Fox News’ recent excuse to play the conservative victim – as a cover for attacking their political foes – is the horrible, shocking, earth-shakingly important decision of some women not to speak to a conservative reporter at a feminist conference. Last night, Megyn Kelly allowed conservative Dana Loesch to smear feminists as “old cat ladies,” “Mean Girls with less attractive women” and tout the “reality” that there is no pay inequality for women. All the while Kelly and Loesch complained about liberal intolerance.
Kelly’s voice dripped with disdain as she introduced the “eye-opening video of some attendees at a feminist event who had no problem giving interviews until they learned the reporter asking questions was from a conservative news outlet called Campus Reform.”
As our Priscilla pointed out, the highly-edited video was obviously intended as a sting video. Yet Kelly never seemed to consider that concerns about a blatantly hostile agenda and a deceptively-edited gotcha video might have been the exact reason the women didn’t want to talk to the reporter.
Fox News contributor Dana Loesch immediately launched into just the kind of hate mongering the Kelly File surely expected when it booked her. One thing is for certain: nobody required Loesch to know anything about the conference she was there to smear. “I’m not even sure what this feminist conference was about, exactly…” she began.
Which prompted Kelly to chirp, “Inclusiveness!” with what I’m sure she thought was charming sarcasm.
Loesch continued, “…other than to raise up the next generation of women into old cat ladies… It was like watching Mean Girls with less attractive women. …You don’t have to “get” progressives. They “get” themselves.
Yeah, that’s real tolerant.
We know why Kelly didn’t challenge Loesch but what was the excuse of the other guest, presumably liberal Eboni Williams? She’s a regular guest on Fox News. Has she not noticed the steady stream of intolerance emanating from the “fair and balanced” network – like the stream that just came out of Loesch’s mouth?
Instead of confronting this faux outrage, Williams went along with it. “I’m shakin’ my head with the two of you guys at the notion of anybody labeling and stereotyping who can and cannot be a part of a very …important movement.” Which is fine, but if Williams thinks that either Kelly or Loesch had any true interest in why the women didn’t want to speak to the reporters, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell her. Why didn't Williams question why Kelly hadn't interviewed one of them, or tried to, instead of turning the issue into a debate about liberal intolerance?
The anti-liberal, anti-feminist agenda was made especially clear when Williams went on to say, “But you know, this cuts both ways and unfortunately we see this all too often on both sides of the aisle.”
“No, this does not cut both ways. Let’s get that clear,” Loesch said.
It’s hard to think of anyone sounding less inclusive as Loesch went on to describe why she left the Democratic party “simply because of how they treated women.” She added, “If you’re a progressive, ‘Democrat’ comes before your sex. …That is honored, that is treasured above your sex.”
Again Kelly let the hate mongering stand. In fact, she piled on: “The women on the left, who would like to recruit, presumably, women on the right – to see the world as they do – how on earth are they gonna start doing that by shutting down debate- not even hearing from them, never mind sharing their own ideas!”
Williams did make a stab at inclusiveness of her own. She said women should “get beyond” labels of conservative and liberal because “I think we all want equal pay for equal work,” for example.
Loesch’s response? She sneered, “Can we talk about things that are in reality and not something based upon a bunk study?”
Again, Kelly ignored Loesch’s intolerance. She jumped in to say that if Loesch had offered that “contrarian view” on campus, “You would be shut down.”
Again, Williams called out none of the hypocrisy.
Kelly closed the discussion by praising the guests for an “excellent fair and balanced debate.”
And one more thing, I don’t know who decides on what the hosts wear; but the frock that Kelly was wearing did seem to emphasize, uh, certain body parts if you know what I’m saying. Usually, she sports a nice monochromatic look which works well. But that schmata was just, uh, strange. I know that Ailes loves to emphasize Kelly’s legs but is he now going for something else which would be in keeping with Murdoch’s page three girls….
But back to the physical features thing. Seriously, is Phyllis Schlafly a Cosmo cover girl?
This untalented bimbo is the last person to talk about people’s looks.
This is how you handle these conservative outlets: Prior to consenting to an interview ask what outlet they are from.