Friday, September 21, 2007

Cheap Shot From Michelle Malkin

When accepting an Emmy for Best Dramatic Actress for "Brothers and Sisters" at the awards ceremony recently, Sally Field concluded her acceptance speech with the words: "If mothers ruled the world there would be no goddamned wars."

The response from the conservative right wing was swift and predictable.

One of the more shrill responses came from Michelle Malkin, a wannabe Ann Coulter in training. Malkin did not choose to respond with a reasoned rebuttal, which would have been rather easy, as Field's opinion, while well-meaning, was quite naive, to say the least.

Rather, she resorted to the favorite tactic of those who prefer to respond with emotion, rather than logic -- the ad hominem attack. She chose to attack Fields personally as a mother, in a drive-by "mommier-than-thou" attack:

Sally Field is the mom who looks the other way when the brat on the elementary-school slide pushes your son to the ground or throws dirt in your daughter's face.

She's the mom who holds her tongue at the mall when thugs spew profanities and make crude gestures in front of her brood.

She's the mom who tells her child never to point out when a teacher gets her facts wrong.

She's the mom who buys her teenager beer, condoms, and a hotel room on prom night, because she'd rather give in than assert her parental authority and do battle.

I think the above is a low blow, totally uncalled for. And it makes no sense, especially considering that Malkin's basic point is correct; that not all women are alike and that they hold a variety of opinions about the role of war and conflict in society. Calm reason would have done the job more effectively than the emotional cheap shot she chose to employ.

By not sticking to arguing the issue and choosing to attack Field personally instead, Malkin says a lot more negative about herself than she does about Field.



oldmanlincoln said...

I think Sally did the right thing. As a mother and if she felt that way, having the opportunity to say it and then not saying it would have been the worst thing she could have done.

Her critic, whom I don't know, had she the opportunity to stand there I don't suppose she would have said anything. So there are two women with different points of view each using different platforms and who do you think got my respect?


Ted said...

I don't know who Michelle Malkin is so I don't really have an opinion about her personally. So, going purely on your post I take a slightly different view on the intent behind her words. I don't see it as a personal attach on Sally Field but more of a continuation of Field's comment, a little over the top and reactionary though. Putting Field (or the mom) in the role of the US and the children in the role of countries such as Iraq. Her failing is in thinking there is no other options or solutions between war and standing by to watch atrocities unfold unhindered.

But I could be wrong and she could just be a bitch ;)

Ted said...

attack even... d'oh