A submissive POTUS?


Hail to the Housewife

Can Michele Bachmann be the leader of the free world and still obey her husband like a good evangelical?

In a speech at a mega-church in the Minneapolis area back in 2006, Michele Bachmann explained her decision to pursue tax law. It wasn’t her choice, exactly. God had already told her to go to law school; God had also told her to marry a fellow named Marcus Bachmann. Now Marcus told her “to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law.” This was not a particular desire of Michele’s (“Tax law? I hate taxes!”), but she was certain God was speaking through her husband.

“Why should I go and do something like that?” she recalled thinking. “But the Lord says, ‘Be submissive wives; you are to be submissive to your husbands.'”

For non-evangelical Christians, this sounds ludicrous: How can a woman who believes in submitting to her husband’s will aspire to be president of the United States? Is she going to have to ask Marcus’ permission every time she wants to throw a state dinner?

This apparent contradiction—how you can be leader of the free world and yet subordinate to some guy —has proved no less confusing to the nation’s conservative evangelicals. For them, the justification for a Bachmann presidential run lies in a very careful, some would say tortured, theological interpretation that emerged during Sarah Palin’s vice-presidential candidacy in 2008.

The solution to the “Palin Predicament,” as it’s been called, is laid out on the website of the influential Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. The council, which was established in 1987 to fight “the growing movement of feminist egalitarianism,” espouses something called complementarianism—the idea that while men and women are equal they nevertheless must play different (read: unequal) parts. Men are destined to occupy leadership roles at home and at church, while women are obliged to “grow in willing, joyful submission to their husbands’ leadership.” But the civic sphere is distinct from home and church and governed by different rules, these evangelicals reasoned, and if the Bible didn’t explicitly “prohibit [women] from exercising leadership in secular political fields,” neither would they.

The article goes out of the way to tie Bachmann’s beliefs to Palin, even though Sarah has never said she agreed with the “submissive wife” idea. In fact, Sarah calls herself a conservative feminist while Bachmann denies being a feminist.

That sure is an interesting title, isn’t it? Will Slate discuss the religious beliefs of any other candidates?

What do you think?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

107 Responses to A submissive POTUS?

  1. angienc says:

    All roads lead to Sarah Palin, it seems.

  2. WMCB says:

    Althouse blog had a good discussion on this. I really don’t think that word “submission” means what Slate thinks it means to Bachmann, and I would bet they got the entire context of what she was saying wrong.

    And no, they will not dissect anyone else’s religion.

    • JeanLouise says:

      I belonged to an evangelical church for many years. The church that I went to did teach that men are the heads of the household and the final authority on all family matters. I never heard how that might affect work decisions in part, I think, because women were encouraged to get pregnant and stay home.

      Of course, not every marriage was conducted according to church teaching but I think that teaching that women are to submit to their husband in even the most important family decisions is very problematic.

      I could not vote for a candidate who expressed that belief.

      • sandress says:

        The fundie church that I’m most familiar with takes wifely submission to mean pretty much that: barefoot and pregnant and subservient to their husbands. Of course, it also encourages members of the church to work for and rent from and socialize with other members of the church (and pretty much only other members of the church).

      • angienc says:

        I’d bet good money you already have voted for candidates who expressed that belief — of course being men, the media didn’t see a need to report it in their case.

        • myiq2xu says:

          I remember Barack answering questions for Michelle during a joint interview.

        • angienc says:

          Aw yes, I remember that too. I also remember him going on & on about how he didn’t want no girly dog & Michelle finally having to cut his jerk self off by saying “but you live with 3 girls” because everyone could see what a douche he was being but him.

        • djmm says:

          Barak Obama attended Michelle’s job interview with her when she decided to leave the law firm where they worked, if I recall correctly. She had worked at a top law firm, he had less experience as an attorney than she did, and he would not let her go to the interview by herself. That was one of my first clues there was something seriously wrong with him.

          I have known men who have quit their jobs because a woman was promoted and they would report to her. “It’s against my religion — no woman should give orders to a man.” (Southern Baptist) Even in the 1980’s, this was one of the concerns companies had if they were considering promoting a woman.


    • Anonymous says:

      I’m sure they don’t “get” submission. I’m sure they think it means man bosses woman around and woman meekly accepts it.

      • myiq2xu says:

        My late aunt Zella was a Mormon and if you had asked her she would say my uncle wore the pants in the family. But she told him which pair to put on every morning.

        • WMCB says:

          This is a little long, but here’s my attempt to explain.

          I’ve attended evangelical churches that taught the whole concept. A very few were wacko weird about it, but most aren’t. Most approached it almost from a “men are from mars, women are from venus” standpoint. I.e., the assumption is that men and women are not utterly identical in their emotional needs. The wife ought to give the husband what he needs to feel valuable and affirmed, and he ought to give HER what she needs to feel valuable and affirmed. I’ve never been in any church that taught that it wasn’t a two way street, or that submission = subjection or absolute obedience. Not the same thing.

          Even the much-quoted passage from Paul ends with “Yes, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resists the proud, and gives grace to the humble.”

          I think that people who are not a part of that religious culture, looking in from the outside, really don’t “get” the context in which it is framed: I.e. all of Christ’s teachings about losing your life to find it, giving away to be rich, etc. It is set in that context of the counterintuitive. In a spiritually enlightened relationship, it’s an exercise in denying the demands of selfishness for both partners. The person to whom the wife is supposed to be “submitting” is also the person who is supposed to be willing to do literally anything for her – including dying. Neither role is supposed to be about throwing authority around or DEMANDING squat. It’s supposed to be a joyful dance of who can give more, as an internal discipline of spiritual development.

          I’m not saying I agree with all of that. But the teaching is not, in most churches, the rigid “who’s the boss” crap that many of the left try to portray it as being. It’s just not. Any more than fasting in some religions is about the food.

        • angienc says:

          You know what, WMCB, thanks for explaining that, because I didn’t understand that before. In my church (Greek Orthodox) during the wedding ceremony there is a part about that having to each give selflessly to the other –the crowns (stephena) that we use are symbols of the martyrs because the couple are agreeing to “sacrifice” for each other, be responsible for each others spiritual & physical welfare, etc. The word “submission” isn’t used, but it sounds like the same idea.
          Also, my church does have strict fasting rules (especially during Lent, but for other Holy Days as well and it doesn’t give you a choice about what you give up — all meat even fish, but not shellfish — anything with a blood line — and dairy ) and it is TOTALLY not about the food — it is about sacrificing & doing penance — you are not supposed to just fast, you are supposed to be praying & doing self-reflection. So, it annoys the heck out of me when some smart ass tells me (and, btw, I never “brag” about fasting, but sometimes it comes up when I say — go out to lunch during Lent with a co-worker) that “God doesn’t care what you eat.” (always delivered with a smirk). No shit, asshole — it’s about what I’m supposed to be doing during this period of reflection (I think that, don’t say it, ’cause that wouldn’t be very spiritually helpful).

        • myiq2xu says:

          The pastor of the church I went to (Nazarene) said God took a rib from Adam to create Eve. He said he didn’t take a bone from Adam’s foot because she wasn’t below Adam, and he didn’t take it from Adam’s head because she wasn’t above him. He said God took a rib because Eve was supposed to stand beside Adam.

        • djmm says:

          Fundamentalist churches differ a great deal and many have strong women members in line with WMCB’s comment and myiq’s.

          But there are some where submission means submission and if a woman is insufficiently submissive, it is perfectly OK for the husband to beat her until she is both submissive and black and blue. And the pastor will support the husband and make the woman feel like she is going to hell for not being a better wife to her husband. Because it is all her fault — if she were better, he would not have to beat her. And if her family members try to help the wife, the couple will cut off all ties to them.

          Sometimes, eventually, the woman comes to her senses and escapes successfully. Sometimes, she even gets her children out of the church. If she is very lucky.

          I have personal experience in my family with such a church. They are not as common today as the more reasonable fundamentalist churches but they are more common than one might think.


        • WMCB says:

          I agree djmm – those churches are not numerous, but they do exist. However, since the hit article was on Bachmann, and there is really no evidence to support that she and her husband are part of the “wacko fringe” in their interpretation, then it’s an obvious attempt to smear by association.

          It’s really not much different than saying that anyone who wants a social safety net must be the equivalent of Stalin. It’s assigning guilt for an extremist version of someone’s views to them – with no evidence that their position is in any way that far along the spectrum.

  3. 1539days says:

    Obama is way more submissive than Michele Bachmann.

    It’s not up to Stale magazine to define anyone’s marriage. Even if a marriage is 50/50, one of two choices have to be made sometimes. If the Bachmanns find a game plan with their church, I don’t see why anyone else has to get involved. Obama sought MEchelle’s permission to run for president. I’m sure Michele Bachmann did as well. Once you have permission, I assume it’s the last time you have to ask about the details.

    • angienc says:

      Obama is way more submissive than Michele Bachmann.

      TRUE DAT! At least to his corporate overlords.

      I’m appalled by Bachmann’s stances on social issues, but really? They aren’t that different from Obama’s (remember that Valerie Jarrett calling homosexuals a “lifestyle choice?” I do) and at least we know where she stands on those issues instead of the double speak Obama gives us. And they sure aren’t any different than say, Alen Keys — where is all the outrage over him running?

      Furthermore, she’s a tax lawyer (way, way, way harder than any degree Obama has or legal work he’s ever done — if he even has any). So, that right there, tells me she’s as “smart” or “smarter” than anybody else running (including Obama) regardless of my difference with her opinions on social issues.

  4. timothy2010 says:

    I just cannot get beyond the 26 foster children. We had one when I was a kid and he hoarded anything and everything. Toothpaste, mayo, Tide. Didn’t matter the kid hid it. Never stole as we had an old wringer washer filled with change and he never touched it. He was 10 or 11 then and a full time job for my parents a few months in, his mother regained custody but he still sends a card at Christmas(married programmer) Thing is he was work and lots of it. My mom is kinda funny and she would find his hidden stash of laundry detergent and she’d head out and buy 20 boxes and then tell him to take what he wanted withourt ever asking or accusing him of taking what he did. We decided tv by thumb war and my mom had the common sense to realize he was not comfortable with holding another persons hand. So tv bythumb war ended. So many little things with kids in jeopardy. Hard work. Not nanny shite. Elbows deep shit. Cannot see how anyone could do it with 26. Actually think it may be a bit selfish.

    • myiq2xu says:

      Most foster kids don’t come from Ozzie and Harriet homes, and the ones that do usually don’t stay long.

      I have a foster niece and nephew. Their mom is a drug addict.. My foster nephew was six when my sister got him and he didn’t know how to eat with a fork.

      • timothy2010 says:

        So how can you responsibly do that 26 times? I remember Thad wetting the bed. No big deal. No shame. My parents made it a game where we all washed our sheets in the bathtub and hung them outside to dry. Everyday for those kids is a struggle. Not comprehensible for me that you could do it 26 times. Each one needs sooooo much.

        • myiq2xu says:

          Some people take emergency foster placements – kids awaiting permanent placement.

        • timothy2010 says:

          In all sincerity if you know or will know any young people entering the foster care system I suggest an acting workshop for the brats. These kids feel like they have no control over their own destiny and are reactive. Often they have sublimated their anger so deeply that they don’t even know what or if they even feel. A half assed drama coach will make them own an emotion. Very empowering for little ones who have become pawns in someone else’s drama

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          It can be done. I was in and out of foster homes and group homes for about three years before I was assigned to a “residential treatment center” for the last 2.5 years of my minor life. I aged out of the system.

          I was in homes where I was the only kid and others with two or three others, or more. The best run actual foster home I was in was like Bachmann’s, and they took up to 8 teenaged girls at a time. They’d converted the basement of their very large house to be kind of a dorm. I got treated better there than anywhere else except the treatment center, which actually saved my sorry life. I had zero life skills and I began to learn some there. And they were very nice and expected a lot of me, which may be why I expect so much of myself these days, and others. A lot of what these do is just in how they live and the exposure that bring clarity and change. Ooooooooooh, so I don’t have to live like the rest of the losers in my family of origin kinda thing. They were also fundamentalists Christian, but it didn’t effect me one way or the other, except I hated the prayers before dinner.

        • timothy2010 says:

          I gladly stand corrected — I think what Bachmann did was great but I assume she had the non-issue kids. Am I way off here? I have zero problem being corrected.

        • elliesmom says:

          timothy, Bachmann’s husband is a psychologist. While he comes at therapy from a Christian fundamentalist perspective and that might be a turnoff for some, it would make sense for the state to send the Bachmann’s foster children who have more issues than most.

    • djmm says:

      Some foster parents are foster parents because they love children and want to make things better for them.

      Some do it for the money and the more kids they take in, the more money they get.

      I don’t know which model Rep. Bachman fits. I hope the first, but I do not know.


  5. DandyTiger says:

    Very interesting. Clearly there’s no connection between the two in this regard, but they can’t help doing work for Obama. Sadly transparent. As for pursuing other candidates religion, only if that candidate threatens Obama.

  6. Three Wickets says:

    Few weeks ago, Slate was calling her stupid. Now they’ve shifted to calling her crazy. 98% of the country barely knows who she is or what she’s about. Let her introduce herself to the people so they can decide for themselves. Most of the media filters are bullshit anyway. For me, the more a candidate is bashed the more I pay attention, and the candidates most consistently bashed these days are women. For instance, I learned recently that Bachmann is a tax lawyer, which is interesting to me because I don’t know any stupid tax lawyers. 🙂

  7. angienc says:

    BTW — one of the most insulting things about this piece is the fact that they are calling an elected congresswoman & tax attorney a “housewife.” I’m 100% against her on social issues, but really– fuck Slate.

  8. Three Wickets says:

    I think I may learn to despise the French. This is the guy who also got us into Libya, imo.

  9. Lola-at-Large says:

    I spent almost 20 years voting on social issues. I did my part. Now I’m voting on fiscal issues. And the only social issue that really matters to me anymore: political parity for women.

    • angienc says:

      I actually can’t say I disagree with you. I’m in the same boat & I’m going to do the same. It really boils down to: everyone else is looking out for their own interests & don’t give a damn about mine, so it’s time for me to start doing the same.

    • Mary says:

      Given the way all the “feminist” organizations SUBMITTED to the Obama campaign propaganda in the primaries and thereafter, I’m voting/thinking fiscal issues, too.

      There’s submission in a marriage—as explained by WMCB as mutual caring for the other’s needs……

      And there’s submission to false narratives for political purposes, which actually results in betrayal .

      Enough of the manipulations, already. Real feminists know the difference.

      • WMCB says:

        What’s funny to me is that what this whole “doctrine” boils down to is nothing more than what dozens and dozens of pop-psychology and relationship help books say all the damn time. It’s just dressed up in religious language.

        The idea that the sexes have some differences other than genitalia. That in a relationship , men tend to need their ego catered to and stroked more than women do. And women tend to need their emotions catered to and stroked more than men do. And in a loving relationship, what’s the big deal about being aware of that, and each giving the other what they need.

        Whether you agree with the idea of those kind of generalized gender differences or not, it’s not like it’s news, or bizarre.

        • Mary says:

          Well said, and thank you.

          The phrase “high maintenance” describes the kind of human being–male or female–whose needs demand that everything in the relationship be about THEM, with nary a concern about giving same back to the partner. Trust me–I have sister like this—sucks all the oxygen out of any room she’s ever in—and literally has no idea why she’s on husband #4. Numbers 1-3 were actually very nice guys—they just got exhausted by her and left.

          I think the word “submission” freaks some people out, when it’s not really meant that way. Thanks for you explanations!

  10. timothy2010 says:

    Way off topic– but what the freud happened to Hillbuzz? Before I knew of this oasis I hit a few sites with the am coffee and Hillbuzz was one. Didn’t always agree as from my perspective they took a hard right turn but i enjoyed reading. Not so much anymore. They begged for support and then boom the site became rehashed drudge

    • WMCB says:

      Kevin, the guy who started it, has disappeared. I think health problems, maybe? Not sure. But it has not been the same since.

      • 1539days says:

        Kevin was Hillbuzz. When Dick was elected, his site turned to going after the administrator and the poeple who put the guy in power. The major shift happened when Kevin started praising Bush and Cheney and the liberal (and many other) Dmeocrats left. The people who front page now seem to be conservative Republicans. The idology may be similar, but they lack Kevin’s literary flair. I rarely read it and I don’t bother posting anymore.

  11. Three Wickets says:

    How about everyone’s agreeing to shut up about their kids? How about everyone agreeing to stop hating on kids, Frank. They are our future.

    • ralphb says:

      Did you read the last 4 paragraphs where he eviscerates Bristol Palin? Frank Bruni should go straight to hell! The hypocritical asshole.

      • JeanLouise says:

        I’ve never read anything else by this guy but I think he’s absolutely right about Bristol’s choices other than her foray into DWTS. I was particularly repulsed by how she described her son’s father and the circumstances of his conception in the book which he will surely read at some point. Putting her toddler son in a reality show is really stupid as well.

        I realize that Bristol is an adult and will do as she will but I was very disappointed when Sarah spoke approvingly of the book.

        • crawdad says:

          Considering who his father is he may never learn to read.

        • ralphb says:

          Maybe but she is a young adult and that’s her business and not one damn bit of yours or mine. If it were my own child I would be completely pissed at some stranger or asshole reporter who thought they should have a say in it, good bad or indifferent.

        • JeanLouise says:

          Fine, Ralph, get mad. The last time I looked at this site it was here for people to express their opinions just as I expressed mine. If you disagree, you’re free to say so. I’m pretty sure that it will not change my opinion that some dirty laundry just does not need to be published in a vanity book.

          • myiq2xu says:

            Bristol Palin is the country’s most famous teen mom. How she got knocked up is a pretty obvious question, especially considering she is a spokesperson for abstinence.

            Compared to Levi showing off his Obama in Playgirl or Teh Precious dragging Jack and Jeri Ryan’s dirty laundry out in public to win an election, Bristol admitting to drunken teenaged sex is nothing.

        • angienc says:

          The way I see it, is if the press had left her the FUCK alone, DWTS would have NEVER given her the offer to come on (because she wouldn’t be a “tabloid” celebrity). Same goes for the Playgirl spread for that Levi Johnson, etc. The media thrust them into this pseudo-celebrity and come on — they are just young kids (although, legally adults, so their parents can’t stop them). They couldn’t resist the $ and “fame.” I don’t have the same repulsion that you seem to because I think the media “created” this whole thing.

        • angienc says:

          (Hit post too soon) I meant to say:

          I don’t have the same repulsion that you seem to because I think the media “created” this whole thing, so if they are going to be in the tabloids anyway (which she definitely was) she might as well get some $$ for it.

  12. timothy2010 says:

    On a happy note looks like the waffles propping guy tom hanks just took a bath on latest film
    Guess some of us bitter clingers know how to hold on to our wallets. HA HA HA. Too bad for you .

  13. timothy2010 says:

    Quick question– i have a friend who is starting a website called Cranky Bear. Sort of like TMZ meets the beltway. His goal is to tell Sean Penn and Alec Baldwin to shut the fuck up. He is very very funny and uses a round table of farm animals to discuss the hot topics a la the view. i HATE the name what say you?

    • angienc says:

      Well, why not name it something that gives people some idea what it is about? How about “STFUSeanandAlec” — meh, probably not any good, but better than Cranky Bear — a bear isn’t even a farm animal.

  14. crawdad says:


    Now, back to the bad news. The first woman elected as president of the United States has to be exceptional. Superior. The smartest, best educated and most rational person in the room. So, not Palin, not Bachmann. Why? Because failure is not an option.

    I used to work at a Wall St. investment bank. There were diversity programs galore but it was still problematic to find a senior woman to promote to Managing Director in Information Technology. I used to discuss this often with my boss, himself an MD. He finally suggested just promoting a particular (and the most senior) woman in the group to managing director. His argument was “self selection”. People tend to like and promote people who are similar to themselves. I get that and I agree. But this woman was not good. If there were five options in any given situation, not only would she not pick the best one, she would almost always pick the worst one. So my worry was that the first woman MD would “represent”. She would be the standard bearer. She would have to do a good job, on behalf of her entire gender. If she sucked, the reaction would be “See. Women can’t be managing directors”. If a guy in that role sucked, it would just be “Gee, John is an idiot” and not “Men are idiots”.

    Barack Obama carries that burden for African Americans. Happily, he carries it well. Regardless of your politics, you have to admit (really, you have to!) that he is well-educated, competent, rational, even-tempered and intelligent.

    So, even if my political views weren’t the polar opposite of Palin’s and Bachmann’s (which they are), I would still say “not Palin, not Bachmann”. As women, this is a risk we cannot afford to take.

    So the first woman POTUS has to be better than everyone else? So why isn’t Hillary President?

    BTW – a woman wrote that crap

    • angienc says:

      Oh, how quickly they forget — I bet you 1 million bucks the author of that article was saying “I’d vote for a woman, just not THAT woman” about Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primaries to justify her Obama luvr.

      Funnily enough, my mom & I were just discussing how badly Obama carries the burden — he’s not Jackie Robinson, we agreed & has probably effed it up for another black person becoming POTUS for at least another generation.

      Oh, and Obama is half-black, but he IS NOT “African American” — that description implies being descended from American slaves.

    • elliesmom says:

      The first African-American president is a dick. The bar for Jane is low.

      • angienc says:

        Oh, that’s good. Post it over there, pretty please? I lost my ability to post in that sewer back in aught 8 (I wear it as a badge of honor).

      • Lola-at-Large says:

        You can’t get much past the censors on that one. I simply posted that the “right woman” argument was the most subversively sexist argument there was and reminded readers that the left had a chance to pick the “right woman” and responded with “bros before hoes.” Didn’t get through.

        Not all articles at HuffPo are like that. Apparently, Ms. Kounaris has some thin skin and the mods feel the need to protect her. I wonder what she thinks that says about women, that she can’t take criticism like a man?

        • angienc says:

          Thanks elliesmom and Lola-at-Large for your efforts.

          I really like your response too, Lola, too bad they can dish it but not take it.

    • 1539days says:

      Regardless of your politics, you have to admit (really, you have to!) that he is well-educated, competent, rational, even-tempered and intelligent.

      and no.

      He has a lot of degrees and no apparent transcript. I can’t figure out a single metric where he shows competence. He is self-contradicting, petty, prone to anger when he doesn’t get his way and he shows an inability to avoid gaffes when a teleprompter isn’t atached to him.

    • Three Wickets says:

      Yeah, I used to think like that once. Then Hillary got ambushed by her own party, Obama became Potus, and Obots at the NYTimes, NBC and NPR began deciding the meaning of America. Fuck that.

    • sandress says:

      Oddly, I see the perspective. Who was the next woman PM after Thatcher? After Kim Campbell in Canada? It happens comparatively often that you get your token woman leader and then nothing for decades. But I don’t think it’s because Kim Campbell was a bad PM (although she certainly wasn’t a good one). It’s because feminism isn’t a popular cause, and it’s easy for people to say “there, mission accomplished, now get back in the kitchen.” This “I’m all for women, just not THAT one” argument is ridiculous. Of course, the author’s credibility is toast, anyway, because of the Obama-adulation.

      • Lola-at-Large says:

        I don’t think Campbell is a representative example since she only governed 132 days (and her record for those days was impressive in and of itself). And to be fair, British Prime Ministers tend to serve a long time–Thatcher herself saw 11 years–and there have only been four prime ministers since, including the current one. So it’s not like women have disappeared off the map there or anything.

        • sandress says:

          But Campbell is the ONLY example. That’s my point. It’s been decades, and we haven’t really even come close to having another woman PM. No, she didn’t really get a fair run at it. But it’s still enough to leave Canadians complacent with the tokenism there, saying “We had a woman PM.”

          Thatcher is certainly comparatively recent, and there haven’t really been that many British PMs since. But how many major party leaders have been women since then?

  15. But — a person of that religion might take orders from … the Pope!

    I’d rather have a POTUS influenced by their spouse. Twofers are good.

  16. myiq2xu says:

    From the DSK thread at Reclusive Leftist:

    Cleaver says:

    @ AD: Totally agree about Jeralyn as a defense lawyer. If I were accused of a crime, I would want her in my corner. She is also clear about a trial being about testing the evidence, not finding the truth. But in this case, I think she goes beyond testing/questioning evidence and makes sh!t up. As for that commenter, I do believe he is angry and I do believe he is a guy.

    “That commenter” is angienc

    My response:

    I’m sure she’ll be amused to hear what you think.

  17. angienc says:

    myiq — thanks for defending my honor, but I believe the “commenter” they are talking about is our good old friend AngryBlackGuy referenced in Cleaver’s previous post (#17 in that thread):

    Yes. And Jeralyn over at TL started down this road a few days ago. Today she’s turned that road into an 8-lane freeway, all the while allowing off-topic diatribes against Shakesville and other feminist sites by a misogynist dood commenter who calls himself “AngryBlackGuy.” If you’re not a feminist, you’re not a leftist. Bears repeating.

    And we all know he *is* angry & he *is* a guy. LOL

  18. yttik says:

    What do i think? I think it’s all a bunch of nonsense, but it is kind of interesting that we’re always so concerned about our candidate’s spouse. I mean, people were horrified that Hillary might be acting as co-president. People joke about Michelle being in charge of Obama and him being a wimp. Always fear of the manipulative, controlling woman.

    When the candidate is female we really don’t know WTH to do. Is Bachmann submissive to her husband or is she too dominant? Either choice is bad, of course. What people are really saying is that a woman shouldn’t be president because we require women to stay home and remain submissive to their husbands. The left may protest against this and deny it, but they’ve been exposed as having the same cultural prejudices as the right. Many of them viewed Hillary as a bad and scary woman, an evil and manipulative non-submissive. They’ve done the same thing to Sarah Palin.

    • 1539days says:

      and Christine O’Donnell and Nikki Haley.

    • sandress says:

      I don’t mean to denigrate the enormous contributions of political spouses, both in their formalized work, and in their unofficial advisory capacity. That said, in a representative democracy, I’m largely uncomfortable with the spouses and family members of the elected individual being grandfathered in as having an actual role in governance. They weren’t elected.

Comments are closed.