An interesting thing happened on Michele Bachmann’s way to the White House: her anti-woman views have come back to bite her – I mean, they’ve come to haunt her.
In an earlier speech, Bachmann said she chose to go to study tax law because her husband told her to and she believes, because of her faith that wives should be submissive to her husband.
During the Republican debates last night, Bachmann was asked by the moderator, to the displeasure of her fans in the audience, if she would be submissive to her husband. She played it off , and gave some nonanswer about how “submit” means to repect, yada yada – she repeated this a few more times to the press when the question was raised. Her answer is patently ridiculous becuase if submit is merely a marital synonim for “respect” then the husband would have to also “submit” to the wife, and then you have two submissives – insert sex joke here.
And now we are at yet another fork in the proverbial road with Bachmann – was the question sexist and out of line? Would a male candidate be asked if he was submissive to his wife? In fact, were any of the male candidates questioned about their spouses.
The answer is no, but I would ask that the people who cry “sexism” to be careful – the only reason the issue is on the table is because Bachmann brought it up in an interview. And to be honest, if she’s going to be president, I want to know that the reason we bombed some country and declared war on another is because she was following her husband’s whims.
I’m all for calling out when sexism rears its ugly head – I did when Sarah Palin was subjected to it, and even Bachmann’s infamous Newsweek cover had the faint odor of the “crazy angry woman” stereotype ala Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction, but this isn’t a case of sexism. It’s a fair question that Bachmann has to answer if she wants to be president because Americans have a right to know when they’re electing someone, who is going to be calling the shots from the Oval Office – the president or her husband.