I hope not to alienate one of our few allies in the world of SD political blogs, but this post on Madville Times and the subsequent comments are interesting enough to me to merit a response. Cory suggests that Pastor(?) Hickey earns some "feminist credentials" for being the first to notice the sexism inherent in Todd Epp's 'babe' postings. While Hickey denies being a feminist, he expounds on his view of women in a fashion that is, to my mind, distinctly anti-feminist.
Hickey shares some of what he teaches the women who attend his church - that they are "'more refined' as in fine china," and "fashioned" by God with "more creativity and attention to detail" than men, since, according to the creation story, Adam was created from dust.
Literally ever since American feminists met and organized for the first time to articulate a platform of political and social equality, they've fought notions like Hickey's. 'Fine china' has no place in the real world - it should be protected behind glass, put on a pedestal to be displayed and admired (remember what started the latest 'blog war' in the first place?), and brought out only on special occasions. It's the same old saw that the earliest feminists heard - women (particularly white, native-born women) were too delicate to participate in the electoral process, attend college, work in the professions, exercise vigorously, ad nauseum.
And it's what pro-choice women and men hear today from Hickey and his followers - that women are too fragile to make good decisions about themselves and their reproductive lives, and need to be saved from making a decision they'll regret later. That womens' bodies, lives, and futures aren't really our own, and that others (religious officials, politicians, husbands, fathers, men generally) are the people who are qualified to make choices for us. To be clear, though - this isn't just about abortion - in one of the best blog posts on the 2008 election Rebecca at Flying Tomato Farms expressed the connection between anti-abortion laws and women's public lives better than I ever could.
So, you know - kudos to Hickey for calling out Todd's posts (I didn't pay attention to Epp's blog then and don't now), but let's try to scale back the hyperbole as we (re-)hash recent events. Hickey's teachings serve no purpose but to limit women's opportunities and deny us equality - in public life, within the family, and with deeply personal issues like contraception and abortion.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Thanks, Anna.
And thanks for commenting on the fine china "compliment."
Gee, who do you think has been your ally on reproductive issues through the years? SD Watch has been. I have been. But a few "babe" photos and I'm lumped with Hickey. Thanks. Looks like that doesn't matter to you and your colleagues. Thanks for the short memory.
I'll have to use that one some time. "Hey black people, I totally own a Malcolm X tshirt -- I think I've earned the right tell a racist joke if I damn well please! Hey GLBT community, I canvased against Amendment -- I better get to call stuff gay now!"
Wow, great to see that Todd is pro-comment again. Love these fun little exchanges.
Sigh. And yet another comment thread is derailed by Todd Epp's never-ending hissy fit.
Since we're way off-track already...
As with most "scandals," Todd, this is more about the coverup than about the offense itself. We know you're our ally - on paper. Your hot chick posts are silly and they objectify women. I think all of us separated our view about those posts from you as a person.
But then!
YOU made this personal.
YOU are the one running around picking fights instead of trying to understand why so many people criticized those posts.
Your reaction to this is completely out of order, and it says more about you than the original posts that started this mess ever did.
Anna, we survived Clinton vs. Obama; we can survive this without alienation.
I don't buy the china-cup stuff either (although I did have an interesting discussion with Erin last night about whether we could logically establish the moral superiority of women if we cannot identify a sin unique to women comparable to the sin of objectification that seems uniquely male. No clear answer on that question yet. Is there some such unique female moral failing?) But it is worth noting that, in this particular blogospheric conversation, if we Venn-diagramed everyone's positions, we might (might) well find your circle, Anna, and my circle intersecting just a sliver more of Pastor Hickey's circle than Mr. Epp's.
I think all 'uniquely male sins' come down to power and privilege rather than any gender or sex-based difference. In almost all unequal power relationships, the dehumanizing flows downhill.
Or,,, one could interpret what I wrote to mean women are superior, more fit to lead and be deciders and that men are basically a step above dirt.
This blog truly is written by a heartless team of angry, self-obsessed, unhealed haters.
Amazing to watch here that you actually do eat your own.
I don't think I've ever met a feminist who thought women were superior or that "men are a step above dirt." Your condescending argument about women's moral superiority and men's inferiority has nothing to do with feminism or with anything that is in women's best interests.
Since you campaign to make abortion illegal, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth on this issue. There is no way that women - whose reproductive lives would be totally at the mercy of the state if you had you way - could be equal in that kind of society, much less superior. And you know that very well.
Boy, if this is the way you liberals treat each other, I'm staying Libertarian!
Is it possible that you could more misunderstand my point?? What language do you better understand?
I'm egalitarian. I'm not arguing that women or men are superior to each other. In my comment here earlier I was merely pointing out that most people might draw the exact opposite conclusion to a plain reading of what I wrote than you did in this imbecilic post.
Every other religion puts women on a far far lower level, I was showing passages that even the playing field again.
I'm not playing anything both ways - every human being has value and rights - women, men, including males and females in their earliest forms. At the point a women is given the sacred honor and privilege in partnering with God to nurture a new human life, she has no right to kill it whether it's in her womb, her baby crib or her back yard. The "place" the life resides has no bearing on it's inherent right to life.
I am truly convinced that sometimes threads like these are started to do nothing more than burn time with an argument. Those comments from Hickey are compliments, nothing more and nothing less.
God Bless you, not everything has to be a fight.
Women are better off without Hickey's "compliments."
Post a Comment