Christians: Bachmann said submissive is synonymous with respect, what say you?

She’s a politician splitting hairs. You can’t trust her.

Perhaps they’re into S&M?

She is pandering to the religious right that believes the man must be in control of the family, and the wife must do as he says. This is like all the “Promise Keeper” prayer conventions. But she is obviously NOT a submissive wife, so she has made up a mythology about her submission to her husbands’ direction.

How could we elect a President who can’t make up her own mind, but must listen to her husband?

It’s hard to get around the “sub-” part of “submissive”. It’s a recognition that one is lower in some hierarchy than someone else. The President of the US may respect the president of another country, but just watch what happens if he says that he’s “submissive” to that other president.

Yeah, I saw that interview on “Meet the Press” too. I think she was warned she’d be asked that at some point and had prepared a canned answer. Deep down, she’s an evangelical freak and I’d wager she actually believes in traditional gender roles. But she’s learned how to spin her answers and put on a stupid fake smile after every annoying thing she says.

I think I hate her worse than Palin. I think I do.

@zenvelo That had not even occurred to me. How could I be so slow. So in the end, being submissive would mean if he disagreed with a decision she is making, she would put aside her own thoughts and go with his. Meaning, she is not the president really, but a puppet in that case. A puppet of her husband. The example they asked her about over the weekend was her husband told her to become a tax accoutant years ago, and she didn’t think she wanted to do it, but she was submissive to him, and did it.

She is deliberately twisting the meaning of the word to suit her audience. Submissive by no means equals respect.

It is another political ploy.

Just read an Onion article about her.

Can you say back pedal?

Is any of the answers so far given by a practicing Christian? I don’t mind non-Christians answering, I just am curious how Christians look at her answer.

Does this mean we’re really voting for her husband? If so, why is she the one campaigning?

But yes, I think Christians use “submissive” in the way that Muslims use it. That is, they have a specifically religious notion of submission (to spouses, to God) that carries connotations of humility rather than docility. Despite its predominant allegiance to Biblical literalism, however, the Religious Right rarely quotes the verses calling for the submission of wives in full. If they did, people might figure out that those passages require things of husbands as well.

Colossians 3: 18–21 tells wives to be subject to their husbands, husbands to love their wives, children to be obedient to their parents, and fathers not to antagonize their children. Note that this is two duties for husbands/fathers and one duty each for wives and children. (Each gets one verse; there are then four verses on the duties of slaves to their masters.)

Ephesians 5:22–33 is much more effusive, again telling wives to be subject to their husbands and husbands to love their wives. Here, though, it is emphasized that spouses leave their respective families and become a united being. Each spouse must consider the other not just equal but almost literally oneself. The next chapter goes on to repeat the above commands regarding children, fathers, and slaves. But prior to all the talk of husbands and wives, we are told how to interact simply as fellows in Christ: “be subject to one another.”

This last sentiment is also affirmed as being the proper relationship between husbands and wives by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:3–4 when we are told that “the husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.”

When read as a whole, rather than in pieces, I find that the New Testament’s message on marital relations is not quite what the Religious Right thinks it is. This isn’t to say it’s fully in line with some liberal alternative, either, but only to say that the New Testament does not make marriage the authoritarian institution some religious conservatives want it to be. Plenty of Christians realize this, of course, and any honest reading of the Bible reveals it.

This is just one more reason that separating religion and politics—through self-control and not just through government interdiction—protects both. I don’t mean to say that one’s religion cannot or should not affect one’s politics. This will always happen. But the formal union of the two in public life, rather than as a matter of private conviction, disrespects religion by reducing it to a tool and thwarts political progress by manufacturing hostilities and falsely magnifying differences.

@JLeslie I am no longer a practicing Christian. I am, however, a former Christian scholar and preacher.

You know, I actually think she believes this bullcrap herself.

@SavoirFaire So, since it can be interpreted as being submissive to each other, or that in marrriage the two become one, is it arguable one can use the word submissive and see it as respect? As respecting their opinion as you would your own? The hiccup seems to be that during a Christian ceremony the bride might use submissive in her vows while the groom doesn’t.

I’m not sure if I agree with Michele Bachmann’s assessment of submission=respect, but it seems to have worked well for her for a long time.
Since this question was addressed to Christians I’d like to address the term submissive from a Christian point of view. The term submissive is said in this context as if it is a derogatory term, the fact is that, in this context, submissive is not intended as a derogatory term. The Biblical admonitions concerning marriage, and each partners roles in it, do not include either partner cowering, being less than the other in intelligence or importance, or jumping at the others command. The two roles of a Christian marriage are intended as a support system for each other and a partnership that is so intricately intertwined as to make the two one. I keep hearing in the public forum about the wife’s submission but I seldom hear about the husbands requirement which is to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Christ laid down his life for the church, sacrificed himself. That is the duty of a husband to his wife, to love and honor her to the point that that there is no sacrifice too great for her. That is how the Christian marriage is supposed to work, always putting your partners needs above your own, no matter whether you are the husband or the wife.

I always see Paul telling wives to be submissive; I never see him telling husbands to be submissive. Husbands do have obligations according to Paul, but submission isn’t one of them.

She’s a politician. Politicians tell people what they want to hear. They do this so they can get elected. Sometimes they fuck up and say the wrong thing. They try to spin this mistake. This does not just apply to Bachmann. It applies to all of them. Where have you all been for the past 2000 years?

Submission is only equal to respect in dog packs.

@JLeslie, my beliefs are Christian. I see your question as one of the many aspects of worldview. Christians are to have the worldview of the Bible, but of course it takes soundness to not let the very scriptures that are meant to give life, become a snare. Really, scripture can’t be interepreted properly without God’s Spirit guiding you. When you truly love in a New Testament (Christly) way you cannot ULTIMATELY lose. God will not allow this to happen in your life. However, errors in human psychology can mess one up even if they are a Christian. I want to be succinct. so to most directly answer your question with out excess words, I see the word “submit” as meaning defer. However, this is not a boss/slave thing. It is mutual loving and caring. When we try to live vibrantly and in touch with our intrinsic Christian values, we will not lord it over each other. However, very few people do this all that well, but if we are going after synergy, we will try to make (especially marriage) a team effort so that everybody wins. When something arises from your gut as a NO you must not defer on that, you must keep talking it over until you both see things the same way.

I think what she’s trying to say is that even though she’s a woman it’s OK for men to vote for her.

ὑποτάσσεσθε is the Greek word translated as “to be submissive” in the New Testament.

It’s instructive to look at how scholars of New Testament Greek interpret it:

1) to arrange under, to subordinate
2) to subject, put in subjection
3) to subject one’s self, obey
4) to submit to one’s control
5) to yield to one’s admonition or advice
6) to obey, be subject
___________

to subordinate; reflexively to obey: – be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.
___________

obey
bring under control

@thorninmud Ephesians 5:25: Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it –
That is the catch 22 right there – Wives would be very happy to swim and heck drown! in that kind of love. As they say, what a way to go!

But, love is not the same as being obedient or submissive. So the roles are different. It turns the relationship into more of a parent child relationship in a way, rather than equal footing.

Love is lived in the act of loving – it is a sharing – not a “role” – There is a whole sphere of types of relationships and appropriate “love” for each one. We truly love the poor and stranger by doing the right thing by them, what we would want others to do for us. Meet the need. We love those in our various spheres of life by being authentically caring.

@smilingheart1 I really do think the bible, new testament, was trying to define roles. I believe the old testament does it as well.

@JLeslie What I would suggest is that submission in Christianity and Islam is a matter of humility, and that New Testament tells all Christians to practice humility (at least towards one another and towards God). “Respect” is not the word I would use, though it would entail being respectful. Moreover, respect is required by Christian love (see below).

The obvious rebuttal to my interpretation is to point out that the passages I cite tell wives to submit and husbands to love. The Greek uses υποτασσεσθε for “submission” and αγαπαο for “love.” There are arguments that the words are intended as parallel constructions meaning the same thing—and thus making the husband’s and the wife’s duties to one another strictly equal—but I find them unconvincing. Regardless, the passage is qualified by the function for which υποτασσεσθε is required.

What the Greek actually tells us is that the couple is a body in which the husband is the head. There’s an old Greek saying, made famous by My Big Fat Greek Wedding, that “the man is the head, but the woman is the neck—and she can turn the head any way she wants.” Being the head makes the man the public face and nominal leader of the family, and it does require giving the man authority; but it does not make him a dictator.

This reading is strengthened by the kind of love that αγαπη is. In standard Greek, it requires closeness, devotion, and admiration. In Christian usage, it involves actively and willingly thinking about others and sacrificing for them. It is the word used for the love God shows towards humanity. This may not require treating someone as an equal, but it does require treating them with respect.

Do I think that Bachmann intended or believes all of this? No. Like @Blondesjon said, she was appealing to a particular strain of the Religious Right and is now trying to spin her answer in an attempt to appease everyone. That said, I do not think that the Bible supports as severe a view of marriage as some believe. What @smilingheart1 says approaches what I think the Bible says about marital love. It is not a liberal view of marriage, but it is not the authoritarian picture promoted by a subset of conservatives either. You are correct that the New Testament is defining roles, but those roles are not what many people take them to be. Moreover, they are not as different as many people take them to be, even if they are not exactly the same.

@JLeslie . . . in that respect so does men are from mars, women are from venus and numerous other non-christian tomes.

@Blondesjon Good call.

@JLeslie, it would be great if you could expound or re-state a bit so that your correspondents can get closer to what you would like to have addressed.

@Blondesjon In a way that’s true, but not exactly analogous I don’t. The book you cite is trying to help the sexes understand how each other thinks. The bible is trying to define roles. I think roles are good actually. In my opinion within a marriage if the roles are defined well there is less conflict. Wife cooks and watches the children, husband goes to work to earn money. Or, both spouses work, but the domestic chores are divided specifically with the man responsible for preparing breakfast and mowing the lawn, and the wife cooks dinner and does the laundry. Maybe the man stays home with the kids and the wife works? If we know our jobs we will have less arguments over who should do what amd why has it not been done. And, I think roles should be allowed to evolve over time. But, I think Christianity is not completely comfortable leaving the definitions up to the couple to define on their own, maybe I am wrong. In practice I am sure many Christian couples do decide for themselves. Anyway, the Men are from mars book is more about communication style, habits, and tendencies, not putting any expectations or requirements on anyone I think? I have only skimmed the book, never really read it.

My interpretation of the bible quotes above is if there is a conflict, in the end the man has the last word. It seems the hope is he would not have any unreasonable demands or expectations.

@smilingheart1 I’m not sure what to say, how to expound, the answers have been really good so far I think. I guess I am wondering what is in the head of the Christian when they use the word submissive. I think a lot of time we misunderstand each other (not you amd me, I mean in general) or miscommunicate because Christians use such different language. The connotation of many words, or the intent can be so misperceived. For instance some Christians see taking prayer out of school as an assault on Christianity, trying to take religion away from Americans, and their freedom to ractice their religion. Liberals see taking prayer out ofnschool as a way to protect your individual right to practice your religion freely with no interference or dominance from the state. But, the Christian perceives that liberal differently than what is inthe liberals head, his intent is completely misinterpreted and misunderstood. When I wrote the question I thought maybe I misunderstand submissive in that same way.

@JLeslie Indeed, the very phrase “taking prayer out of public schools” is misleading. Eliminating officially endorsed prayers in no way prevents someone from praying before a math test or saying grace before lunch.

@JLeslie . . . But isn’t that just a chocolate and peanut butter argument? You aren’t taking in to consideration that the world outside of media driven politics and religion is filled with individuals who possess minds of their own. You use the labels Christian and liberal as if they are mutually exclusive and yet the majority of elected “liberal” officials will readily tell you that they are Christian. The same goes for using the example of the extreme religious right as your stereotype for Christians everywhere. This is the way we are shown that things are by our televisions, newspapers, and Internet connections. This is why a comment by some Tea Party crackpot can begin to shape the thought process of an entire country full of people who are happy to base their opinions on a soundbite.

The idea that a woman should be submissive to her man in the classic sense comes from misogynists of all stripes, religious or not. If a man wants a woman to scrape and serve him he will use and pervert whatever source he wants to justify his needs. It’s not a Christian thing.

It’s a douchebag thing.

I think any decent dictionary blows Bachmann’;s argument right out of the water. And I further think that electing a Christian Dominionist such as either Michelle Bachmann or Rcik Perry would be tantamount to installing an American Taliban in charge of Washington DC. These tow constantly talk about loving the founding fathers. Seems they just don’t care much for what they wrote.

They must be somebody’s cup of tea, but they certainly aren’t mine.

@Michele_Bachmann – A picture is worth a thousand words

Bachmann is one particular Christian, practicing one particular type of Christians. She certainly does not speak for all Christians, in my opinion.

@lillycoyote Totally agreed, but how many might you guess agree with her? One million? 5 million? That’s what’s so damn annoying.

I think if she meant mutual respect than she would’ve used just that. Submissive means that you automatically give someone domain over you. Meaning his opinion has more value than your own.
I would want a future president to be submissive. I wouldn’t want one that is arrogant and extremely willful either but one that is in sole custody of their idea. Not have to be told what is the right or wrong thing. Maybe she should let him run. She sounds like a great first lady.

I wonder if they have an interesting sex life.

@cockswain There are about 2 billion, possibly 3 billion Christians in the world and how millions of them would argue with Bachmann’s interpretation of Christianity? I have no way to estimate but in the U.S. and Europe, Africa, Asia, Russia, etc., I would have to say many, many millions.

I’m not disagreeing that most Christians are not evangelical weirdos. But there are lots of these weirdos. And I’d love to see the more level-headed Christians put them in their proper place.

Oh man, I just looked it up

According to Wikipedia, there are about 70–80 million of the in the US. About 25–30% of the population.

Even if they are off by 50%, that’s still a lot. I had no idea.

@cockswain That’s truly disturbing. No wonder this country is tilting toward nutsville.

Relevant articles here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

and here:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/14/dominionism-michele-bachmann-and-rick-perry-s-dangerous-religious-bond.html

@Blondesjon In my mind I do not consider liberal and Christian as mutually exclusive, but it is true in my words it appears that way. I try usually to point out I do not mean all Christians when I use the word. The amount of Christians who do think that way is such a big number that I use it to generalize, as most of America does. The Evangelical movement is who would be fighting hardest for prayer in school, or most vocal and upset when it is taken away; although admittedly I know orthodox Jews who want to see it back also, but their numbers are so very small and generally we do not hear their voices in our media. It is not a matter of is every Christian of the same mind, it is all generalizations. I am surprised you might believe I think all Christians are the same? I almost always take the Catholics out of my generalization on Christians, and I consider Catholics to be Christian, I try to specify Evangelicals or bible belt, but fail to sometimes, and then even within those groups I still understand not every Christian is the same. I certainly see on fluther liberal Christians, and I have personal friends who are.

As far as Bachmann’s statement, she said it as a Christian, so I wanted the interpretation of Christians preferbly, hence the original question stated as it is. When I got married, Jewish ceremony, we said exactly the same things to each other. Also, I have been to veru few weddings actually, so my biggest exposure to vows is on tv. My very closest girlfriend was married basically shot gun style. She is Catholic and his family is Baptist, many are ministers, and missionaries. Needing a fast wedding and to make things simple instead of gettinf married by a priest they asked one of his relatives to do it. She specifically spoke to the minister, again her fiances relative, about not wanting the word obey in her vows. He agreed. At the wedding, when he said repeat after me he slipped in, ”...I will be submissive…” for her vows. A$$hole! are we to believe he just simply thinks submissive is different than obey and he did not understand she would be upset with that word? Please, I think he was purposeful and horrible. His family has always given her a hard time as the Catholic. But, I do not, even with that story, assume he is thinking of submissive the same way I do, or necessarily defines it the same way.

@JLeslie . . . That was an asshole move.

I understand that, at heart, you are an open minded person. I am only trying to convey the idea that Christianity, in and of itself, is not an asshole. The individuals that use it as a means to their own controlling ends are the assholes and, unfortunately, they make an entire movement that is supposed to be about helping your fellow man, peace and love, stink to high heaven.

Look at it this way. The majority of Christians are folks who are just trying to live a decent life like the rest of us. Like a lot of people, they need something, some sort of symbol to help them feel like it’s all worth it, because, like everybody else they hate the idea that death is the end of it all. They don’t take the Bible as a literal document and for the most part are all about turning the other cheek and doing unto others. They may have ideological differences with their friends but it doesn’t cause the frothing at the mouth conflict that occurs in public forums. They don’t hate homosexuals, they don’t bomb abortion clinics, and they don’t want to control your life.

These Christians are the punch.

A minority of Christians aren’t really very Christian at all. They do bomb abortion clinics. They do hate homosexuals. They do want to run every moral and financial aspect of your life. They are misogynistic douchbags and self-righteous bitches. They spew scripture and twist helping your fellow man, peace, and love in to war, fear, and vilifying anybody who isn’t just like them. They espouse family values during the day and then get coked to the gills and bugger the pool boy at night. They are a vile, reprehensible disease that has infected Christianity from it’s very foundation.

These Christians are the turd.

The point I’m trying to make is that you can have a the most beautiful Waterford crystal bowl filled with some excellent, top shelf punch and the only thing your guests are going to notice is the big turd floating in the middle of it. It’s not the punch’s fault the turd is there but the guests are not going to make that distinction. They are not going to understand that it was mankind’s own ethical shortcomings that crept in when nobody was looking and shat in the bowl. They are simply going to to lump it all together, make a disgusted face, and spend their lives telling everyone how bad punch is and how all punch is the same.

Personally, I don’t believe in God but I do believe in the idea of individuals and that broad, generalized statements make you as close minded and petty as the group you are attempting to paint in one sweeping, monochrome stroke.

also, for the record, i make broad, sweeping statements all the time but i am quite comfortable in my own hypocrisy.

@Blondesjon I believe that you hit the nail on the head.

I’ve never heard the “turd in the punchbowl” analogy. Is it a @Blondesjon original? I like it.

Regardless of anything else, it’s always tough to ignore the turd in the punchbowl and see the beauty.

@cockswain . . . i’ve discovered i possess a certain fecal eloquence when i’m sober.

A FINE talent indeed sir! Perhaps this one was inspired by Caddyshack?

i was eating a baby ruth whilst i typed it . . .

@Blondesjon I completely agree the majority of Christians are not hateful, want to live a good life.

Ironically at dinner tonight two of the men there beat up on me verbally because I am a Democrat and voted for Obama. Shit, I agreed with them on all sorts of fiscal issues, and it was like I was speaking Greek. They kept telling me I am not like other Democrats, and kept bringing up Pelosi. As far as I am concerned they were worse to me than any generalization I have ever made about any group, because at least my generalizations are just that, but I take each individual individually. They just kept wanting to decide what I think. The worst part of it is, if I were in NY I would feel like we just had a debate, but here in the midsouth I feel like they might really dislike me now (another generalization about southerners on my part). I tried to change the subject and they would not let go.

At one point we talked about gay marriage, I explained why I think it should be legal, I could see theyboth saw some logic in my argument, but in the end, the one most pissed off at me during the conversation in general said, “well, I just don’t think they should be married.”

It was really awful actually. The worst political discussion I have ever been in. Christian, Southern, Republican. It would have been fine if we just disagreed, but they were hateful, and not even hearing me, just supposing what I believe.

@JLeslie Now you know why I usually don’t get along with Southerners, Texans, or hardcore Conservatives at all. The few that I do get along with are those that are willing to listen (most don’t even do that) and to agree to disagree (the few who listen generally aren’t happy until the entire world agrees with them since disagreeing is both treason and blasphemy). I try to avoid generalizations myself, but when you have quite a bit of contact with a group and >90% of your experiences with them are a certain way, it’s hard not to.

@jerv . . . I try to avoid generalizations myself, but when you have quite a bit of contact with a group and >90% of your experiences with them are a certain way, it’s hard not to.

That is a weak excuse. What would your response be if someone used your very quote in response to say black folks, atheists, or women?

and 90% of how many different individuals? 5, 10, 20, 1000? how many honestly and what percentage of a whole is that?

Generalization is merely pattern recognition. It can be useful or harmful, but it isn’t inherrently wrong.

I think the issue of appropriateness comes down to how the issue is phrased and whether the generalization is justified by the available evidence. Justified being, if a certain definable group of people do in fact more often possess characteristics or beliefs which are in-turn distinguishable from other definable groups, then it may be reasonable to say (for instance) I have a problem with X, because they often believe Y.

For instance, “According to Newport (2008), 76 percent of Americans who never or seldom attend church consider homosexuality morally acceptable, compared with 21 percent of weekly and 43 percent of monthly church attenders.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-americans-still-dislike-atheists/2011/02/18/AFqgnwGF_story.html

So, if someone has a problem with atheists because we often are supportive of homosexual rights, or are for reproductive rights, are against capital punishment,....or “Oh my God, they don’t believe in God?!”.... then I have a problem with their worldview, but not the generalization. Because the generalization is accurate.

@Blondesjon No one is saying to round up the women, atheists, or blacks, and enslave, kill, or take away their rights. Even if generalizations can be wrong (sometimes they are statistically right about the majority of a group) whether it be wrong philosophically to do it, or wrong, meaning basing the generalization on a small sample, as long as each person is treated as an individual I am not tremendously worried about it. Hopefully, as there is more exposure to people who do not fit the stereotype the opinions and generalizations change.

But, are you trying to say that I am not more likely to find people against abortion and gay marriage, and gays in the military who are Christian? The Christians in our country have the burden of being the majority so when they do something, and have even only 30% of them doing or thinking a certain way it has impact and is usually noticeable. Their intention in their minds might be a good one, they do not see themselves as bad people, and their actions or not done out of hate, but maybe more out of fear, but they still do it. So, are you saying the intention matters more? Intention matters to me, believe me, but not more.

@Blondesjon Also knowing stereotypes and generalizations about ones group can sometimes see ourselves more clearly if we are willing to look. Sometimes a stereotype does not fit the individual at all, but many times it does.

@JLeslie . . . I consider myself a pretty liberal person and have found that disposing of stereotypes/generalizations and just getting to know the folks I used to label on a daily basis to be much more enlightening than holding on to a bunch of preconceived notions. I think fear lies at the core of letting go of feelings about “Group A” or “Party B”. It’s the fear of admitting to yourself that you have wrong about something you have held on to for so long. I know that doesn’t sound like much to be afraid of on the surface but underneath it’s terrifying. It means that the reality you thought you knew wasn’t really like that at all. It takes you outside of a comfort zone you thought you’d never leave.

Rest assured you will find plenty of individual assholes out there that deserve all the anger/disdain/ridicule you can heap on them, but, you may also find some individuals that open your eyes to things you never would have thought of yourself.

Also bear in mind that the guy up on the soapbox right now, in his younger days, used to rail against religion, conservatism, and “rednecks”. I did that until I found out there were actual people behind those labels.

@Blondesjon I am thrilled to know Christians who do not fit the stereotypes, I know many, and I don’t even have a stereotype that Christians generally are going to be hateful or any such think. It does not destroy my construct of the world at all. I am not religious about my stereotypes. Ask Judi if she thinks I generalize about Christians to the point that I expect them to suck. I have no such expectation at all. I take each individual as they are. What is disheartening is when someone fits into one of the negative stereotypes or generalizations I, we, might hold. If a generalization of mine is incorrect, I am happy to let it go, show me the data, tell me your experiences to the contrary, no problem. I have nothing at all to fear if Christians are good natured, loving and fair, why would I want to believe they aren’t? I live in a country of Christians, and I am glad. Glad they generally have good hearts and have worked towards treating all people equally. Glad the founders saw the world as they did and came up with the genius of our Constitution, and the so incredibly written Declaration of Independence. Please, don’t tell me I am afraid to like Christians it just is not true.

Case in point, I have a great buddy who claims he’s a staunch Republican. Yet we can talk about religion, immigration, economics and the media and be nearly in total agreement. In reality, his whole family is Republican and has been for decades and it’s just what he calls himself. I doubt he’d ever vote Democrat, but he’s about as moderate as I am and socially just as liberal.

@Blondesjon I wonder how many times I have to tell you that I am not saying, and never have said, all Christians are assholes? It is getting tiresome.

@JLeslie . . . I never said you were. I just noticed that your last few posts appeared to be in defense of blanket statements.

You know it’s nothing personal, right?

@Blondesjon It seemed you were talking to me. Not about Jews, or women, or athiests, or people from the northeast, which are the groups I identify with. You are trying to teach me something, you basically said it yourself. You are speaking to me personally, about my words, about the assumptions you think I am making because of what I have said, and then failing to listen to my clarification, just harping on the generalization. Or, am I wrong about that?

Actually I was hoping that anybody who took the time to read my posts could glean something from them.

And really your words, my words, they’ve all been said before by folks much more eloquent than either your or I. If anybody took anything at all from my ramblings, well, I hope it does them some good. Again, if you took it personally it was never meant to be.

for the record, i don’t “harp”.

AFAIK it means that as head of the family, Mr. Bachmann will listen to and consider and respect and frequently go along with her opinion or idea (with regards to matters pertaining to the both of them), but ultimately has the final say. This leadership should not be dictatorial, condescending, or patronizing to the wife, but should be in accordance with the example of Christ leading the church. It also means that he has assumed significant responsibilities with regards to her overall well-being.

Michelle says that she respects that.
Heard an interesting comparison recently: the husband is the head, but the wife is the neck.

Marriage is supposed to make two individuals into effectively one individual. Which is why I don’t think that the spouses of Presidents who have seen their term limit ought to be able to run for office.

@Nullo That isn’t the definition of “submissive” that most people think of though. At best, it demonstrates a lack of communication skills that really doesn’t belong in high office.

@Nullo Taking your description at face value, it still reeks of old-school sexism. I, as a woman, don’t want a female president who is ok with that scenario.