Debating the existence of toxic masculinity/femininity

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Did you read that in a llewellen book on wicca?  Because it goes so much deeper than that. What existed before everything else? The dark. So where did everything come from? The spark. The spark is the light, the mother, the goddess that exists within the dark. The literal womb of all creation that utilizes the raw material of the dark to create.

Modern paganism is just one of the latest interpretations of this concept. And they have it wrong because they don't tell the entire story. Many ancient peoples worshiped the sun as the source of feminine energy, especially northern cultures who saw the sun as the source of life, the mother and the moon as the father. It did not flip in many cultures until patriarchal driven religions invaded and forced conversion.

Look at the yin yang. Male is light and female is dark but contained within each is a component of the other. This is the balance of both the light and the dark, not the suppression of either. It represents the paradox of dual monism in reality. That the source of the force is from the combination of BOTH!

When the literal spark within the dark ignighted creation, life emerged, literally chi or the force, manifested as the opposite aspect of the creator component, the light, the female and the dark, the male. The dark is the fuel of creation and the light is the spark of ignition. Only together do they make up the engine that drives life forward.

I didn't necessarily get it from a book. Although, certain written knowledge did help my observations. They weren't a part of what I would consider pagan or wiccan. I am aware of a lot of their ideas, though. I know that from below it appears that everything came from nothing, or that it existed first. I'm also familiar with some of the Sun Mythology, moreso the male aspect of it..

However, from observation, that doesn't seem to be the case. The source for male and female IS the same. Much deeper, they are only different manifestations of the same Power. The dualism we see between the two is superficial. Essentially, it's just this Force interacting with itself since it is alive.. essentially.. if you consider that the same atoms in a nebula will condense into stars, planets, then complex living organisms possibly..

In regards to the Power itself. It's the same substantive energy that fills, and is the stuff that makes up the universe(s). Matter is just one version of it. Also, it isn't created, nor can it be destroyed. It just is and always has been, even if imperceptible to the darkness. Like we can also see in nature. This Power creates opposite charges on a macro and micro level. Being the source of both.. It, in and of itself, is both Father and Mother..

My view of yin/yan is that the "Male" portion is Spirit-light expanding. While the "Female" is Spirit-light contracting.

It's not all that complicated. A Power that is the source of ALL would exhibit all qualities.. but, as said in certain Qabalist circles, Light and Darkness themselves exist as a true dichotomy. Being forever opposed. Darkness being counteractive and a counterproductive influence. Seeking to reduce everything to 0. Whereas this Power is 1 repeatedly multiplying seemingly at infinitum..

Of course there are deeper, real world applications of these types of things.. but it's really simple in thought.. Everything is this living Light-energy, and this Living Energy is The Force.. the depth of which is impossible to imagine.. Darkness just seems like a void, a space to be filled..

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: I think you may have lost me a bit on some of your points? The questions I was referring to were the deeper questions of life, not the questions of labels. However if I'm reading your comments correctly you are asking how these labels affect individual freedoms in a society and that is what you are concerned with?

Well yes, the deeper questions of life come to each in their own time and form. Whether or not one sees them is on them. On the topic of the thread, yes I think that the topic of these types of labels warrants discussion because of the affect on personal liberties. I was wondering your thoughts on that. Remember though we label everyone one way or another, some more harmful than others. Are we in this situation highlighting something "Toxic Masculinity" that is designed to limit personal freedoms?

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

I think we're seeking answers with the wrong question here..

I don't think it's whether or not there's toxic masculinity or femininity. I think the real question is when and how twisted concepts such as conquest and jealousy arise from them..

The answer to which, I feel, goes back to the deeper realities of both masculinity and femininity. What are they, and how do they exist?..

If, in their perfection, they are both complementary towards each other and exist in perfect harmony. What is it that brings about imbalance in either or to the harmony as a whole?..

Some would say, in other words, that there is an entropic influence that works against them and the unity(kether) as a whole. Where life seeks to reveal. It conceals. Where life seeks measurement. It seeks disarray.. so on and so forth.. If this is the Truth of reality. Then it stands to reason that Masculinity and Femininity aren't toxic, but that toxicity creates perverse versions of those powers..

^^^^^^^that is a way than I can explain what I was getting at!

Thanks Uzima!

Much Love, Respect, and Peace,
Kobos

Uzima Moto wrote: I didn't necessarily get it from a book. Although, certain written knowledge did help my observations. They weren't a part of what I would consider pagan or wiccan. I am aware of a lot of their ideas, though. I know that from below it appears that everything came from nothing, or that it existed first. I'm also familiar with some of the Sun Mythology, moreso the male aspect of it..

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sun-goddess_b_884568

http://www.lionpath.net/zwoelf.html

Uzima Moto wrote: However, from observation, that doesn't seem to be the case. The source for male and female IS the same. Much deeper, they are only different manifestations of the same Power. The dualism we see between the two is superficial. Essentially, it's just this Force interacting with itself since it is alive.. essentially.. if you consider that the same atoms in a nebula will condense into stars, planets, then complex living organisms possibly..

Wouldn’t this source that you call the force also be the source of the [superficial] dualism we see in light and dark?

Uzima Moto wrote: In regards to the Power itself. It's the same substantive energy that fills, and is the stuff that makes up the universe(s). Matter is just one version of it. Also, it isn't created, nor can it be destroyed. It just is and always has been, even if imperceptible to the darkness. Like we can also see in nature. This Power creates opposite charges on a macro and micro level. Being the source of both.. It, in and of itself, is both Father and Mother..

My view of yin/yan is that the "Male" portion is Spirit-light expanding. While the "Female" is Spirit-light contracting.

Father and mother, male and female are terms that are relative to one another. Meaning one cant exist without the other to compare it to. So they are also not absolutes, separate or distinct unto themselves. Nothing in existence is just male or female. Each of us is both. It is the flow of the energy that defines this. This is the very idea of the yin and yang. Light is not male and dark is not female. They are both because they are one.

Our very bodies are both as well. My head is above my feet so my feet are yin and my head is yang. However my head is also yin (below) compared to the clouds which are yang. All things are both in relative terms in this way. Light and dark are the exact same way. How dark is dark? Can you have absolute light? In both cases the answer is no. Both yin and yang are both dark and light because light and dark do not really exist. It is one thing expressed through time and space that our limited minds can only view as different constructs.

Uzima Moto wrote: It's not all that complicated. A Power that is the source of ALL would exhibit all qualities.. but, as said in certain Qabalist circles, Light and Darkness themselves exist as a true dichotomy. Being forever opposed. Darkness being counteractive and a counterproductive influence. Seeking to reduce everything to 0. Whereas this Power is 1 repeatedly multiplying seemingly at infinitum..

Of course there are deeper, real world applications of these types of things.. but it's really simple in thought.. Everything is this living Light-energy, and this Living Energy is The Force.. the depth of which is impossible to imagine.. Darkness just seems like a void, a space to be filled..

Why do light and dark get this special dispensation? If this power is the source of all would it not also be the source of light and dark? Dark and Light are qualities right? If they are qualities then they must exist in some form. Meaning you can never have an absolute of either one. Even darkness, that thing you call the void, must have attributes to exist. That primary attribute must be a place or space to be dark. If we are absent the very forces of nature that create reality, darkness would also be missing, just as the light. Neither one can exist in nothingness. To assign the attribute of “dark” to nothingness gives it a quality and then it becomes something and can no longer be nothing.

Energy is something not void or nothingness and if it is the source of everything it must also be the source of both the dark and the light, making each one just as necessary for creation as the other. Both are deeply infused into reality and we use both to navigate this reality. I can see no other logical conclusion to this idea than this.

Kobos wrote: Well yes, the deeper questions of life come to each in their own time and form. Whether or not one sees them is on them. On the topic of the thread, yes I think that the topic of these types of labels warrants discussion because of the affect on personal liberties. I was wondering your thoughts on that. Remember though we label everyone one way or another, some more harmful than others. Are we in this situation highlighting something "Toxic Masculinity" that is designed to limit personal freedoms?

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

I dont believe the label is designed to limit personal freedoms but to shame personal freedoms. Not only that but to shame attributes of an entire gender by means of projection and stereotyping. Now having said that if the practice would be allowed to go unchecked it could lead to limiting of personal freedoms. If legislation gets passed that restricts certain behaviour or speech it could be used as a legal weapon against otherwise innocent victims following natural biological callings or expression of individuality. Humans have had to deal with such atrocities all through history. Many times these were enacted by religious superstition but the manner in which these labels are being thrown about today by the SJW are touted with that same religious dogma and we need to be ever vigilant of that sort behaviour or it will lead to the eventual criminalization of our very thoughts.

Uzima Moto wrote: I don't think it's whether or not there's toxic masculinity or femininity. I think the real question is when and how twisted concepts such as conquest and jealousy arise from them..

I find this wording particularly interesting. Why do you describe these concepts as "twisted"? If they are twisted what purpose do you feel they serve? Where did they come from and why do they exist?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: I dont believe the label is designed to limit personal freedoms but to shame personal freedoms. Not only that but to shame attributes of an entire gender by means of projection and stereotyping. Now having said that if the practice would be allowed to go unchecked it could lead to limiting of personal freedoms. If legislation gets passed that restricts certain behaviour or speech it could be used as a legal weapon against otherwise innocent victims following natural biological callings or expression of individuality. Humans have had to deal with such atrocities all through history. Many times these were enacted by religious superstition but the manner in which these labels are being thrown about today by the SJW are touted with that same religious dogma and we need to be ever vigilant of that sort behaviour or it will lead to the eventual criminalization of our very thoughts.

That is kind of it though right, where does shaming become precedents for Law. Certainly labels previously in world and US history based on certain traits one cannot control have been used to discriminate lawful expression of rights. Where does this begin and where does it end? Does this type of terminology allow for precedence to form by selecting certain groups to shame, can it and does it make certain groups act within the confines of their label? For example the publicity of the gangsta life style has for sure swayed many young people to act and espouse this life style, in response to it's demonetization (or becoming a counter culture if you will) resulting in the societal consequences. Is this a term that is capable of that type of outcome?

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Kobos wrote: That is kind of it though right, where does shaming become precedents for Law. Certainly labels previously in world and US history based on certain traits one cannot control have been used to discriminate lawful expression of rights. Where does this begin and where does it end? Does this type of terminology allow for precedence to form by selecting certain groups to shame, can it and does it make certain groups act within the confines of their label? For example the publicity of the gangsta life style has for sure swayed many young people to act and espouse this life style, in response to it's demonetization (or becoming a counter culture if you will) resulting in the societal consequences. Is this a term that is capable of that type of outcome?

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

It becomes precedent for law through a myriad of mechanisms I suppose. Propaganda, mob or regime rule, fear and misinformation could all be included. I don't know if you can define a beginning and an end to such things.

I don't think the term can actually enable the groups themselves to act within the confines of the label outside of the perceptions of the accusers themselves. You talk of the gansta lifestyle, yes its swayed young people but they are not actually embracing the actual tenets of such a lifestyle. Meaning they will emulate the role by dressing the part and talking the part but they dont actually form real gangs that enact violence. There is a difference between emulation and enactment here. Besides that, these people embraced a trend already started because it was glamorized in some way. This is not the case with terms like toxic masculinity. Its not glamorized in any way as "rebel" lifestyle to embrace. So I dont see the former as carrying any societal consequences but the latter as having definite societal consequences. The first is inconsequential, the second is an attack.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Kobos wrote: That is kind of it though right, where does shaming become precedents for Law. Certainly labels previously in world and US history based on certain traits one cannot control have been used to discriminate lawful expression of rights. Where does this begin and where does it end? Does this type of terminology allow for precedence to form by selecting certain groups to shame, can it and does it make certain groups act within the confines of their label? For example the publicity of the gangsta life style has for sure swayed many young people to act and espouse this life style, in response to it's demonetization (or becoming a counter culture if you will) resulting in the societal consequences. Is this a term that is capable of that type of outcome?

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

It becomes precedent for law through a myriad of mechanisms I suppose. Propaganda, mob or regime rule, fear and misinformation could all be included. I don't know if you can define a beginning and an end to such things.

I don't think the term can actually enable the groups themselves to act within the confines of the label outside of the perceptions of the accusers themselves. You talk of the gansta lifestyle, yes its swayed young people but they are not actually embracing the actual tenets of such a lifestyle. Meaning they will emulate the role by dressing the part and talking the part but they dont actually form real gangs that enact violence. There is a difference between emulation and enactment here. Besides that, these people embraced a trend already started because it was glamorized in some way. This is not the case with terms like toxic masculinity. Its not glamorized in any way as "rebel" lifestyle to embrace. So I dont see the former as carrying any societal consequences but the latter as having definite societal consequences. The first is inconsequential, the second is an attack.

Yet , it is the trendy thing to be on topic about recently. To label somthing subject or discriptive toxic is some times not to label the actions but where to find them. Toxic character dwells in all of us - wether we call it masculine feminine light dark grey - actions speak louder than worlds. Rude is rude - lies and betrayal - shadyness are neither gender faith nor any thing like that specific. A jerk is a jerk. I would say it exist as long as the term is used. Sadly. We can combat it in our own circles as well as our own family and friends by how WE act - never by how others do.
Peace and the Force find ya!