ALEXANDRA writes:

I recently began reading your blog and I find myself coming back to it not because I agree with everything you write, but because it has been helping me clarify my thoughts on feminism. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on Michele Bachmann. You’ve taken Huma Abedin to task for pursuing her career goals at the expense of her marriage and described as “sickening” Obama’s deference to his wife in matters of family planning.

But consider Michele Bachmann: she’s a conservative woman, faithfully married, who told a conference in 2006 that she only pursued a degree in tax law because her husband asked her to. Now she is running for president of the United States of America. She says her husband is “supportive” of her goals. I highly doubt she’s running for president because he asked her to. What if she is elected? Will she defer to her husband on matters of policy? Would a vote for Michele Bachmann actually be a vote for Marcus Bachmann?

I think this demonstrates that a marriage is most successful when submission is mutual — when both parties are indeed supportive of each other’s goals, whether those goals pertain to the domestic sphere or the public sphere. This is my understanding of what feminism is trying to achieve. No woman should be ashamed of wanting to pursue a career that interests her, that fulfills her and allows her to continuously grow as a person throughout her life, whether or not that career takes her outside the home.

I don’t agree with Michele Bachmann’s politics (and anyway, I’m Canadian!), but I do think her candidacy is in essence a feminist act — and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

Laura writes:

Please don’t exaggerate this idea of male authority. I never said that men should govern all the actions and decisions of their wives. Obviously, if a woman does paid or volunteer work outside the home, then a husband’s wish that she not work should be respected, but the idea that he would monitor every move she makes, whether she works or does not work, is very far-fetched. A vote for anyone for president is, in part, a vote for his spouse. That is why the public tends to look carefully at a candidate’s spouse. Some male politicians seek advice often from their wives. A normal marriage works that way and I imagine Michele Bachmann discusses her work with her husband.

Again, you seem to be suggesting that when I talk about the proper role of men as head of the family that I mean women are reduced to a state of complete dependence and are not permitted opinions of their own and a separate sphere of action, ideally the sphere of home and community. Do you really think women in North America were ever so weak and ineffectual to tolerate living that way? Certainly some women are overly submissive and some men overly domineering. Bad marriages will always exist, and they exist in far greater abundance today than in the pre-feminist era.

You say that feminism has created a better model for marriage. You will have a very difficult time substantiating that claim. Since the mainstreaming of feminism in the 1960s, marriage has declined remarkably as an institution. The parents of half of all children raised in the 1970s divorced. The divorce rate is still more than 40 percent. Today, almost 30 percent of white children are born out of wedlock in the United States. Feminism has relentlessly promoted sexual freedom, which has reduced the black family to chaos. Modern feminism has reduced many men to a state of submission by depriving them of their children in cases of unilateral divorce where no abuse or abandonment is involved. If fertility is a sign of martial happiness, then the drastically low fertility of white, educated women suggests they are not content. 

No woman should be ashamed of wanting to pursue a career that interests her, that fulfills her and allows her to continuously grow as a person throughout her life, whether or not that career takes her outside the home.

Human beings, after they are born, are in a state of dependence. This dependence changes in nature as a person moves through childhood and adolescence, but all in all it lasts for almost two decades. Society depends on the proper rearing of children and on adequate numbers of the young. Do you believe a woman has a right to pursue a career when her children end up in an institution for eight to ten hours a day? Do you believe she has the right to see only to the financial needs of her offspring and not form their character and protect their physical health? Do you believe a woman has the right to neglect the love and nurture of her husband? Believe it or not, most women enjoy and take pride in raising their children and caring for men, and find it much more satisfying than pushing papers in an office or working at Walmart. Many are disappointed they cannot devote more time to this work. Feminism has decreased the earning potential of men and has created conditions that force many women to work.

Since the advent of modern feminism, the rates of childhood depression, teen suicide, juvenile crime, teen drug use and child obesity have all skyrocketed. So to the extent that Michele Bachmann’s candidacy feeds the illusion that men and women can have it all, it is a great misfortune. I agree with many of Bachmann’s positions and these positions are more anti-feminist than those of many male politicians. She is against abortion, same-sex marriage, Obamacare and military women in combat. One of the things I like most about Bachmann is that she is critical of public education, the sacred cow of feminists, who rely on schools to form their children. Fortunately, she does not, like Sarah Palin, use much feminist rhetoric in campaigning. The idea that she and her husband raised five children and 23 foster children is an overstatement. Obviously, she stepped away from raising her children once she became a tax attorney in the late 1980s and her story feeds the illusion, the dream of the Vitalist Society, that all works out well when women do this. 

I would rather not see a woman become president. The decline in male leadership is too severe. But none of the candidates are going to be taking an explicitly anti-feminist stance, such as calling for the repeal of affirmative action for women or ending subsidies for parents who put their children in daycare. Therefore, I would support Bachmann over a candidate who, say, did not vow to repeal Obamacare. Bachmann is going to become more and more the target of the left’s venom. The left has yet to train its guns on her but once it does she will come under relentless fire for her stance against same-sex marriage and abortion and her support of the teaching of intelligent design. It is too early in the presidential process to judge Bachmann in relation to the other Republican contenders except to say that she is a far superior candidate to both Palin and Newt Gingrich.  

                                                                                          —  Comments —

AsheDina writes:

I absolutely agree with you, 100% regarding Bachmann. I do like her, and think she is a fine Conservative-Christian woman. I, however do not wish to see a female as president.

I know ALL TOO WELL how we are, and am candid about this. Kudos on your article.  

Alissa writes:

Alexandra writes:

I don’t agree with Michele Bachmann’s politics (and anyway, I’m Canadian!), but I do think her candidacy is in essence a feminist act — and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. 

It is a bad thing. Bachmann is not a traditional conservative. The only reason the left hates her is because they are so far-left they think neoconservatives, moderate liberals and libertarians are far-right. They continually misinterpret and make up stories about people like Beck and Palin being part of the “evil, racist, extremist, Religious Right!” Should Americans elect people far-leftists hate? They went ballistic over George W. Bush and hated him too but Bush started the war on terrorism and a couple of years later the USA is deep in debt due to the wars in conjunction with many other things before him (Bush just exacerbated the problem with his excessive spending). Bush also created more support for more minorities and expanded the government to aid them. Her candidacy, like others, is a disaster. Nevertheless perhaps it is for the best because on the fence conservatives need to wake up and smell how non-conservative the Republican Party truly is. An abandoned Republican Party is good for the long-run because it isolates “fake conservatism” and we see more “pure liberalism” (Democrats, Libertarian Party, Green Party). For example Barack Obama was elected and some people are waking up to the immigration problem (not just illegal but legal as well). If McCain was elected this would have never happened. I am sorry for my harsh words but those are my observations.

Hurricane Betsy writes:

Alissa’s post at the end of the discussion is just about perfect! I was waiting for someone to say this. There is no point in being a family-oriented social conservative if you are going to pander to the neocon (fake conservative) warlovers and their depredations, which are the basic cause of America’s bankruptcy. There are so many Michele Bachmanns in politics and the general population, sad to say. I would give anything to understand the origins of this kind of confused thinking – traditionalism wrapped up in promotion of war and “regime change” on the other side of the world when America and its friends can’t even get their own houses in order.

According to Wikipedia, if that means anything, Michele Bachmann is quoted as saying that as far as Iran goes, diplomacy “is our option,” but that other options, including a nuclear strike shouldn’t be taken off the table.

Laura writes:

Bachmann’s foreign policy appears to be Bush-style neoconservatism. A very big disappointment. We look for glimmers of hope in the Republican Party and there appear to be very few.

Hurricane Betsy writes:

Here it is, plain & simple: What is liberalism? It is the deliberate rejection of traditional values and inherited identity. Liberalism has two wings – leftwing and rightwing. Neoconservatism is the right wing of liberalism. But it is still liberalism.

So what do we do with a situation where someone appears to support some traditional values, yet pushes for the continued destruction of one of America’s important, longstanding inherited moral principles – in this case, military noninterventionism (except for dire circumstances)?

We describe those parties as “liberal.” You can’t be a bit pregnant. Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin and that bunch are liberals. Period.

Laura writes:

How can you equate political beliefs and ideas to a physical condition? They are not at all the same.

While Bachmann is disappointing when it comes to our military “interventions” in Iraq and Afghanistan, she was very strong on getting out of Libya and she showed real leadership in Minnesota on same-sex marriage. 

Please follow and like us: