GOP Debate - Sexist ? to Michelle Bachmann - would you be submissive to your husband?"

[RamboLiberal]

The Bible tells wives to be submissive to their husbands. If she were president, would that apply to Michele Bachmann?

In Thursday's Republican debate in Iowa, the Minnesota congresswoman was asked if she would be submissive to her husband.

Bachmann, the only woman in the Republican presidential field, says she interprets "submission" to mean "respect."

She said she respects her husband, calling him a "wonderful, godly man and a great father." And she says he respects and loves her, too.

The question by conservative columnist Byron York drew boos from the audience.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/08/11/2011-08-11_gop_hopefuls_turn_on_one_other_in_republican_debate_michelle_bachmann_thrown_sex.html#ixzz1UpxYUG62

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) took a lot of hits at Thursday night’s Fox News debate from her 2012 rivals. But the line that got the most “boos” from the audience came from moderator Byron York of the Washington Examiner, who asked Bachmann, an evangelical Christian, about a past comment that wives should be “submissive” to their husbands.

Bachmann came off well, and York defended his question while praising her response — even though she didn’t exactly answer.

-----

Bachmann seemed momentarily flummoxed by York’s question, but her silence only highlighted the anger at York in the audience. She then thanked York for the query and told the crowd that she and Marcus Bachmann celebrate their 33rd wedding anniversary in September.

-----

York himself responded on “Fox and Friends” Friday morning. “This is a serious and legitimate question about something she has said and believe me, if she progresses very far in the campaign process, she would have been asked this question,” he said. “And I personally thought she handled it very well. It was a very human moment for her.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/byron-york-defends-submissive-bachmann-question/2011/08/12/gIQAyXw8AJ_blog.html

[MADem]

1. York was right to ask. She's thrown that language around for YEARS.

Hell, she even "submits" to her husband's WARDROBE choices for her. There was nothing "sexist" about the question. Her conduct INVITED it.

[moksha]

2. It may have been a sexist question, but what she said previously

was also sexist. She opened herself to the question when she made her sexist comment.

[Roselma]

3. She wore that as a badge of her seriousness about Christianity.

She should not expect to escape questions on it. It's not sexist to ask a person to explain or defend their own statements.

[gratuitous]

4. The question was perfectly legitimate

It was her answer that I don't think would have passed muster if she had offered it to the congregation where she first pledged her submissive self to her husband. Yeah, she spiffed up her response and made it semi-palatable to the "panel," but her uppity language wouldn't have been well received at her church.

But now the issue's all answered, and never needs to be broached again.

[Morning Dew]

5. Heh! I thought we weren't supposed to interpret the literal word of God.

[seabeyond]

6. the obvious follow up quest. then you are saying your husband is also "submissive" to you.

and the bible does not state that a man (cant even identify as a husband) is submissive to his wife (again, bible cant say woman, she is merely a wife, extension of man)

[chelsea0011]

7. You are exactly correct. Her interpretation is at odds with what the bible really is saying

And it's funny she would give her own interpretation of the bible.

[kestrel91316]

8. A properly godly, bible-believing wife would recognize that SHE, as a woman, is not

to interpret God's word - that is for her husband to do and then instruct her. The proper response would have been to defer that question to her husband.

Fundie FAIL.

:rofl:

[lonestarlib]

9. The idea makes a lot of people very uneasy--Marcus

Bachmann would be the de facto president, not his wife.