Let me see if I've got this straight. In 1998, Mike Huckabee signed onto a full-page ad in USA Today supporting the Southern Baptists' position that:
A wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.
Fair enough, assuming you go in for that sort of arrangement. But then earlier this week, perhaps a tad on the defensive, Huck reassured ABC News that a woman would and "absolutely" should become president--meaning leader of the entire nation--one day soon.
So how exactly would that work? If, say, Hillary becomes POTUS, does that mean in Huck's fantasy world that she would, when push came to shove, be obliged to submit to Bill's authority? Would this be on any matters of state in which hubby happened to have an interest--meaning he would effectively be running the country again--or just in the domestic arena? Huck also said he has no problem with all the gals fluttering around the halls of Congress. What does he consider to be the proper power dynamic vis-a-vis their husbands? Presumably, Huck sees some bright-line distinction between a wife's role regarding her career and her role in family affairs. But that seems like an awfully tricky hair to split.
This is all too vexing for my poor little brain to handle. Clearly the most prudent course of action is simply to let the men run everything so as not to muddy up the chain of authority. At least, that's what my husband tells me.
--Michelle Cottle