whether to stay home.

Joe A. writes:

Karl D. writes:

I can’t believe Megyn Kelly’s bosses at Fox News are thrilled with her multiple pregnancies. She has two children and is now expecting her third! To my knowledge all within the last five years. Shortly before giving birth she disappears from the airwaves for at least three months or more, only to return and hoist her motherly duties upon nannies. Talk about a charmed life. I wish I could disappear from my job for months on end every year or so, still get paid, still get vacation and sick time and have no one even dare question it?

Please follow and like us: