Note to readers: Listening/reading Megyn with the image of Archie Bunker as the speaker will make a lot more sense.
When the “Pick Me” enters the room, claiming the victim label she has denied to every other woman who has bravely come forward, it puts those of us who want to advance women’s rights at a disadvantage, and this is done on purpose. It’s a weaponization of decades of work by other women.
The Daily is journalism that fights for human rights. Please support our work by becoming a subscriber.
Enter Megyn Kelly, to attack an alleged victim of a horrific gang rape.
Serial protector of predators Megyn Kelly has been making headlines in the last few days for her predictably stale and steeped in internalized misogyny insults about the Cornell 7 Jane Doe, including Kelly’s suggestion that Doe was “not the most attractive gal” and therefore “enjoyed it,” adding during an episode of The Megyn Kelly Show on SiriusXM that she’s "extremely beefy in her arms and legs.”
Kelly is on a crusade to protect the “boys” — just like she did with the Duggars, Epstein and Trump.
Yes, she’s that woman. The dreaded Pick Me, in an era when even Pick Mes have been left behind. Kelly seeks validation and approval from men by putting down other women, and that’s why in her mind the only sexual harassment that was real was her own.
She’s not like other girls.
After Jane Doe alleged that she was gang-raped by multiple Chi Phi fraternity members, Kelly actively sided with the seven men defendants to such an extent that she questioned the victim’s timeline, threatened to dox her, and made highly publicized personal attacks against both Jane Doe and her high-profile defenders.
Kelly went on to argue that she was never gang raped because she never put herself in that position. She says these things on her echo chamber of a YouTube, so no one can ask questions, but if we could, I’d ask her: ‘What position is that?’
How has she avoided places where women have been gang raped, including reporting on war zones, in an agent’s office and in backrooms of fast food joints? Does she never leave her house, and is this a good message to send to girls and women?
People are afraid to admit that something so awful could happen to them, and so they victim blame. If the victim did something to make this bad thing possible, then a person like Kelly can feel smug and safe by demeaning the victim for their own actions. But the truth is, bad things can happen to all of us. It’s a matter of luck that they haven’t happened to Megyn Kelly and instead of being grateful for that, she uses it to pump herself up and self-soothe with poisonous venom spat at someone who says she was gang raped.
Instead of blaming victims, she could tell boys and men that real heroes stand up for the humanity of others and say no to the leader. But Archie would never.
On this matter, Kelly is adamant that she is above a woman like Jane Doe, and therefore Jane Doe’s right to dignity is worthless. The inference is, she wasn’t raped and if she was, it’s her fault, and she also probably liked it because she’s unattractive.
Kelly is the woman who championed Donald Trump even after he mocked her after she asked a question he didn’t like, saying she had “blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever,” a remark widely interpreted as a crude insinuation about menstruation. Naturally, Trump denied that and later Kelly went on to cheer for him, as well as voting for him in 2020 and 2024.
Yes, she voted for an adjudicated rapist, because again: No one’s sexual misconduct experience is real, except hers.
Megyn’s argument has her suggesting that women can’t get raped if they want attention. For a lawyer, this argument is specious and reactionary, but Kelly worked in corporate law and business disputes where perhaps her inability to respect humanity was a bonus.
Rape is not an act of lust.
Like a good flying monkey, Kelly doesn’t stick to just attacking the victim. She goes for the blood of those defending the victim.
“Shut up and stick to singing,” Megyn said on her show to singer-songwriter and actress Olivia Rodrigo after Rodrigo defended Jane Doe. “You’re a know-nothing moron who doesn’t know what the f– you’re talking about... I liked you better when you were in front of a microphone singing your weird little depressing songs.”
Olivia Rodrigo probably doesn’t even know who Megyn Kelly is, let alone care about her antiquated, 1980s shaded opinion.
That’s not the only time Kelly has made headlines with her rabid defense of predators. In June of 2015, I covered Kelly’s interview on Fox News with the Duggar family following the revelation of Josh Duggar’s past sexual molestation scandal. Her interview was so obsequious that she was accused of behaving like a defense attorney for the family, framing the parents as victims of “anti-Christian bias”.
This grotesque abuse of morality was brought to America by the woman who later claimed it was a “verifiable historical fact” that Santa Claus and Jesus were both white men, because of course there is always crossover with racism and sexism, both of which are used to prop up people who fear they can’t compete with everyone.
Megyn Kelly hates women so much that she can’t understand that not all of us judge each other based on appearances and not all of us go through life desperate for a man’s attention.
Rape is about Power, Not Lust
Rape as an act of power, control, and aggression. It has nothing to do with the size of someone’s arms. It is not about desire. Research shows that gang rape frequently start with a de facto leader whose hostility incites the others.
One of the first elements present in rape is “‘hostile masculinity,’ which is characterized by distrust and resentment toward women in general,” Psychology Today reported.
“The assault becomes a way for men to prove themselves to one another, with the woman’s dehumanization and objectification becoming the foundation for that bonding,” Nicole K. McNichols Ph.D. wrote in Psychology Today.
Megyn Kelly spends her days pouring distrust and resentment of women into men’s brains. That is her whole persona.
Kelly Believes She’s Above Other Women
Megyn Kelly as a persona was designed to feed Fox News to mostly male viewers and the women who want those male viewers’ attention. It’s slick, shiny skin, tight clothing, lots of makeup, and the thin veneer of objectivity bought with the network sneer that anchors use to suggest they are above it all.
This woman, who has made it her job to cast aspersions on the motives of other women and girls who come forward or are thrust into the limelight unwillingly after reports are made, expected everyone to believe her accusations of sexual harassment.
And she got it. We did believe her.
When Megyn Kelly ‘finally’ after a decade (according to her own timeline she’s imposed on Jane Doe) came forward about the sexual harassment she suffered via former Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes, I was the first to defend her and to explain that this also was not contained to Fox News, but rather it was everywhere in entertainment and media.
But for Megyn, it seems only her sexual harassment and assault are real.
She repaid that solidarity by abusing other girls and women who came forward. She’s still at it now, ten years later. The sexual harassment and assault are only real when they happened to her, and thanks for believing her, but she will never believe you.
As I wrote earlier, it’s not that feminists expect people to believe all women no matter what. That’s a strawman put up by anti-women rights agitators.
Feminists want women to be treated with dignity and to be believed when they first report something, enough to collect evidence, enough to not go after the alleged victim’s character as the first response. Women are not perfect, and yes some women do lie about sexual assault and harassment, but most do not. The research consistently shows that the rate of false reporting for rape and sexual assault is between 2% and 10%. That means most women are telling the truth. We want them treated accordingly.
Feminists want women’s reputations to matter as much as the accused, as in do not knee jerk smear and destroy a woman for coming forward. Investigate. Corroborate. And follow the evidence.
We keep seeing a certain kind of woman trying to exploit the labor of women who fought for all women, while they push down every other woman behind them.
We’ve seen this theme repeat in several stories about women who try to deny other women’s experiences while claiming victimhood themselves, as if only their story is true. "That was never my experience with Harvey in any way whatsoever” is a recent example when Blake Lively was asked about her friendship with now convicted rapist Harvey Weinstein after explosive reports first surfaced.
It’s only real when it happens to them. It’s a story as old as time.
But it leaves those of us who champion other women at a loss for how to discuss the nuance in a time of no nuance. How do we handle this woman’s hatred and contempt for other women while not becoming part of that ourselves?
Women who fight for equality and justice want to be seen as whole people with human rights and dignity. That includes how we speak about an alleged victim of such a horrific crime, because as I wrote earlier, the way we talk about this matters.
We must never become a Megyn Kelly, a woman who so hates other women and girls that she has spent her career cheerleading for the absolute worst kinds of predators, from Epstein to Duggar to Trump.
We must stop letting Pick Mes suck up the labor of other women.
It’s not misogyny to call Megyn Kelly out for her hypocrisy or to side eye a woman who spends years defending the worst kinds of predators and then expects to use the labor of the women she cast aspersions on for her own purposes.
Being a feminist is a collective job, and we need to stop using all of our reserves to pay the bills for women who never wanted to be a part of the club and have done everything they can to destroy it.
Two things can be true, Megyn Kelly is both a victim and a predator. But also, it’s way past time that we speak up to protect the movement and not allow it to be exploited by women who want to use it for their own gain. She doesn’t get a pass because Roger Ailes tried to kiss her.
Megyn Kelly represents power and will follow power wherever it goes. That means she won’t stand up for other women, unless it’s advantageous to her.
What are your thoughts on Megyn Kelly? Share them in the comments below.
Megyn Kelly is a creature who owes her continued livelihood to the rigged algorithms that gate keep the visibility of commentary by prioritizing the contrariness and sensationalism of the most reckless often irresponsible punditry. Her own sexual victimization plays zero role in what she says of those she stands to gain more by slandering and disbelieving - even stooping to feeble body shaming - than were she to actually stick her neck out on behalf of another woman far less likely to be monetized by way of empathy rather than contempt. Doe3s she even believe her own words? Does it even matter to her? Something she learned well by two masters of egregious manipulation of attention applied shamelessly using the twin levers of contempt and derision couched in the most sensationalized often disgusting terms.
I may be an anachronism, but my impressions of Megan Kelly (prior to this article) were quite limited. (I.e. I did recall that president Trump had not appreciated some question that she had asked him as journalist-moderator, and had later described her in a crude, angry way.) This article fills me in somewhat on what she has been using her public persona for since then.
The article paints a picture of her that says she has more or less devoted herself to undermining the evidence and reports brought forward by women who have been sexually assaulted. Which leaves me wondering, “Why would she be moved to repeatedly do such a thing?”
(Especially if she has been a victim of anything similar, herself. )
Reading between the lines, it almost seems as if there has been contrived a “public conversation” between two “sides,” where “Side A” is the voices of women who who have been violated against their will, and people who stand up for them, saying, “Look, there needs to be an investigation into these claims, and probably charges, trial, and if found guilty, punishment of the perpetrators.”
“Side B” would be people who opine things like, “She probably had it coming,” or without an investigation of the claims, people who raise their voice to say things like, “Her claims probably are not credible.”
I am so seriously on “Side A” that I can’t think of a time when “Side B” seemed to have more important things to say.
The very fact that we are having a conversation between “Side A” and “Side B,” seems to me to be an important societal inflection point.
I appreciate Jason’s article, because if this IS an inflection point, a possible turning point for society, I hope that it tends to resolve in the direction of according women who are claimants that they have been violated against their will, with dignity and respect, and great willingness to investigate their claims and if warranted, to speak out against the perpetrators and bring them to justice.
How else would we be creating the kind of world we wish to live in?
💁