Megyn Kelly covers the February issue of Vanity Fair. It’s an unusual choice for many reasons. Usually the early-month VF cover subjects are devoted to Hollywood stars, especially in the heat of an awards season. VF saved their March cover for The Hollywood Issue, so maybe they thought they could do a more political cover for this February, the issue that comes out before the Iowa Caucus in a presidential-election year. There’s no doubt that Megyn Kelly is a cable-news star – her Fox News show is one of the most highest-rated shows on cable news, and she’s been dominating headlines for the past six months especially, mostly for her war with Donald Trump and her ability to occasionally question the GOP party line. But it definitely feels like people are trying to make Megyn into The One and… she’s just not. You can read the full VF profile here. Some highlights:
Megyn’s hero is Oprah: “In all her years coming up … she never wallowed in any sort of victimhood…. She didn’t play the gender card and she didn’t play the race card. She was just so good we couldn’t ignore her. That’s my example…. Just get to the table and then do better than everybody else. But every so often, as all [women] know, you have to stop and slap somebody around a little bit who doesn’t understand that we are actually equals and not second-class citizens.”
Waiting to have children: “I’ll never forget being in my own bed and thinking to myself, Oh my God! It’s not that I don’t want children. It’s that I didn’t want to have children with my first husband.”
Before Donald Trump went to war with her, he tried to woo her: “He would send me press clippings about me that he would just sign ‘Donald Trump.’ And he called from time to time to compliment a segment. I didn’t know why he was doing that. And then when he announced that he was running for president, it became more clear. But I can’t be wooed. I was never going to love him, and I was never going to hate him.”
Feminism & equal pay: “Why can’t there be an acknowledgment that, in some instances, women remove themselves from the workforce for a long time and when they come back of course they’re not going to get exactly equal pay? It’s like some of these things are anathema—if you say them, you get booted out of the feminist club…. Gloria Steinem doesn’t get to kick those other women out of the feminist club, or the female-empowerment club, because she says so!”
Within the interview, Kelly refuses to say where she comes down on reproductive rights (saying that her views are known to herself and her husband), and she also refuses to call herself a feminist, basically saying that you can judge her on her work and her public statements. While I don’t feel sorry for her in the least, I get the sense that she is in between a rock and a hard place on those kinds of “women’s issues.” She wants to be able to talk about feminist/women’s rights issues with authenticity, and she would probably do it if she worked for another news network, but she simply can’t when she’s working for Fox News. And she’s famous and successful because of Fox News, and because she’s can avoid being pinned down on questions like “Are you a feminist?” and “should women be able to control their own reproductive destinies?”
Photos courtesy of Vanity Fair.
All the fox news hotsie totsie fembots always sound strange when discussing women’s issues!
and like they are doing Cirque du Soleil Level Acrobatics to come down the side of “i’m not gonna tell you cause Jesus and Fox and Country”
Hahahahaha ” Jesus and Fox and Country”
I can’t watch Fox news without breathing heavily & wanting to punch them in the face. I do love SNL’s Fox news skits because it’s the accurate depiction of these people
“…hotsie totsie fembots…”
Misogynist much?
I do not think that means what you think it means
If you don’t think there’s misogyny in characterizing women in that way, then that’s your choice.
The misogeny is fox news only hires model type correspondents who are glammed to the the extreme.
The “fembots” comment was clearly intended to be a tongue-in-cheek description by saras.
I despise her politics and her smug assurance. She’s quite sure that Jesus and Santa are both white. Anybody that clueless has no business reporting the “news”. But then, it’s Fox, which really isn’t news at all.
I know Jesus is debatable depending on where you’re from ( in my country the entire population of Middle East is classified as Caucasian) but isn’t Santa white? I mean, St Nicholas was born to Greek parents in Asia Minor ( in today’s Tukey, and Turkish people are also white) . I’m genuinely asking.
*Deep sigh*
When will people understand that race is a social construct and that the label ‘white’ has always been fluid?
Not too long ago Irish, italians, jews etc were not classified as white/caucasian.
Read the book “How the Irish became white”.
It’s laughable when NOW people say “Well, middle easterns ARE white, y’know” to excuse and erase history.
Race inclusion has always been a political move. We see it happening now to mestizo Mexicans. All to get those votes. It is so predictable at this point.
NN, what an incredibly insightful post. I always think it’s funny that middle easterners are “white” when it suits people but like “other” or “brown” when we need to bomb them. Neither Santa nor Jesus (nowdays) looks anything like any middle easterner I know…
I know it’s a social construct. But how people are defined by that social construct differs from country to country. Italians and Irishmen weren’t considered white where? To erase what history? The whole world isn’t defined by US standards.
And again, Santa, or at least the saint he was built on, was Greek. But he could be green or purple for as I care, I was just asking,
From the interwebs: The legend of Santa Claus can be traced back hundreds of years to a monk named St. Nicholas. It is believed that Nicholas was born sometime around 280 A.D. in Patara, near Myra in modern-day Turkey. Much admired for his piety and kindness, St. Nicholas became the subject of many legends. It is said that he gave away all of his inherited wealth and traveled the countryside helping the poor and sick. One of the best known of the St. Nicholas stories is that he saved three poor sisters from being sold into slavery or prostitution by their father by providing them with a dowry so that they could be married. Over the course of many years, Nicholas’s popularity spread and he became known as the protector of children and sailors. His feast day is celebrated on the anniversary of his death, December 6. This was traditionally considered a lucky day to make large purchases or to get married. By the Renaissance, St. Nicholas was the most popular saint in Europe. Even after the Protestant Reformation, when the veneration of saints began to be discouraged, St. Nicholas maintained a positive reputation, especially in Holland.
I just watch the 1970s classic “Santa Claus is Comin’ to Town” for my Santa history. He was a white, pale skinned red head in that. He also learned to laugh from the penguins. I digress now…..
NN, not everyone lives in the USA. Applying your own social, historical and cultural understanding of the world to everyone else’s, when we don’t share your national history, is arguably a little culturally imperialist.
Hate. I have grown up hate for this woman. When I was a child & wanted to convey how much I disliked something I would say “grown up hate”
Um, if it’s Fox holding her back, why not leave? Or has she dug too deep a hole at this point? I’m not in the US so I don’t watch Fox News but from I’ve seen, she’d have a hard time at another network, no? At least now.
I refuse to feel for someone like her. With that career and that money. She can afford all kinds of non-feminist thinking, other women simply can’t. I’m feeling cranky today and her trying to dumb down the conversation about women and their life choices is not helping my Monday mood.
I don’t feel sorry for her either.
this!
Seriously, MK is so annoying. Let’s talk about how single mothers are generally the most likely to end up in poverty. yeah, they should be paid less for contributing citizens to society while the dad can often skirt child support. Sure.
Or on the higher end, that female execs generally have to forfeit having children, while their male counterparts don’t.
I mean, seriously, how much maternity leave did she get? How much do her nannies, maid, and chefs get paid? Why is it wrong to acknowledge that not all mothers have access to this, and that is why she was able to stick around in her job but NOT EVERY WOMAN?
agreed. if she wanted to honestly discuss her beliefs on feminism and reproductive rights, she wouldn’t work for a violently misogynist, racist and bigoted network.
If she found out she was making less than her male colleagues she would be screaming bloody murder behind the scenes. As someone said below, Megyn Kelly is only for women’s issues when it suits her needs.
Also, I loathe the term “race card” with a passion. The people who use it tend to be the biggest bigots around.
But it does exist. So many people use the race card all the time.
I’m not American, and I watched a Fox News show for the first time on Youtube recently, and I have to say, I had to use a lot of control to not throw my laptop into the wal, the people on there were so idiotic. Also, all the women on that station look like clones of eachother.
Agree. It seems like they all have a single narrow minded opinion about the many complex issues in the world.
I saw a video of this one on youtube where she was seriously explaining to children that santa is white. Was blown away by how much it seemed to bother her the mere idea that santa might be black. Crazy.
I don’t watch them often, but I just looked at the website and you are right all the women but one are blond haired clones of each other, even Greta Van Susteren is blond too. Oh well I guess us brunettes are just toast to Fox News, funny I don’t feel sad not included.
Now when you have to explain the color of Santa to a child you really have lost the point, Santa no matter his origination really should be colorless and definitely race and nationality free. It is the idea of giving to others. Love how some people can take a good pure idea and puke on it to make it bad.
I think it was Jon Stewart who once did a photo grouping of all the blond women on Fox News. It was a lot of them.
The views of Fox aren’t the real issue. The real issue is why you and others feel driven to a violent act when you hear views that are opposed to your own. Seriously, think about that.
Their opposite views are not the problem. The way they present their views, the racism and sexism and the way they are insulting people all the time ( like the time Bill O’Reilley told a college professor with a PhD he looked like a drug dealer) are.
When you hold certain views, you by default consider those of opposite views to be wrong. And I think republicans are wrong on most things, both fiscally and socially.
+10086
When the views are ignorant, racist, sexist, and bigoted, yes, it does tend to make someone who has a modicum of intelligence and open-mindedness agitated. I might just be speaking for myself, but I’m willing to listen, if not agree, to views not my own if they are well thought out and free of the biases I’ve stated. That seems to be in short supply at Fox News.
And what’s amazing is that’s the only news channgel a certain segment of our population will watch, absolutely refuse any other news station. Fox News is lovingly referred to as Faux News by many. LOL
And what’s amazing is that’s the only news channel a certain segment of our population will watch, absolutely refuse any other news station. Fox News is lovingly referred to as Faux News by many. LOL
Megyn Kelly doesn’t believe in anything that doesn’t benefit Megyn Kelly. Being a feminist would get in the way of her being an opportunist.
I look forward to the day women and minorities don’t have to be, “so good we couldn’t ignore,” them.
+1
So just one African American woman was so unbelievably good that she rose to the top of her profession? Just one? And she rose solely because she’s so amazing? In a sea of white men? Why is it that white men are at the top of every single profession? Is she suggesting that only men are competant, or might it be, Ms. Kelly that there are other forces at work?
What she says about dropping out of the workforce makes sense. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
I don’t disagree with her, either. The problem is that all of the studies look at people who have been in the workforce for the SAME amount of time, have the SAME amount of schooling, are married, and have the SAME number of children.
The equal pay for equal work argument makes sense and appropriate; I want the same amount of compensation for the work that I do. And if I do it as well as a man, or another woman who has been out of the workforce for a period of time can do it as well as I can, I or they should be paid the same amount. Any other argument is discriminatory.
Megyn Kelly is setting up a straw man (or maybe the edits are) to say that a woman who leaves the workforce should not necessarily make the same amount as someone who has been in the workforce. The issue is more complicated than that, and ongoing research that examines these issues reflects the complications and continuing disparities.
But it totally ignores the reality that women who haven’t “dropped out of the workforce” still receive lower wages than their male counterparts in the same jobs with the same level of experience and qualifications
Example: Jennifer Lawrence. Not a dropout. No mommy track. Paid less.
Exactly. There is a prejudice where employers ASSUME that if you have a uterus you are going to use it, so they preemptively adjust your pay.
Sure, but the issue is that women who leave work early to take care of children are sneered at as checked-out moms, and are more likely to get fired. Men who check out of work early to take care of kids have to be more sneaky, or sometimes are seen as very caring and involved because they do what mothers do. Seriously?
It’s like the Chrissy Teigen thing where people magazine was like, “he made a 2 course meal, what an amazing and considerate husband” and Chrissy was like, “um. he made dinner” You see that sh*t everywhere in that men do it – how AMAZING and women do it “well it’s expected.” Same issues here.
And truly, why is it bad for men to take paternity leave too and be involved in raising kids too? We punish both parents with arguments like this.
I totally disagree. If men had to drop out of the workforce to have babies, you better believe men would have figured out a socially acceptable way to compensate them.
Babies have to be born. Only women can do that. Women shouldn’t be penalized for it.
Also, the studies do show that dropping out of the workforce for kids is not the only reason for the gap.
+10000. X 100000000
It does for those circumstances, but her only focusing on that (which isn’t being ignored as she’s suggesting, but is mentioned in every article, study, discussion, etc) is ignoring the real problem of women with equal education and experience and time in a job being paid less than their completely equal male counterparts.
I can see the argument, but she fails to address the fact that we culturally encode the idea that WOMEN should only make that sacrifice and not men. It’s very rare to hear about men who took off years to raise their children and can’t catch up. (For the record, studies show that women who do this find it nearly impossible to catch up in lifetime earnings.) I’m fine with making that kind of statement as long as you’re acknowledging the problematic gender roles impressed on men and women from a young age as to who has to give up their earning potential. True equality comes from the expectation that sacrifice isn’t the venue of only one partner.
“Why can’t there be an acknowledgment that, in some instances, women remove themselves from the workforce for a long time and when they come back of course they’re not going to get exactly equal pay?” –
I havent read the entire interview but equal pay is not just about people taking leave to have kids and then expecting the same pay when they return. It is a much bigger story that begins before parental rights ever enter the picture. If a male and female are doing the same job, they should get the same pay. If performance is to be evaluated more closely on an individual basis, then employers can introduce a bonus system to see who has achieved their goals or exceeded them but the basic salary should be the same for male and female. Unfortunately, in this world, men seem to get more for the same job their female colleagues do. That is the basic issue and that needs to be eradicated and made more just.
Exactly. The discussion is about men and women who have the same education and experience being paid differently for the same job. It has nothing to do with taking time off from work.
Except equal pay isn’t about ‘oh I left but I should make the same’ Equal pay is that I have a masters in engineering, and years of experience and a man who has the same background as me (or at one company-only had a BA) making more than me. If you are doing the same work as your professional colleagues you should be making the same amount. Period.
I’m not sure I understand her rant on feminism and equal pay – particularly equal pay. So, a woman has a baby and comes back to the workplace and that’s the ONLY time the topic of equal pay would come up? Why does she bring that up as an instance? It’s strange. Equal pay is not isolated to women who just had children. Why isn’t she talking about how women – in all parts of their career – are mostly underpaid to their male counterparts? That has nothing to do with having a baby or coming back from (hopefully) maternity leave.
I didn’t understand what she was saying, although I couldn’t tell if she was saying she didn’t believe in equal pay either. It didn’t sound like she was saying the latter, but then the point she was trying to articulate didn’t make much sense also.
I find her super annoying most of the time, but that’s a step up from finding all fox people annoying all of the time. I think it’s good that Fox has someone who can show some reasonable tendencies some of the time at least(but that’s all relative though of course).
“…that we are actually equals and not second class citizens?”
Umm. Megan is such a Faux News heel-licking embarrassment. Does her statement above not convey the very basic tenet of feminism? Yet she will not openly call herself a feminist because she will anger Ailes and take a pay cut or other symbolic spanking? How sickening to choose to reside in the filth of her hypocrisy for the sake of dollars.
And why should someone *not* return to full pay after maternity leave, even if extended? Is compensation not commensurate with experience? Shouldn’t pay always be equal based on education, qualification, experience, etc? Is she actually suggesting that a woman should appreciate being re-hired at a pay cut compared to a man? This gets under my skin soooo much.
Also, I think you meant to say “most highly rated”?
Exactly. She’s falling back on that “Anyone who acknowledges and wants something done about the problem is playing the victim” approach to sexism or racism that’s a popular argument with the fox news crowd, but even in that same interview she admits that there’s a problem with women not being treated equally.
I think she’s actually referring to women who leave the workforce for several years to rear children before returning, not women who leave briefly on maternity. Which can be a valid argument in some contexts but ignore the larger social picture in terms of how we define work and home roles based on gender.
This vanilla wafer turns my stomach. Believe this one, it’s hard…..if forced to have lunch with she or the Kardashians with whom all who read my posts know I just love……there I’d be Knancy for the day with the girls. The convention put her on the map for a minute, now I suggest she take a seat elsewhere….RIGHT, far right at the Fox table.
I would be sitting in Pimp Mama Kris’ lap while you join us for lunch because no way in hell I’m sitting in the same table as “Mrs. I don’t believe in equal pay”.
Lizzie: Grab that wine out of PMK’s hands and pass it over here….lol. Every time one of these women speak, it’s like taking a step forward and three miles back. Doesn’t she have a daughter. Does she not care about equal pay for….you know the questions. If she were in Sophie’s Choice, I don’t the decision would have been difficult for her. Men rule the Earth and women tiptoe behind them cleaning up the mess while the lucky ones like her, who have money, get to have a platform on television. Ai yi yi.
Agreed.
That’s absurd to me. I don’t follow her show or whatever but at least she’s educated and has made a career. There’s nothing that would compare that to a Kardashian.
Why is she “lucky” to have her position? You think a woman can’t earn that job rightfully? She’s a lawyer – she earned that.
“This Vanilla Wafer” ……… wow just wow
I’m sorry my sarcasm upsets you more than the fact that she doesn’t believe your daughter should earn as much money as your son…..I’m just a citizen posting my opinion, while she’s spreading her message to her viewers, along with the readers of the magazine. I find her to be a page out of the 50’s. We, as women, are better than this…..including myself for my ill chosen words to describe her.
Not Knancy though. Seriously, that made me ugly laugh for about a minute or so.
I Choose You Too: Praise the Lord. Finally someone has a sense of humor! Thank you. I was getting ready to sew the scarlet letter on my chest. Happy what’s left of Monday 🙂
Okay, like, I feel bad for saying this, but really? I’m no Kelly fan, but she doesn’t say she doesn’t believe in equal pay. She says that there are a lot of factors affecting the wage gap. And guess what, she’s right. Look up Hanna Rosin. She’s a feminist who actually has done a ton of research into the wage gap and how it actually works, and she’s largely found that it’s far more complex that most women understand it to be, and yes, part of it is that women do, as a group, take more time off over the working life and that translates into an experience gap. (She also found that single women are far less impacted by a wage gap than married women, but that’s another argument for another day).
Truthfully, stuff like this is why I have a problem with Big F Feminism – because it lacks nuance. And it does. The wage gap is one of the prime examples of that. It’s actually a dramatically complex situation where you can basically manipulate the data into saying what you want it to say, depending on your viewpoint. And reactionary stuff isn’t helping.
Yes women do take more time off , but have you ever researched the reasons why and the systematic reasons behind it? A system that was set up in society a long time ago. Like how raising children and childcare has always fallen on the woman so she didn’t have the opportunity or choice to work? Not to mention the pressure society places on a woman to “mother”. How women are “forced” ( and yes it’s not always obvious) out of the workplace for pregnancies or the fact employers don’t like hiring women of child bearing years. Not to mention the “millions” of other reasons why women have issues within the workplace. These are facts not just fun fiction. Come on. And that’s not even what the equal pay topic is all about. She’s going off topic to try and prove her point. No one is saying that women should have equal pay just because or that the amount of work she produces can be less. That is not what anyone is saying. If we are going to discuss the topic let’s actual discuss the topic not propaganda that’s put out.
And the pressure placed on fathers not to take time off for child care, because some dopes at work will perceive them as feminized (ew girls) slackers unfit for a testosterone-based board room.
Basically, current salary practices, in a bid to screw some workers over by paying them as little as possible, reward negotiation, which is more practiced by men and better accepted when displayed by men (they are likely to be perceived as confident and smart, whereas women are likely to be perceived as ungrateful and demanding), rather than merit.
This tech company cut out negotiation and explains why:
http://magoosh.com/blog/why-we-dont-negotiate-salary/
Thank you Tif! It’s naive to talk about how if you as a woman take time off from work you shouldn’t get the same pay as a man. Most people will agree with that statement. and yet…
As a woman who has worked in male-dominated fields, meaning STEM and union work and even I-banking, there are simple things that make it hard for women to get to the same starting point – like in STEM/union jobs, it was often a consideration of whether or not the places I needed to travel to overseas would have adequate female facilities (bathrooms and showers) in a place where it was traditionally 100% men.
Or there are other small things like in Ellen Pao’s suit – I was out of the male bonding experiences of going to strip clubs and drinking myself into oblivion. So I couldn’t advance because I literally COULD NOT travel to some of these places and I also refused to participate in strip clubs/drinking which “bond you” with your coworkers as sad at that is. Things like that do affect your career as you are seen as not one of the guys. Is that my fault? I guess Kelly would say so. But is it really?
yes, the wage gap still exists, even Rosin admits. But it’s as much about systemic issues in the US as it is worldwide.
And nevertheless, there is very little to no support for men or women to have a period of time where they can slow down their career to focus on parenting unless you’re part of the lucky elite who can pay people or take time off.
Except one of the major problems with the “unequal work load” theory is that, according to a lot of the research out there, far more women express a preference for being the parent to take time off. If the mother wishes to breastfeed, staying home is biologically advantageous, since nursing is far more successful when the mother and baby are in close physical proximity. That’s not “societal conditioning,” that’s nature. We’re recommended to nurse exclusively for a minimum of 6 months, but that’s rarely achieved among most women. The women who achieve it most often are those who stay home with their children. So it seems like the biggest conspirator in the push to keep women and their children together early in life.
I totally agree that more men should have the option to stay home with children. But we need to be realistic and admit that maybe, more women desire to parent at home than men do. And people will argue forever over whether that’s conditioning or an innate biological urge (it’s probably a little bit of both). But to me, feminism becomes a satire of it itself when it refuses to acknowledge that maybe women are different than men and that society as whole needs to respect that the female sex may be the one that has a particular role to play when it comes to childbearing and parenting. And that maybe those things are playing a role in a woman’s working life. Rosin’s work actually makes a big point of this.
Part of the problem comes from an assumption that men and women value work in the same way, and I’m not sure we do. There is a lot of data that indicates that more women value stay at home parenting more than men as a group and that far more women will choose to exercise that choice. But where some see that as problem, I’m not sure I do, if it is a fair choice. But I don’t think equalizing parental leave and chore duties will necessarily result in less SAHMs or a major shift in how women work.
mp: The most interesting part of Rosin’s work is actually where she points out that not all women are impacted by the wage gap. In reality, she found that in most industries, single, childless women have no gap at all – they make what the men make, controlling for education and experience. The women most adversely impacted are married women with children, which she attributes to both the experience gap, which she holds to be unpreventable in some regards and fixable in others, as well as bias against married women and those with kids, which she believes must be overcome. It really opened my eyes to a lot.
It doesn’t matter if you value work more, it matters if the work you DO is valued equally. I might have been paid less for work I *cared about* less than a guy down the hall who phoned in his work, simply because he was a man and I was a woman. We don’t get paid for how we feel about work; we’re supposed to be paid for how well we perform – not for how many years we have performed (though that may influence performance) or what we look like while we perform.
“We don’t get paid for how we feel about work; we’re supposed to be paid for how well we perform – not for how many years we have performed (though that may influence performance) or what we look like while we perform.”
But you’re arguing against yourself here Experience should matter, but not really? Experience is, in many places, a huge factor in pay. If you’re unionized, seniority and time in dictate things like pay, promotions, etc. And most places consider experience when deciding pay. So I’d have to disagree that experience shouldn’t matter. It should. The problem is that, overall, your average woman has a shorter working life than the average man, and that means she earns less over her lifetime. But is that sexism or just economics? Probably a bit of both.
Rosin never argued that a wage gap doesn’t exist – it certainly does. But she did argue that 1.) it does not affect all women, and it doesn’t affect the remainder equally; unmarried, childless women generally do not experience any gap in wages (in some sectors, they actually out-earn the men, and married women and mothers are impacted the most), and 2.) the gap may not be closeable in the way that many feminists want; as long as more women than men choose to leave work at times to care for children or others, the experience gap will persist and lifetime wages will not be equal. But she diverts from popular thinking by arguing that the best that can be hoped for is to 1.) combat bias against mothers and married women to ensure their wages are fair, which is a problem now and 2.) put in place better parental leave policies so that women who want to work can (but accept that more women than men might still want to stay home). But that’s not good enough, from what I’ve seen. That’s my problem with all this.
@Sam, sure, many women do desire to do so. The biological burden of reproduction necessarily falls heavier on women.
Given that, what does it say about a system that rewards the set of characteristics most readily displayed by those who don’t carry that burden?
If that’s not the definition of sexism, I don’t know what is. Women shouldn’t be punished for not being men. We should be permitted to be women in a manner equal to the way men are permitted to be men.
Except that you’re being fairly reductionist here. Let’s note that not all women have any desire to have children and plenty of us are happy as pie to devote ourselves to career.
Here’s the problem – Mother Nature is not a feminist. Women are responsible for the brunt of childbearing and initial childrearing, especially during nursing. But here’s the thing, and this is my problem with feminism – so what? If you have a problem with that, your problem is with Nature/God/evolution. Go shake your fist at them, since they set that up.
As much as you’d like to argue that experience doesn’t matter, it does. If your most loved one was going in for major surgery, and there was a choice of surgeons to choose, and you have two options, with 1.) being a male surgeon with 20 years of experience and 1000 successful surgeries like this one completed and 2.) is a female surgeon with 15 years experience and 500 successful surgeries completed, who are you entrusting your loved one too? For me, call me a sexist, but I’m going with experience, every time I can choose. But as long as women are having children and caring for them more than men, that experience gap will never genuinely close. To somebody more feminist-minded than me, that means that either 1.) women need to not lose any work time when they have kids (which I find to be ridiculous for a variety of reasons) or 2.) experience needs to be eliminated as a factor in pay (which seems to cast aside basic economics). Overall, I don’t see how a decent argument can be made for either.
Sam, there are huge intersectionality issues that I think Rosin kind of glosses over. Whatever. Nobody said feminism is a perfect tool, like affirmative action is not. It doesn’t mean that we throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Sliding to one end of the scale, in the context of what you wrote it has been shown that women who “advance” in their career tend to be childless much much more often than men who have advanced in their career. Not by choice. just because that’s what the job requires. SO I ask you, where is the real difference in wages? Sometimes you can’t measure it all via money.
Except when you say “wage gap” you are inherently talking about, well, wages – you know, money. Unless we’re now getting paid in good vibes, which, if we are, please tell me!
And when it comes to having children, that’s another issue. Human life in general is fairly zero-sum – meaning, to gain in one area, we have to give up in another. But you are coming from the assumption that “having it all” is even a goal that we should actually aspire to, when more and more, women seem to agree that it’s not. Our time is finite, our energy is finite. We have to made decisions about where to direct those things, and overall, more women than men choose to put their time and energy towards their children. I don’t necessarily see that as a sexist conspiracy, I see it as reality. I find it sort of odd that you automatically jump to the presumption that all women who advance their careers are being forced to make a choice between family and career. Some women are thrilled to have no kids and to remain single and to throw themselves into work, and good on them for knowing that. There isn’t any hard choice for them. Personally, I see it as far more offensive that women are still getting sold the idea that “having it all” is even possible for most of us, save for a very privileged minority. But that’s just me.
Vanity fair has the worst nondescript covers.
Wow, file under ‘race to the bottom’: Donald Trump actually made me appreciate a Fox News personality to the extent that she revealed him to be even more of a narrow-minded troglodyte than we could have imagined. Other than that, she’s about the best you can expect from a Fox News anchor, aside from Shepard Smith, from what I gather in commentaries.
That said, kudos to Kelly and her team and/or the Vanity Fair crew that actually managed to get a professional woman photographed as such, rather than sexualizing and trivializing her as per usual. No cleavage and no upside-down on a lounge chair as per usual (at least in these photos).
She saves the cleavage for her show
Sorry to hear that. CNN also shoots some female anchors, always in skirts, next to or behind an open desk, from the floor up. So depressing. For parity, they should put the men in shorts, or join the 21st century. Tacky morons.
My first thought was “Who is this?” followed by “Does VF do an international cover?” because … does anyone outside the United States get or watch Fox News?
It’s always cute when someone who’s entire career is built off being average and pleasing to men wants to congratulate someone else for not playing the race/gender card.
Hey Megyn…dye your hair brown…or do the men who pay you expressly forbid you to do that as well? You’re a good lil conservative Barbie doll and when the time came to stand behind you or a man berating and insulting you, you suddenly mysteriously had to take a vacation? Hmm. I hope white Samta gave you something special this year for toeing that line so well in your heels.
Like, what the hell is she even talking about?
Oprah has put her gender and race in everything she does, because they are a part of who she is. They aren’t cards she can deal out and take back at will. This woman, jfc….
Sometimes I make the mistake of trying to parse out what idiots mean with their comments but today I’m just going to accept Megyn for who she is.
She doesn’t understand how Oprah pushed herself as she was and made her career into the behemoth it is by not lying about/hiding her race or gender. In fact she utilized both by being unique and open when women didn’t necessarilly have that outlet on TV.
To Megyn I’m not sure she even comprehends what it means to fight for or defend aspects of yourself to people who will never understand or experience. As someone else said she’s basically a clone of every other woman on Fox.
Exactly I’m wondering if she knows anything about Oprah
“You’re a good lil conservative Barbie doll…”
Wow, really? Just…wow. Let me guess, you’re one of those people who found it okay to call Condoleezza Rice a “house n****r” because you didn’t like her political affiliation.
Such ugliness.
LMAO. From a comment that implies Megyn is replaceable moldable reporter chosen strictly for her looks you’ve somehow attempted to push racist notions about Condeleeza onto me to fit your narrative. Well isn’t that neat?
But to answer your question, NOPE. Never really did have a strong opinion on Condeleeza other than she’s a smart woman who found herself on the wrong side of the fight. In the end Bush dragged her down like he did every member of his office, even Karl Rove is avoided these days.
‘house n******’? Get off it, that was all you.
Why would you feel sorry for someone who has sold their soul for money? If she wanted to express herself fully and honestly, she could do it at a much lower pay rate. Some people choose to be true to themselves rather than make tons of money. It happens. Also, the reason women HAVE to remove themselves is because men rarely help with child rearing. Additionally, if this society was built for women, taking time off for child rearing would be built into the system without penalties. It’s because men have been running this show forever (and badly might I add, look at the sh** state of our planet) that women are heavily dinged for things we could have easily accomodated for.
“She wants to be able to talk about feminist/women’s rights issues with authenticity, and she would probably do it if she worked for another news network, but she simply can’t when she’s working for Fox News.”
Poor, poor, pitiful Megyn. Stymied by Faux News. Unable to say what she wants. Yeah, she’s got it tough at work. Well, I’ll simply repeat what was posted above: Sister is under no obligation to stay in her present post. She’s got money, relative youth, fame and health. Nothing is stopping her save her love of being notorious and depositing that Faux News paycheck.
Won’t say if she’s pro- or anti-choice? Won’t say if she’s a feminist?
What a gutless wonder. And choosing her as a topic is a waste of band-width.
Shouldn’t a journalist keep personal views out of their jobs? What’s it our business what her personal opinions are?
An employee is always limited to what they can say based on the company they work for. If I went on a public rant that was against my company’s mission, that wouldn’t be acceptable.
I agree, I would prefer all journalists remained neutral and stuck to facts, but that’s not something she or her network have any interest in doing. And you’re right, if she did step up and say she was a pro-choice feminist, they’d start looking for ways to fire her or downgrade her position, because it doesn’t cater to the network’s audience – which is the very root of the problem with that sort of “news” program.
Diamondgirl, Kelly agreed to a VF interview. If she had reservations about answering personal questions, she should have declined the offer. She knew in advance how it worked. She accepted the gig in order to promote her brand–just like every other subject.
“That’s my example…. Just get to the table and then do better than everybody else.”
No, that’s NOT the issue, the issue is that performance should not be the issue. Women should not have to be better than men to be paid equally. Women should not have to prove themselves or “do better.” Great women should be paid as much as great men, and mediocre women should be paid as much as mediocre men. We’ve developed a generation of women who are killing themselves to be perfection in the workplace, because they’ve been told that is how to be paid anywhere near as well as the average guy. That’s ridiculous and exploitative.
As long as we’re on this, let’s unpack “just get to the table.” That part’s harder for women, too.
Honestly hearing terrible people attempt to speak on deep and nuanced issues just makes me feel like what a waste of time.
There’s dozens of different ways you could respond to this ignorance of hers and you still wouldn’t crack top the surface of the issues beneath that Red, White and Blue plated skull.
Boy they really shaved down her throat for that lounge chair photo didn’t they? The photoshop artist was on the ‘Full Blanchett’ setting for that pic.
Cannot stand her. But she’s on Fox so that goes without saying.
“It’s not that I don’t want children. It’s that I didn’t want to have children with my first husband.” BURN!!!
If she won’t reveal her views on abortion it’s bc she’s pro-choice. I can assure you. She’s not hiding her views from the pro-choice side. She’s hiding her views from the pro-life side, which is typically part of the Conservative platform – the very demographic that keeps her show on the air. If she were pro-life she would be out and proud about it. I would bet my right arm that she’s pro-choice and doesn’t want to offend her base of viewers.
That’s what I figure.
This person nearly cut out her own liver onscreen trying to convince the world that Santa and Jesus are white but she wants to talk about other people being obsessed with race? As if anyone is more obsessed with (the black) race than Fox News– maybe Stormfront… maaaaybe. It’s the cactus explaining water to the fish: full of it, but not living in it.
So, women and minorities are put on this planet to beg for treats from white men because they have to make up for not being white men by doing everything better that (which usually means, for), white men, thus proving their worth? History tells us white men aren’t exactly the most willing of people to accept that anyone can be as good as them, let alone better, she didn’t figure that part in, did she? So, what happens if a woman is only as good as a man? What happens if a minority is only as good as a white person?
I know that right now there’s a push to spotlight today’s extreme-right incoherence and/or invective, but Fox News? As *shudder* popular as it is, was a grease fire busy?
Honestly, what is equal pay? Should some man make more than me because he has a masters, when we do the same work and work the same hours? Should I get paid more because I go above and beyond what my job description is? I think most of you who make comments forget that the people in these stories are not like normal people, they have maids, nannies and makes millions of dollars. Why are people so concern about their opinions? Of course they have a platform, but as the comments suggest, 99% of you commenting, are easy to dismiss her as stupid and towing the line of her network.
Because these are the ppl who claim to speak for the public. They steer public debate. It’s baffling, given how completely out of touch they are, but that’s the platform they’ve been given.
I always think of Megyns viewers as old white guys hoping for a brief up skirt shot!
I am a black conservative. Highly educated female with no kids.Megyn talks out of both sides of her mouth. She had a good argument when she told Bill O Reily that blacks do have a hard time in Society in the US but it doesn’t stop her from using female white privileges to her advantage. She didn’t work hard to get that evening spot. She would have screamed bloody murder if her spot was gone when she came back from maternity leave. Fox hires these blondes because they appeal to bubba. She makes the same thing as Brett Baier and he can run rings around her.
A good argument? She made an irrefutable one. There is no measure of quality of life on the US at a national level that doesn’t bifurcate by race unfavorably for black Americans.
I don’t disagree with anything you wrote, but observing the detriments to being black in the US should be a given. It’s empirically demonstrable–no argument needed. I hate the suggestion that racism is somehow a matter of opinion and not fact.
And not just female white privilege, but female white privilege compounded by beautiful people privilege, a well-documented effect. Beautiful (+ white) people are blind to how easy things happen for them when they don’t happen that way for the less ideally symmetrical of us.
Gigantic A-hole. Kelly, shut up!!
Evidently Fox News requires all its employees to sign a contract saying they’ll never say anything contradicting their employer’s moral standards (ie feminism is evil) but this is remarkably stupid, even by Fox News standard.
Did this person miss the “for equal WORK” part of “equal pay”? No one is saying women should earn the same as men who are working much harder or longer hours.
So many assumptions. “Why can’t women just acknowledge….?” assumes that pay should always be commensurate with ONE rigid career trajectory and ONE rigid set of attributes, i.e. you should be punished for taking time off.
But why do women take time off? Why does she assume this is voluntary or a matter of personal choice rather than a need predicated primarily on matters of PAY–who makes more and who has more opportunities, and therefore who should continue to work.
And she doesn’t acknowledge the double standard at work when she says the fact that women or minorities CAN make it to the top is indicative of fairness–but the absence of parity in representation indicates that a lot of white males are getting there without being the best. These people are all about meritocracy–“just do the best work and you’ll earn the most pay–like Oprah”–except when it comes to white males, where mediocrity rewards. If Oprah were a white male, she’d have made more. Sorry, people who don’t want to/can’t think more deeply about it. That still matters most.
I like her stamina and her ability to have a strong voice, unfortunately she’s another bimbo over issues like a fair wage standard and equal pay for EQUAL talent and experience. Yes, yes, Meg, we get it. Some people enter the work force later only to be paid less, I get that and respect your position on this. But thing is, THAT IS NOT WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING. There are far too many folks, based on gender/race/age/etc who are being taken for granted and paid less because of their ‘image’ … even IF they show the competitive qualities and extensive experience (if not more) than some younger white male idiot who just scored a job three months ago. This happens a LOT. That is what many folks are saying all over the place, but alas, Meg is too dumb to acknowledge this obvious truth. Fox News Culture is the epitome of: fk it, why even bother with these people and their pea brains. Also Fox News is Racism… which is one very good reason they denounce a fair wage standard in this country.
What a horrible day when one can’t freely express their support of equality and human rights because of their job. I still don’t feel sorry for her.
“Why can’t there be an acknowledgment that, in some instances, women remove themselves from the workforce for a long time and when they come back of course they’re not going to get exactly equal pay?”
How does this explain women like me who have never left the workforce for any length of time (to have children or whatever)? Where’s my equal pay, then? Why am I making less than men who were hired 5-8 years after me? Must be my fault, right?
I wish people wouldn’t dignify it by calling it a news channel. It’s an entertainment channel, and even Fox admits that.