Look at the kind of uplifting message that Ken Hutcherson, pastor of Antioch Bible Church delivers to his flock. (Seattle Pi Op-Ed):
Ah, “Christianity” - what a feeling!Hutcherson has gotten headlines for his efforts to pressure Microsoft on gay issues. He has a right to his views — views he supports with texts from Scripture. Reasonable people can disagree over whether gay marriage is a good idea.
But Hutcherson goes beyond reasonable, at least to judge by the report of Seattle psychologist Valerie Tarico. Tarico, a former staffer at Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center, was raised in a fundamentalist church. In recent months, she has made it her business to attend services at many of the large, conservative churches in the Seattle area, including Hutcherson’s, to see what’s going on.
On a Sunday when Tarico was present, Hutcherson was preaching on gender roles. During his sermon, Hutcherson stated, “God hates soft men” and “God hates effeminate men.” Hutcherson went on to say, “If I was in a drugstore and some guy opened the door for me, I’d rip his arm off and beat him with the wet end.”
“That was a joke,” Hutcherson said Friday, when I asked him about the comment. But it’s not really funny, is it?
What it sounds like are the kinds of words that have paved the way for atrocities in such places as Serbia, Kosovo and Rwanda. You have to dehumanize somebody before you beat them up. Labeling some men as “soft” and “effeminate” and saying “God hates them” does that.
Past posts on Hutcherson are here.
51 Responses to “Pastor Hutch jokes about ripping off the arm of a polite effeminate man”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Opening the door for somebody is now a mortal insult worthy of a savage maiming followed by a beat-down? Truly this is the weirdest of all possible worlds.
Note: if you see Hutcherson coming to the drugstore behind you, SLAM THE DOOR IN HIS FACE! Otherwise he will dismember you for a joke.
This is why I think Christianity is part and parcel for the anti-faggotry that passes for masculinity responsible for the self hatred that creates young school shooters.
I am truly glad that I was not eating anything as I read that.
“I’d rip his arm off and beat him with the wet end.”
That is repulsive. I’m not sure if even Bushco would go there, or Huckabee.
…at which point, the soft man (http://hsm.wikia.com/wiki/Ryan_Evans) expertly danced out of his reach, allowing mr.beefy face to plant onto the floor.
Ah, my fake html was eaten.
[ / my over active imagination ]
Seriously? Opening a door. Who knew I was commiting a capital crime every time somebody was entering or exiting a building in close proximit to me? But I suspect the pastor is lying, since he’s not in prison for murder yet. Either that or he lives in the least polite place on earth. Nobody’s ever held a door for this guy?
in response to libdevil,
.
actually, if I knew that man personally I would probably let the door slam in his face. But then again I’m a laaady and soft and effeminate and such, so it wouldn’t occur to me to hold it open anyways
Women dread being propositioned by men whom they find unattractive, and men dread the exact same thing. The reason being that in either case the person on the receiving end of the come-on is held to have incited it. So that a woman who gets flirted with by a man she doesn’t care for runs the risk of being categorized as slutty or capricious (which, God knows, is bad enough) but man’s risk is much greater—he runs the risk of being categorized as effeminate. We as a society can boast enough cultural headroom to contain the idea of a (female) harlot with a heart of gold but we have yet to conceive of the idea of a (male) homosexual with the same golden heart. Until we do, there will always be guys out there who feel the need to defend their honor against an unwarranted approach. (They have to be able to prove that the approach was unwarranted, you see.)
The principle at work here is the same principle that strives to force a woman to prove that she’s been pure in thought and deed her entire life long before she can dismiss any particular man’s advances as unjustified. In situations like these the burden of proof is always on the defendant; that’s why so many heterosexual men’s (especially insecure heterosexual men’s) worst nightmare is to have a door opened for them by another man. I don’t wonder that some of them respond with the verbal violence they display (which is not to excuse the Rev. Hutcherson’s crap; I don’t doubt that he’s just trying to cause trouble; Lord knows that’s the usual pattern with him).
I love the unquestioned assumption that by targeting “girly-men” for verbal disdain (if not actual physical violence), he’s automatically proving his “manly-man” bona fides.
Because intolerance of differences is a required masculine behavior. WTF?…
Opening a door for someone is flirting? Oh God, all the people at my school must think I’m a total slut.
yeah, nothing like tarring all Christians with the feathers of one Christian’s less than Christly behavior.
there are plenty of quite vocal Christians who don’t think Hutcherson is behaving in a Christly manner towards gay folks. some of them attend his church and feel it’s a problem that obscures the positive messages he has preached on. some have left his church for other churches because of this entire issue– their premise being if he is going to be rude to one group of people, that’s not really a very good example of how to be Christ to any other group of people.
You have to dehumanize somebody before you beat them up. Labeling some men as “soft” and “effeminate” and saying “God hates them” does that.
Yes, you are absolutely correct. This is why I find the characterizations of “MRAs” and “FRAs” here to be sad examples of intolerance intended to beat up on people that have legitimate issues that we, as feminists and progressives, should be listening to.
If you visit Glenn Sacks’ blog, you’ll find many people, male and female, straight and gay, with positive views on feminism and positive views on gay issues. You’ll find assholes too, but for the most part, the community there is very quick to let them know that their hate, stupidity, and dehumanizing propaganda is out of line.
Modern Feminists and Modern Fathers are very close together, it’s a shame this site participates in keeping them apart by the use of objectionable, dehumanizing, intolerant, name calling that passes of ignorant false propaganda for argument.
Wow, to say this guy has issues is an understatement. He sounds a tad defensive- who wants to bet he has some bathroom stall/ foot-tapping action going on during his spare time?
You have to dehumanize somebody before you beat them up. Labeling some men as “soft” and “effeminate” and saying “God hates them” does that.
Yes, you are absolutely correct. This is why I find the characterizations of “MRAs” and “FRAs” here to be sad examples of intolerance intended to beat up on people that have legitimate issues that we, as feminists and progressives, should be listening to.
If you visit Glenn Sacks’ blog, you’ll find many people, male and female, straight and gay, with positive views on feminism and positive views on gay issues. You’ll find assholes too, but for the most part, the community there is very quick to let them know that their hate, stupidity, and dehumanizing propaganda is out of line.
Modern Feminists and Modern Fathers are very close together, it’s a shame this site participates in keeping them apart by the use of objectionable, dehumanizing, intolerant, name calling that passes of ignorant false propaganda for argument.
How nice that killing queers has it’s advocacy in the pulpit.
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/22/another-gender-non-conforming-person-murdered/#comments
Snark fails me. That motherfucker is insane.
“God hates soft men” and “God hates effeminate men.” Hutcherson went on to say,
“See the nice boys - dancing in pairs
Golden earring golden tan
Blow-wave in the hair
Sure they’re all straight - straight as a line
All the gays are macho
Can’t you see their leather shine?”
_Real Men_, Joe Jackson
Opening the door for someone proves you’re soft? I always thought courtesy was the obligation of the strong. Wasn’t there once a tradition about that, called chivalry?
I’m not fond of second-hand personality analysis, but I have agree that Hutcherson has issues. Hit me with the wet end of what, a baby’s arm holding an apple?
And no, most men don’t fear being propositioned by other men, or even, unfortunately, other women. It just doesn’t happen often enough to worry about it (or hope for it). (Okay, that may be just because I’m ugly.)
I’ve had it happen, and the results were variable: sorry, I’m not that way; hell, yes! well, okay, if I have to; well, okay, if you want to; sorry, not interested this year.
The most painful part is disappointing someone else, so I try to avoid the situation. But it’s ridiculous to be outraged over the very idea that someone might covet your ass.
Wow.
Opening a door for someone is grounds for dismemberment?
Thank God I’m an atheist!
Personally I’ve always made it a point to open a door for people since I was an incident that occurred when I was a teenager. I was entering a store and didn’t look behind me and the door closed behind me and hit a pregnant woman. Didn’t hurt her, thank goodness, she looked more startled than anything. But in the last thirty years, I’ve always looked behind me when I entered a door and if someone was behind me, I would hold it open.
It’s just a matter of being polite for Christ’s sake!
Wow. Opening a door for someone is grounds for dismemberment?
Thank God I’m an atheist!
Personally I’ve always made it a point to open a door for people since I was an incident that occurred when I was a teenager. I was entering a store and didn’t look behind me and the door closed behind me and hit a pregnant woman. Didn’t hurt her, thank goodness, she looked more startled than anything. But in the last thirty years, I’ve always looked behind me when I entered a door and if someone was behind me, I would hold it open.
It’s just a matter of being polite for Christ’s sake!
Wow. Opening a door for someone is grounds for dismemberment?
Thank God I’m an atheist!
Personally I’ve always made it a point to open a door for people since I was an incident that occurred when I was a teenager. I was entering a store and didn’t look behind me and the door closed behind me and hit a pregnant woman. Didn’t hurt her, thank goodness, she looked more startled than anything. But in the last thirty years, I’ve always looked behind me when I entered a door and if someone was behind me, I would hold it open.
It’s just a matter of being polite for Christ’s sake!
RALPH NADER just declared he’s IN THE RACE on “Meet the Press”.
Why can’t Hutch pick a worthwhile target like MRAS and FRAs?
Valerie Tarico, mentioned here, has written a book about what it was like to be a fundamentalist. I found it exceptionally informative. If anyone’s interested: The Dark Side: How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth
Nothing like putting words in someone’s mouth for rhetorical effect, eh asshole?
That doesn’t happen here. But it’s a shame this site lets liars like you disrupt the discussions.
“Modern Feminists and Modern Fathers are very close together, it’s a shame this site participates in keeping them apart by the use of objectionable, dehumanizing, intolerant, name calling that passes of ignorant false propaganda for argument.”
Wait a minute! Pandagonians can’t do that! We’re too busy “tarring all Christians with the feathers of one Christian’s less than Christly behavior”…
And BTW, which is it? Are we tarring or feathering? Or does the Secret Pandagon Agenda require alternating each week?…
oh damn, MikeEss, you beat me to first blood while my comments are in moderation. *pout*
MikeEss
From what I remember from Canadian history class, where the loyalists were being persecuted when the European-American colonists were pulling their “with us or against us”, it’s both.
The tar ensures that the feathers stick on, it’s suppose to mean that the loyalists who voiced their opposition to the violent colonists (who were clearing the land of Brits as well as natives during that time) were chickens.
And BTW, which is it? Are we tarring or feathering? Or does the Secret Pandagon Agenda require alternating each week?…
Just pray. The Great Mouse will provide all answers.
“The tar ensures that the feathers stick on, it’s suppose to mean that the loyalists who voiced their opposition to the violent colonists (who were clearing the land of Brits as well as natives during that time) were chickens.”
Don’t we need to ride them out of town on a rail too?…
I guess we know where all those stories about men being treated horribly for opening doors came from: Pastor Hutch!
Don’t we need to ride them out of town on a rail too?…
The decline in trains serving the US may make this difficult. I believe a Greyhound bus or, in a pinch, economy class on any budget airline would serve as an adequate substitute.
bad Jim, as I’ve admitted before on this site, I’m old (45). Hutcherson is, I think, around 10 years older; IOW, he was born right in the middle of the baby boom and I was born at the mangy tail end of it. What I’m talking about are social sanctions which still prevailed in our day but which were, thank Heaven, already starting to fade; I’ve noticed that during the last 30 years or so they’ve eroded even further, which is cool, if for no other reason that it proves that there’s a lot about human behavior which isn’t inscribed in the genes or written in the stars but which is, instead, due to the instructions people receive about the conduct that’s appropriate to their station in life.
Hutcherson’s schtick reminds me of nothing so much as the anti-’mo bravado that some of the (male) kids in my high school used to engage in. Remember that this was a hick high school tucked up into the far upper left-hand corner of the nation and planted pretty far back in the woods—even so, most of the young men I went to high school with did not converse in this strain. But then again, no one went to any great effort to stop the ones who did, since the vibe that was then in the air dictated that young men who disapproved of such talk had best not object to it aloud, because if they did, somebody might get the idea that there was something kinda funny about them too.
Since then the vibe has changed: I recognize that and am glad of it; Hutcherson, OTOH, recognizes it without being glad of it. He confuses the disappearance of a social sanction with the erosion of a moral standard—or says he does. He seems to be the kind of guy who was comfortable in his junior high school milieu, has done his best to reproduce the same type of environment in his adult life—who doesn’t want the rules of his game he learned to play in ‘64 or ‘65 to alter. And why should he? The rules of that game have proven to be very profitable for him. I’ve written before that I don’t believe Hutch has any real objection to the existence of LBTG people because he’s been able to make such a good thing out of picking on them. The day Hutch’s brand of nagging goes out of style once and for all is the day Hutch has to find an honest job, which Hutch, understandably, would just as soon not do. I mean, there’s no doubt that the man has found his vocation, wouldn’t you say?
For Hutcherson, when A opens the door for B, it shows that A thinks B is “soft.” As a corollary, since A and B are both men, A thinking B is soft could be an implicit proposition for teh buttsecks, which warrants termination with extreme prejudice.
Opening the door for a man is clearly either a challenge (I think you’re weak, prove that I’m wrong) or an invitation (I think you’re like a woman, and when you allow me to open the door, you validate that it’s true).
So there are two reasons why B gets to rip the arms off A. Q.E.D.
Once when I was leaving a restaurant, an older lady (70ish) was coming in, so I just thought it would be nice to hold the door open for ten seconds so this lady could come in. Another olderish lady was with her, so I kept holding the door. Immediately after they walked in, a 40ish man started to come in. He saw that I, an 18 year old girl, was holding the door open for him, a full grown male who is totally capable of opening his own doors, thank you very much, and gave me this dirty look. Then he held the door open so I could walk out. And it was all sorts of awkward.
I usually don’t stand and hold the door open. I usually walk out but if there’s someone immediately behind me or coming in, I’ll hold an arm back to keep the door open for a second or two. Long enough for that person to get through, not so long that I’m stuck holding it for everybody, you know?
When did general politeness become equivalent to homosexuality?
I open doors for people regardless of gender, age, or anything else. I wasn’t aware that is was a gender role stereotype.
Also, I wonder what ol’ hutch would do if the person opening the door for him was not some small, effeminate swish, but a large, hairy, over-muscled leather-daddy? Think he’d still try to pick a fight?
What would be better would be if he did try to attack some effeminate swishy guy for holding the door open, then got clobbered by the swishy guy’s big leather daddy who close by. That would make me smile.
In case it wasn’t clear, when I wrote what holding the door “clearly” meant, it was to be ironic. I hold the door for people constantly and never once worried that it would be read as a come-hither to a panicky homophobe.
Frankly, the notion that reasonable people can disagree about marriage equality is way more offensive to me than such obvious stupidity as joking about ripping people’s arms off.
When did general politeness become equivalent to homosexuality? - The Ogre
Interestingly, there is a strain of wingnut fundie who’ll bash the likes of Pastor Hutch asking that very same question and then go on to complain about “teh gay agenda” for people making this equivalence. You’d be amazed at what fundies’ll blame on ye olde gay agenda.
I’m so confused. I thought it was MORE masculine to hold doors open for people, as in, an old-fashioned polite god-fearing gentleman sort of thing?
I’ve never understood how this hatred of soft men could be reconciled with the Gospels.
The Christ of the Gospels had a forceful personality, yes, but he was also a committed pacifist, who spent most of his time hanging out with other men and helping the poor.
Christ rarely, if ever, made any kind of show of overt masculinity, or perhaps I should say, what modern repressive culture considers to be masculinity.
So… Were do guys like this get this idea that god hates meek people who go out of their way to be kind to others?
Ah, but the old-fashioned polite god-fearing gentleman holds doors open for _ladies_. So Hutcherson thinks that anyone for whom the door is held open is being treated as a lady. And them’s fighting words.
“Frankly, the notion that reasonable people can disagree about marriage equality is way more offensive to me than such obvious stupidity as joking about ripping people’s arms off.”
Because joking about how awesome and right it is to kill people perceived as gay never promoted or normalized violence against gays? And that’s assuming that he was being truthful about the joke thing, rather than recognizing that what he said was too hateful and hyperbolic to get a pass on once it was heard outside his church.
Exactly.there are plenty of quite vocal Christians who don’t think Hutcherson is behaving in a Christly manner towards gay folks.
If they don’t like being lumped together with people like Hutchison, perhaps they should do more to shun people like Hutchison and drive them into the fringes of religious society, as opposed to what they generally do now, which is pretty much nothing.
And no, posting on blogs about how many right-thinking (but silent) Christians there are out there doesn’t cut it.
Not entirely. The thing is that women are expected to always accept the advances of men who come on to us, whether we find them attractive or not. (One reason is that women aren’t allowed to be picky. The other reason is that we’re expected to reward men for being brave enough to ask us out.)
Straight men are aware of this obligation (although try getting them to admit it) so they fear gay men’s advances. If straight women must accept the advances of straight men, that must mean that straight men must accept the advances of gay men. Hence, the violent reaction.