Here's Amy Davidson in The New Yorker, quoting some of the best quotes:
Erickson had followed up with a blog post saying that “many feminist and emo lefties have their panties in a wad over my statements,” but that it was a biological truth that “kids most likely will do best in households where they have a mom at home nurturing them, while dad is out bringing home the bacon.”...If you're going to play the science card, make sure you have a good science hand, because — unless you're just playing at home with a few lazy/dumb/weak friends, your bluff will be called.
KELLY: I don’t know what it is, but I don’t think I’m an emo-liberal, and I don’t describe myself as a feminist —
ERICKSON: I don’t think you are either.
KELLY:—but I will tell you, I was offended by the piece nonetheless. I didn’t like what you wrote one bit, and I do think you are judging people. To me, you sound like somebody who’s judging but wants to come out and say, “I’m not, I’m not, I’m not, now let me judge, judge, judge. And, by the way, it’s science, science, science, it’s fact, fact, fact, fact, fact.” Well, I mean, I have a whole—this is a list of studies saying your science is wrong and your facts are wrong.
Davidson portrays Kelly as bucking the system over there at bad old Fox News:
And, every now and then, the ideological blindness seems too much for her, and she makes it clear that she’s smarter than the men around her, rather than deftly letting them think they are.Davidson thinks that the Fox News regulars who find themselves in the Erickson/Dobbs position "pretend, as they fall through the holes in their logic, that the ideological ground under them is still there." But I think it's more likely that the whole scene was planned that way, that it served the well-understood interests of Fox News, that Kelly had the role of dominant female delivering a beating, and Erickson and Dobbs knew that they had to receive 50 lashes of female retribution and restorative justice in order for the Fox News machine to move forward with the 2 of them as component parts.
पोस्ट्स
१३९ टिप्पण्या:
Seems odd to say all men are naturally more dominant than all women, when there is obviously a spectrum of dominance.
And obviously Megyn's part of the spectrum is far more dominant than Erick's or Lou's.
Reminds one of the movie Becket about king Henry II's penance for the murder in the Cathedral of Thomas Becket. But Peter O'Toole and Richard Burton played the roles better than the Ailes boys did.
I would definitely let Megyn Kelly ride on top.
Or direct me in any which way "...a little to the left...down... aahhh."
Jus' sayin'
Oops.
That's sexist.
My apologies.
I don't see the problem here. I like women smarter than me, admittedly a low bar. Especially very attractive women.
Why does Kelly defend single mothers as being on parity with mothers in relationships? (63% of female breadwinners are single mothers according to the data)? That doesn't jibe with commonsense.
Megyn is asserting that her intellectual smarts is dominance in the media jungle over dumb as rocks peacocks in men's bodies.
The embarrassing part is that she is right.
Which is an interesting comment itself. The men are hired for their staid dullness that does not offend other men, but the news babes are allowed to show off rapier wit and trounce the other talking heads as sport.
Go Kelly!
That Eric Erikson is an idiot. He is echoing many of the righty anti-feminist ideas about women staying home and taking care of the children. But it is no less offensive than the lefties like Larry Summers proclaiming women are intellectually inferior to men. Both want us in the kitchen where they think we belong.
"I don't see the problem here. I like women smarter than me, admittedly a low bar. Especially very attractive women."
Why are the men on Fox News so unattractive?
The women are all dolled up, but even under all the trimmings they're nice looking. They are never fat.
Why are the men allowed to look like that?
Obviously, if the males don't have to meet an attractiveness standard, they have an advantage in the competition for jobs.
Yet still they lose an intellectual bout.
Of course, in my analysis, they were required to take the fall.
Few things are less edifying than newsreaders debating topics they know only superficially. High school level discussion, at best; like a USA Today article read aloud.
And staged? Maybe so; it never occurred to me that news orgs have scripted themselves to this degree.
Wonderful insight.
What does it matter when I suspect even a smart Fox like Kelly probably voted for the far dumber candidate [Obama]?
I don't think Kelly is that smart and I don't think she would have her job without her very good looks. Recent years being the exception, throughout history, children have been raised by two parent families so it seems to me that way of raising children has been tested by time.
well, Kelly is good looking, so we can hear her.
"Why are the men on Fox News so unattractive?"
Wrong question. But then you knew that.
I think we know that women are the victims of domestic violence and that's because they are smaller than men. Larger animals tend to be more dominant.
If women are, in fact, dominant, does this imply that women are the root of all evil in this world, or perhaps just America and similar "enlightened" societies? Perhaps traditional wisdom was not so far off the mark.
Oh, well. It seems that material, physical, and ego gratification come first.
Still, I wonder if this is the outcome of a natural or indoctrinated state. Some women, and men, exhibit a fanatical disposition, which is oriented around an unconstrained ego and base desires.
"Yet still they lose an intellectual bout."
Wrong assumption. Go back and look at the video. Pay particular attention to the Dobbs' affect.
if single moms are so great, where do all the feral kids come from?
If Megan were my woman, I'd encourage her to let her hair down and look a little less mannish and a little more zaftig.
Ann Althouse said...
Why are the men on Fox News so unattractive?
Stephen Hayes excepted, right?
"Of course, in my analysis, they were required to take the fall."
I say they were required to take the fall because of political correctness.
"Why are the men on Fox News so unattractive?"
1. Women on average are far better looking than men.
2. Women more attractive than Kelly get better jobs in the media and elsewhere.
3. Men more attractive than these get better jobs elsewhere.
Handsome men are less frequent than pretty women, is my theory. The funny thing is, the blandness of men in media, and the frequent ugliness one finds on TV means that this is the cream of the male crop.
Hilarious!
Althouse: Why are the men on Fox News so unattractive?
People look more attractive if they stand next to unattractive people. If you want all your women to look pretty, the only thing to do is have ugly looking men.
But I have to admit - she is sort of cute when she's "offended".
"Raised by single moms" stats are grossly distorted because of Blacks.
Sort of like why Republicans don't get a majority of the Female vote.
13% of population is Black. Black women are thus about 6.5% of population, so Republicans start with a 6.5% deficit that is hard to make up.
The 'y' means dumb as rocks.
She won't be talking to mathematicians. It's sort of male dominated.
The ugly truth is that women are dominate only because they aren't allowed to be beaten any more.
Single mothers do worse in all areas. Megyn did get all emo-gal and chose to take it personally, rather than acknowlege reality.
Lots of idiot women get by because lots of men they don't know pony up money for the upkeep of their children. Then they pretend they are "strong" and "independent".
it was a biological truth that “kids most likely will do best in households where they have a mom at home nurturing them, while dad is out bringing home the bacon.”
Presumably there are data supporting or refuting this statement. Were these discussed?
dreams:
The two parent family, with a mother and father, is a structure ordained by the natural order. It is not only a requirement of evolutionary fitness, but it also establishes the first order of social organization. Even today it is mandatory if perhaps not explicit.
Anyway, let the social experiment continue, because it has enjoyed such extraordinary success. Let the biological experiment continue, because it will enjoy similar extraordinary success. Let the human ego, and its base desires, prevail over the terms and circumstances of reality and reason.
Always thought Kelly's first name would make a great license plate for a obstetrics and gynecology doctor.
ME GYN
The women on fox news are not attractive. They're indistinguishable fembots with insufferable voices.
Not to single out fox, they're all like that.
See?
There's your icon for MSM news intelligence.
"Lots of idiot women get by because lots of men they don't know pony up money for the upkeep of their children. Then they pretend they are "strong" and "independent"."
Even sluts and crack whores strut on mother's day, as American as apple pie.
"Larry Summers proclaiming women are intellectually inferior to men"
I think L.S. is a vile human being for other reasons, but in fairness that is not what he said.
Kelly, your colorist called and said get your ass in here NOW! What's the matter Baby hard keeping up?
I thought Megyn took it all too personally. What is she going to argue, that she has chosen the worse path for her children? The working moms are bad for kids?
Now, I don't agree that kids with anstaybat home dad are going to be worse off then those with a stay at home mom. But I don't think studies about how two working parents affects children can be trusted.
I also thought her appeal to studies, then knocking down old studies (which were racist) kind hurt her point. They were a good illustration of how studies bow to the political thought of the day. These days, that means pro-working parents, pro-gay parenting.
*With a stay at home dad
Kelly is well educated and a practicing lawyer who still knows a fact from a stupid assertion.
Propagandists of all stripes take note. BS does not fly on Megyn's watch.
rhhardin said...
"The women on fox news are not attractive. They're indistinguishable fembots with insufferable voices.
Not to single out fox, they're all like that."
I know. Even my cousin, Robin, could stand to take it down a notch, practice her math skills.
Still, what's it to me - I don't watch TV news.
Good performance by Megyn and she demolished one of my prejudices - any blond named Megyn, with a "Y", must be an airhead.
"Why are the men on Fox News so unattractive?"
I guess because good looks are required for trust fund females but not for the trust fund males.
Life is so unfair.
Megyn could get somebody to comment on Derrida's Choreographies interview, for a feminist change of pace.
Sociological research is notoriously jiggered to the political predilections of the researchers. Megan could have pulled out a much longer list of "research" proving that women are paid 70% of what men are paid, and hopefully we all know that is bogus, agenda-driven research.
The APA is also notorious for it's political correctness. I can't judge the "research" she cited, but I am very skeptical of it, based on the PC predilections of the sponsoring entities.
Studies, studies
Many, many years ago I was friends with a couple, graduate students at an Ivy League university. They were house sitting for me.
When I arrived back home I found a group of graduate students who had been invited to dinner talking around the dinner table. So I joined in the conversation. At one point I was talking to one graduate students about his research regarding education and prisoners. He seemed to me to have a preconceived idea about the desirable outcome of his research so I asked him what would happen if the research led in a different direction. Without hesitation he said he would change the data to fit the outcome. Not one person around that table raised an objection.
From that time, decades ago, to now we are reaping the results of politicization of culture to the point that we cannot tell if it is actually getting warmer or colder. We are in deep trouble as our grip on reality, on science and political economy, recedes into to distance of time.
"Wrong assumption. Go back and look at the video. Pay particular attention to the Dobbs' affect."
You're the one making the wrong assumptions. How about reading everything I said and understanding it before fighting with me over things you think I must have said?
Ericsson and Kelly don't have similar jobs at Fox News. Commentators on showsy on all networks fairly regularly are dominated by the show's host (of either gender).
I think the most embarrassing gender duo on tv news is Morning Joe and Mika. Mika just sits there looking skinny and chirping land clucking at his comments.
"1. Women on average are far better looking than men."
Even if I believed that, it wouldn't justify giving up on any demand that the males we're asked to look at on television get up to some basically attractiveness level. At least the requirement not to be fat ought to be the same for the males and females.
"Propagandists of all stripes take note. BS does not fly on Megyn's watch."
Another no spin zone on fox?
We're talking about television. Dobbs and Erickson could be in print and/or on the radio if what they say is so interesting and useful.
Television is a visual medium. I can't believe how much effort is put into presenting good-looking women while allowing men with zero appeal to go on. I'd like to know who are the best females who look as bad as Dobbs and Erickson. These ladies must be quite amazing. I wonder what they'd say if they were allowed on TV.
Erik gave the progs a nice head explosion. so -that was good.
Candy Crowley
The View
Candy Crowley, Rachel Maddow, that Jemu lady, Donna Brazile, joy Behar, Hillary Rosen.
I watched it live and thought she was overly defensive. Erickson was making a general assertion and acknowledged that there are exceptions. His point was in the larger context of the defense of traditional two parent families and the breakdown of the family etc...I told my wife about this later and told her I would show her the media reaction as they took snippets out of context to make Kelly a hero. So thanks. By the way, I like and respect Kelly just as I like and respect Althouse but neither is perfect and both are unable to be objective about their pet issues. As are most of us.
Meghan McCain
I watched it live and thought she was overly defensive. Erickson was making a general assertion and acknowledged that there are exceptions. His point was in the larger context of the defense of traditional two parent families and the breakdown of the family etc...I told my wife about this later and told her I would show her the media reaction as they took snippets out of context to make Kelly a hero. So thanks. By the way, I like and respect Kelly just as I like and respect Althouse but neither is perfect and both are unable to be objective about their pet issues. As are most of us.
"Television is a visual medium. I can't believe how much effort is put into presenting good-looking women while allowing men with zero appeal to go on. I'd like to know who are the best females who look as bad as Dobbs and Erickson. These ladies must be quite amazing. I wonder what they'd say if they were allowed on TV."
Greta Van Susteren isn't attractive and I think most people would agree with me.
Judging people: is there anything worse?!
She lost me when she said she was "offended" by an opinion she disagreed with. That's a shame, because she later seemed to have some plausible support for her critique of that opinion, but by then she'd lost all credibility as far as I was concerned.
So Megyn is a dom?
what's so bad looking about Dobbs and Erickson anyway? they are a little jowlsy, but so are a lot of people.
Are Dobbs and Erickson supposed to be representative of Fox's ideology? If so, why does Megyn have the bigger role at the network?
If they were there advocating polyamory and saying it is better for children and Megyn responded the same way, would the New Yorker be cheering her on or calling her a troglodyte?
BTW, what color is your hair, really, Ann?
And I'm sure men on Fox don't get the first-class make-up treatment the females get.
Lets see the women of Fox go on with almost no makeup, as the men do.
CNN likes their conservatives paleo and physically unattractive. It was Bob Novak and Pat Buchannan as the faces of conservatives for years on that network. Both Dobbs and Erik are CNN castoffs.
Fox, it its early days, chose Tony Snow, Brit Hume and Sean Hannity for the conservatives and wimpy Alan Colmes and Mort Kondracke to represent the libs.
this is like the pot calling the kettle Hitler.
When will the write articles about the failing logic uttered on MSNBC and NPR?
Seriously, the stupidity that gets said by people on MSNBC is just as atrocious.
I'm totally in agreement on only bring the truth in on topics such as these. Really, the truth should ever be brought up period. This is a big time problem for progressives who don't market in the truth.
"wouldn't justify giving up on any demand that the males we're asked to look at on television get up to some basically attractiveness level"
Sure it does. The available pool of good-looking guys is smaller than of pretty women. The sliver of handsome men interested in the media apparently find TV news as beneath their income or status potential.
The market -largely female- says this is what TV news can buy: some very pretty girls, some okay, and a handful of handsome men, the rest are blah or even ugly.
I find it quite funny.
Why was there no "leg cam" shot of Dobbs or Erickson? That would help me judge their attractiveness on an equal basis. Kelly got a couple leg cam shots in that snippet.
I'm of the opinion that is was all planned. Unless one believes that multimillion dollar national news shows are not carefully planned in great detail ahead of time.
And they don't call the business network females "money honeys" for nothing.
Job requirements: a ten in economics and appearance.
But how about the poor male (so far) presidential aspirants who have to be tall with all their hair?
Will Hillary have to get yet another makeover to get ready for 2016?
"The study showed that attractive candidates obtained an average of 32 percent of votes cast in their electoral districts, compared with an average of just 11 percent for less attractive candidates. What’s more, there were substantially more winning candidates from the attractive group than from the less attractive group. In short, this study showed that the more attractive a candidate the greater the proportion of the vote they obtained from their electoral district."
I think Bill Hemmer is cute, as is James Rosen. There's a Fox reporter who does remotes who is really cute and actually has good hair for a news guy. Sean Hannity is all-American handsome. Rick Klein is an ABC reporter and frequent Greta guest who is cute. On CNN, Jake Tapper, Ivan someone, Don Lemmon, and Anderson Cooper are all very attractive.
But Professor, have you seen Roger Ailes lately? For him to blackball corpulent males on Fox News would not come easy.
The real argument is not about a variant on the 2 parent family, but that we're in uncharted territory.
We all know women, when allowed to be women and not feminists, are the more nurturing of the sexes. What happens when you reverse that and take away the man's reason for being (breadwinner) isn't really terra incognita. We know what it's done to black people and there's little doubt something similar will happen to whites.
Which is what the Demos want.
Erickson has always struck me as a blowhard, but Dobbs, CNN vet though he may be, comes across as pretty smart (I've always thought he reins it in for O'Really) and could have given Ms Kelly a run for her money. The real issue here, as Erickson, pointed out, is that this is probably politically motivated and a couple of "studies" are not the end-all, be-all.
I don't think the scene was planned. Kelly is really smart, she has a real JD and is a real lawyer, not the sort of JD that qualifies someone to be a community organizer.
@SomeoneHasToSayIt: That last one is gonna leave a mark.
@Paco Wove'..
I was paraphrasing and sound about right.. he said women have "issues of intrinsic aptitudes" towards science . Now you paraphrase it.
We are so evolved.
Instead of "women are stupid" it's "men are stupid."
PS You can easily tell when Megyn Kelly is in it for real and when she's going along with a gag.
I think Erickson may have tripped her inner Abzug, but most of the time, she's pretty cool about it all.
What Summers said:
"So my best guess, to provoke you, of what's behind all of this is that the largest phenomenon, by far, is the general clash between people's legitimate family desires and employers' current desire for high power and high intensity, that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination. I would like nothing better than to be proved wrong, because I would like nothing better than for these problems to be addressable simply by everybody understanding what they are, and working very hard to address them."
What you said he said:
"Larry Summers proclaiming women are intellectually inferior to men"
If these women on FOX are so damn smart, why do they use the legs and tits strategy?
I used to work for one of those women! Legs and tits, I win!
People will not watch good looking men on the newsy shows because they are thought to be stupid or, if they are a real pretty-boy, gay. Men will only watch good looking women on the newsy because it is assumed that the opinions and views of all women don't matter, so the cute one is on for "equality" and a bit of eye candy. Women are so vain and misogynistic about looks that they would tear a Dobbsian looking woman on TV to shreds.
@Paco Wove', you are a good guy and I am not being confrontational.. You can defend that arrogant scum all you want..
This line gets my goat: "that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude", and in my mind it translates to women being intellectually inferior..He is saying that the corporations want the best and women are not rising up to that challenge.
If these women on FOX are so damn smart, why do they use the legs and tits strategy?
Isn't that a smart strategy if you're a women and want to make it on TV?
The core of this discussion [I presume] is...
... kids most likely will do best in households where they have a mom at home nurturing them, while dad is out bringing home the bacon
I guess we've forgotten the 1940's and WWII...where many moms worked and raised kids while dads were half a world away fighting two wars. Post war, on my block, there were several single parent families [mom only] who got that way by the attrition of war.
I'm admittedly prejudiced, but it seems to me that many of us war kids grew up and had productive lives.
PS: Meade ... Kelly had some scathing commentary about the "zaftig" stuff during her last pregnancy. If I can find it I'll post it.
"He is saying that the corporations want the best and women are not rising up to that challenge."
While I appreciate your assessment of my goodness, I don't think your paraphrasing of Summers is accurate or fair. He is not saying what you say in the quote above, and you seem to be applying a lot of mental filters to get there.
What he is saying, as far as I can make out, is that the greater variation in mathematical aptitude among men contributes to the preponderance of men in science and math. That this greater variation exists is, as far as I know, not a controversial statement. That it would help contribute to a preponderance of men in the field seems, to me, to be so obvious as to practically be a null hypothesis.
I laughed at Ann's subjective assessment that Kelly dominated or smacked or beat the two guys. I watched the clip before seeing Ann had written about it. I saw it as an intelligent discussion in which Kelly clearly had a biased viewpoint supporting her own position as a hard working mom/primary income earner and tried to dominate/bully the guys. The guys reacted in a friendly and intelligent manner. Kelly conceded the single Mom issue, and mostly tried to defend people like herself who work outside the home. The debate about unnamed studies and "science" was pretty pointless (because neither side had the details to support their point). Overall, from a common sense perspective, the idea that a hard working Mom outside the home almost necessarily makes good parenting a greater challenge. So, on balance, I thought Kelly won on style and certainly on looks, but the guys probably won on substance.
"I don't want my woman bringing home a paycheck. Not until the strippers have left, anyway." -- Iowahawk
Amexpat,
I guess you're right!
"I can't believe how much effort is put into presenting good-looking women while allowing men with zero appeal to go on."
Because in spite of your feminist delusions the greatest value a woman can have is physical beauty. It has always been and will always be. It is deeply wired into our biological foundation.
The highest value a man can have is alpha status which often includes male beauty, but does not require it.
The left is at war with human nature. It is a war that cannot be won but can and will leave a tremendous swath of human carnage.
On this this particular topic you are on the wrong side.
"Blogger Paco Wové said...
it was a biological truth that “kids most likely will do best in households where they have a mom at home nurturing them, while dad is out bringing home the bacon.”
Presumably there are data supporting or refuting this statement. Were these discussed?"
How about 2000 years of history ?
Or, you could look at Detroit or other bastions of leftist dominance.
I knew all I needed to know about Megyn when I saw her name. She is cute and she does look hot when she is riled up but the bar is not too high when you are dealing with lawyers (Sorry host).
Paco Wové said...
----
yeah, I agree you don't see what I see.. his WH shenanigans about women notwithstanding. These people reveal themselves in subtle ways that people like you want to give him a fair chance that they don't deserve.
Am I the only one who is sick of the stick with boobs telling me how the game is played?
I'd pay more attention to the arguments of a Megyn Kelly than those of Candy Crawford or Andrea Mitchell. Pretty girls win a lot of arguments.......The girls on Fox are better looking than the men, but on the network news shows they're all absurdly good looking. I think they hire a few eyesores of both sexes to give credibility to their self serving assertion that they're a news gathering organization as opposed to Viagra salesmen.
One of the reasons M Kelley is so dominant in the exchange is that her physical beauty intimidates the beta males she is engaging.
Women like Megyn just have bigger balls than some guys do. That's not bad, that's just who she is. There is nothing wrong with that in the least. Now is she smarter than me, maybe as a lawyer, but on everything else. Well, let's just try that out shall we?
As to male dominance overall just look around you at all the marvels of invention and creation in our civilization and make a list with two columns; one with inventions by males, and one females.
Now imagine the world with only the inventions and constructions from the female column.
I guess we've forgotten the 1940's and WWII...where many moms worked and raised kids while dads were half a world away fighting two wars. Post war, on my block, there were several single parent families [mom only] who got that way by the attrition of war.
And I guess you have forgotten that back then, anybody in your neighborhood that saw your kids making trouble was free to spank him and then bring him home where he'd get another licking from mom, or an Uncle.
There was also usually a man they could hang around, or maybe an auto shop, before OSHA closed their doors to observers. Also the nuclear family was still intact with extended support for war widows raising kids.
A fatherless Bob Hackworth used to hang around soldiers when he was young and it led him into the Army at 15.
So, the fatherless child post WW2 had some boundaries outside of the home that guided them better and usually contact with responsible men from the community that provided role models for them absent the father.
With modern notions of child discipline calling such corrections "abuse" and criminalizing children working outside the home, those days are long gone.
Megyn, if you think your children are better off without you around, who are we to argue?
"With modern notions of child discipline calling such corrections "abuse" and criminalizing children working outside the home, those days are long gone. "
Absolutely right. I grew up with a number of kids who had lost fathers in WWII. Not all did well and some of that was the loss of the father. One of my pals in grammar school was one and he spent a lot of time at my house where my mom was home and my dad was the breadwinner.
My mother went back to work when I was in 8th grade and my sister was in 4th grade.
Megyn is very defensive about her own choice. No surprise there except I would have pointed it out.
Very good discussion. I thought Mid-Life Lawyer had most accurate assessment, essentially that Megyn was overly defensive. Others said when she said he was "offended," she greatly weakened her intellectual argument.
Ann tried to backtrack in her comment from one clear premise of her original post that Megyn had won, i.e., dominated, beaten, smacked. It is true that Ann's original post argued it was staged, but she was also clear that it was staged as a victory for Megyn.
"But I think it's more likely that the whole scene was planned that way, that it served the well-understood interests of Fox News, that Kelly had the role of dominant female delivering a beating, and Erickson and Dobbs knew that they had to receive 50 lashes of female retribution and restorative justice in order for the Fox News machine to move forward with the 2 of them as component parts."
By the way, Ann was wrong. It was good TV, with Fox using a smart and capable Kelly to challenge two guys in a very entertaining segment. The "feminist" side of it was a bonus. Kelly holds her own intellectually on all subjects with all comers. I actually thought this was one of her weaker moments because, while entertaining, her personal interest undermined her arguments.
pm317: This line gets my goat: "that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude", and in my mind it translates to women being intellectually inferior..
Are you denying categorically that the distribution of "intrinsic aptitude" in a given field could differ significantly between the sexes? I'd say that the evidence is pretty strong that the highest achievers in just about any field are going to be predominantly male. So yeah, the people who are not the highest achievers in a brainiac field are "intellectually inferior" to those who are, if that's the way you want to phrase it, but I don't know why it bothers you that much. He did not say, "all women are intellectually inferior to all men", no matter how badly the chronically and professionally butthurt want that to be so.
These people reveal themselves in subtle ways that people like you want to give him a fair chance that they don't deserve.
Geez, pm, Paco isn't overlooking Summers' personal flaws or ulterior motives in the name of "giving him a fair chance". He's given no evidence of having any emotional investment in Summers at all. Look and learn. He's trying to get you to "play the ball, not the man". And you keep trying to bring everything back to Summers' alleged "real feelings".
As a matter of fact, you're handily fulfilling every stereotype about women being emotional and not rational, concerned only with their feelings and indifferent to facts, "taking everything personally", and being incapable of disinterested debate. Whether Larry Summers is arrogant scum has no bearing on the truth of his statements.
Why are the men on Fox News so unattractive?
The women are all dolled up, but even under all the trimmings they're nice looking. They are never fat.
Why women are good looking is easy.
Pick up a Cosmo, Teen Magazine, or any girly magazine, and you will see beautiful women in the Ads, in the articles.
Watch standard porno, and you will often see women having sex with each other, but never men having sex with each other.
Even sports Illustrated has the Swimsuit addition.
The answer is obvious: both men and women place a high value on women who are attractive.
Meanwhile, guys don't care if other guys are attractive. They want knowledge. And I suspect women place a high value on competence and capability too.
Their worst offense?
They were right.
It seems like a mathematical certainty that as the government provides more for women, women have less dependency on men, that they will have less reason to have the man around.
While I suspect women in their natural state are better nurturers (I mean, what guy could enjoy some alien creature growing in side of them: see Alien, the movie on that one), most women love having something growing inside them.
Ugh, thinking about something growing inside of me gives me the willies. As does the female side of the sex act. Ew.
Their worst offense?
They were right.
She certainly dominated the discussion. But, I don't think she won her point.
One other thought about good looking men who are intelligent not on Fox. It might suck for competitive males. If the dude is smart, but ugly, there isn't a threat in letting the guy into your home.
Good looking, aggressive, intelligent? Guys might not like them to come inside.
But, I don't think she won her point.
She cut off the important bit of the debate about single parenthood (almost always a woman).
As someone pointed out, the results aren't in for male stay at home nurturers. My guess is they will be inferior on average to women, but individual mileage may vary.
Aridog:
I'm curious about the support system back then. I suspect there is something to "It takes a village." Where there enough other Moms around on the block to civilize the savages?
issues of intrinsic aptitude and its variation between men and women..hmm.. is that like some kind of genetic difference that makes women inherently not choose something? something that men are purportedly good at? LOL here..
A point of order: When a trained lawyer lets go on you with blunt verbal aggression, they probably have the upper hand on the facts of the case. Other wise the stay in diplomacy mode.
Her facts are that even if group A is on the whole better at a task than group B is, that is NOT a logical reason to judge all Bs as inept.
So says one B that has twice the smarts and debate skills as two dumb as rock As on screen with her.
If women are such intellectual giants, why have I not yet seen a single hi-tech startup founded by a woman who was the lead engineer?
SGT Ted said ...
And I guess you have forgotten that back then, anybody in your neighborhood that saw your kids making trouble was free to spank him and then bring him home where he'd get another licking from mom, or an Uncle.
Huh? Why would you presume that?
How many times do I need to say exactly that here? I was a kid during WWII and I remember almost everything...especially about street manners and difference between "stand up" and "shut up"....which I have mentioned here multiple times.
What happened to my comment ?
OMG! I love Megyn Kelly. If she was playing a part, she deserves an Oscar.
There ain't nothin' about that woman I don't like.
Dante said...
Aridog: ... I'm curious about the support system back then. I suspect there is something to "It takes a village." Where there enough other Moms around on the block to civilize the savages?
Not what I'd call "It takes a Village" Hillary's terms, but a definite sense of community and shared responsibilities...e.g., respect each other and help each other. It is similar to what I observe in ranching families in Montana when I visit there.
Also, as Sgt Ted has said...there were usually uncles, aunts, grandparents, or other relatives around to mollify little savages, as you put it. Most of us had no toys, other than those made by hand by a relative, in addition to raggedy baseballs and gloves,...in my case a grandfather. I was particularly lucky, I had an old radio with short wave reception as well as AM.
An informal support system evolved during that time...for example in handling the ration stamps efficiently, one person buying meats, another staples, another fruits, and so forth...not exactly legal, but efficient none the less. Authorities looked the other way if black marketing wasn't obvious...and in those days in most urban neighborhoods, it was not a practical avocation.
As tires wore out families shared cars when they had them that weren't up on blocks. Other times neighbors might watch your kids on a streetcar for you if they had to be somewhere and you couldn't be there, too, due to work.
Althouse asserted: Except Megyn Kelly never breaks down. And Lou and Erick end up beaten to a bloody pulp.
Except that she did "lose it" as much as they did. And why the importance of ignoring the elephant in the room...the single mother issue?
pm317: issues of intrinsic aptitude and its variation between men and women..hmm.. is that like some kind of genetic difference that makes women inherently not choose something? something that men are purportedly good at? LOL here..
Haw haw haw haw...genetic differences between people...different choices...I'm busting a gut here...you're killing me, man....
Uh, wait, what's so funny, pm? I'm not getting the joke. Could you explain it to me?
Oh! I get it now. You do categorically deny that the distribution of "intrinsic aptitude" in or preference for a given field could possibly differ significantly between the sexes.
Now that's funny.
"I'm offended!"... a rhetorical strategy used in discussions that allows one to avoid responding to an argument with a counter-argument. Often used by proponents of political correctness and feminists.
"But Professor, have you seen Roger Ailes lately? For him to blackball corpulent males on Fox News would not come easy."
Seems to me he stays off screen. The issue I'm raising is who qualifies to do the on air shows. The females are expected to look good (with makeup on and hair aggressively styled). The males seem to be allowed to look any old way.
She's hot, but I bet she can't even change her own flat tire, or defend herself from a teenage boy, or a tiny spider. She's dominant like a lion cub is climbing on the head of it's sleeping father and emitting a tiny kitten growl. "I'm king of the jungle!" You go girl!
Killing spiders isn't difficult, just get your designer flip flop and nail it. Pffft, done!
Well, that's what happens when you piss off a woman that *isn't* a feminist.
After all, her whole life philosophy doesn't rest on an assumption of your male superiority.
My question about It's Not about the Nail is at what age a boy would understand it.
It relies on the boy having picked up some experience with girls who have picked up some doctrine.
" The males seem to be allowed to look any old way."
Well, it would not be an improvement if the women all went downhill to make it fair. Few of the anchors, good looking or not, are really top quality intellects that bring a lot to the table like say a Krauthammer, George Will or Tim Russert. They are selected for the skills of delivering the material smoothly, handling the flow of the show, and yes, looking good doing it, if possible.
There is a real dearth of average or poor looking women giving commentary on these shows. I don't understand why, but I don't know if any extra viewers would tune in to see a good looking Krauthammer over the crippled up one.
I am amazed at how good looking the female punditry is. They are all relatively young and hot. Kirsten Powers, Mary Katharine Ham, Michelle Malkin, etc. Just check out the conservative side alone here.
I feel your pain ladies, but maybe hot guys are just dumber. Has there there ever been a study done?
The same thing is also true of sitcoms with the frumpy guy and the hot wife. Maybe it's all for the benefit of men. Maybe you gals are being ripped off, but lets not fix it by getting frumpier girls please.
Your point - "Of course, in my analysis, they were required to take the fall."
My point - they did not take the fall. That perception existed only in your jaundiced mind.
Please try to keep up.
bagoh20 said...
She's hot, but I bet she can't even change her own flat tire,...
Probably not, she is a New Yorker nowadays and all that. But it's a safe bet you'd give her a hand with that if the opportunity arose. :)
Those interviewed are put forth as expert pundits, and males fill that role. They're always trying to fix stuff.
Women hosts are there for women. They're there for talking.
If women are so smart, how come they work for 60 cents on the dollar to men. That's pretty dumb. And by the way, I need an accountant, a lawyer, and a half dozen welders at 60% normal cost. Where are these ladies at a discount.
bagoh - women are as qualified as men make the same salary.
"bagoh - women are as qualified as men make the same salary."
Well that sucks. How about ugly women? Are they cheaper? They all look the same in a welding helmet anyway, and my defense against sexual harassment will be stronger if they scare the judge.
I blame Murphy Brown.
Meade said...
If Megan were my woman, I'd encourage her to let her hair down and look a little less mannish and a little more zaftig.
Like this?
No, like this!
Synova @2:59 - well said.
The assumption of Ms Davidson and our hostess that this exchange was staged to allow Ms Kelly to win ... Me Ow!
Megyn Kelly often provides expert commentary on legal issues, she's not just an anchor/prompter reader. And her commentary is usually spot-on and efficiently delivered. She's beaten up on the awful O'Reilly (can't stand him) and others, male and female. She is in no way stupid and is pretty aggressive but in a nice way. Basically, she's her own Exhibit A for the argument she is making here. Which I'm not even going to wade into that swamp other than to note that conservative men do themselves no favors knee-capping friends and allies.
"she's her own Exhibit A for the argument she is making here"
Did she bring out her kids' SAT scores or something?
Wow, it's easy to tell how much guilt working mom Megyn feels about her career.
Minor point, if we don't all agree that moms have a primary role toward children why do we have maternity leave laws which ensure mom can miss work and keep her seniority when she returns?
The female emotional response to pointing out how much more important they are in a young child's life simply confirms women know and resent this biological fact
Wow, W
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा