home
RSS
Michele Bachmann, evangelical feminist?
June 27th, 2011
06:09 PM ET

Michele Bachmann, evangelical feminist?

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor

(CNN) - If Hillary Clinton, the woman who came closest to becoming a major party presidential nominee, is a feminist icon, could something similar be said of Michele Bachmann, who officially launched her presidential campaign on Monday?

Bachmann is seldom described in those terms; the conservative Minnesota congresswoman and Tea Party darling might cringe at the feminist label.

But some religion and politics experts say that she exemplifies an evangelical feminism that is producing more female leaders in Christian nonprofits, businesses, and education and politics, even as more traditional gender roles prevail in evangelical homes and churches.

“It’s not that evangelical feminism is entirely new,” says R. Marie Griffith, director of the John C. Danforth Center on Religion & Politics at Washington University in St. Louis. “But this lack of fear going into top positions of power is new and astonishing and exciting for this segment of the population.”

Though evangelical women have long been involved in political activism, including helping to lead the temperance movement and campaigning for and against women's right to vote, seeking the White House is a more recent and dramatic step.

“It’s a trend that was started by Sarah Palin,” Griffith said, referring to the former Alaska governor, who was the Republican vice presidential nominee in 2008.

D. Michael Lindsay, a scholar who has studied evangelical leaders, says that evangelical feminism largely followed the trend in secular feminism, even if it was delayed by a decade or so.

“Evangelicals are not traditionally the innovators in gender roles, so they’re not going to be at the vanguard,” says Lindsay, who was recently appointed president at Gordon College and who wrote the book Faith in the Halls of Power. “But they also don’t trail too far behind.”

Lindsay says that evangelical feminism took off in the 1980s, pointing to Ronald Reagan tapping Elizabeth Dole, a Christian with strong connections in the evangelical world, to be his secretary of transportation as one example.

George W. Bush, meanwhile, appointed evangelical women to top roles in his presidential administration, including Karen Hughes as a top adviser and Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state.

At the same time, there are distinctions between evangelical and secular feminism. Many female evangelical leaders, for instance, talk of being called by God to pursue professional careers.

“This idea of women being out in the world when they’re doing God’s work – that’s the key,” says Griffith, who is author of God's Daughters: Evangelical Women and the Power of Submission. “You have to be called.”

Bachmann, an evangelical Lutheran, has talked of being called to run for president.

“When I pray, I pray believing that God will speak to me and give me an answer to that prayer, and so that’s what a calling is,” she told CBS News on Sunday, explaining that she had prayed about her decision to seek the presidency. “If I pray, a calling means that I have a sense from God which direction I’m supposed to go.”

Another difference between some evangelical and secular feminists is a public emphasis on motherhood. Bachmann’s political identity is constructed largely around her role as a mother of five kids and her experience of taking in 23 foster children.

Palin, who was raised in the Pentecostal tradition, has also emphasized her role as mother, frequently discussing her children and famously using the term “mama grizzlies” to describe female political candidates for whom she campaigns.

Lindsay says that the motherhood angle could be refreshing to evangelical voters, who constitute a majority of the Republican electorate in early states like Iowa and South Carolina.

“A lot of male evangelical politicians have trumpeted family values, but we’ve seen time after time how many break their marriage vows and have tense relationships with their kids,” he says.

“When you’re the mother of four or five kids up there talking about how their commitment to politics stems from your commitment to kids, which is true for both Palin and Bachmann, that resonates with people who are skeptical of American politics.”

The emphasis that some women evangelical leaders place on motherhood appears to be connected to women taking on more prominent roles in the antiabortion movement, which is closely tied to the evangelical subculture.

“There were a lot of women who were representing the old guard abortion center feminism and there were very few pro-life women who were credentialed in state legislatures and running at the federal level,” says Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the antiabortion group Susan B. Anthony List, describing the organization’s founding 20 years ago.

Dannenfelser’s group works to elect women candidates who oppose abortion rights, raising roughly $11 million in the 2010 election cycle.

“The constant line from Jane Fonda and Barbara Boxer on abortion was ‘You can’t possibly know how a woman feels - how dare you speak on an issue you have no knowledge of,'” says Dannenfelser, referring to the pro-abortion rights actress and U.S. senator.

“Now we have women communicating the truth of the matter, which is that abortion is really destroying a lot of women,” she says.

Though Bachmann is widely considered to be a long shot for the GOP nomination, a weekend poll from The Des Moines Register had her running second only to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney among likely Republican caucus-goers, with 22% support.

Even as more evangelical women pursue top jobs in politics, there is little sign that they will be invited into similar roles in evangelical churches, which continue to be led by men, with some exceptions. Some evangelical denominations, including Southern Baptists, have recently moved to put more restrictions on women serving as pastors.

“It seems to me that most evangelical congregations make a sharp divide between the sacred and secular realms,” says Lindsay, “so that church is the last context where you’ll see women in ordained roles.”

ALSO:

Understanding Jon Huntsman's distinct brand of Mormonism

Explain it to me: What's Mormonism?

Opinion: For Huntsman, a little faith could go a long way

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Politics • Sarah Palin

soundoff (3,401 Responses)
  1. Feminist

    I believe what the author here is missing is the difference between descriptive versus substantive representation. michele Bachmann may stand AS a woman, but she fails so stand FOR women. A role model she may be – for young women seeking to get into politics – but she has failed to stand for the advancement of the rights of women (namely reproductive rights).

    June 29, 2011 at 9:35 am |
  2. Mike Mazzone

    God Bless Michele Bachmann and God Bless America! I'm looking forward to watching her become the 45th United States President.

    June 29, 2011 at 9:10 am |
    • The Jackdaw

      I want her, Palin, FOX News, Rush Limbaugh and the 700 Club to unite like Voltron and then run for president.

      June 29, 2011 at 9:46 am |
    • The Woof

      God has already blessed America and we the people are so stupid that we have messed it up. As for Mrs. Bachmann, well I wish her well in her life but with some of her views and the hypocracy in them, she'd be better off as she is.

      June 29, 2011 at 1:23 pm |
  3. Reality

    The education of Michele B. continues:

    Part V:

    No Republican who is a "respect-for-lifer" can win. BO's approved and successful execution of bin Laden, an economy that will continue to recover and the fact that BO is also the leader of the Immoral Majority i.e.. the 70+ million voting "mothers and fathers" of aborted womb-babies, BO cannot lose in 2012.

    2008 Presidential popular vote results: 69,456,897 for BO 59,934,814 for JM

    The Immoral Majority's voting bloc will have ~78 million voters in 2012.

    June 29, 2011 at 12:09 am |
  4. cj

    I would hope that my daughter grows up to embody the same faith, character, love, and professional qualities that Bachmann possesses. That should incense those of you who hate her and her beliefs!

    June 28, 2011 at 11:22 pm |
    • mw

      Going to get her an apron she can wear while she's barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?

      June 29, 2011 at 7:47 am |
    • gozer

      No, cj, it just makes us sad for your daughter.

      June 29, 2011 at 9:49 am |
  5. Jared

    Well, she's better than the dangerous, extreme left wing President we have now, whose beliefs are an offence to human dignity, particularly the unborn. Let's call things by their name. Abortion is not reproductive choice, it is murder.

    June 28, 2011 at 8:48 pm |
    • gozer

      Let's call things by their name. Abortion is not murder. It is reproductive choice.

      A blastocyst is not a human being.

      Back at you Jared, you backward tool.

      June 28, 2011 at 10:00 pm |
    • gozer

      Christianity is an insult to human dignity and human intelligence.

      June 28, 2011 at 10:01 pm |
    • cj

      Gozer, if you are so enlightened, then you would be aware that in some cases the fetus reacts to protect himself as he is about to be aborted by being stabbed in the back of the neck. Partial birth victims have been known to scream as they were stabbed in the back of the neck. Sounds like a life to me. Ask any mother who just had an ultrasound of their 12 week old fetus if they just saw a human life.

      June 28, 2011 at 11:11 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Jared

      You said: "Well, she's better than the dangerous, extreme left wing President we have now, whose beliefs are an offence to human dignity, particularly the unborn. Let's call things by their name. Abortion is not reproductive choice, it is murder."

      If abortion is illegal, women will seek back alley remedies. We, as a society, must take away as many of the reasons women seek abortions as possible.

      We need to make adoption easier and make it financially possible for a woman to keep and care for her baby.

      Obama has a program to do this. More needs to be done, but with the Republicans controlling the House, funds won't be forthcoming.

      Most of all, we need to make birth control available free of charge, to all women. We need to educate the women on these birth control methods. Remember, the best way to prevent an abortion, is to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

      Psalm 127:3 – Children are a gift of the LORD

      Hmmm... Well, the bible says it, so I believe it. Children are god's gift!

      Notice how god doesn't check to see if a woman is capable of raising a child, before he gives a baby to them?

      Women in poor countries bear children, only to have them die, because Mom has no food.

      Women addicted to drugs are given babies, when they are totally incapable of taking care of themselves, much less a child.

      Girls are blessed with a baby they don't want. Why are babies given to women who don't want them?

      If god would be more careful with giving out gifts/children, abortion wouldn't be needed.

      And remember, there are a lot of women, who god refuses His gift. They would be overjoyed with god's gift. No abortions in their homes!

      God works in mysterious ways. It's almost as if He doesn't exist...

      We should start real $ex education in school. Not abstinence only. Real education about the use of birth control.

      We will never totally eradicate abortions. Only a god could do that, and he either does not care, or does not exist.

      Cheers!

      June 29, 2011 at 12:02 am |
  6. Chris

    This, and all the other articles on CNN, should be about how dangerously crazy and deluded this woman is. She's completely insane.

    Dangerous woman. I blame CNN for even pretending this woman could even potentially be considered. CNNhas a responsibility to warn the public at large by doing their jobs and reporting on what this woman has said and where her "indoctrinated" supreme right-wing crazy ideas caome from.

    June 28, 2011 at 7:37 pm |
    • Josh

      haha chris CNN is doing exactly what it should do. They are manipulating the playing field, making Bachmann seem better than she is to rally support for her among conservatives at CNN and to rally opposition among the liberals. They aim to cast her in a better light among conservatives so that she will get the presidential nomination because they know Bachmann has no chance of beating Obama. Why do you think CNN either doesn't cover or glosses over Ron Paul winning straw polls, etc? It's all the usual media manipulation to advance their agenda. Every news organization does it. We no longer have real journalism.

      June 29, 2011 at 9:04 am |
  7. NewsWatch - Bachmann not ready for POTUS job

    http://www.businessinsider.com/bachmann-not-ready-to-be-president-former-chief-of-staff-write-in-scathing-op-ed-2011-6

    "Carey said ...
    "If she is unable, or unwilling, to handle the basic duties of a campaign or congressional office, how could she possibly manage the magnitude of the presidency?" he wrote.

    June 28, 2011 at 7:22 pm |
    • cj

      Well she is an upgrade over the current occupant of the office.

      June 28, 2011 at 11:23 pm |
  8. Elle

    Anyone who denies women reproductive choices based on their own religious beliefs, is no feminist

    June 28, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
    • CM

      There's no talking to these people, Elle. They are incapable of understanding the complexity of the situation.

      June 28, 2011 at 5:50 pm |
    • jazmin

      Elle, could you please define reproductive choices? Would reproductive choices include partial birth abortion in that context of a definition of feminism? Also, I don't think Michelle Bachmann has the power to deny anybody anything. That lies with the Supreme Court in overturning Roe v. Wade.

      June 28, 2011 at 6:09 pm |
    • tuffgong71

      Jazmin, hon, crack open that Government 101 book and you will see that the President appoints the Supreme Court Justices and they are there for life.

      June 28, 2011 at 7:06 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @jazmin<
      "...could you please define reproductive choices? "
      The choice to decide what happens to her own body (until viability a fetus is part of the woman's body.)

      "Also, I don't think Michelle Bachmann has the power to deny anybody anything. That lies with the Supreme Court in overturning Roe v. Wade."
      The States tried to deny some the right to chose, but with Roe v Wade, the SCOTUS said that would violate the Consti.tution. If you disagree simply amend the Consti.tution, then the Supremes can't say a thing.
      That's the way the system works. If you disagree, simply amend the Consti.tution.

      June 28, 2011 at 7:17 pm |
    • Jared

      On the contrary, Bachman's defence of life shows forth the glory of true feminism, which gaurds the dignity of the child (person) in the womb. Pro-choice is a false feminism and is ultimately anti-woman.

      June 28, 2011 at 8:52 pm |
  9. BigJohn

    What's crazy is i generally thought the GOP put forward the stronger candidates. Now is almost seems like WE (Americans) will vote or anyone. When some in this country made Palin relevant,i knew we were in BIG trouble!

    June 28, 2011 at 5:08 pm |
    • Godless

      You didn't realize that when Bush was elected twice? Palin is about as mentally competent as Bush.

      June 28, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
    • BigJohn

      Yeah, you have a point..

      June 28, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
    • Kim

      I don't the comparison to Bush is apt. I would go the Dan Quayle route on this one.

      June 28, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
    • gozer

      Michele Quale

      June 29, 2011 at 9:52 am |
  10. Gary

    This proves it! God is a Democrat! Why else would he tell some evangelist whack job to run for president against Obama if he didn't want him to win?

    June 28, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
  11. Kris

    She is the anti-feminist. She is a scary religious zealot that would run the Presidency wiy her own personal biblical beliefs. She is to be feared for her beliefs, only because she is a zealot. She is not a normal Christian.

    June 28, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Yep... and Obama will only serve the African American community and all whites will be destroyed if he becomes President.

      .... is that what you are saying?

      June 28, 2011 at 5:00 pm |
    • cj

      Well what is a normal Christian? Someone who compromises their values with those of the world? Maybe her clarity of faith and principal make you uncomfortable, and a little jealous. Do you have similar convictions about what you believe? If you do not stand for something eternal, you will fall for anything.

      June 28, 2011 at 11:17 pm |
  12. BigJohn

    I don't see Bachman fighting for equality for any women. To me that is the farthest thing from her mind right now. She has made some mistakes already that are laughable....I couldn't see myself voting for her. Somebody better wake R. Paul up. He seems to be the guy with any sense.

    June 28, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
  13. Godless

    When are you people going to realize that God was CREATED by MAN for the same reason the 200+ Romans Gods, Native American Gods, Incan Gods, and Muslim God were created, to answer questions those people did not have the mental capacity to answer for themselves. God does not exist, never has and never will, he was created by MAN, just like Obi Won Kanobi and Darth Vader.

    Why prevent yourself from experience life in the name of your fellow mans creation.

    June 28, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
    • anonymous

      Respectfully, I would not say that people who "created" gods and religion simply didn't have the "mental capacity" (meaning, as I take you to mean, that they are too stupid or primitive). One thing many evangelicals and atheist and agnostic scholars agree on (though they might not admit it to each other) is that humans could not explain/were fascinated by the natural phenomena they saw and concluded that something Divine must be behind it. Romans 1:20, for example, says that God's "invsible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made." In other words, nature itself leads humans to seek God and discover the fact of his existence, as well as his attributes (what he is like). This theme is echoed throughout the Bible (some good examples can be found in Psalm 19, Jeremiah 15, and Job). Many non-believing scholars would probably say that a lack of scientific knowledge of the world and a natural human fascination with the world we live in (not mental or evolutionary inferiority) are what caused the rise of religious beliefs, which are often quite complex and rich in detail, philosophical insight, artistic inspiration, and thought. I personallyfind my faith often bolstered by my scientific knowledge (small though it is in comparison to other's and to my Creator), not disproven or deflated.

      June 28, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
    • cj

      If you think that all this around you occurred by random choice, you are deceiving yourself. What if you and I played poker together, and after 20 or so hands of me being dealt 4 aces, would you believe that it was just a random outcome, one of trillions of parallel poker games?

      June 28, 2011 at 11:28 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @cj

      God is no more likely to exist than Santa Claus. Consider:

      No one can prove a negative. I can't prove that god does not exist. I also can't prove Santa Claus does not exist. But in life, we decide what is real and not real, based on what we feel is probable.

      In the real world, any object that provides no evidence for its existence is classified as imaginary.

      I think we can rule out god, in the same way we rule out any other mythological creature. We can't prove vampires or werewolves or fairies don't exist. But, I bet you would agree, that they are not real. They just don't fit in with reality.

      So, we can look for attributes of god, that should provide evidence that He exists.
      If positive evidence is found, we should conclude that god probably exists.
      If positive evidence is not found, then we should conclude that the Christian God, beyond a reasonable doubt, does not exist. Just like Santa. Just like fairies. Just like vampires.

      One of the most compelling reasons for rejecting god, is the fact that there are so many versions of god(s). Some, not even human (The elephant-faced god – Ganesha etc.). Each religion, each denomination of each religion, defines god's wants differently. All of these religions cannot be right. But they can all be wrong.

      Perhaps man has not yet found the one true god, or perhaps He does not exist.

      Why would the Christian god leave room for confusion? If He exists, wouldn't He want everyone to know He exists and is the one true god?

      The Christian god is said to be All powerful (omnipotent), All knowing (omniscient), and All good (omnibenevolent)

      1.If god is Omnibenevolent, He would WANT every human to believe in Him.
      The bible says He does:
      2 Peter 3:9
      9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. King James Version (KJV)

      1 Timothy 2:4
      4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. King James Version (KJV)

      2. If god is Omniscient, then He would KNOW exactly how to convince anyone and everyone that He exists.

      3. If god is Omnipotent, then He would be ABLE to convince anybody and everybody that He exists.

      Yet, ~ 68% of the world's population are not Christians.

      Therefore, the Christian god is very unlikely to exist.

      In the same vein as the above, notice how many denominations of Christianity there are (~ 34,000). Each denomination can show you scripture, that "proves" they understand the wants of Jesus/god.
      All of the denominations could not be correctly interpreting the bible. Many are contradictory.
      Many of these denominations believe only their members will be saved.

      If the Christian god exists, and He is all knowing and all powerful and all good, why didn't He provide a bible that could not be misinterpreted? That everyone's comprehension of His wants would be the same?

      "Since God's purpose in creating the Bible is to guide human beings towards a knowledge of God, and to help them lead moral lives, Christians must be certain of the meaning of the Bible." Source: Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

      ambiguity – a word or expression that can be understood in two or more possible ways : an ambiguous word or expression.

      "There are in excess of 1,000 Christian faith groups in North America. They teach diverse beliefs about the nature of Jesus, God, the second coming, Heaven, Hell, the rapture, criteria for salvation, speaking in tongues, the atonement, what happens to persons after death, and dozens of other topics.

      On social controversies, faith groups teach a variety of conflicting beliefs about abortion access, equal rights for ho_mo$exuals and bi$exuals, who should be eligible for marriage, the death penalty, physician assisted suicide, human $exuality topics, origins of the universe, and dozens of other topics.

      The groups all base their theological teachings on the Bible. Generally speaking, the theologians in each of these faith groups are sincere, intelligent, devout, thoughtful and careful in their interpretation of the Bible. But, they come to mutually exclusive conclusions about what it teaches. Further, most are absolutely certain that their particular interpretations are correct, and that the many hundreds of faith groups which teach opposing beliefs are in error." Source: Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

      If the bible is ambiguous, then it cannot be said to be inerrant.

      The Christian god is very unlikely to exist.

      Another reason to reject the idea of a god, is because there appears to be no need for one. Each hour of each day, science fills another gap in man's knowledge, that god once filled. So far, science has found no need for a god.
      We don't want to postulate what isn't necessary.

      John 3:16 – For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

      If the Christian god so loves the world, why does he allow / cause so much suffering? Disease, famine, floods, earthquakes etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum. ?

      I can explain the existence of these horrors as being due to natural causes, and evolution but my explanation fails when I include an all loving Creator in the equation. I keep getting a "Can't divide by zero" error.

      Christians say their god is omnibenevolent (all good); omnipotent (all powerful); omniscient ( all knowing)

      1. If the Christian god is all knowing, He would be aware of all the suffering on earth.

      2. If the Christian god is all good, He would want to rid the world of suffering / evil.

      3. If the Christian god is all powerful, He would be able to rid the world of suffering / evil.

      4. Yet, evil persists.

      Therefore, The Christian god is very unlikely to exist.

      The Christian god is said to be omniscient and omnipotent. But these attributes are not compatible.

      If the Christian god is all knowing, if the future can be known, then even god would be bound by events in the future. Everything would be predetermined.

      1. If the Christian god, knows what will happen in the future, and does something else...then, He is not all knowing.

      2. If the Christian god knows the future and cannot change it, then He is not all powerful.

      3. The attributes attributed to the Christian god conflict with one another. The Christian god cannot exist.

      Evolution, with its evidence of transitional fossils, geological column, DNA evidence, vestigial organs etc., is very damning to the biblical Creation Story.

      If god created all the organisms on the planet, then He must have created even the diseases that have caused and are causing so much death and misery for humans and animals. He would have had to fashion the tick and the flea. The mosquito and blood flukes. And worms that bore into a child's eye.

      How could an all good god do such a thing? Why would He spend His time creating gruesome things to cause human suffering? Yet, these horrors exist. And if god didn't create them, who did?

      Evolution explains the diversity of the planet's organisms, including the pathogens and the parasites that have caused so much human death and misery.

      If the Creation Story is a fable, then Adam and Eve did not exist.

      If Adam and Eve did not exist, then there was no original sin.

      If there was no original sin, then it cannot be the reason god allows so much suffering in the world. We can dump the guilt trip.

      If there was no original sin, then there was no need for a redeemer.

      If there was no redeemer, then Christianity is a based on a false premise.

      "If we cannot believe in the First Adam, why believe in the Last [Christ]?" 1 Corinthians15:45

      If the Creation story is a myth, then there is no reason to believe any of the bible.

      If we evolved, there is no soul –> no afterlife –> no need of a heaven or hell.
      LOL, which is why the Evangelicals fight so hard against evolution.

      Evolution is the Christian god's Achilles' heel.

      The Christian god is no more likely to exist than unicorns, satyrs, fiery serpents, or talking snakes.

      Cheers!

      June 29, 2011 at 12:28 am |
  14. GOP hypocrisy

    Michelle Bachmann is evangelical misogynist, just like the rest of them.

    June 28, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
    • cj

      Then she hates herself? No, she just loves and defends life. She is certainly no hypocrite, she walks the walk everyday.

      June 28, 2011 at 11:19 pm |
  15. BigJohn

    People are only saying she is smart because she is being compared to Sarah Palin. Otherwise, this is the same suit, different name. Bachman is too radical to be put in charge of anything that deals with country. This is from a guy in the middle. I am independent and I don't see anyone on the GOP side that could/should be able to challenge Obama in the next election.... Just saying

    June 28, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
    • jazmin

      Thank you cnn, Big-John is what you've done for women. Oh but hey we can get a partial birth abortion so all is not lost.

      June 28, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
    • Godless

      jazmin, what is wrong with what Big John said? You seem rather crabby today.

      June 28, 2011 at 5:03 pm |
    • Tom M

      @Godless

      I think Jazmin's problem is that Big John doesn't agree with her. If you look at the last few pages of the comments she has been making outrageous assumptions that have no real basis in fact about people she disagrees with.

      June 28, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
    • Blowme

      Did someone forget to take their YAZ?

      June 28, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  16. AJ

    I think the important thing to note is what a feminist actually is- Generally, someone who wants the same opportunities, social and political rights as men. Feminists tend to be social change activists in order to accomplish these goals. Feminists can be secular of religious, however, they should be supporting equality in those roles. Many religious feminists- including Catholic nuns- have worked hard to try to get women ordained as priests for example. So, being a professional woman doesn't make someone a feminist. It's about what he or she stands for or what she does. Do they recognize gender inequalities and actively seek out to change them. That's a feminist. Men can be feminists too.

    June 28, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
  17. Tom S.

    Regardless of her highly prejudicial statements about the President, Bachmann's job as a Congresswoman today is to help fix the problems that confront the nation now...which means she needs to find a common ground if not a full consensus with the President and Democrats in Congress and work towards meaningful debt and deficit reduction. Being a hate-monger and rabble rouser isn't getting the job done and is hardly a constructive attribute for someone aspiring to be the President. She has her views, others have a different set of values which is something she should learn to respect despite her radical affiliations.

    June 28, 2011 at 4:53 pm |
    • Theodore

      Yes!

      Amazing how few people, of all political allegiances, are unaware of this.

      June 28, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
  18. GOP hypocrisy

    The same group of blubbering idiots who call anyone railing against Wall Street crimes "Marxist" or "Socialist" now call a female politician a "feminist". FEMINISM aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women. Saying Gawd told woman to STFU and listen to her "man" is not a feminist, but the opposite, a misogynist. Michelle BAchmann is an evangelical misogynist. She advocates woman's role as defined in old religious scriptures. Class is now dismissed. Pop quiz tomorrow.

    June 28, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
  19. Blowme

    If you hold her picture up to the light, you can make out the T2 Skeletal design quite well.

    June 28, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
    • highndry

      So true. The lady has sold her soul for the limelight. Anti-obama, for good or bad. I am still not sure she is real.

      June 28, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
  20. Obamaniac

    Bottom line is liberal feminist think they have the market cornered on "feminism" and if you disagree with them you are an outcast, wrong and whatever they can fill the twinky with. They fear woman like Michelle Bachman becuase it exposes them for haters and liers they actually are.

    June 28, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
    • highndry

      No, she has spent so much time trying to say and be the right thing that she is an android, devoid of typical human display. Or, typical republican...no, politician.

      June 28, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • GOP hypocrisy

      No, it's just you don't have a clue about meaning of words. Jarred Laughner much?

      June 28, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
    • Sarah Palin

      Uh, do you understand what you are saying? How about when Christians think they are the only one who are Christians? Or when Republicans think they are the only Republicans? "Feminism" is a liberal concept, so "Christian Feminist" is like saying "Liberal Conservative." It's a joke. I'm afraid you may have filled one twinkie too many.

      June 28, 2011 at 5:03 pm |
    • Lori

      No. Feminism is about taking one side or another. It is about supporting the right of women to take the side of their choice.

      June 28, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
    • CM

      You obviously hate feminists, obamaniac, which makes your argument worthless!

      June 28, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.