Day in news: Tuesday, May 15 - Tue, May 15, 2012
Obama and Romney air dueling attack ads - Tue, May 15, 2012
Romney's gay adoption flip-flop - Tue, May 15, 2012
Tea party vows even more obstruction - Tue, May 15, 2012
James Lipton rewrites Mitt Romney - Tue, May 15, 2012
James Lipton rates performances of politicians - Tue, May 15, 2012
Very Last Word: The Staples model - Tue, May 15, 2012
Very Last Word: Finding Romney’s soul - Tue, May 15, 2012
Very Last Word: ‘Crazy about Lawrence’ - Tue, May 15, 2012
James Lipton playing role of Lawrence O’Donnell - Tue, May 15, 2012It proved to be the most gasp-worthy moment of this week's Republican debate. Was the question to Michele Bachmann over her use of the word "submissive" in relation to her husband sexist, relevant or just plain awkward? Watch the discussion between The Last Word guest host Chris Hayes and Jezebel.com reporter Irin Carmon.
What's your take — is this topic fair game? Give us your two cents in the comment section below and/or tweet me your response.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell airs at 10pm ET, Monday through Thursday on MSNBC. The show channels O'Donnell's extensive background in politics and entertainment.
Leave a Comment:
Absolutely not sexist. If a woman is going to state to the world as a US Senator that her husband "commanded" her to become a lawyer, then she must explain that if she wants to be president. That may be okay in Minnesota, and even Missouri for that matter, but I don't think Californians or New Yorkers are going to like it any more than I do!
Hey now, don't dog on Missouri! We're not all Bible thumpers.
Trust me when I say she does not speak for all of us from Minnesota. I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out how a nut case keeps getting elected.
Ask Pelosi
I think it was a very legit question. And I know that what is meant in the Bible by a wife being submissive to her husband is not about mutual respect.
Sorry to burst your Bible-Bubble, but what the Bible means by submission certainly IS about mutual respect.
actually, in The Bible, it is about mutual respect. God commands the wife to be submissive to her husband but God also commands the husband to take care of the wife. Someone has to have the final say and per God's word, that would be the husband. That's why it's very important to choose yoru husband wisely. It's not about the husband controlling the wife, it's about a mutual respect and the wife honoring her husband and the husband honoring the wife. It's unfortunate that in todays world, it doesn't quite work the way God planned. I don't think you understand the Bible as well as you think you do.
Because God is a moron or doesn't exist. If everyone was created "equally" there would be no need to "roles" in a marriage.
You see God never said a thing. Men wrote the books, thus you know the reason why women are instructed to be "submissive".
Wonder what religion would be like today if women were free to speak their minds on the issue for the last few thousand years?
Uhm, the bible usage of Submit "IS NOT" about respect, its about what is EXPECTED. A husband is expected to take care of his wife in all her wants and needs as a provider. The woman is commanded to submit to every whim and order and desire her husband has, even over her own needs and wants. Remember this was over 1000 years ago , long before chivalry and women's rights.
Even when the bible was Re Written by King James (Big Prude that he was), a woman's Place was NEVER publicly ahead of her Husbands. Romanticize it all you want, the word SUBMIT meant the same as SUBMIT to God. In this instance Bachman said what she does, she Submitted to her husbands command. I don't think you understand History or the Bible the way you think you do. Since it is a book written by people trying to relate the word of a Deity to the masses.
The Bible may have initially been spoken in the hearts of Prophets, but it was Print ed by Kings, and Generals and Clerics all Seeking POWER of the people they lauded over.
It is abt mutual respect: Ephes. 5:22
1st Peter 3:7
On views I have no respect for Bachmann, she is ignorant, and even though she may be submissive to her husband, she is emotionally disconnected from others which is obvious by some of the thoughtless, idiotic things that have come out of her mouth at any given moment in the spotlight!!!!
Actually, it is about mutual respect. The other part is "husbands love your wives." And if it's one thing that's hard for men, it's to act with love (not passion, love). And if there's one thing hard for women (speaking for myself) it's to be submissive. In other words, if you look at it from a different perspective, both rules, for wives to submit and husbands to love, are commands to do that which is most difficult in honor of marriage. There's lots of things love is, but the one thing it ain't is easy!! This comes from a progressive perspective (mine) not conservative.
"She may be weaker than you are"....that's not mutual respect. That's domination and "treat her as you should so your prayers will not be hindered"...that's not about equality - it means treat your woman well or you might not get what YOU want.
Women are not weaker than men, they are not inferior to men, and they certainly are not beholden to men, as the Bible would have you believe.
And by the way, this was written by a man who is proud to call his wife his EQUAL and in no way inferior or weaker than me.
Join modern times people. "Submit to your husbands as to the lord". That means, that in your eyes (as a woman) you should revere and worship your husband just like you would your God. That's called "diefication" and is absolutely the product of MEN authoring the Bible to give their control over women legitimacy because it's "mandated by God". No - it was mandated by the MEN that wrote the Bible to control not only their lands and their kingdoms, but also their wives.
Main Entry:
submission
Part of Speech:
noun
Definition:
compliance
Synonyms:
acquiescence, appeasement, assent, backingdown, bowing, capitulation, cringing, defeatism,deference, docility, giving in, humbleness,humility, malleability, meekness, nonresistance,obedience, passivism, passivity, pliabilty,prostration, recreancy, resignation, servility,subjection, submissiveness, submitting,surrender, tractability, unassertiveness, yielding
Antonyms:
fight, resistance
Main Entry:
submission
Part of Speech:
noun
Definition:
compliance
Synonyms:
acquiescence, appeasement, assent, backingdown, bowing, capitulation, cringing, defeatism,deference, docility, giving in, humbleness,humility, malleability, meekness, nonresistance,obedience, passivism, passivity, pliabilty,prostration, recreancy, resignation, servility,subjection, submissiveness, submitting,surrender, tractability, unassertiveness, yielding
Antonyms:
fight, resistance
Which is why the dictionary is not the Bible!
Yes, but the Bible is made up of words that have actual definitions and meanings. How else are we supposed to know what it says? I would prefer the dictionary to "gut feelings" or "interpretations" which is precisely why words have specific meanings.
Sadly, there are no footnotes or appendices to the Bible explaining what they mean. And that vagueness is exactly the part of the Bible that is so dangerous. Two different people can read a passage and claim it to mean two different things. This fact has been exploited time and time again to provoke wars, divide families, and promote people's personal, political, and financial agendas.
It has nothing to do with respect.
If she was so averse to becoming a tax lawyer, but did it anyway to live up to the "submit to the husband" dogma, I do not see how it follows that we should treat this as a meaningless kerfluffle, because she seemingly acts differently in her public life. Does she have any principles? Is her religion just a prop? The constitution specifically says "no religious test required" yet these fundies keep pushing their private beliefs into the public arena. Then when they get called on it one group cries foul and another says "not to worry, they don't really act out what they preach." I hope you remember "not to worry" when they light the faggots under your heretical and blasphemous feet.
If you object to this question, was it OK when Mr. Clinton had the temerity to suggest that the country was getting two qualified leaders in one, AKA Bill and Hillary? You mean a MAN might listen to a chick? (Yes, I know the implications of the words I'm using. That's the point.) Bill never suggested "submitting" to Hillary. But for some he wasn't even allowed to listen. So now is it OK if Michelle keeps saying "G-d told me to listen to whatshisface?"
Meanwhile, as stated above, like a skilled politician, she didn't come close to actually answering the question.
Was the question legitimate? Yes
Was it sexist? No, Michele Bachmann answered the question in accordance to what scripture teaches. The problem is most people do not read the rest of the passage in Ephesians 5:22-33. The passage teaches that wives should submit to their husbands but men are commanded to LOVE their wives as Christ loved the church and gave His life for it. This admonition to husbands to LOVE their wives in the pagan world of ancient Ephesus was not only remarkable it was revolutionary.
Parting question: Does any one doubt that every man running for the presidency did not first seek his wife's blessing and support?
That being said, I will be voting for Michelle and Barack Obama in the coming election. They make me proud.
Do you believe that submissive and respect mean the same thing??? : /
A wife that is submissive to her husband's leadership is demonstrating respect. But I have to ask, have you personally read the whole passage Ephesians 5:21-33? If so what is your understanding of the passage?
My understanding of most of the passages in the bible are that the men
want complete domination over the women, starting with blaming Eve
for the apple incident. (ref: Warren Jeffs)
You women who follow these stupid men of religion
really dont know much.....about respect. Hardly ANY women in the bible are
truly upheld as respectable, when you really read it. Most women in the bible are vilified as "harlots" or "wanton women". And they teach this crap to all their
children!! So sad....
Whos living in the year 10 b.c.? No one. How can we grow if we try to stay in the past. Personally, I'm not a church gower, but I have faith in a higher power and I people use the bible to justify their actions. Personally I think most politicians use religion for political gain and really dont have the virtuous moral or ethical compass. Check the interview with Frank Scheaffer of the huffington post last week on Martin Bishir show. He's got it right on.
Having just recently discovered that, like TRMS, TLW also has its own blog with the episodes streaming, I've no idea if Irin Carmon is a regular with Lawrence O'Donnell, or MSNBC generally since I'm normally just a TRMS viewer and have never seen her there. But I hope she appears more often on MSNBC, particularly if she could be a guest on TRMS. Her analysis was VERY valuable. Just VERY spot on. Wow. Particularly next to Chris Hayes's insipid semi-defence of Bachmann with regard to the question that was posed to her. Bachmann, like almost all of her co-panelists, is out of her f***ing mind. It's just painfully obvious. So to even attempt to defend her, as Chris Hayes so insipidly tried to, is equally painful. Must he be allowed his own show?
Irin Carmon, you rock. Please talk more about how bats*** all these GOP candidates are with Rachel Maddow.
Totally legit question. She's the one who brought it up; she's the one who held it out to the public as a way everyone should live. No, Newt wasn't asked about his multiple wives, but then he hasn't been campaigning on that either.
She's running on her religion - her religion says wives must be submissive - it becomes a fair question. If you asked it of Hilary Clinton who did not run on her religion but ran on her experience in politics it would be sexist.
look into my eyes. they will tell you I have a mission from on high.
SOMEONE'S HIGH ALRIGHT!
Along with a previous post, I also want to say how impressive Irin Carmon was during the interview. This woman has a brain and is not afraid to use it. I would love to see her as a regular on Morning Joe.
As I've read the entire Ephesians 5, it becomes evident how accurate her response was to the loaded question and as the husbands love their wives as their own flesh indicates marriage is a mutal relationship with equal love to each and love of God as supreme. Believe me, most husbands are more submissive to their wives than vice-versa. I think she is a fine candidate and has shown much more conviction than most that have run for president on either side in many years.
good point sixpick, that many husbands are submissive to their wives. we all probably know couples where the woman "wears the pants".
i would just like to add here that many men use this bible verse as an excuse to exert control over their women, and they think it justifies physical and mental abuse.
even many of the statements i have heard from the republican men AND women in washington tend to lean toward the idea that women should be kept pregnant and barefoot. this may not be seen as "abuse" per say, but it does lean toward the idea of "control" of the woman, as this is seen by some men as a way to have the "upper hand". and there are some women who see this as proof that her husband loves her, and not as a result of insecurity and jealousy, character defects possesed by her husband.
i do not expect any republicans here to agree with me on this, but republican men and women in washington want to take away a woman's right to health care, including birth control and abortion (women are only have 2.5 children per woman, OH NO!) for the most part, men who can afford to have health insurance are given the best, including coverage for viagra, while women's health coverage is marginal at best, and only recently have A FEW insurances started covering birth control pills for women. this is why the conservative movement to stop funding for Planned Parenthood is so unfortunate for the poor women in our country.
the "submissive" bible verses has been taken out of context (NOT BY MICHELLE BACHMANN) by many men (and women) as an excuse to keep women in there place. i think michelle gave a good answer, but i disagree, of course, that she is a fine candidate.. unlike sarah palin, michelle has proven, though, that she has the willingness to learn, and once she saw that the president had his birth certificate, she did shut up about it, though that does not excuse her for all the horrible things she said (prior to the president's release of his birth certificate) to pander to the tea party.
she has her 'facts' messed up about the debt ceiling, in my opinion. does she really believe what she is saying, or is this just fodder for the tea party?
ephesiands 5 also says that using religion just for what you can get out of it will get you nowhere, and certainly nowhere near the kingdom of god.
as humans we are all imperfect, but the republican party (bachmann, palin, perry, to name a few) is using religiosity as an "idol", to suck people in.
at least that is how i see it.
Suzette...
You just don't like Republicans, do you. Where do you get these, "Barefoot and Pregnant" quotes from? I'm not carrying a Bible around with me everywhere I go. I don't think we can limit our men to those Republicans that act and feel this way about that Bible verse. I think there are Democrats and Republicans that use that verse. I don't think it is limited to Republicans. I know you'll not like this, but you need to do some extensive research on that birth certificate, I mean the last one. Promise, I'm not going to pick on you anymore. It's hard to resist responding to such accusations without any proof, only emotion. Thanks for the compliment on the first line. I wouldn't blame you for not caring for me. I'm conflicting you everytime you check the comments out. I just wish as I've said before, we could all come to a common solution to the problems this country has today for the country and the people. The more I read these comments on MSNBC, it becomes more evident that is an impossiblity. It's hard to believe we all want the best for everyone and have such different means of obtaining it. Believe me, it's just as bad on the right wing sites. Just wish we could see the truth, whatever it be, don't you. No need to respond.
but i will respond because nowhere have i ever said it was ALL republican men. men, democratic and republican fall short in this area. i was married to one many years ago, so i speak from personal experience.
YOU ARE A BIRTHER, plain and simple. we can all find things on the interent that fit our ideas, and we don't even have to look very hard. and why on earth would i think you are picking on me, unless of course you are, and i simply don't see it.
of course you haven't heard a republican say he would like to keep all women at home barefoot and pregnant, that would be a very bigoted remark. and politicians need women's votes as well as men's. a republican on the House floor, i believe, said that women were only having 2.5 babies per woman, and that that was too low. i have to laugh at the audacity of a man telling a woman how many babies she needs to have to keep up population growth or whatever it is he was referring to. but the republican party is trying to take birth control rights and abortion rights from women, something that each woman should be able to decide for herself without some republican man sticking his nose into it. here again is an example of rights being taken from women, and the poor when they continue to give all the breaks to the rich. i understand you don't want your tax money going for abortions, or anyone elses health care. i figure as long as i pay taxes, i don't care if my money goes to pay for an abortion or to help someone who needs it. for me, this is a difference between right and wrong, between "the least of these my brethren" and the rich and powerful who are only looking out for themselves, the difference between the democratic party and the republicans.
i also have to question their strong stance on abortion when republicans as a general rule, love war, and think nothing of sending men and women into harms way, even for a war based on a lie, in order to protect Osama Bin Laden, and go after saaddam hussein, a man who had nothing to do with 9/11, but was a personal vendetta by W. because saddam threatened his daddy's life.
there is very little that i agree with the republican party on. i hate the fact that they use their religion as an idol to suck people into voting for them. i fear having a republican like perry or bachmann as president because based on their biblical ideology they are trying to rush the rapture, and will take us into wars based on a biblical prophecy. this is why we need someone in office who can separate church and state and not make decisions based on "emotional feelings about a book".
you might feel that kind of emotion has a place in politics, but i simply do not.
as far as seeing the truth, i have seen our president compromise over and over to bring republicans to the table, and they have refused. the truth is in there somewhere, but if the republicans refuse to work with this president, we will never find it.
one party has refused to come to the table, mostly over tax hikes, but also to make the point that Obama doesn't deserve a second term, as stated by mitch mcConnell. i have seen one party say "no, no, no, no, no, no", even when their ideas have been brought to the table by President Obama to try to reach compromise.
the gridlock is caused mostly by one party, the republicans, and the president has proven that he is not a socialist by trying to meet them more than half way. i don't see how anyone can see anything else.
Throughout her political career Michelle Bachman has proven that she will:
1) Say any dog whistle that pops into her head
2) Lie about the meaning of what she said
3) Depend on the compliant press to not hold her accountable
4) Wink at her base (she's so smart to fool the press and still get her message across to the "chosen people") after lying about her dog whistle statements. After all, to some politics and lying are two sides of the same coin. Hey, she's just smarter that the press who continue to freely spread her hatred, while the press gets paid by Exon (Palin) Mobile.
5) Continue spreading hatred and lying (winking..."after all, it's what Bachman thinks that politicians do") about it.
6) Using the press (her fools) to continue to spread her hatred, brought to you by EXON MOBILE and BP.
7) About to cash in by running for President without a chance of winning.
8) Who exactly is paying Ed Rollins? Koch? Trump?.....WHO....!!!!
Jus Sayin'
Sometimes you act and sound as stupid as those Jiff Foxworthies over at the hacker place.
S&P said FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME THAT THEIR DOWNGRADE WAS BASED ON cONGRESSIONAL MISMANAGEMENT NOT ON THE COUNTRY'S FINANCIAL ABILITY.
Have you been sneaking off to bachmann basic training camps or something?
Let's try it the other way" If a male candidate had supported the notion that wives should be submissive to husbands, would the press have been labeled "sexist" for following up on his remarks? We all know they would have been pilloried for failing to ask.
I thought this was the best question of the night, personally. She looked extremely uncomfortable - and she should have been. She was owned.
Yes, it was a legitimate question. Whatever her definition of "submissive" is, it is not the definition most people go by. It goes to the issue that if, somehow, she was elected President, who would be running the White House, Bachmann or her husband? It was different with Clinton. There was no hint of him being submissive to Hilary. Most President's have had their "kitchen cabinets" of unofficial advisers. That is what Clinton meant. Bachmann can't simply redefine a word that has been in usage forever to get around the issue.
It is like her husband's therapy business where she says it has nothing to do with her run for President. It does matter. Her husband practices a particular brand of therapy that professional organizations state is bogus, ie reparative therapy.
For the majority of voters, her background does matter as her background, by her own admission, does direct her choices and decisions.
When you're a hard right, conservati
ve, old school Fundie, your outlook and prior statements SHOULD provoke questions like this.
It's relevant.
If she's submissive to the demands of her man friend, (husband but I think that may be stretching things-have you ever watched the 2 interact?), then that's kinda serious if she's in the White House making policy.
He'd be another unelected shadow figure like Rove or Richard Perle.
And that worked out Sooo well.
The question was wildly sexist. The question used her sex as a negative weapon against her. The question was also perverted. Everyone watches porn, and when the word submit is used, it means to put out. The interviewer is an intrusive, perverted, disgusting, hoary Christianist. They're into very weird, X-rated porn.
I thought it was a very legitimate question, especially since she was the source of the use of "submission". My first thought was they asked a Catholic about listening to the Pope! Why can't they ask a women if she is influenced by her husband, especially since she already mentioned the submission part herself. The questioner was giver her a chance to explain herself - too bad it ended up being a stupid answer redefining the word "submission" to mean respect - on what planet???
I think it would have been more appropriate for her to say that she only submits to him regarding her private life not her public. But telling the audience to her "submission means respect" and for the person above to quote the bible and say "love" means respect also I would have to say REALLY? That's why so many people who cheat are their spouses say they still love them. Many people think it is possible to love someone without respecting them.
Any sane person knows that she meant she follows her religion and submits to her husband plain and simple. Why all the double talk.
totally legit. if you cant answer any question, it argues the fact that you have things you dont want to say because it will affect your campaign. Religion and politics should not have any links to each other. Citizens will know your faith because of what you do in your spare time, but when you solicit this to gain votes or power, it is a slippery slope and should be held to your opinions and words, not trying to back tract. Its scary to think, not only could she run the country on her religious morals but also it basically says that her office will, in not so many words, be held by both her husband and herself. How much influence should a spouse have on the presidency. none I hope but its scary to hear these things and to believe that these extremist could occupy the white house, what then. I think politics are all about what to say and what not to say, sadly it should be about who you are and what you want to do knowing full well that your record speaks for you as well as your past.
Ooops I wrote my comment before watching the clip of the episode didn't realize the Catholic thing had already been mentioned by Chris Hayes. However I also realized that Michelle Bachmann herself said submission means love and respect. My point being she had to use both words "love" and "respect" so she does not believe that love means respect. So to her the bible means the husband has to love his wife not necessarily respect her and she is to submit to him which again does not necessarily mean respect.
And to the person who knocked Chris Hayes he clearly mentions he is being "devils advocate" do you know what that means? He was obviously helping Irin Carmon give her opinion without overshadowing her by agreeing and perhaps stating the case even better than her. He being more well known and perhaps experienced than Irin I thought he was great in letting her shine. He's a very good interviewer and I can't wait for his show. I wish that it was on more often than Saturday and Sunday.
I'm not going to sit through a commercial for Exxonmobile just to listen to Bachmann.