Sunday, August 14, 2011

THE QUESTION: In which Byron York learns the old rule still stands

Boys don't hit girls.  They just don't.  Byron York learned that the rule still holds, even when the girl is putting herself up for the biggest game in town - Presidential politics.  Even before he finished asking THE QUESTION, a chorus of "Boo!"s rose up from the audience.  Bachmann seemed gratified by the audience response, but she should not have been.  It was one more indication of the American public's love-hate relationship with feminism and feminists.  We want our women to be able to rough it up with the big boys, but when someone treats them like they actually are just one of the boys, the old instincts rise up.  Welling up from a deep place within us that we try to ignore, the reaction is undeniable.  You can try to ignore it, but that won't work for very long.  As J Budziszewski has reminded us, there are some things which you "can't not know".

Against many commentators, I will say unapologetically that it was a perfectly legitimate question.  A journalist should ask questions relevant to each candidate's own individual beliefs and positions.  You wouldn't ask Herman Cain if he submits to his wife because he's never indicated he thinks this might be a biblical mandate (as far as I know).  Nor would you care if Mrs. Romney submits to her husband because no one cares, she is not the one wanting our vote, not the one who will be making the decisions.  And assertive though Mrs. Gingrich is said to be, it's Mr. Gingrich that is running for the nomination.  But Mrs Bachmann is a "Mrs".  And she has publicly said she submits to her husband because Scripture teaches her to do so.  So, yes, it is a relevant and legitimate question for her and her alone.

But the American public can breath easy. If we are to believe Bachmann's response to York, submission doesn't really mean submission.  It means respect.  It even means mutual respect.  Goodness, Mrs. Bachmann is sounding more and more like she's been reading CBEs materials rather than CBMWs, doesn't she?  But I'll let Mrs. Bachmann speak for herself:

Both he and I, what submission means to us, if that's what your question is, it means respect.  I respect my husband. . .And he respects me as his wife.  That's how we operate our marriage.  We respect each other, we love each other, and I've been so grateful that we've been able to build a home together . . .

Bachmann, in her interview today, doesn't seem to have elaborated on that answer, instead she has reiterated and affirmed it.  So all you folks who were holding your breath can let it out now.  Marcus Bachmann will not be directing foreign or domestic policy for his submissive wife.  She doesn't really mean submission in the biblical sense,where wives are called to submit to their husbands in a way that husbands, who do not receive a reciprocal commandment to submit to their wives, are not.  She means a sort of mutual admiration society that does sound remarkably like the doctrine of the Egalitarians.

We should all learn the lesson Byron York learned.  It's a lesson the feminists have been trying to teach us for more than a generation.  They WILL play with the big boys whether you like it or not.  But if you dare treat one of them as if she actually WAS a big boy - your name will be reviled throughout the land.

It's a boy's game, but they want to play by the girl's rules.  Fail to learn that lesson at your own risk.

1 comment:

vielleur said...

> But if you dare treat one of them as if she actually WAS a big boy...

And Mrs. Bachmann's "respectful" husband can be counted on to mind his own business and not come to her defense.

Where would conservatives be without feminism?