Is Michele Bachmann in Submission to Her Husband?

Thursday, 11 August 2011

In Ames, Iowa today, eight Republican Presidential candidates took to the stage to explain why they would be the best person for the job.

They also answered questions from the audience:

The panel’s moderator, Byron York, asked Michele Bachmann:

In 2006 when you were running for Congress, you described a moment in your life when your husband said you should study for a degree in tax law. You said you hated the idea, and then you explained, ‘But the Lord said, Be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.’ As president, would you be submissive to your husband?”

The question garnered boos from the audience, but Bachmann thanked York for the question (as she should).  Bachmann’s response was typical of bible-literalists when presented with uncomfortable passages from their favorite book: She spun the words into a new interpretation that suited her belief-system. Basically, she said that the word “submission” means “respect,” and, yes, she does respect her husband.

First let’s talk about her definition. It’s bullshit. I mean, if that’s how she really defines the word, then I guess I can’t argue, but the reality is it’s just an apologetic’s wrangling to explain an archaic text in a modern world.

In Ephesians 5:24, the misogynistic Apostle Paul says that “wives must be submissive to their husbands in everything” (New International Version).  If Paul had meant ‘respect,’ he would have said respect, as he did in verse 33. Actually, some English versions of the bible render the Greek word used here as “reverence” and some render it as “fear.” And, no, it’s not just a translator’s preference – Paul really did use two different words here. In verse 33 he used phobetai (from whence we glean “phobia,” incidentally), while in verse 24 he used huppotassetai, which literally means “setting under.” Paul used no such word to define a husband’s role. So while I believe – and hope – that Bachmann has respect for her husband, according to the bible, she must also be in submission to him.

Some people are claiming that York’s question was sexist, such as this site here, in which writer Miranda Nelson says the question made her vomit in her mouth a little. Nelson (who makes it clear she’s not a Bachmann supporter) says: “I’m dying to know how Hilary Clinton would have taken the moderator to task for such an inappropriate question.”

Um, I don’t know how Clinton would handle it, but she probably would say something along the lines of: “I don’t take the bible’s words as literal truth, so I’m not sure why you’re asking me this question.”

See, the question was asked, not because York is sexist, but because Bachmann is an Evangelical Christian fundamentalist who has made her faith part and parcel of her political career and her current campaign. More so than anyone else on that panel, Bachmann fully embraces the Holy Bible as a handbook for day-to-day living and she makes no secret about this.

When Kennedy was running for President, he had to field questions relating to his faith, too. He was a Roman Catholic and a very real concern voters held was that electing JFK might be like electing the Pope. Asking Kennedy’s thoughts on this matter was not sexist, nor was it unfair that no one asked his main rival, Richard Nixon, if he would be submissive to the Pope if he was elected President. Asking Nixon would have been a waste of time, since Nixon was not Catholic but Quaker.

So, it’s a good question: if Bachmann is selected by voters to be the next Commander-in-Chief, would her husband really be the one in charge? Nelson also asks: “Were any of the seven men standing up there asked who really wears the pants in the family?”

Well, no, they weren’t. For one thing, most of the other candidates are not Evangelical Christians. But more importantly, we already know what their answer would be: of course they would be in charge! And they would be in charge for reasons besides their faith: They would be the President! So it wouldn’t matter. If, for example, Mitt Romney was elected President, his wife Ann wouldn’t be the de facto President telling her husband what to do: she would be in submission to him as a citizen of this country regardless of her (or Mitt’s) faith. Likewise, if Hillary Clinton becomes President, Bill would be in submission to her as a citizen of this country regardless of his (or Hillary’s) faith. But Bachmann’s case is like Kennedy’s: is a vote for Michele essentially a vote for Marcus? Just as Kennedy – due to his faith – had to answer and explain that, no, a vote for him was not a vote for the Pope (and he did a damn good job of it, too), Bachmann should expect to do likewise in view of her religiosity.

York’s question related to sexism only in that Bachmann subscribes to a sexist holy book. And that could have implications for American voters. If she really believes the bible is the literal word of some deity, then we need to get Marcus on stage to hear how he will be leading his submissive wife during her 4 years as Chief Executive.