Thank You Megyn Kelly

Erick Erickson unleashed a frenzy of hot debate with his article at Red State regarding gender and breadwinners. The primary thrust being it is advantageous for the woman to be the one at home while dad is out earning the money; she is the better nurturer.  I don’t disagree with that basic premise. Loads of indoctrinated feminists just flipped out and are yelling at their screen right now, but sorry — women ARE better at nurturing.

What I do disagree with is Erickson laying the entire debate at the feet of women without a single mention of the responsibility of men – not a single mention of absentee or deadbeat dads. The closest Erickson comes to touching that is here:

Not everyone has the luxury of raising their children in a traditional manner and the rest of us have an obligation to help and support those in unfortunate situations. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with mothers having jobs. There is nothing wrong with women being breadwinners. Sometimes they have to by necessity.

“Sometimes they have to by necessity.” Gee, and why would that be? In most cases, Dad isn’t around for one reason or another and mom is on her own. Somehow, mom is the one who ends up with kids in the majority of scenarios.

I’d like to thank fellow Syracuse Alumnae and general kick ass mom for her debate with Erickson and Lou Dobbs for her comment about Erickson’s position. Dobbs had just finished saying we have “shattered marriages” in our society and Kelly fired back:

“Why are you attributing that to women in the workforce?” she interjected.

BINGO.  Both Dobbs and Erickson are focused on women and ignoring the male part of the equation.  Watch the clip here:

 

Kira Davis has a video response. I like her a lot and more often than not I agree with her.  In this video, I agree with her on the equal but different and the roles we play. She’s right, but even she skips the role of absentee dad’s in women having to the role as breadwinner or simply wanting to:

 

I had a tweet conversation with Bob Owens on Twitter yesterday regarding Kelly’s frustration. Note, I follow him because 99% of the time I agree with things he says and and his writing has been interesting to me. I like him but yesterday, not so much:

First, Kelly wasn’t slamming women who stay home, she was slamming Dobbs and Erickson for judging women who don’t stay home.  Her criticism of the data used was weak, however. I think she allowed herself to feel personally attacked in this instance, which I don’t fault but think tainted her response. I can see where she is coming from and I am no wallflower myself; this felt like a pot shot at working moms to me too when I read it initially.

Second, no mom that I know – working or SAHM (stay at home mom) – puts anything before her kids. I’m sure there are some exceptions to this out there in the overall population, but that statement is a massive stereotype and generalization.  I’ve been both working mom and am currently am a SAHM. I can tell you, without reservation, that no matter what my ‘job’ was that my kids come first.  By the way, SAHM is indeed A JOB.

Third, Kelly set aside the ‘single mom/dad’ issue. This was a mistake. You can’t debate this issue without bringing in single parent family situations into the conversation. Dobbs was correct to bring it in. Kelly was wrong to shut it out and again, I think she was too focused on what she deemed was a sexist attack on working moms since she is one. I was glad Dobbs brought up the impact on boys and self esteem as well; just look at the ego driven, lying train wreck we have sitting in the Oval office.

Fourth, I think personally this issue is a non-issue ember being fanned into a flame. I think it’s a return to the faux “war on women” crap the Democrats shoveled in 2012.  What bothered me was seeing someone on the Conservative side of things apply a similar attack that we saw Hilary Rosen use on Ann Romney but in reverse — now the working mom is the target.  Newsflash: It’s not moms, working or SAHM, that should be the targets here but parents and both of their roles — YES, they have roles, so now we come full circle to my agreeing with the original premise.

The article Erickson wrote was titled, The Truth May Hurt.

For me, the truth that his article focuses only on women and ignores the role of the father or rather, lack thereof, is what hurts.

About A.P. Dillon

A.P. Dillon is a freelance journalist and is currently writing at The North State Journal. She resides in the Triangle area of North Carolina. Find her on Twitter: @APDillon_
This entry was posted in Err What?, Issues, LL1885, The Articles and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Thank You Megyn Kelly

  1. A Serious GRIN backs the following:
    These men don’t have a clue to True American Liberty…It seems they have laid the rules out in a more Subliminally Induced Neo-Religious Mortar…rather than by Truth itself…
    The facts of NURTURING are “proven” like gold and silver and precious gems in and through the individual NUTURER…and yes it’s obvious that NATURALLY…most Females are better Nuturers (naturally)…and a man needs more GRACE to be such and do such…
    “if it weren’t for the GRACE of God”…and…those men don’t know true Grace or they have forsaken it to exercise what they may think is their own strength…

    Like

  2. Yep…seems like this interview debate “SHOULD” have been under your heading “BatShitCrazy” News…Megan pointed to the flaw…did a good job…Time seemed short…seemed like three people in a tornado…you can’t control a tornado…Megan needed to regroup and as usual the men side stepped the issue at point and wasted time…that’s called DELAY…and DELAY keeps you from your DESTINY…

    Like

Comments are closed.