• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What Did You Think Of This Question?

What did you think of the question?


  • Total voters
    44

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,907
Reaction score
60,365
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
During the republican debate this week, Michelle Bachmann was asked the following:

As president, would you be submissive to your husband?

Her answer, in part:

Marcus and I will be married for 33 years this September 10th. I’m in love with him. I’m so proud of him. And both he and I — what submission means to us, if that’s what your question is, it means respect.

I respect my husband. He’s a wonderful, godly man, and a great father. And he respects me as his wife.

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.
 
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.

The answer depends on how it would affect her decision making process if she were the president. If she were to accept her husband's decisions as a part of her job, it is completely appropriate. Otherwise, it isn't.
 
It was sexist, and they never asked Hillary that question.
 
It was sexist, and they never asked Hillary that question.

That is because nobody could imagine hillary being submissive to bill.

Its more culturalist because hillary operates under a different moral framework than bachmann.
 
The answer depends on how it would affect her decision making process if she were the president. If she were to accept her husband's decisions as a part of her job, it is completely appropriate. Otherwise, it isn't.

So the answer determines if the question is appropriate? I guess I am confused by your post, or you are confused by my question.
 
So the answer determines if the question is appropriate? I guess I am confused by your post, or you are confused by my question.

If someone has the job of president, they damn better be their own person and make their own decisions, or else how can they act in a crisis?

If someone thinks its right to let another person make their judgements for them, they are not whole.
 
It was sexist, and they never asked Hillary that question.

They never asked Hillary Clinton because she had never spoken out publicly about how women should submit to their husbands. Does not mean the question is not sexist, but the question was not random.
 
If someone has the job of president, they damn better be their own person and make their own decisions, or else how can they act in a crisis?

If someone thinks its right to let another person make their judgements for them, they are not whole.

So you feel it was a legitimate question to ask at the debate?
 
So you feel it was a legitimate question to ask at the debate?

Given her past statements, yes. However, given that she is a leader in her own right, I am willing to bet she does make her own decisions and doesn't kowtow to anybody, including her husband, but that is an opinion of course.

Still the point stands, if someone is in this sort of position, they need to be their own person.
 
I thought it was ridiculous - a political debate shouldn't hover around their personal religious interpretations. It wasn't a debate on 'religion and your marriage' :shrug:

But there I go wanting religious matters to be left OUT of politics completely - and that means all the questions we'll ask candidates. And on top of that: how is that our business anyway? Maybe they have some different marital views than that of my husband and I - so what? I'm not choosing who I'm supporting as a candidate based on THAT kind of stuff because that stuff isn't regulated - their marriage is their marriage and their interpretations of things are their interpretation of things, not mine nor will their views be imposed on me. . . how many other good and serious political questions could have been asked in that amount of time?

This question was a good example of how pathetic modern day journalism and the 'media pool' has become: "what's your favorite magazine, will you be submissive, are you a fool?"

:shrug:

I think Gingrich handled these stupid questions well with his response that asked for the questioners not to ask 'gotcha' questions that don't relate to the important matters at hand - seeing as how they began the debate asking the candidates to not use campaign rhetoric and repetative hooah-phrases.
 
The answer depends on how it would affect her decision making process if she were the president. If she were to accept her husband's decisions as a part of her job, it is completely appropriate. Otherwise, it isn't.

This basically, it is appropriate to ask her if we would be electing Mr. Bachmann instead of her.

And it wasn't sexist, she wouldn't have been asked that question if she hadn't brought up the subject to begin with.
 
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.

If she said in the past that she was supposed to be submissive to her husband, then I think it's fair to ask her to clear that statement up....

Is this question sexist... I don't know. I'd say the need to ask such a question stems from sexist attitudes, but giving a woman the opportunity to confront sexist concepts head on isn't sexist. She could have used a question like that to her advantage...
 
This basically, it is appropriate to ask her if we would be electing Mr. Bachmann instead of her.

And it wasn't sexist, she wouldn't have been asked that question if she hadn't brought up the subject to begin with.

If some male candidate came from a belief system that was matriarchal, and he was asked, would it be sexist?
 
It was sexist, and they never asked Hillary that question.

So we have to ask every woman the same exact questions now??? And I think Hillary has had her fair share of questions like that...
 
So we have to ask every woman the same exact questions now??? And I think Hillary has had her fair share of questions like that...

For hillary, the concern was that she would unduly influence her husband. "we elected bill, not billary!" and those sorts of bumper stickers.
 
They never asked Hillary Clinton because she had never spoken out publicly about how women should submit to their husbands. Does not mean the question is not sexist, but the question was not random.

btw... I kind of found Bachmann's response to be concerned...

Submissiveness = Respect

So if I don't submit, I am being disrespectful?

That's just another statement she is going to have to clear up...
 
btw... I kind of found Bachmann's response to be concerned...

Submissiveness = Respect

So if I don't submit, I am being disrespectful?

That's just another statement she is going to have to clear up...

Aretha Franklin disagrees ...

 
I thought it was ridiculous - a political debate shouldn't hover around their personal religious interpretations. It wasn't a debate on 'religion and your marriage' :shrug:

But there I go wanting religious matters to be left OUT of politics completely - and that means all the questions we'll ask candidates. And on top of that: how is that our business anyway? Maybe they have some different marital views than that of my husband and I - so what? I'm not choosing who I'm supporting as a candidate based on THAT kind of stuff because that stuff isn't regulated - their marriage is their marriage and their interpretations of things are their interpretation of things, not mine nor will their views be imposed on me. . . how many other good and serious political questions could have been asked in that amount of time?

This question was a good example of how pathetic modern day journalism and the 'media pool' has become: "what's your favorite magazine, will you be submissive, are you a fool?"

:shrug:

I think Gingrich handled these stupid questions well with his response that asked for the questioners not to ask 'gotcha' questions that don't relate to the important matters at hand - seeing as how they began the debate asking the candidates to not use campaign rhetoric and repetative hooah-phrases.

Politicians love to talk about religion, their religion, and especially the religion of terrorists. The GOP would have been praising Jesus no matter what.
 
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.

The purpose of that debate was to creates a mud-slinging troll-fest for ratings.

This question serves that end quite well.

Given that context, yes, the question was quite fair and sexist and appropriate (for that venue), etc.
 
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."
 
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."

Again, the reason it was only her was because she had publicly commented how she did not want to go into tax law, but her husband to her to and she said she was supposed to sub,it to her husband, so she did. The question was not random but based on her comments. This does not make it a good question or a fair question or appropriate, but it does mean that she was not singled out, but that the question followed from her own words.
 
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'

"

Because the other candidates didn't suggest that they were submissive to their spouse. She brought it up.
 
Again, the reason it was only her was because she had publicly commented how she did not want to go into tax law, but her husband to her to and she said she was supposed to sub,it to her husband, so she did. The question was not random but based on her comments. This does not make it a good question or a fair question or appropriate, but it does mean that she was not singled out, but that the question followed from her own words.

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.
 
This whole thread is a bit awkward for me, because my wife feels she should be submissive to me, which admittedly confuses the hell out of me.
 
Back
Top Bottom