The Truth in Print Vol. 22 Issue 11, Dec. 2016

A Publication of the Valley church of Christ,

2375 W. 8th Street, Yuma, AZ 85364 (928-782-5058)

 

Website Address ~ http://yumavalleychurchofchrist.com

 

Sexism ~ Forced Heterosexuality ~ Patriarchal Society (Part Two)

 

   Of course there are good things that can be sought and fought for that benefit women (see introduction to Part One). But the warning in Part One is that one must not lose sight of the complete picture — powerful forces are at work in our society that are all about the empowerment of women seeking to change our own culture, and not for the better — all one has to do is go to the Media outlets and see that lesbian, trans*whatever, gender self identification — all of these and more have become a boast of power to overtake our culture and enforce their lesbian feminist point of view upon us. Young women and daughters must be warned about the great number of “filthy women” in our society, and not just about filthy men.

   Moreover when feminists speak of “patriarchy” and a “patriarchal society” while defining it as meaning men hold the position of power in various venues — and thus include and decry the man as a husband and “head of the family unit” they again strike right at God’s “order” concerning the husband and wife relationship in marriage (Cf. Eph. 5:22-24 and context). You might desire to go back and look at “The Bible doesn’t command a social disease but a God ordained relationship in marriage” included in Part One.

  Our monthly newspaper article for November 2016 gives emphasis to the effect that PC is having on students’ minds so far decent dress is concerned:

 

“Surely Horrifying and Sexist ~ That Anyone Would Think Immodest Clothing Would ‘Oversexualize’ Young Women’s Bodies”

 

     So what’s wrong with decent dress codes? Students’ use of political correctness power (PCP) charges that some policies are discriminatory, racist, sexist and “patriarchal.” The drumbeat is “This is patriarchy!” All of the Big 4 (DRSP) were used by students at Boston Latin School to protest their impending new dress code that bars such things as see through clothing, clothing with profanity or sexually explicit or suggestive material, leggings worn without shorts or skirts, “gang-related” clothing, as well as rap styles, and states wear waistbands above the hips. This is said to “discriminate against female students and minorities.”

   A junior girl student is quoted as saying, “After reading it, it seemed it was mostly addressed to girls and people of color.” The race card is often played by adults in the work place who slander fellow workers for their own personal gain.  Students claim this code reinforces “a patriarchal society where men can decide whether a female’s clothing is appropriate or inappropriate.” P.C.P. has taken decency from our youth whose real problem is with respect for authority. Never has God decided anything in the comments coming from these students! Young women need to read I Tim. 2:9-10.

   A student is quoted as saying: “Catering towards making sure that boys are not ‘distracted’ by female bodies is frankly horrifying and sexist.” A male against “patriarchy” is quoted as saying “Females shouldn’t have to moderate what they wear because of me.” Boys do pick up on this to their own advantages! Young men likewise are admonished to be sober minded, Titus 2:6.

—————— end

 

What Is So Called “Forced Heterosexuality”?

 

    When I saw a nice picture of a young couple (he wasn’t Mr. Muscles nor she a beauty queen) strolling down a beach holding hands and then looked at the heading for the article indicating “Compulsory Heterosexuality”or “Forced Heterosexuality” —- I thought what’s the connection here? With some further reading what it turns out to be is our society is supposedly “romanticizing” heterosexuality and that ties to what radical feminist teach about patriarchy. In other words they’ve been left aside. This garbage projects a male dominated society that promotes an assumption that “the only normal sexual relationship is between a man and a woman” —- and “Society enforces heterosexuality, branding as deviant any deviance or noncompliance.” Men get blamed for everything! This is where this in general leads — it’s all you mens’ fault you bunch of gloating sexist homophobes.

   I found myself amused with this statement: “The normalcy of heterosexuality and the defiance of that are both political acts.” Yeah sure! Where is the politics in Gen. 1:27-28 at the beginning when God created male and female? This strikes right at God’s order for mankind as Paul said they do in Rom. 1:18 — “they suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” Read again about Adam as the husband and Eve as his wife in Part One. This was God’s order not a human invention — and longstanding, I Pet. 3:5-7, Gen. 2:25, 3:6. 

   Moreover take some time to read about the “virtuous woman” in Prov. 31:10-31.  Do it and you will find that she was industrious and got full credit for her own works and that well deserved. And she chose a good husband (Pr. 31:23) — no pain coming from me in telling you that (Cf. Gen. 2:20).  Abigail was also a wise woman (I Sam. 25) — on the other hand for whatever reason she made a poor choice in husbands and married a rogue and scoundrel — she admitted as did her servants that’s what he was  — but she didn’t “hook up” with a woman after God killed wicked Nabal for that would be an abomination (Cf. Rom. 1:26-27).  There is no such thing acceptable before God as a “she” who is the husband of another “she” who is her wife. Yet children are being intentionally confused in being taught this kind of language early on now.

   It did not surprise me at all to see compulsory or forced heterosexuality tied to patriarchy and melded with gender self-identification. Here’s a quote: “Behind the theory of compulsory heterosexuality is the idea that biological sex is determined, that gender is how one behaves, and sexuality is a preference.”

   In a reference to Adirenne Rich, who it is said popularized the phrase “compulsory heterosexuality” in her 1980 essay “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,” one author states that she argued from a lesbian feminist view point that heterosexuality is not innate in human beings, and asserted that women can benefit more from relationships with other women than from relationships with men. Concerned reader, one needs only to read Romans 1:26-27 in context to understand that “the penalty” for practicing lesbianism is not a benefit for any woman! It was stated that C.H. according to Rich’s theory “is in the service of and emerges from the subjection of women to men.” And that “Men’s access to women is protected by compulsory heterosexuality. The institution is reinforced by norms of “proper” feminine behavior.”

   It is said that Rich did not believe women could really have power “Until women can have nonsexual relationships with other women, and sexual relationships without the imposition of cultural judgment.”  You see from the standpoint of the New Testament the “whole” is full of the works of the flesh and that tells you what Rich thought of God’s Word (Cf. Rom. 1:26-27; I Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19 etc.).

   It is explained that Rich argued that a patriarchal male dominated society insists on C.H. because men benefit from male female relationships, thus society romanticizes the heterosexual relationships; men perpetuate the myth that any other relationships are somehow deviant.

   Further the reference to Adirenne Rich said “During the 1970s, lesbian feminists were occasionally shunned by other members of the Women’s Liberation Movement. Adrienne Rich argued that it was necessary to be vocal about lesbianism to break the taboo and reject compulsory heterosexuality that society forced upon women.”

   Again the author referencing Rich said “Rich is said to have written ‘that since human’s first bond is with the mother, both males and females have a bond or connection with women.’ Other feminist theorists disagreed with Adrienee Rich’s argument that all women have a natural attraction to women.”

   So what we see today, and have seen throughout this year and before, is what Rich dreamed of society and more women accepting in the 1980s. Other feminists couldn’t stomach this kind of thinking and conduct, and thankfully women who understand what it means to be a woman still reject this kind of thinking and conduct.

   I’ll close with this point. It is said that other names for this and similar concepts are “heterosexism and heteronormality.” They do consider God’s order for mankind as sexism!

 

To learn more call, visit or visit our website at:

http://yumavalleychurchofchrist.com

Back to the Table of Contents

Home