Christian taqqiya
Frank Schaeffer points out that Michele Bachmann is not telling the truth about whether or not she submits to her husband. He knows what he’s talking about, too: his father was one of the sources of the anti-feminist Dominionist movement.
Bachmann understands just how extreme her part of the evangelical movement is. She also understands that a certain amount of godly lying will be needed to mask that. She understood that the question she was asked the other day was about a biblical teaching that is misogynistic to the core and advocates total submission of a wife to a husband. It is teaching she’s signed on to long ago.
The people, churches and groups that shaped Bachmann’s thinking are far more anti-woman than most Americans fully comprehend.
Yes they are. We’ve been reading up on them in the last few days, and there’s a lot more where that came from.
The issue of wifely submission is at the heart of the entire anti-feminist agenda that shaped Bachmann. I should know. As I describe in my book Sex, Mom and God, the current crop of religious right leaders — including Michele Bachamnn — got their ideas and inspiration from my family’s work, books and film series.
…
Besides my father, Bachmann signed on as a follower of other leading “Reconstructionists” teaching “dominion.” And out of that movement came the big family, home-school movement that included a push to restore “traditional” roles of women…In fact, the whole conservative evangelical movement Bachmann is part of is distinguished by its hatred of the feminist movement top to bottom.
Just what this country needs.
Thanks to Salty Current for the link.
Look, this is cruel, but I’m going to say it anyway. These ‘submissive Christian wives?’ They need to put away their Bible and start reading Catullus and the Marquis de Sade. They read and sound like the habitues of kink forums, but unlike the habitues of kink forums, they completely lack self-awareness.
A word in your shell-like, ladies against feminism & friends: you can get all of the thrills you’re seeking reading sundry Roman pagans and dissolute Frenchmen. Really. The Bible’s just bloody and nastily violent. The Romans and the French focus on the sex…
How can people who support her rationalize that they really don’t support her, they support her husband, who ultimately calls the shots? How can anyone in the Republican Party support a candidate for president of the United States who will be making decisions based on what their spouse decides they should do? (Well, I guess that one worked with Bush and Cheney.) How is it even legal to have someone running for president who will admit that if elected, she won’t be “running the country,” her husband will be?
And according to the Washington Post: “Republicans not that unhappy with GOP field.” Yes, think I agree with Dawkins. Time to retire the acronym. Tain’t a Grand Ole Party no more. What is the matter with people?
From a piece last Friday on Democracy Now!, Michelle Bachmann has claimed that she took a job at the IRS so that she could infiltrate and eventually subvert it – she wanted to know her enemy. I guess we can conclude from this that her husband doesn’t want to pay taxes. Who is this man behind the candidate?
Oh I don’t think it’s cruel, Skep. And I’m pretty sure several people said much the same thing during the last discussion of this subject………Oh wait, isn’t there some notorious Xian-submissive-woman site that really does verge on porn, to hilarious effect? Does anyone remember that?
I vaguely recall a site that advocated spanking your wife the same way you’d spank your child when they were disobedient. I don’t remember it being a Christian site though.
Well anyway wives don’t have wives, so it wouldn’t be that one.
Ophelia @6: I have now fallen into everyone’s favourite stereotype of the British Conservative…
And of course, one shouldn’t psychoanalyse people over the internet; I have, however, seen enough of both kink and the criminal law to know that of which I speak.
It’s all about the sex. Really, that’s all it is.
Amazing, isn’t it, the convergence between atheism and feminism. It’s as if some vocal anti-feminist atheists aren’t actually exemplifying skepticism when they criticize feminism, but rather simply failing to critically examine their own cultural biases.
skep, ah yes, all those Tory men with frilly knickers under their gentlemen’s suiting….
It’s actually a bit beyond that, Ophelia. There are a lot of submissive women out there (sexually, of course), such that I’m sure that they never have to pay to have their desire satisfied. This is less true of kinky expression in the opposite direction, so much so that I suspect it has a biological origin.
This behaviour really is all about the sex, except that the ‘submissive but not kinky’ women who want it are using the Bible as a basis, rather than people who wrote about it intelligently and thoughtfully and who understood the impulse.
Who knew, the Bible as bad Gor novel…
I don’t think it’s all about sex (if it is they’re wasting one hell of a lot of time doing other things). You forgot to say how you know it is.
So why isn’t Bachman home making waffles instead of running for office? What a hypocrite.