http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z3Ov-2mPYc

 

The Young Turks' commentary on Michele Bachmann's comment about God mandating that good Christian women are submissive to their husbands.

 

I'm wondering what the secular community thinks of these remarks by Michele Bachmann about how women need to be submissive to their husbands, and receive permission from the husband to attend school or pursue their dreams in that fashion. Obviously this woman is anti-feminist and has utterly no chance of winning the candidacy. And if she did, I'd be leaving America before anybody else because it would absolutely seal our cultural doom.

 

I furthermore want your thoughts of her tripping over herself to reconcile the idea of 'being a submissive woman' with it meaning 'being respectful'. I made a comment on Facebook earlier today that couples should respect each other, and if her definition stands, then her husband must also say he's submissive to his wife. Otherwise she admits he does not respect her.

Tags: anti-feminism, bachmann, bible, christianity, feminism, god, gop, michele, old, republicans, More…submission, testament

Views: 738

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I absolutely disagree. What you're thinking of is RADICAL feminism where men are alienated and grilled and blamed for everything. Feminism is actually the fight for gender equality for BOTH genders, this means supporting men's rights where they fail to be upheld as well, including in domestic violence cases where men are objectified as masculine beasts that should be able to fend off a woman beating them. You will see feminists defend men on these issues as having their equal rights to not be discriminated against and have their case treated fairly (the same as a woman being beaten) violated. So I have to TOTALLY disagree with you there and you may just be confusing two different agendas.
Ava, please show me some examples of feminist organization's support for men's rights. Links or references please.
I'd especially like a link to any feminist organization that is advocating the reform of Domestic Violence laws you cite. In my extensive experience, feminists are fighting to retain or expand these laws, in direct opposition to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". As a result of feminist success in this area, accusation of domestic violence are now routinely used by lawyers in divorce cases in order to evict men from their homes and separate fathers from their children. No evidence is needed, only accusations.
Nerd, I am very knoweldgeable on the subject of Feminism, having grown up and gone to college in the 70's and 80's. I'm confident I have a great deal more direct experience with it, both positive and negative, than you.
If you want to actually discuss this issue, then please supply some argument or evidence more extensive than "You just don't understand".

Wikipedia defines Humanism as "a secular ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice".
Feminism fails on all counts, as it propogates misinformation, opposes civil rights, and fights against equal justice. Feminism is a women's advocacy movement, not an equality movement.
What about: 
Evelyn Reed, Victoria Woodhull, Lenora Fulani, Margaret Wright, Shirley Chisholm and quite a few others---albeit with limited to dismal success but it takes time.
Respectful sounds OK---but then again, respect is not submission. She's fudging semantics to occlude the deeper, crazier meanings of that scriptural injunction.

She was trying to excuse her use of the word without sounding like an idiot, which she didn't help. She can't disguise the fact she's a fundamentalist Christian and it'll bomb her chances of getting the candidacy.

 

Women want someone who's pro-woman in office, not anti-woman.

Yes, I agree with you Ava.
I'm afraid it might help her.   :(

She just won the Iowa Straw Poll yesterday but I hope it just represents a small segment of the U.S. population.  In the past, the straw poll has not been a good indicator of Republican presidential candidates.  In fact, it seems to be an indicator of conservative Christians running for the office of presidency and getting the support of the folks in Iowa. (Look at Huckabee...he got a show on the Fox Network, didn't he?  If I see him pick up a guitar one more time and start singing I think I'm going to scream.)

 

I have to share a new catchword I heard today: Tea-vangelical.  Pretty catchy, huh?  Now we get to see the Perry/Bachmann developments....they will be competing for similar voters.

 

It's too early to say...but I was a bit surprised (aka, discouraged) Bachmann did so well and it does indicate her appeal in some areas of the country.  She was on Meet the Press this morning and came across very 'moderate'...so she's been getting some practice toning down what has otherwise been very pro-tea party, divisive language in an attempt to gain a wider audience.  What I noticed about Bachmann on camera in the interview was her refusal to get sucked into 'gotcha questions' about her personal views...even atheism ...this must be that 'titanium spine' she keeps referring to. 

I'm surprised as well but remember people who win that poll never win the election (and I doubt the nomination for the ballot). It is so insignificant so not much to worry concerning her...you know...outside of the fact that such a person is even considered to be taken seriously as a candidate should not be in the first place.
I have a curiosity about relevance.  If movements start one person at a time, and each of us decide to join based on how relevant a movement is to us; If we start ignoring lame, shallow, ignoramuses does that mean they become less relevant?  If we ignore the "tea baggers" do they fade away?  If we loudly talk about what is relevant to all of us - national debt, recession, islam spreading hate, an so on - does it then become relevant?

Instead of ignoring those "lame, shallow ignoramuses" I think it would be more important to shine the spotlight on them....shining light on ignorance is the only way to combat it. 

 

I don't think the tea party will "fade away" until some of their populist grievances are addressed and their anger subsides.   They are in a phase of populist rage that makes a big fuss but doesn't come up with good alternatives other than "throw the bums out"...righteous indignation only feeds on itself and doesn't really solve any problems.

 

But you are absolutely right about the importance to keep our national priorities straight: Economic stagnation, financial instability and the cultural divide that fundamentalism creates.  Widespread joblessness is our most relevant and crucial problem to address.  It sows the seed of discontent...and we know from past and current world events that political movements can spawn revolutionary change!  But which direction are we going...forward or backward?

Someone on the news brought that up, and somebody remarked that by her own traditional beliefs, it would really be her husband you're electing president, because whatever he requested she would have to abide by to keep her beliefs intact.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service