Unless you just don't keep up, and perhaps congratulations are due anyone who doesn't, then you have heard about the media enhanced conflict between Fox News personality Megyn Kelly and businessman and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. One narrative encouraged by Trump opponents says he dodges a tough confrontation or question from Megyn Kelly out of fear. I will not comment on the truthfulness of that assertion one way or another, but I want to consider her role as a woman in that function. Some conservatives seem supportive of Kelly for the fulfillment of that duty.
The contention as Kelly relates to Trump is that he disparages her merely based upon her gender, that is, Trump disrespects women. It follows that whatever reaction of Trump against Kelly is simply because she is a woman. I would say instead that Trump is old school to the degree that it still bothers him to be forcefully questioned by a woman. Should it be happening? No. Any man who is a real man is the same. Everyone should know that. Fox News backs that expedient explanation about Trump. In an election, some hope that will further poison women toward Trump.
Again, my purpose isn't to analyze the politics, but it is good to provide context for everyone to the point I wish to demonstrate. I contend that Fox News and Megyn Kelly herself already dishonor her as a woman, because they exploit men with her physique, her special female charms, appealing to the lowest common denominator.
When a country and culture forsake God and the Bible, they welcome delusion and then degradation. God's Word establishes the role of the woman, and how does Kelly match that role? On one hand, against the plain teaching of the Bible, she's supposed to execute the traditional male role of combat. She challenges and interrogates men in power. The men she confronts must treat her as men have dealt with each other in the past, except not really. Every man knows he can't treat her just like a man without denunciation. Media critics praise Kelly for her toughness and in so doing encourage more of this from women.
On the other hand, Kelly herself and Fox News uses obvious sexuality to build audience for her show. They do this many ways. First, they back up their camera perspective to show her bare legs under her news desk. They don't do this with any other main anchor at Fox. What do Kelly's legs have to do with the veracity of her arguments or the value of her presentation? Does this not objectify her as a woman? How does this make her a more serious delivery instrument of news and opinion at Fox? This is a practice of an overt seduction of a male audience. You can't ask to be respected as a journalist and then use carnal allurement to increase your ratings. You are a hypocrite.
Imagine attempting to use male sexuality as a feature of building an audience to watch a news show. Fox wouldn't do it, so why do they do it with a woman? You can't want people to treat you the same as men and then function in the mode of using feminine allure. If it really is all about her arguments and her force and her reasoning, those superior talents, she shouldn't need these ancillary inducements.
Kelly doubles down on this idea with her 2010 spread in GQ magazine (warning on this link). How is someone to perceive a news anchor who poses in such fashion? Everyone watching Fox News knows they do the same with the other women as they do Kelly. No other news agency works women in this manner close to this same degree.
In my analysis, the value of Megyn Kelly is either found in her seductiveness or her combativeness, neither of which reflect the biblical, God-ordained role for a woman. Even if she exemplified the role of a man, she doesn't convey the professionalism expected with the seriousness of a news anchor. If someone intended for her to serve as a role model for young women, a goal to aspire to, her two most defining qualities fail in that regard.
4 comments:
All the female anchors at Fox News are extremely attactive, and wear clothing to ensure men notice. Look at the women on the morning show before "Fox & Friends." Look at Kelly. Coincidence. I don't think so.
On the other hand, many women wear clothing and wear their hair and makeup (or lack thereof) in order to purposefully NOT be attractive to men. I am glad to see that this blog stands up for such women and is pro gay rights. It's refreshing to see. We all stand against Donald Trump for his stance and calling lesbians such as View hosts "slobs." That's the main reason we dislike Trump. There are other reasons as well, but that is of key importance.
I am not a robot.
Anonymous,
I hold the right either to publish or not publish anonymous comments, but I've published this one, because you've shed something, which I'm not sure if I should call "light," here. You are saying that part of "being gay" is for lesbians not to be attractive to men, that this is a strategy that is attractive to other women? Hmmmmmmm. I have never ever heard that. Ever. I didn't know that women found other women being slobs to be attractive.
Let me enlighten you, anonymous, because you are missing a point, if not the point, here. I'm not arguing for women totally letting go on their appearance, that is, staying fit and keeping neat and clean and orderly and feminine, etc. The point is not to attract or sell yourself to or allure men. This is a straw man. Someone, either male or female, can detract with unsightliness with boorishness or slovenliness, etc. However, I didn't know that this marked lesbianism. That's news to me.
Post a Comment