We've moved!

Social Icons

twitterfacebooklinkedinrss feed

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Pastor Hickey Claims Feminist Credentials...

...and he might be right.

Far-right blogger and Church at the Gate pastor Steve Hickey is claiming credit for leading the outrage over the ratings-grab sexism of reinvented South Dakota blog Middle Border Sun:

The left half of the South Dakota blogosphere, and now the right, is fully caught up in an outrage that I was first to decry… liberal blogger/attorney Todd Epp's sexism with his new "Babe of the Day" feature [Pastor Steve Hickey, "Babe of the Day—Gianna," Voices Carry, 2009.06.09].

Indeed, Hickey was on the watch to defend women's rights... although decry might be a little strong. Hickey's original feminist stand was more of a glancing rhetorical swipe in the midst of a much longer screed building the case that MBS blogger Todd Epp had misrepresented, libeled, and endangered Pastor Hickey.

But the core of Pastor Hickey's claim is true. He was this week's original feminist.

You can read the outrage here and here. I couldn't agree more, human beings are valuable even if they are undesirable to some. Our worth is not in anyway related to how perfect we are. We can't keep treating people as objects to be used and discarded [Hickey, 2009.06.09].

Hickey can't avoid putting the argument in abortion terms... but then I've been known to hammer my own issues with crossover language from other arguments (I could easily turn this argument to decry private insurers who use people for profits then discard them the moment they actually need health coverage).

Meanwhile, good Catholic and dad Pat Powers says Pastor Hickey is wrong, that this little kerfuffle is silly, and that it's o.k. to be a pig. After all, "finding the opposite sex attractive is hardwired into our systems, and does help in keeping the species going." Powers then proceeds to set an example for his daughters by posting pictures of women he calls hot.

Powers stunningly misses the point. Pastor Hickey, Prairie Progressive, Flying Tomato, Anna, That Girl, Angie, and I aren't talking about referring to women as pretty. We're talking about referring to women as hot.

Hot. As in in heat. As in inviting sex. As in I'm going to project my desire to have sex with that woman who is probably not my wife and never will be onto her so that it feels in my brain as if its her fault that I'm a pig thinking about screwing her.

To any of you who still don't get it, I propose the daughter test. If you don't have daughters available, try it with a friend's family. The test works best with other people, especially your wife, in the room.
  1. Turn to one daughter and say, "You are very pretty."
  2. Turn to another daughter and say, "You are very hot."
Does #2 make you feel creepy? Will it make you feel creepy if I come to your house and say it to your daughter?

Pretty and hot are not the same thing. Neither are admiration and objectification.


  1. Yes, Hickey got there first. He got there first because, as one of the Dakota Women pointed out, many of us feminists aren't actually reading Todd's hits-mongering babe-gawking blog with any regularity.

    I found out about the whole thing right here at the Madville Times!

  2. Thought it'd be a blessing to drop a few devotional gems here this morning for SD feminists - straight out of chp 10 of my book - Releasing Women Everywhere.

    When the Bible calls women "weaker vessels", it not just an obvious reference to less strength - the word "weaker" is better translated "more refined" as in fine china. A case could be made from that text that men are as a cheap tin cup compared to women who are as finer china.

    It could be said women are twice refined as man was formed/shaped from dust and then the Bible says God fashioned the woman out of man's side. Man was "shaped" from raw material, then women were "fashioned" from what God first created in man. Adam and animals were shaped/formed. The woman was "fashioned." Fashioning requires more creativity and attention to detail than does raw forming.

    I know I'm giving the Dakota Women more fodder to hate men and say, "Look here pigs, it's right in the Bible, suck it!"

    One last gem - the progression on the 6th day of creation goes from "good" to "not good" to "very good". It was "good" at the point of the creation of the animals. Then came Adam and it was "not good for man to be alone." The day ended with VERY GOOD only after God saw the women.

    This is the kind of thing we impart into our daughter and the hundreds of women and girls at CATG. That, and what is true of every girl AND boy - that they aren't just the next mistake in some evolutionary unguided mindless process. (That philosophy destroys them and precious life is thrown away and no one has any inherent worth apart from how they look or what they accomplish.) Rather we teach our kids they each were conceived in the mind of God before the creation of the world and that his dream for their life only manifests in their mothers womb at conception.

    Your title that I'm "claiming feminist credentials" isn't totally accurate. I teach this stuff and others label me things like "the church feminist."

    As far "right" as you all like to paint me - in terms of self-identification - I'm not with the "religious right". Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Especially on the issue of women I've been hammered by not-so-egalitarian colleagues in conservative Biblical scholarship. Women are free at CATG and what a great day it is when women figure out who they are in God. Women are beautiful. So are men. Just like it shows here on this cover of my Jason Upton CD, Beautiful People...


  3. Good point, Cory.

    But we'll have to make our points solely on our own blogs now, as Todd's new policy is to remove your, my, and the Dakota Women's comments from the "Today's Babe" discussion.

    Yowza. Sexism and censorship--a winning combination?


Comments are closed, as this portion of the Madville Times is in archive mode. You can join the discussion of current issues at MadvilleTimes.com.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.