Actually she did avoid it. She mentioned that "part" of the meaning of submission is respect, which did not answer the question.
So, we the question fair? Was it appropriate? Was it sexist? You can choose more than one.
Why weren't any of the other candidates asked "do you believe your spouse is submissive enough to you?" . . . and so on - she's not the only one with a faith that suggests this is how thins 'should be'
She handled it well but her answer was bull**** - "we respect eachother" - haha. . . look. I would have respected her answer MORE if it were the truth that most religious women apparently struggle with: "my religion tells me one thing - and I chose that one part just doesn't apply these days but try to adhere to the more important things."
They could have worded the question differently, then, and subverted this whole fallback.
Simply for the fact that she's a successful political figure - and she's female - obviously she's not cleaving to any 'traditional/old fashioned submission' - nor is Palin.
Of course she did. Her religious base would be furious if she refuted and the rest of the country would think she was crazy if she didn't.
It doesn't say much for her honesty though.
No, it wouldn't. If a male candidate for president was on record as stating that he believed males should be submissive to their wives, then it's fair to say that the American voters would want to know exactly who would be making the decisions in the whitehouse... the candidate or the candidate's wife.
so, you think the question should have been made into a softball
i disagree
this question was as legitimate - and appropriate - as asking JFK, if he were to be elected president, and as a faithful catholic, would he subordinate his decisions to those of the pope
that is information an informed voter would want to know
just as we should want to know whether bachmann as president (perish the thought) would subordinate her decisions once again to those of her gay converting spouse
by her previous public statements, bachmann brought the need for such a question upon herself
If the question was asked without any background to lead to it, then I would say it was inappropriate if it was just a feeler question. Since Bachman actually made the statement...it was a appropriate to ask for a clarification.
The Apostle Paul commands women that not only are they to stay silent in Church, but they CANNOT hold power over men and must be subservient to their husband.
Was the question fair? You betcha'.
Boobs have power over men, so your comment is obviously wrong...
The Apostle Paul commands women that not only are they to stay silent in Church, but they CANNOT hold power over men and must be subservient to their husband.
Was the question fair? You betcha'.
Boobs have power over men, so your comment is obviously wrong...
During the republican debate this week, Michelle Bachmann was asked the following:
Her answer, in part:
This question has raised a firestorm over whether it was fair or appropriate. It came about from this comment she made where she said that she finished her degree because her husband told her so and women are supposed to be submissive to their husbands(can't find quote at the moment, if any one else can, will edit it in and give credit).
So, we the question fair? Was it appropriate? Was it sexist? You can choose more than one.
It's probably not a question you are likely to see posed to any democrats. "Candidate Obama...you are a Christian...do you dominate your wife and insist she be submissive to you?" Fair...eh. Silly? You bet.
But...
Taken out of context that could be used to imply men dominate their submissive wives. Taken in context it is but one half of the equation. Husbands...love your wives and Christ loved the church. Translation live for them, respect them. Be honorable. If necessary, die for them. Its a pretty powerful description for a healthy relationship. I dont see anywhere where it gives the husband the right to direct or dictate to a woman their responsibilities as an elected official. Such a thing would be outside the scope of the cited scripture.
I cant see how anyone can be UPSET about the question. If a candidate makes religion a focal point of their personality, then people have the right to ask to what level that applies. Candidate Gingrich will likely have to field questions why he was with another woman while still married. The difference of course is that none of the media ever came out and asked "Mr Clinton...just how many other fat chicks HAVE you been boffing while you have been married?" Or of Mr Kerry...since you already have your first and second wives money, should something ever happen to Theresa will you marry another Yeti just because they are loaded?
It was sexist, and they never asked Hillary that question.
boobs are magical.
lol . . . . .. .
Another Farce/abuse of a "poll" as pure political comment.
All 3 'choices' except none of those deeming the question objectionable.
No option for voting that it was a an appropriate/fair question.
(I didn't like the question to her but won't vote)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?