This kind of shit makes me wanna pull a P-Swayze in Roadhouse move and rip a bitches throat out with my bare hands.
In the Republican debate in Iowa last week Michele Bachmann was asked if she would “submit” to her husband. Bachmann is a Traditional Christian who believes in the ideas of wifely submission. Her answer, “Marcus and I will be married 30 years coming this September. Submission means respect.”
Back the stupid ideology train the fuck up, in what known dumb as a box of rocks universe does submission mean respect. Bitch let me define some terms for you.
Merrian-Webster defines submissive as submitting to others, the word submit is defined as to yield governance or authority.
Now, respect can be interpreted in a couple different ways, it is defined as: a relation or reference to a particular thing or situation: an act of giving particular attention, consideration :a high or special regard, esteem.
Obviously there is not way to misinterpret submission as being synonymous with respect and Bachmann knows this. She knows that the idea of wifely submission is that the wife submits to the ultimate authority of her husband on all things, this is a symbolic ritual to represent a wife’s submission to Jesus in all things.
Bachman purposefully misrepresented this because she knows that the general American public will find this freakshow religious notion archaic and laughable. And it is. This is just another attempt by Catholicism to marginalize the right of women within the church and within society.
And it has more political importance than you may think. With modern movements to establish the US as a “Christian Nation” that have been successful in some part (women’s reproductive right), this could lead to reduction, if not outright elimination, of women’s basic rights, freedoms and liberties. This may seem like an extreme view but it is not completely out of the realm of possibility, no matter how improbable we find it to be.
Am I calling Michele Bachmann anit-woman, yep. The theories of wifely submission do nothing to help her or women in general, they serve only the interest of men and their sexism. I consider that to be anti-women and an attack on my beliefs. I will not take that lightly and I will fight the ignorant ideologies that breed this kind of backwards thinking.
Nugget of Awesomeness: If your religious beliefs are valid then you wouldn’t have to lie about them. And, correct me if I’m wrong but, isn’t bearing false witness a sin??????
Desperation & Emoticons 
I think you are being rather hard on Mrs. Bachmann here. Surely she was suggesting that ‘submission’ within the context of marriage is more akin to respect than to ‘submission’ as strictly defined in the dictionary.
We have all occasionally ‘submitted’ to the wishes of our partners at some point, even before marriage. Concession and compromise is what helps a relationship continue to function.
If that is what she meant then she should have expressed her point more concisely, she is running for president after all and should be making clear statements about her views. I don’t think I am being hard on her, she misrepresented herself and the tenets of wifely submission, it is not respect (although they may have that in their relationship) it is total authority on the husbands part. She should have the guts to stand up for her beliefs enough to be honest about them. I agree that in marriage (and all relationships) concession and compromise are important but they can not be equally equated between a marriage that involves wifely submission and one that does not. When one partner has total authority there is no “compromise” there is only there authority.
i don’t think you’re being too harsh. she’s a delusional homophobic crackpot who is out of touch with reality. and for the record, there is no such thing as valid religious beliefs… i mean, sure, people can believe what they want, but that doesn’t validate any of the crazy (and 100% unproven) claims they make.
The comments you have just made, Zelig, demonstrate why US society is becoming steadily more divided. Crude insults have no place in mature political discourse, and your slandering of religion is extremely offensive, as well as being ignorant.
I have no doubt that there are many things that you ‘believe’ for which there is less empirical evidence than there is for the existence of an omnipotent deity.
Crude insults DO have a place on my blog, it is my uncensored feeling about the world and I do not expect anyone to play nice when I don’t. It is definitely immature and offensive but one could argue that belief in religion is as well.
And, I find it weird that you seem to deplore the “immature political discourse” of Zelig but you responded to his comment instead of my less inflammatory reply to your original comment. You may deplore it but it seems to hold you interest more than you might think.
That’s an interesting point, P-Swayze, although the explanation for that is that I was running late for something, so I only had time to respond to one point. But you are right, it was Zelig’s post that called for an immediate response.
Regarding Bachmann’s comments, I still feel that you are imposing your preconceived notions of what her views are onto what she said. To an objective observer, her comments do not necessarily mean what you have taken them to mean. You are projecting your prejudices onto her.
Bachmann is an Evangelical christian who has admitted previously that her biblical view of gender roles includes a woman submitting to her husbands authority. The Evangelical submission theory says that a woman’s role in marriage is as a helpmate and mother. These are my preconceived notions on her wifely submission.
Also, she made a statement that “Submission means respect.” It does not, these words are not synonyms by any stretch of the imagination, even in the context of her biblical marriage. She should not have confused the issue.
the fact that politicians pay lip service to religion is EXTREMELY offensive to me and anyone else who holds reason and logic and scientific evidence above bronze age fairy tales. her religion discriminates against people based on race, sex and sexual preference, all things i find EXTREMELY offensive. religion, especially in the US, has no place in politics. at all. yet there it is, all over the place.
and no, you’re wrong, cantabarrister, i do not believe in things for which there is less empirical evidence than there is for the existence of an omnipotent deity.
How lawyer-like (or should I say barrister-like) to argue that she probably didn’t mean the literal definition of the word or anything close to it. Her actions speak louder than words, which includes almost pressing charges against a lesbian constituent trying to speak with her in a public restroom about legislative issues and saying she didn’t want to marry her husband, but did because God told her to do so.
I really can’t trust a person who lets all her life decisions be made by “God.” As far as I’m concerned it be the same thing as telling me your leaving your life decisions up to the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man.
at least with the stay puft marshmallow man no one would have the audacity to claim that it is a real thing (as opposed to being hollywood make believe). meanwhile, religious folks make bolder, more ignorant and more unproven claims all the time. complete horse scheiße.
I think we should start giving credit for life occurances to random imaginary things. Like next time something good happens to me I am going to praise the Broccoli Monster for blessing me.
Does this mean that Deep throaating a sausage sexual repression Mrs. B will not be in charge because America will have to submitt to the will of her husband…..whom is a closetted fag hatin’ fag?
Pretty much.