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.
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?
It’s truly unjust that a single woman can set back the rights of so many others.
She uses her outsized influence, the result of her deal with her own devils, to trample others in support of some of the worst of humanity — no different than any of the elected enablers, titans of enterprise, administrators academic & bureaucratic, and rank (no file) MAGAts. Every one would gladly crawl over the bodies of the family members they’d murder to get ahead.
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?
💁
She’s such a POS
It’s truly unjust that a single woman can set back the rights of so many others.
She uses her outsized influence, the result of her deal with her own devils, to trample others in support of some of the worst of humanity — no different than any of the elected enablers, titans of enterprise, administrators academic & bureaucratic, and rank (no file) MAGAts. Every one would gladly crawl over the bodies of the family members they’d murder to get ahead.
I didn't realize she was still a thing. 😒
Opportunistic cheerleader for the patriarchy all it’s worst attributes.