I was watching the news last night and saw the big "uproar" about the question given to Michele Bachmann at the debate. Pundits pondered if the question was misogynist. The crowd booed. I was offended.
I was offended because to say it wasn't a fair question seemed more misogynistic than saying it was. Here's why: Michele Bachmann quoted the bible and gave that answer in a previous interview. She had said in a 2006 interiew that she studied tax law because her husband told her to, even though she didn't like the idea. Bachmann said at the time, "But the Lord said, 'Be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.'"
If Bachmann hadn't made that statement, I would be offended by the question. It seems like a low blow. But she did say that. She said the word "submissive" and in context of religion. And you can't have it both ways. You can't say you're religious and use it for votes, but back away from the belief you stated when it seems politically harmful. Because honestly, I don't want a woman in office that feels being submissive to anyone other than the majority of Americans and their best interest is okay.
That's a problem I have with the Republican party (and you know that I'm not particularly conservative, so that shouldn't be a surprise). It seems that the Republican party pushes forward female candidates, but only pretty ones that are religious and not particularly qualified (Palin anyone? A breath away from the presidency but thought man and dinosaurs were around together). I won't say Bachmann isn't qualified, but I do say that if you are using your religious beliefs as an advantage and a platform, you can't pick and choose your beliefs when it's convenient.
Bachmann said "submissive" (which means "meekly obedient or passive" NOT "respect" as she contended) and therefore it's fair game to ask about again. If I said I was submissive to Chef, I would hope that others would ask me if Iwould relinguish my authority to him. At least if I was in position of earned or voted power.
The question is fair because if a man had said he was "whipped" into shape by his wife, I'd ask him the same thing. If being whipped meant that he was going to use his power in ways she dictated. I mean, isn't that what everyone seemed to accuse Bill Clinton of when he was in office. That Hillary was calling all the shots?
And that's what gets me. It's okay for a woman to be pretty and submissive as a candidate, but strong and not striking is not acceptable. To think that sexism doesn't exist is ridiculous. Sometimes, though as in this case, the claims are unfounded or worse, just convenient.
I was offended because to say it wasn't a fair question seemed more misogynistic than saying it was. Here's why: Michele Bachmann quoted the bible and gave that answer in a previous interview. She had said in a 2006 interiew that she studied tax law because her husband told her to, even though she didn't like the idea. Bachmann said at the time, "But the Lord said, 'Be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.'"
If Bachmann hadn't made that statement, I would be offended by the question. It seems like a low blow. But she did say that. She said the word "submissive" and in context of religion. And you can't have it both ways. You can't say you're religious and use it for votes, but back away from the belief you stated when it seems politically harmful. Because honestly, I don't want a woman in office that feels being submissive to anyone other than the majority of Americans and their best interest is okay.
That's a problem I have with the Republican party (and you know that I'm not particularly conservative, so that shouldn't be a surprise). It seems that the Republican party pushes forward female candidates, but only pretty ones that are religious and not particularly qualified (Palin anyone? A breath away from the presidency but thought man and dinosaurs were around together). I won't say Bachmann isn't qualified, but I do say that if you are using your religious beliefs as an advantage and a platform, you can't pick and choose your beliefs when it's convenient.
Bachmann said "submissive" (which means "meekly obedient or passive" NOT "respect" as she contended) and therefore it's fair game to ask about again. If I said I was submissive to Chef, I would hope that others would ask me if Iwould relinguish my authority to him. At least if I was in position of earned or voted power.
The question is fair because if a man had said he was "whipped" into shape by his wife, I'd ask him the same thing. If being whipped meant that he was going to use his power in ways she dictated. I mean, isn't that what everyone seemed to accuse Bill Clinton of when he was in office. That Hillary was calling all the shots?
And that's what gets me. It's okay for a woman to be pretty and submissive as a candidate, but strong and not striking is not acceptable. To think that sexism doesn't exist is ridiculous. Sometimes, though as in this case, the claims are unfounded or worse, just convenient.
No comments:
Post a Comment