Lilith- by certain forms of biblical
Mysticism- is Adams first wife before eve. Not made from Adam but from dirt as his complete equal. She is generally held as a “demonic” figure and depending on the text is said to have bore children with a demon or even Lucifer himself. Supposedly, in other texts, Cain was actually the son of Lilith and Abel the son of Adam and Eve. Accounts differ if Adam or a demon was the father of Caine but most say a demon. Hence why Caine was not favored and why he “invented” murder- his evil nature. Caine is then said to have traveled to Canon, and the Caninites are said to be his partly demonic descendants. This version usually holds (such as Ethiopian orthodox Christianity) that the caninites and Caine himself were the offspring of angels who were sent to watch but were seduced to mortal pleasures and defied god to sleep with human women. This view holds that the flood of Noah was God’s way to wipe these “abominations” from the earth.
Literally the first woman in, not just the bible, but the torah, expresses toxic femininity to the point she was literally kicked out of the bible except for one line. And the fact that god apparently had to start over with a rib. I mean.... for something/someone that is supposed to be omni-w/e... that is a hilarious fuck up.
So, Lilith left Adam after she refused to become subservient to him and then would not return to the Garden of Eden after she had mated with the archangel Samael. That alone was causation enough to almost completely wipe her out of existence save but a couple measly mentions.***
So how I see it- a woman, created equal to the first man, refused to be treated as less than him, found pleasure/happiness in another, and was banished along with all of her entire line of existence. Then she gets even less than an honorable mention and is painted to be evil.
*
Yeah... how does toxic masculinity not play into that argument?
Man and woman created equal. Man tries to dominate. Woman says (in essence) fuck that. Woman has affair after realizing first husband is a controlling pos. Man gets offended and wipes all but a couple mentions of her from Earth. Man goes further and agrees to erase her descendants.
I do agree with maebubbles. I mean- the moral of that story to me is that Adam was a little beta bitch who couldn’t handle a woman who was equal to him. This is a story many women can likely relate to- so he tried to hold her back instead of upping his game because he was a sensitive little manling, she wilded out, moved to a bigger town, jumped on some arch angel with a motorcycles dick, and then Adam and his new girlfriend wrote a bunch of shit posts and told a bunch of stories about how terrible his cheating ex was. I mean look- if we assume for this discussion these holy texts are real- we are left with two possibilities. 1. God really thinks women should be subservient to men, not speak unless spoken to, not speak in church and basically be property... or... the events were written and rewritten by men over the ages and the original message was obscured by their perspectives and bias in writing. The latter seems most likely since no singular major church uses an in edited...
... and complete version using all known period documents which are written to be considered cannon. We know that there are various translations and we also know that many translations and versions of these texts were edited or the translations most favorable to the political stance of the translator or their patron were chosen. So historical precedent supports the idea that there is bias in the translation and composition of these texts- as such it is not a far stretch to assume there was similar bias in the writing. Unlike documents said to have been directly transcribed by a deity- the abrahamic texts are very clear that whoever the words belong to, the person writing them was someone else, and they were writing them after the fact from memory or recreated accounts of third or even farther removed parties.
Yeah, and do people really expect me to take "toxic masculinity" seriously after this? @guest_ as I said before, people being garbage isn't gender exclusive. Good thing that I don't even have to waste time going over that this once.
In a world without gender some people would still be trash. I also think she’s way off base in her logic and wrong. However her being a loon doesn’t discredit the idea of toxic masculinity. Newton not only believed that if he recreated the temple of Solomon he could predict the apocalypse- but that he could use alchemy to gain immortality. That didn’t discredit Newtonian physics or his mathematics. Joseph Priestley Discovered oxygen, invented carbonation- and he also believed whole heartedly that the universe was elemental in nature and everything was made of fire, water, etc. other scientists didn’t agree- and used oxygen to prove him wrong by discovering oxidation and advancing the understanding of chemistry. So even great minds are capable of bat shittery- but having a few crazy or demonstrably false beliefs doesn’t invalidate every thing a person might believe is wrong. That’s basically gas lighting.
I like how so many of the scientific advancements in history are discovered out of spite. "Oh, you think this is how it works, do you?? I'll prove YOU wrong!"
Except science can be proven by facts. And when feminists are the ones who routinely deny the existence of science to push their agenda (just look up any article that talks about how any biological differences between men and women are made up), they are already out of the picture. At this point, we should do away with the term of "toxic masculinity", and just come up with something else, because it has been irrepairably corroded by the cancer of modern feminism.
I argue she is wrong. She is wrong for several reasons. “Traditional Feminity” if treated as a male invented and imposed directive is by its nature toxic. In an age of female choice, women must develop their own ideals of feminitu which may or may not by their choice incorporate elements of “traditional feminity.” However- this “new feminity” is still being developed. Women are at a stage where they are discovering what they want feminity to mean and “negotiating” with society for acceptance of that. So for now- this “new feminity” cannot be judged as toxic as it hasn’t yet established itself or had a chance to show the long term ramifications of the emergent idea of femininity. The commentor is completely wrong as well though. Manipulation, lies, false accusations etc. are not elements of feminity or exclusive to women. The commenter is a bitter person who is upset at the system and is blaming her or feminity for those things.
But “toxic masculinity” doesn’t mean “men are toxic because they are men”. It refers to stereotypically masculine traits that have been inflated to the point of being harmful to men. Like the idea that boys don’t cry, or that men should always pay for dinner, or that “boys will be boys”.
So, yeah, “toxic femininity” exists too - it’s those concepts like being the stay home mom or serving one’s husband, which we now acknowledge to be toxic when treated as societal law.
I’m not saying toxic masculinity means men are toxic for being men. One must separate sex from social constructs. “Masculinity” is that behavior which we expect or define “men” by socially. Toxic masculinity is linked to traits like exaggerated aggression or emotionally limiting ones self, or an idea of “manifest destiny” inherent to gender. As for “feminity”- we are still defining that. Most of our standards of feminity are rooted in archaic ideas about women. There is nothing toxic about being a house wife, but there is toxicity in expecting women to be housewives exclusively. That is not an aspect of self defined feminity however. That is an aspect of toxic masculinity which sought to define a woman’s role. It only becomes a toxic element of feminity if the de facto standard is for women to force each other to be house wives. Women can have toxic emotions and behaviors- but presently there is not an accepted definition of feminity as women have only recently been given enough...
... freedom to define what feminity means to them, and there is not a consensus approaching a majority of acceptance as to what exactly is “feminine” in 2019 by men or women. Riding motorcycles and working with your hands, wearing pants or playing sports, fighting, sex- these things have been opened up in ways that make them no longer exclusive to a given gender where once by default one would say that a “lady didn’t do such things,” ladies can now do many things without losing feminity. It’s important when discussing feminity that we not conflate “weak” with feminine or “strong” with masculine- which is another aspect of toxic masculinity.
No, it's at best an outdated social stereotype. Because men are physically stronger than women on average, and that was firmly ingrained in society for as long as it existed. A stereotype doesn't have to be true, but if it's mostly true, as this one is, there is no reason to combat it. Unless you feel offended because the stereotype doesn't represent you, and it's not always meant to. And I know you aren't representative of the feminist crazies, but to them, men are toxic for being men. And even though they are a minority, they are a very vocal minority, just look at how many bullshit articles they are pumping out.
I don’t mean literal physical strength. I meant metaphorically. Strong. Character, ambition, resolve, power, courage, endurance, fortitude. Taking Equal samples of the population of each group- there isn’t a period outside of fossil recovers where one could argue that the “average” woman could match the “average” man in untrained or equally trained strength. A man’s skeleton is going to be stronger in general as well. It’s just biology. So you won’t get any disagreement from me on your points- and there are a good deal of vocal and rabid “feminists” who use the label to justify a desire to hate or subjugate men. Women haven’t been historically treated well and they are bitter and want “revenge” against men who may benefit from that legacy but didn’t create it- and largely are willing to change it going forward if we can agree what changes are reasonable and prudent. Some women do see men as trash by birthright just as some men see women as objects by birthright.
Mysticism- is Adams first wife before eve. Not made from Adam but from dirt as his complete equal. She is generally held as a “demonic” figure and depending on the text is said to have bore children with a demon or even Lucifer himself. Supposedly, in other texts, Cain was actually the son of Lilith and Abel the son of Adam and Eve. Accounts differ if Adam or a demon was the father of Caine but most say a demon. Hence why Caine was not favored and why he “invented” murder- his evil nature. Caine is then said to have traveled to Canon, and the Caninites are said to be his partly demonic descendants. This version usually holds (such as Ethiopian orthodox Christianity) that the caninites and Caine himself were the offspring of angels who were sent to watch but were seduced to mortal pleasures and defied god to sleep with human women. This view holds that the flood of Noah was God’s way to wipe these “abominations” from the earth.
@granlobomalo you don't see how the idea of the first woman screaming toxic masculinity ends the argument?
So how I see it- a woman, created equal to the first man, refused to be treated as less than him, found pleasure/happiness in another, and was banished along with all of her entire line of existence. Then she gets even less than an honorable mention and is painted to be evil.
*
Yeah... how does toxic masculinity not play into that argument?
Man and woman created equal. Man tries to dominate. Woman says (in essence) fuck that. Woman has affair after realizing first husband is a controlling pos. Man gets offended and wipes all but a couple mentions of her from Earth. Man goes further and agrees to erase her descendants.
So, yeah, “toxic femininity” exists too - it’s those concepts like being the stay home mom or serving one’s husband, which we now acknowledge to be toxic when treated as societal law.