I am reading and hearing a lot of criticism of Byron York for asking Michele Bachmann a submissive-wife question. That issue is out there, and he gave her an opportunity to address it, and she did, gracefully. I think it was a good moment for Christianity, marriage, women, etc. Rather than other media outlets being creeped out by evangelicals, he let her provide an explanation in a national forum.
Am I crazy? (I think I can be persuaded I am.)
Yes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNope, you're not crazy. I agree with your analysis of his question. Her answer, while charming, was not substantive, and will thus lead to follow-up in less sympathetic quarters. It would have been to her advantage to simply say that (a) she wouldn't be put in that position anyway, and (b) she wouldn't put the country at risk for personal reasons -- implication being she'd resign if absolutely necessary.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI cringed when I heard that question. The word submissive just creeps me out on a fundamental level. I love my husband, but submissive? No way.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNothing wrong with the question per se, but it's interesting that if a male candidate (or elected official) would say he welcomes input from his spouse, he would be commended (and if he would say he rejects it, it would reflect unfavorably on him).
Seemingly implicit in the question is that she should be more independent and not take input from him. How are both things "right" ?
It also illustrates the large gulf between evangelicals and the rest of the country on many family issues.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMichelle's answer was okay. Submission does not mean "respect," even though I understand what she means. That doesn't mean that her private marital life will have an effect on her ability to lead the country, however. I think some opportunistic liberal media outlets will use this to make the whole concept of submission in the Bible an election issue.
I guess it's better that it happens now, rather than next October.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSomehow I don't think that Bachmann implying she would resign the presidency if her husband disagreed with one of her political decisions would help her to seem more stable or trustworthy to mainstream America.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, klo, despite your Catholic background, something we share, I am afraid to say running this site has finally driven you crazy.
Why not read some liberal Catholic philosophers?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood answer, bad question. However, Byron by far had the best questions of any questioner that I can remember. But I don't think that was a good one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs much as I'd like to see a Christian woman fairly presented, when the word "submissive" is included the episode becomes fraught with danger. The word makes the question much more private, between Bachmann, her husband, and Christ and only those of us blessed enough to value a Christ-centered marriage will have any idea of what the question and the answer really mean. Great question, wrong forum, since the question puts her in a no-win position.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt was an insulting and idiotic question. Byron sounded like a blogger for the Huffington Post. It may have been his intent to allow Bachman to knock it out of the park, which she did, but it made him look asinine!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHi Kathryn,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI thought he asked a difficult question but not in a "gotcha manner". Representative Bachmann handled the question with great comedic timing, pausing to allow the anticipation to build and ultimately put a smile on every face in the room, including Byron's with her answer. We are taught to let our lives be the example that attracts people to our faith. Tonight, Michelle was a great "salesperson" for marriage and our Christian faith.
Kathryn, you aren't crazy. Wanting your husband to be head of the household and having him control your career are two different things.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCool. So if the people elected her, she would immediately resign?
I feel a lot better now, as someone who has actually read the founding documents.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI believe it was a stupid and senseless question. The woman is a sitting US Representative running for President for Pete's sake. Does anyone think that she asked her husband for permission to run?
I'm sure Michelle and her husband had many heart to heart discussions to determine if it was in the best interest of the family for to her run. I am willing to bet she values her husband's advice. If he was vehemently opposed to her running, she would not be in the race. But had she chosen not to run it would have been because she loves her husband and cares about his feelings, not because she needs to be submissive. This is the same thing that happens in every family before someone runs for office.
How many men live in fear of offending their wives? Most of the men I work with do. Who didn't know ahead of time that Bill probably lived in terror of Hillary? I don't recall anyone asking him if he had to clear everything with Hillary first (he probably did). In my opinion it was an idiotic, inappropriate question that would never have been asked of a male candidate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, there's degrees of crazy, Kathryn. The question, I think, ought to be "exactly how crazy am I?" rather than simply "am I crazy?"
It's a sexist question: really, apply the Steinem test and it fails on its face. Would anyone have asked Santorum this question? Would anyone expect Gingrich's wife to put all of her life on hold for her husband's presidency?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd frankly, it doesn't matter! It's like the CNN debate and the "blackberry or iPhone" question; it's really a waste of time as a question and shows a lack of interest in actual policy issues.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI grew up in a household in which my mother had equal, if not more, decision making power as my father, so I'm kind of turned off by Bachman's answer. No, wives should NOT be submissive to their husbands.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTake it from a marriage veteran - even the wife who swears submission to her husband does so purely for tactical reasons.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Michele Bachmann is president, but Marcus is calling the shots, shouldn't we be vetting Marcus?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerfectly reasonable question from York.
"In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse— Friedrich Nietzsche