Some of the more unbelievable excerpts from this new book:
“But I want you to understand something, it is not your responsibility to keep your wife in the marriage by any means necessary, and certainly not by giving in to her willful, rebellious and sinful behavior.”
“Change your bank account so her ATM card becomes worthless. Cancel your credit cards. If she does have a job, stop paying for anything in her name and make her pay for any credit that is in her name. The Bible only requires that you provide her with food, clothing and shelter. It does not say that food and clothing has to be the fancy kind she likes to get.”
“You have the option to divorce her for her sexual immorality.”
The breakdown reads like something from decades ago when women were much more reliant upon their fathers and then their husbands to eek out a living, and assumes that women are completely unable to be self-reliant. Not to mention that none of what this book seems to contain is good advice for a healthy relationship.
This article is rather campy, but the original quotes are brilliant.
Mike Huckabee posted on his Facebook page:
“I may be lonely, I may be the only one, but I’m going to stand absolutely faithful to the issue of marriage not because it’s a politically expedient thing to do because it isn’t. I’m going to do it because I believe it’s the right position, it’s the biblical position, it’s the historical position.”
And here was the answer:
“There is no one biblical position on marriage, there are many and they include situations in which a soldier could take a POW as a wife, where a rapist was forced to marry his victim after paying her father 50 shekels (but only if he was caught) and polygamy. Does your support for biblical marriage mean you do not recognize interfaith marriages? Do you think marriages should be arranged and that women should be subservient to their husbands? Is there an upper limit on the number of wives and concubines or are you in the “As many as you can afford” camp? Do you think brides who cannot prove their virginity should be stoned to death?
I’m guessing it’s a big “Yes sir!” on the subservient thing because treating women as equals, doing right by them and working towards consensus is harder than reminding your partner that the Bible says she is a sandwich maker.
Historically speaking marriages could be dissolved if there were no offspring produced. Are you in favor of this pre-Christian convention? I’m not. I believe in love and I think the Christians got it right on that one. Speaking of Christians and the historical position: You people don’t always get it right. Same sex marriages were performed in ancient Rome, Greece, Mesopotamia, Africa, Asia and across the western hemisphere in the pre-Columbian era and, as John Boswell noted in his ‘Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe’ same-sex marriages were pretty normal up until the Christians took over in Europe.
So you can drop the “not because it’s a politically expedient thing to do” crap.”
Feminism is not a bad word, or at least it should not have a negative cogitation. It’s simply the idea that women are people too, and should be treated with the same respect, and have access to the same rights, as male counterparts. It’s not hard to see that women are suffering in our world for being female.
When I first started reading the articles and watching the videos about the Iowa City dentist who fired his assistant because of his emotions and concerned over his marriage, my first thought was that the story had somehow been distorted by the media to look worse than it was. After all, this is a modern day and age, and while women clearly still encounter sexism all the way from subtle slights to major knock-downs I would have thought that being fired for anything along the lines of “looking pretty” would be a blatant no-no. (Although the reality of being fired for not being pretty enough is a whole other reality many women face.)
It really doesn’t matter what this dentist’s excuses were for firing his assistant; the bottom line is that he did it and labeled it in sexual terms. This is one of the things that people have the hardest time understanding—that women should not be responsible for controlling men’s sexual desires or emotions. This is a spin-off of rape ideology in that the victim is blamed for being raped because she asked for it, that it was her fault for drinking, for dressing provocatively, for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, for fill-in-the-blank. This dentist’s assistant was fired for being attractive and employed in close proximity to this man. This type of thinking shifts the blame from the truly guilty party and enables them to continue their destructive and abusive behavior.
My big question is how this would have gone down if the dentist had been a woman and she had fired a male assistant for emotional reasons and to protect her marriage. Can you imagine the names that woman would be called, the slander that she and women in general would face? People would rally behind that man, because he was wronged.
All of life is a power dichotomy.