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.
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.
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.
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?