JOHN E. writes:

Megyn Kelly seems to be a sign, one of many, of women who are out-of-place. She is doing what women excel at, and accomplish so beautifully in the proper context, which is to accept another unconditionally. The problem is that there are circumstances, many circumstances in our day, for which unconditional acceptance is among the last things that are needed, and Bono’s are such circumstances. Ms. Kelly is thrusting her womanly strength onto a situation in which it has no place, and in so doing, demonstrates how this strength becomes a weakness.

It is true that there are also many men who would respond in a similar fashion as Ms. Kelly, but their problem I observe largely to be one of ennui, of giving up the fight due to boredom or apathy, and not due to conviction. This is its own grave problem. On the other hand I see women everywhere I turn who are eagerly offering defenses for the indefensible. They are deeply convicted, they are in earnest, but they are out of their league, and worst of all, they haven’t the faintest idea how foolish they are being.

Laura writes:

Great point. I entirely agree. I notice from Kelly’s bio that she has a child who is only a few months old and another child who is less than two. I’m sure these circumstances add to her misdirected feelings, which is not to excuse her stupidity. A woman with a baby has emotions close to the surface. If she doesn’t, she’s heartless.

By the way, Megyn is a strange name. Sorry to change the subject, but I just think it is very odd. The quest for novelty in names is another strange modern phenomenon. But that’s a whole other issue.

Laura adds:

Returning to John’s point, there’s another way of looking at Kelly. It might not be an excess of womanly compassion but a deficiency. After all, this is a woman who has left her two young children, including a baby who is just five months old, to appear on TV. She seems to have no sensitivity, no awareness, of the needs of children, which makes her outrage over Keith Ablow’s statements understandable.

What is a woman who willingly lives such a life? A freak of nature.

The fact that there are many such women does not make her any less freakish.

                                                                                 — End of Initial Entry —

John E. replies:

That’s funny – her name struck me also. It’s a case of Y’s in all the wrong places, and it’s not the first time I’ve encountered that either.

Laura writes:

Exactly.

Technically, shouldn’t it be pronounced “mee-GINE?” Also, since “gyn” means “female,” doesn’t it mean “me-woman”? Or perhaps it is a Welsh name?

Thomas F. Bertonneau writes:

Apropos Megyn Kelly, I agree with you that her name is strange. I assumed it was a self-appellation rooted in feminist consciousness, with the g-y-n functioning to say, “ I am wombyn, hear me roar.” A few months ago I made this same point in an exchange with Lawrence Auster, who, on doing a little web-based research, determined that Ms. Kelly did not name herself, as I had supposed, but was actually so dubbed – M-e-g-y-n – by her parents. Maybe Kelly’s mother was making a feminist point. 

Laura writes:

I think her mother’s point was, my Megyn is nothing like all those run-of-the-mill Megans.

A reader writes:

 On the pronunciation of M-e-g-y-n: I pronounce it migraine.

Please follow and like us: