[Update 10-26-16:last night, MK demanded that Trump “take responsibility” for his insults in an interview with Mike Pence, then took on Newt Gingrich who failed to back down in their dispute over media bias.]
[Update, 10-1-16: Megyn Kelly continues to present herself as a feminist, while seemingly regressing to an “aw shucks” parody of femininity and defending (obesity) in the name of outraged womanhood.]
Megyn Kelly, often considered the brainiest of Fox News Channel anchors, does not overtly define herself as a feminist, but she sure sounded like one in her spirited and feisty interviews with Lou Dobbs (Fox News Channel commentator) and Erick Erickson (editor of Redstate.com), May 31, 2013. So much so that liberal blogs have been gleefully covering her encounter with the two conservative males.
(See the smackdown here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN_EP3zcUXs )
Before I go on to the time wasted by women in decking themselves out as dolls and harem girls (Betty Grable, illustrated: the number one pinup girl in WW2), I must make this point about the internal contradiction of some “Christian” thought: Much of what Dobbs and Erickson presented as incontrovertible truth relies upon some brand of sociobiology: men were, they insisted, biologically determined to be protectors of the weaker females, especially during the vulnerable period of pregnancy and child-rearing. Working women who defied these God- and Nature-given sex roles are obviously responsible for social decadence and worse. (The same would go for ‘unnatural’ gay marriages where the usual division of labor between father and mother would not prevail.)
On the other hand, many social conservatives often believe that our species is not in Nature, but stands above it: nothing so irritating as a Spinoza follower, who often drops into pantheism. (See Leon Wieseltier’s commencement speech quoted here: https://clarespark.com/2013/05/30/nostalgia-for-the-middle-ages/. Wieseltier draws a sharp line between Man and Nature and laments the period when the two were conflated. )
I would have preferred that Megyn Kelly, herself an experienced lawyer, point out this contradiction, but she chose to stand up for working women and for married gay parents, suggesting that research had shown that their children were not harmed by the lack of a traditional father and mother.
Nothwithstanding her smackdown of Dobbs and Erickson, Kelly is a babe, whatever she says about herself; I felt some cognitive dissonance watching her stand up to the two conservatives, for she is a beautiful, expertly-coiffed, heavily made-up blonde. After seeing the encounter yesterday, I thought I should say something about “hair and makeup”, those two time-consuming, nature-defying imperatives for women out in the world or waiting at home for the male breadwinner to return to his castle.
Antiquity-dreams…Deviant Art
In the nineteenth century, during the first wave of feminism, the female pioneers whose tireless efforts and dedication gave women the consideration and political power they wield today, were not babes. They were usually religious Protestants, were plainly dressed, and certainly did not waste hours and hours on coloring their hair or applying make-up to enhance their lips, cheeks, and eyes, let alone painting their fingernails and toenails or lusting after high heeled shoes by Christian Louboutin. Rather, such decorations were generally confined to actresses and fancy women. There were not enough hours in the day for self-education (19th century women did not attend male colleges or have their own–with a few exceptions– and were denied entrance to the professions, though their [maternal]nursing skills were highly valued); these heroic early feminists were traveling to remote parts of America to further feminist causes (including abolition, temperance, votes for women, cleaning up corrupt city governments, and rescuing prostitutes from a life of disease, degradation and early death). Some of them were unmarried, while others had large families: household help was cheaper and husbands pitched in. In regarding their intertwined efforts at elevating our country, historian David Pivar has described their cause as a “purity crusade.”
Generally considered to be killjoys determined to pry into the affairs of men, these women have been caricatured by other male opponents. As a rising class, as progressive women “who want to make the whole world home-like”, they are blamed for “the nanny state” and for “the fetishism of facts.” Their masculinist opponents “want a girl, just like the girl that married dear old Dad.” Lots of luck, guys. (For more blogs on the various stages of feminism, see https://clarespark.com/2012/09/04/links-to-blogs-on-feminism/, or its twin https://clarespark.com/2012/03/19/links-to-feminist-blogs/.)
The photographer of the Deviant Art image is John Lynn of SNTP, and is on Facebook, as is Raven Winter, stylist and model.
The Clare Spark Blog 
Would you mind crediting my picture? I don’t mind if you use it, I woud just like there to be a credit somewhere please ? Antiquity-dreams..deviantart.com would be swell, if you would, please :).
Comment by Raven — December 23, 2013 @ 9:52 pm |
[…] What then, has been the effect on young women and girls? The Hollywood celebrities today have come out for Obama and for sex. Their innocence lies solely in their ignorance of the past. Along with the bohemian authors of the 1920s and afterwards, they have gone native, in flight from everything that the first wave feminists advocated. Can we sink any lower? (For more on the first wave feminists of the 19th Century, see https://clarespark.com/2013/06/02/hair-and-make-up-megyn-kelly-smackdown/.) […]
Pingback by The Sexual Revolution (2) | YDS: The Clare Spark Blog — June 3, 2013 @ 5:40 pm |
[…] https://clarespark.com/2013/06/02/hair-and-make-up-megyn-kelly-smackdown/ […]
Pingback by Links to feminist blogs | YDS: The Clare Spark Blog — June 2, 2013 @ 4:40 pm |
Lets not ignore God’s direction in any matter, particularly the Gender issue. Scripture, God’s revelation to mankind, refers to the female as weaker than the male. The wife is to be in submission to her husband, even as she is in submission to the Lord. Women are to be silent in the assembly, and may neither teach nor have authority over men. Miss Kelly defends female homosexual fornication, the scriptural penalty for which is eternal punishment in a lake of fire. But, as the article implies, she and her professional kin expend much time, energy and money on presenting themselves as sex objects rather than as persons. In Genesis we learn that the woman was created from and for the man; to be his helper.Not his superior; not even his equal; but his assistant. A great deal of the unhappiness in this world stems from the effects of ladies stepping over that line and rejecting their God given mission of assistantship and submission. For example, if women were not permitted to vote the Sociopath-In-Chief would not currently infest the White House, our economy would not be in shambles, infanticide and sodomy would not be the hallmarks of 2013America, and pathological deceit and theft would not be the order of the day. My Aunt Stella used to say that if women were not permitted to vote, operate motor vehicles or use telephones almost all our problems would just go away.Smart Lady!
Comment by Al Sowins — June 2, 2013 @ 4:13 am |
I suspect that Lou Dobbs and Erick Erickson would agree with you, though they might not go so far in public space. If you believe that your opinions should be applied to the law of the land, then you are a dangerous subversive, as bad as any communist or Nazi, though you appear to be writing as a fundamentalist Christian. I do not know if you are a conservative Catholic or an evangelical Protestant or some other sect. But if you believe that your views should triumph, then you are opposed to the Constitution of the United States. I speak not only for most women, but for all Americans who uphold the rule of law and equality before the law.
Comment by clarespark — June 2, 2013 @ 4:16 am |
What she said. I suspect this may be a troll, and satire, however, in which case Bravo, sir, you’ve done a spectacular job.
Comment by Charlie Martin — June 3, 2013 @ 4:16 pm
Charlie Martin is responding to Al Sowins, who may or may not believe what he posted. I looked him up on Facebook, and he is probably writing satire, as he dislikes Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann.
Comment by clarespark — June 3, 2013 @ 4:31 pm
Clare,
It is Al’s response, whether he is a troll or not, that supports the idea that there is a war on women. The fact that he dislikes Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman does not lead me to the conclusion that he has a penchant for satire. It just strongly suggests he doesn’t like women, regardless of their political affiliation.
War/Revolution occurs once discontent starts to spew forth from the mouth and agitates in society. It starts in the back room where people meet and grumble about the things that they believe are oppressing them. They get enough people agreeing and then they feel comfortable grumbling about it in the open. If they feel really comfortable about it, they grumble about it on national television. This can be good (American Revolution) or bad (Nazis hating Jews and just about everyone else who wasn’t them), but the price is always high and paid for with a lot of spilled blood.
Men have said some pretty controversial (disturbing) things in the past several years. We are WAY past things that “make you go hmmm” and are knee-deep in jaw-dropping things that make you exclaim, “I can’t believe he just said that!” It continues to happen. There are whole books written about how women and people who support women are tearing down this society and are causing boys to become an afterthought. In fact, even education problems are being attributed by many on the right to the fact that it is too “feminine”. And this is not just men saying and writing this stuff; there are plenty of women-hating women out there. Reminds me of the story last year of the Afghan muslim woman who helped her son beat and strangle her daughter-in-law to death because she had bore the man three daughters and no sons.
Al blames women for the fact that President Obama won a second term. Seriously. There is no blame to be shared by the GOP for choosing Mr. Romney and Paul Ryan? Why is he not picking on Asians (76% of them voted for Mr. Obama) or Jews (69% of them voted for the President)? Sixty percent of 18-29 year-olds voted for President Obama. There are some males in that age bracket aren’t there? And what about this statistic – 56% of the white females voted for Mr. Romney. So, what happens if you kill off the women, Mr. Sowins? Because that is what you are advocating right? Political annihilation?
I will not stand behind any candidate that agrees with the views of Mr. Sowins. As a Christian woman, I believe in Jesus. Jesus did not go around spreading hate and anger and oppression of anyone, including women. In fact, he reserved his strongest criticism, not for the women, but for the men who were in charge and were supposed to be spiritual leaders but only stressed burdensome rules and an outward show of holiness. He rebuked his own disciples when they would come down hard on the equivalent of today’s minority classes. He did not spend his short time on earth with an eagle-eye toward differences but instead focused on healing and reconciliation.
The fact that Jews and Asians – notwithstanding their being aligned with Republicans on many economic and family values issues – voted for President Obama should suggest that there are some basic principles that override the others. As a woman, if I want to continue to have a chance to have a voice that matters, I have to vote in a manner that ensures that can continue. The rest, as Ms. O’Hara might have said, “is another day.” Jews and Asians, who are no strangers to discrimination, are aware of this. If the Republican Party wants to have a chance to be viable, it has to distance itself from those like Mr. Sowins, and that means divorcing Christian fundamentalists. They, obviously, can still vote for Republicans, but Republicans must stop kowtowing to the most perverse of their notions and agendas. By the way, the Church has not much benefited from this ill-conceived marriage either.
The reason that liberals, feminists, independents and progressives are drawn to the tongue lashing that Megyn Kelly gave to Lou Dobbs and Erick Erickson is because it was so unexpected. People who do not watch Fox News to have their political opinions reinforced are used to the women on that network towing the line, regardless of what the men might say. I have tended to shrug it off as akin to pro wrestling (it is not real, it is just an act). But the point is that it apparently is ceasing to be funny or entertaining, and even “conservative” women are sick of it. I know I am.
Comment by cindy0803 — June 7, 2013 @ 8:31 am
[…] https://clarespark.com/2013/06/02/hair-and-make-up-megyn-kelly-smackdown/ […]
Pingback by Links to blogs on feminism | YDS: The Clare Spark Blog — June 2, 2013 @ 2:54 am |