So there was the first Republican candidate debate the other night, and I didn’t watch it because I am a little bit over politics in it’s current form. My husband, though, watches an inordinate amount of news, so I get a fair amount of information. Of course, the whole Michelle Bachman submissive wife question has been plastered on the news and internet for days and it was largely unavoidable.
In case you were lucky enough to avoid it until now, basically the moderator asked Michelle Bachman if she would be “submissive” to her husband if she was president. The question stemmed from a bible quote Bachman made when speaking about the time her husband wanted her take some specific major in college she wasn’t fond of. She quoted the bible’s verse on being a submissive wife.
When it came to the debate, she took the opportunity to deflect both her statement and her stance on religion by saying that she and her husband had a relationship based on respect. The audience booed the question to begin with--seemed aghast that it would be asked in the first place. The whole thing was a little reminiscent of a spectacle, but it wasn’t fully baked.
The truth is, I thought that the question was fair and well=played by the moderator. I also happened to think that Bachman really got in the game with her answer. She even sounded nearly intelligent. I still don’t like her though. And to add insult to the situation, Sarah Palin even scoffed at the notion of being submissive to any man--even saying that her husband would never presume to tell her what to do!
As for me? It left me and my husband laughing at the idea of a submissive wife. I say that a man should be submissive to his wife!! This isn’t biblical times, thank god. While I think that religion is great and obviously works for some people, I think that you must realize that some things (even in religion--gasp!) are outdated stabs at trying to control some people or tailor behavior in the context of biblical times.
This would be one of those things... Michelle Bachman.
While I totally don’t think that Bachman would be “submissive” to her husband in the presidency, I am endlessly tired of religion being a ruler by which we measure politicians. For this reason, I think that the question she was presented with was fair because it exposed her level of religiousness. How religion can trump feminism, especially for a woman in this day and age, is utterly beyond me.
How she can agree with the fact that her husband counsels people to “not be gay” is a fucking joke. Her weird little suggested reading list that boasts slavery? Ignorance at it’s finest. And her comments on how the founding fathers fought to end slavery were distinctly Sarah Palin-esque. What can I say? Bachman’s got “chutspa” (pronounced hoot-spa!) and not the good kind.
In actuality, Bachman would not be and is not submissive to her husband at all. She’s submissive to her religion. One is just as bad as the other in my book, and in this case, one might even beget the other one.
A Bossy Italian Wife would never allow a man or god to order her around because she’s got too much purpose for all that. What should dictate politics, and even religion, if you ask me, is kindness. And these comments by Michelle Bachman seem anything but kind to woman, gay men and women, and those who fight for equality in this country.
Ms. Bachman, the American people are not submissive.