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: