For the record, I cannot stand Michelle Bachmann or anything that she stands for. Honestly everything and everyone associated with the Tea Party angers me, but that’s a blog for another day.
In last week’s GOP debate, that sexist question Bachmann got angered the hell out of me. Bachman was asked if, as President, she would submit to her husband.
*Insert heavy sigh*
Is it 1955? You can’t be serious. You can’t be. I was ready to square up with dude. He may as well have asked her what she would do if she heard there was a pending terrorist attack but her she hadn’t ironed her husband’s shirt yet. “What will you do then, little lady? Where are your priorities?” The gall. If I see old boy in the street, I’m kicking him in his shin.
I haven’t seen anything so blatantly sexist in a while. And the reason it bothered me so much is because it was on a national stage, associated with our nation’s highest office, in a situation where you know a lot of people vetted and strategized about what questions would be asked. Layers of people had to “ok” this bullshit for it to appear on my screen. Hilary would have gone in on his ass. Too bad Bachman is a lameazoid who doesn’t actually have the intelligence to have an adequate response. Just realize her dimwittedness is by inbreeding chance and not by gender.
Many say that Bachmann opened the door by saying back in 2007 that she recalled the bible commanding wives to submit to their husbands when deciding whether to take her husband’s advice and return to school to study tax law. But there are some problems with that logic.
- Making a personal decision about education is not akin to making a professional decision at your job. Being President is a job. While people (men and women) may defer to their spouses to make various personal decisions, no one is calling hubby to ask his opinion on the TPS report. To make that leap is ridiculous. No female surgeon is calling to ask her husband if he approves of the way she runs her operation room. Why? Because she is the expert, and she is doing the job she was hired to do. Marriage isn’t a factor in the professional workd.
- Asking that question in a job interview would have been against the law. Presidential debates are basically job interviews. It’s our chance to see the candidates present themselves and answer our questions. During a job interview, an employer cannot ask you about your spouse, your kids, your religion, or a host of other things. Why? Because they are irrelevant to your ability to do your job. And we’ve agreed as a society to at least try not to do things that are blatantly sexist, racist, or otherwise tea-party-esque. But this question goes directly to two no-no places – religion and personal relationships. How did that question pass muster? The moderator clearly violated employment law. If someone asked anything like that in the private sector, heads would roll!
- No questions should be asked of a female candidate that are not asked of a man, and vice-versa. Are we going to ask Romney if he loves his wife as Jesus loved the church? No? Why? Oh, that’s right. It’s not our damn business. The gall of the moderator to verbalize that question implies that women’s ability to govern is something up for debate. It isn’t. And if you think it is, kiss my entire ass. Girls might not run the world (sorry Bey), but we run plenty of shit without consulting y-chromosomes. And in many cases, we do it better. If you are a black man you can TOTALLY miss me with the bull, because we beat ya’ll in terms of education, income, and generally doing BOSS shit anyway. So, have seats sirs.
- There is no answer that could be deemed acceptable by more than 1% of people at a time. Individual definitions of “submission” vary widely, especially in the context of marriage. Ask 10 married people, male or female, and you get 20 different answers. So, let’s say Bachmann does say she will submit to hubby. In the 30 seconds she has to answer the question, there is no way to determine if her definition of submission even vaguely resembles yours or mine. No matter what she says, interpretations are limitless. So if she gives an answer with 1000 possible definitions, she’s essentially say not a damn thing! So unless she writes a definition on the subject, there is no way to really know what she means by submit, or not submit. In the end, the question can not possible inform America on anything. It only serves to validate sexism.
Bottom line: Your job is not your household. There is a clear separation between what we do inside the home and what we do in the public/professional sphere. Household dynamics are NOT up for discussion when applying for a job. And I wish a n**** would ask me about submitting to my husband in a professional setting. I wish a n**** WOULD.
I am truly disheartened by the fact that this question was deemed appropriate. I thought we had long proven ourselves as mental equals. Apparently, there are some persons of lesser mental capacity who missed the memo. Makes me wonder if Hilary would be in a different place had she been born with a penis.
What say you? Did the question sound sexist? Do you think it’s appropriate to treat females seeking leadership positions differently than men? Can any woman be President??
