Astrology and Sexism

Skimming through my archives, looking for something to click a switch in my head and lighten inspirational darkness, I hovered on a post from the summer of 2011:
Thoughts on Misogyny, Misandry & Sexism. With Hillary Clinton in the presidential campaign run once again....hmmm.

BRIEF SNIP

Misogyny: The hatred of women. Misandry: The hatred of men. Sexism: The belief that one gender is superior to the other........................
C.E.O. Carter in his Encyclopedia of Psychological Astrology has no entry for misogyny, misandry or sexism. I suspect because in the mid 1920s when the book was written these were not yet perceived as problems; or if so, in certain enlightened circles, an author - even an astrologer - might shy away from voicing an opinion on the matter, if selling books and maintaining a reputation was the aim. I've noticed quite a bit of sexism arising in casual turns of phrase in old astrology books I've picked up in antique/junk stores.

I doubt that a tendency towards sexism or gender conflict is identifiable in a natal chart. These are most likely the result of life experience, or era-related societal culture. I've noticed, even more often, since writing that post, that sexism does creep into the text of some older astrology books. Scratching around the net for more on how sexism might have crept into astrology generally, and why, I came upon a good piece at the CURA website (most reliably good astrology articles on the net are there, in my estimation).
The Repression of the Feminine in Astrology by Shelley Jordan

SNIP from introductory paragraphs:

Astrology's Hidden Agenda

Anyone studying the techniques of traditional astrological interpretation with eyes open will inevitably be struck by its prejudicial assumptions. Most astrology texts state flatly that certain factors in the birth chart lend themselves to either ease or difficulty of life and expression. For example, detriments, exaltations and the like still send chills of fear or excitement up and down the spines of many astrologers. After all, isn't it supposed to be 'good' to have a planet in exaltation and 'bad' to have a planet in detriment? And in spite of a recent well-intended and humanistic stretching of definitions, aren't certain planets still considered fundamentally preferable to others?

Even more pervasive and persistent in its judgmental nature is the evaluation of the aspects as either 'good' or 'bad'. An insidious dichotomous thinking surrounds aspect interpretation, which, at its roots, is both sexist and racist. There is a largely unknown historical, numerological basis to this dogmatic but unrecognized prejudice that precludes the possibility of reform and evolution in the field of astrology.

The major Ptolemaic aspects, the trine, sextile, square and opposition have traditionally been divided into two general categories. Trines and sextiles are typically considered favorable, desirable, harmonious, easy, creative, and soft. Squares and oppositions are described as discordant, afflicting, stressful, frustrating, challenging and hard. Astrological erudition has, until very recently, been dominated by cookbooks representing trines and sextiles as patently good, squares and oppositions as inherently negative. It is commonly asserted that a chart for an auspiciously blessed life will preponderate with trines and sextiles between beneficent and well-placed planets. The infelicitous and the unendowed will have baleful squares and oppositions to afflicted bodies. This superstitious and erroneous litany regarding the dangers of certain astrological conditions permeates nearly the entire corpus of astrological literature.

There's more food for thought in that piece. We have to keep in mind, though, that astrology's basic doctrine comes from eras and cultures where societal norms were so very different from today's in the West. It's easy for us in 2015 to do a bit of revisionism, criticise early and even much later astrologers; we "know the ending", or the results as far as we've reached to date. What we should be criticising is any astrology/astrologer who continues to allow any hint of sexism into their writings, interpretations and advices.

A natal chart does not indicate gender. The "masculine/feminine" polarity dictated by astrological lore is usually referred to as masculine/feminine or positive/negative; both less than ideal ways to express what the polarity indicates in human terms. Some astrologers use Chinese terms yin and yang instead. (Wikipedia) In Chinese philosophy these describe how apparently opposite or contrary forces are actually complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another.

Virginia Woolf put it another way:

“It is fatal to be a man or woman pure and simple; one must be woman-manly or man-womanly. ... Some marriage of opposites has to be consummated.”
~ Virginia Woolf, A Room of One's Own

What the world is missing is more of what humans have come to see as "the feminine" in all humans - not necessarily just more female humans in power, though I guess that could help on the surface, depending on the female humans involved! A healthy respect for "the feminine" in all humans, alongside equal respect for "the masculine" would be a good starting point; seeing people first as people, not as a gender would help too.

Mercedes de Acosta - Writer, Lesbian, Lover of the Stars.

While searching for, perhaps, a poet to feature on this February/March cuspy weekend, I came across mention of one Mercedes de Acosta. I'd never heard the name before, but read through a little of what's available about her on the net. Well...poet she was, and author of books of prose, and scriptwriter - but her gifts in those spheres must have paled in comparison to her sexual attraction - and to her own gender. She's remembered, these days, for her many passionate love affairs with some of the most celebrated and beautiful women of her generation, including Isadora Duncan, Marlene Dietrich, Eva Le Gallienne, and Greta Garbo. She was openly bisexual years before what has become known as the sexual revolution . In 1920, she married painter Abram Poole, the marriage survived for 15 years, though perhaps with husband and wife living apart for much of that time.

It is reported to have been a boast of Mercedes de Acosta that she could "get any woman from any man." I guess it could be said that Mercedes' sexual prowess was aided by her hot Latino bloodline. She was born into an affluent New York family , youngest of eight children, on 1 March 1893 in New York City. Her father, Ricardo de Acosta, was of Cuban and Spanish descent; her mother, Micaela Hernández de Alba y de Alba, was Spanish and reportedly a descendant of the Spanish Dukes of Alba. The family lived in a wealthy area of the city; the good and the great of those times were often entertained as family guests. Her sister, Rita Lydig, became a well-known, fashionable socialite.

During the 1920s, Mercedes was a well-known figure in New York's high society circles, but also in some of its lower dives - drag clubs and speakeasies. In her own words: “These were years guided by the spirit of the New. We were on fire with fire, with a passion to create and a daring to achieve.” She became a student of eastern religions, a strict vegetarian and an early feminist. Mercedes would have none of the era's uncomfortable female fashions - she quite often favoured trousers.

According to a source :

As a young child, Mercedes firmly believed she was a boy. She was raised Roman Catholic and tended toward the extremes. Mercedes played with boys, believing she was just like them, until age seven, when she realized her anatomy differed from her friends'. According to Hugo Victors, author of Loving Garbo, de Acosta recalled of that moment, "[E]verything in my young soul turned monstrous and terrible and dark." She was sent to a convent to adopt more feminine ways. She often ran away, claiming she could not be defined as either boy or girl but perhaps as both. This flexibility extended to her spirituality, whereby she proclaimed to have no belief or faith in dogma, but rather is reported as saying, "I believe in taking the essence from all religions and arriving at your own creed." Unfortunately, her confusion often led to bouts of depression.

Robert A. Schanke, Mercedes' most recent biographer, after extensive research, acknowledged that Mercedes was "flawed and imperfect, a complex woman who impaired several of her relationships and failed to achieve her professional and romantic aspirations." But the author also reveals her to have been an exceptionally lively, intelligent, and dynamic person who had many devoted friends. She was, he argues, a brave lesbian of her times and a person of integrity who remained kind and loyal to most everyone with whom she crossed paths. He suggests that the many denigrating portrayals of her may derive from the deep homophobia of her generation. (See here)

Mercedes spent her last years poor and lonely. Paying many medical bills resulting from various illnesses and surgeries, had impoverished her to the point where she'd even had to sell her diamonds. Her 1960 autobiography, Here Lies the Heart, alienated many of her friends, who claimed the book to be wildly exaggerated and even blatantly untrue.

Mercedes de Acosta died in May 1968, aged 75.

A very good website of biographer Robert Schanke has lots more detail in several sections, and many photographs.


ASTROLOGY

Born on 1 March 1893 in New York City. No time of birth is known, chart is set for 12 noon.

Pisces Sun (self) was in harmonious trine to Uranus (avant garde) in Scorpio (sex, eroticism) - a clue!

Sun also sextile Mars (the masculine), with both planets linking via quincunx (150*) to Saturn - possibly indicates an innate but scratchy relationship of a female/masculine self funnelled through Saturn (work - her writing)? Saturn in Libra, the apex of that Yod, also links harmoniously to the generational Pluto/Neptune conjunction in Gemini, combining creativity and sexiness/darkness.

What else? We can't know Moon's position without a time of birth - was it Leo or Virgo? Leo seems most fitting, but Virgo is ruled by Mercury and Mercedes was a writer. So - take your pick!

Venus, planet of love and art in Aquarius links to her avant garde nature and Venus lay in helpful sextile to Jupiter in Aries, which, being translated = a whole lot(Jupiter) of love (Venus).

Across the Great (gender) Divide

A topic at Nourishing Obscurity blog a few days ago caught my interest. "Can Men & Women Ever Be Just Friends?"
I resisted commenting initially, then later found that a commenter had responded much as I'd have done, i.e. (in a nutshell) that the trick is to look on people as people, not sexes. This is a topic I've argued on many times, blogged about on occasion too. However, I'm guilty of slipping into the gender trap myself at times, we all are. The issue rests upon stereotypical ideas which we are reluctant to relinquish, in some ways akin to the stereotypying that can go on (if the astrologer isn't careful) in Sun sign astrology.

While searching for something else yesterday I came across an old post of mine from March 2008 which touches on a related topic. The post: He & She or We was inspired by a conversation with a relative and friend (husband's son-in-law). Because the topic, in various guises, never seems to lose fascination I've decided to re-air the archived post, not because of anything scintillating I had written on the subject, but for the extract from an excellent article by Steven and Jodie Forrest the post contained.

HE & SHE or WE

A brief e-mail exchange at the weekend brought me back to a subject I've argued on more than a few times. Male and female - are they really so different? I've never subscribed to that old "men are from Mars, women are from Venus" rubbish.

My e-mail correspondent (the husband's son-in-law)wrote:
"I do believe, however, that female and male priorities and methods differ, and that the difference is based on physiological and psychological factors that are innate."

That was in reply to my:

"Maybe I'm a feminist with a small f, though I prefer to think there's little difference between male and female when you get past the obvious dangly bits and wobbly bits. We're all just humans, fighting to be thought of as such, irrespective of gender, orientation, nationality, race, colour, ethnicity."

Trying to sort out a reply which covered my own view but didn't entirely disagree with his, I floundered around the internet for clues and happened upon this excellent article by highly respected astrologers Steven and Jodie Forrest.
"Border Wars: Male - Female".

I'll take the liberty of copying a few paragraphs from the long article; reading it in full is highly recommended.

"Many years ago we met a man who impressed us greatly. His name was J. C. Eaglesmith. He was Native American, a holder of the Sacred Pipe, a veteran of the ordeal known as the Sun Dance. A former marine who served in combat in Vietnam, he weighed maybe 250 pounds and most of it looked like muscle. In short, when it came to masculinity, he made the average tough guy look like your grandmother's knitting.

He stood before us at a conference, talking about "male" and "female" and what those words really mean. His eyes steady, his face impassive, he addressed us in his deep baritone. "I am half woman." A moment's pause, a hint of a smile, then: "My mother was one."

We all laughed. So did J. C. But what he said was true. Physically he is a man. But that just diagrams his plumbing. Once we recognize that a human being is far more than a mass of cells and bones, we enter the realm of mystery. And in that realm no one is as simple as a beard or a breast.

Humanity is realizing this, and it's knocking the stilts out from under a picture of the world that's held us in thrall for ten thousand years. "I am half woman." "I am half man." Those words represent a revolution just as profound as the discovery that the Earth is a sphere floating in the void.

Male and female. What do the terms really signify? Apart from anatomy, perhaps no one really knows. Women cry more than men, but why? Are women inherently more emotional or have they been trained that way? Men are more aggressive. Again, why? Testosterone -- or training? No one knows. Nature and nurture are inseparable. What we intrinsically are blends seamlessly with what we have been taught to imagine we are."

Astrology is referenced in this context mainly by the Sun and Moon, signifying "the masculine" and "the feminine" respectively. The Sun and Moon form a very important part of every astrological natal chart, equally important whether the chart belongs to a man or a woman.The authors go on to say:

"Does astrology, arguably the truest mirror in humanity's possession, suggest that there are no psychic or spiritual differences between men and women? The truth is, astrology's rather mum on the subject. But it certainly implies that, whatever those differences might be, we've spent a lot of years and a lot of lives overestimating, exaggerating, and misdefining them. Every man has a Moon. Every woman has a Sun. One of the darkest skeletons in astrology's closet is the fact that astrologers were not the first to point out that awkward fact.

Still, we have that cryptic clue in the sky: the Sun and the Moon shine down on all of us, whether we start the morning with shaving cream or a choice of skirts. And if there's anything to astrology, then the Sun and the Moon resonate somehow in every one of us, unless we collude in the ancient deception.

How did this whole mess start? Let's go way, way back, long before cities, before agriculture, before the peaceful years of the Neolithic; back into the first ninety-nine percent of our species' history."

The authors go on to explain that back in the mists of time male and female were forced by circumstance to deny or, we could say delegate, their "other" side. Males because of their superior strength had to kill to eat and to survive. In the act of killing they needed to supress their compassionate feminine side, which the male, through necessity, thrust on the female. Similarly the female, hamstrung by bearing children and nurturing them, often watching them die in harsh circumstances, had to supress her anger and frustration or all humanity might have died. She thrust the responsibilty for anger and violence upon the male... "let him be the one to have enough pride and illusions of glory to rage against nature's heavy hand".

So, both son-in-law and I may be partially correct. Every one of us is cut from the same cloth, but through evolution and force of circumstance we've been bent out of shape.

A couple more paragraphs:

"Today, many women are rediscovering the Sun. It heals them, makes them whole. They are finding their solar power: their self-reliance, their voice, their creativity, their ability to shape the myths, symbols, and future of society.
Meanwhile, men are beginning to rediscover the Moon. They too are healed and made whole as they reabsorb their own lost lunar capacity to love, to ask for help, to cry, to feel, to nurture.

That's the good news.

The bad news is that both women and men are terribly out of practice with their Suns and Moons. They don't know quite what to do with them yet. As this epochal reintegration takes place, there is a period of awkwardness. Like a blind man whose vision has been restored, the acquisition of these "new" solar and lunar functions causes both genders to spend a while bumping into things."

(Steven and Jodie Forrest's website can be found HERE)

He & She or We

A brief e-mail exchange at the weekend brought me back to a subject I've argued on more than a few times. Male and female - are they really so different? I've never subscribed to that old "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" rubbish.

My e-mail correspondent (the husband's son-in-law)wrote:
"I do believe, however, that female and male priorities and methods differ, and that the difference is based on physiological and psychological factors that are innate."

That was in reply to my:

"Maybe I'm a feminist with a small F, though I prefer to think there's little difference between male and female when you get past the obvious dangly bits and wobbly bits. We're all just humans, fighting to be thought of as such, irrespective of gender, orientation, nationality, race, colour, ethnicity."

Trying to sort out a reply which covered my own view but didn't entirely disagree with his, I floundered around the internet for clues and happened upon this excellent article by highly respected astrologers Steven and Jodie Forrest.
"Border Wars: Male - Female".

I'll take the liberty of copying a few paragraphs from the long article, but reading it in full is highly recommended.

"Many years ago we met a man who impressed us greatly. His name was J. C. Eaglesmith. He was Native American, a holder of the Sacred Pipe, a veteran of the ordeal known as the Sun Dance. A former marine who served in combat in Vietnam, he weighed maybe 250 pounds and most of it looked like muscle. In short, when it came to masculinity, he made the average tough guy look like your grandmother's knitting.

He stood before us at a conference, talking about "male" and "female" and what those words really mean. His eyes steady, his face impassive, he addressed us in his deep baritone. "I am half woman." A moment's pause, a hint of a smile, then: "My mother was one."

We all laughed. So did J. C. But what he said was true. Physically he is a man. But that just diagrams his plumbing. Once we recognize that a human being is far more than a mass of cells and bones, we enter the realm of mystery. And in that realm no one is as simple as a beard or a breast.

Humanity is realizing this, and it's knocking the stilts out from under a picture of the world that's held us in thrall for ten thousand years. "I am half woman." "I am half man." Those words represent a revolution just as profound as the discovery that the Earth is a sphere floating in the void.

Male and female. What do the terms really signify? Apart from anatomy, perhaps no one really knows. Women cry more than men, but why? Are women inherently more emotional or have they been trained that way? Men are more aggressive. Again, why? Testosterone -- or training? No one knows. Nature and nurture are inseparable. What we intrinsically are blends seamlessly with what we have been taught to imagine we are."

Astrology is referenced in this context mainly by the Sun and Moon, signifying "the masculine" and "the feminine" respectively. The Sun and Moon form a very important part of every astrological natal chart, equally important whether the chart belongs to a man or a woman.

The authors go on to say:

"Does astrology, arguably the truest mirror in humanity's possession, suggest that there are no psychic or spiritual differences between men and women? The truth is, astrology's rather mum on the subject. But it certainly implies that, whatever those differences might be, we've spent a lot of years and a lot of lives overestimating, exaggerating, and misdefining them. Every man has a Moon. Every woman has a Sun. One of the darkest skeletons in astrology's closet is the fact that astrologers were not the first to point out that awkward fact.

Still, we have that cryptic clue in the sky: the Sun and the Moon shine down on all of us, whether we start the morning with shaving cream or a choice of skirts. And if there's anything to astrology, then the Sun and the Moon resonate somehow in every one of us, unless we collude in the ancient deception.

How did this whole mess start? Let's go way, way back, long before cities, before agriculture, before the peaceful years of the Neolithic; back into the first ninety-nine percent of our species' history."

The authors go on to explain that back in the mists of time male and female were forced by circumstance to deny or, we could say delegate, their "other" side. Males because of their superior strength had to kill to eat and to survive. In the act of killing they needed to supress their compassionate feminine side, which the male, through necessity, thrust on the female. Similarly the female, hamstrung by bearing children and nurturing them, often watching them die in harsh circumstances, had to supress her anger and frustration or all humanity might have died. She thrust the responsibilty for anger and violence upon the male... "let him be the one to have enough pride and illusions of glory to rage against nature's heavy hand".

So, both son-in-law and I may be partially correct. Everyone of us is cut from the same cloth, but through evolution and force of circumstance we've been bent out of shape.

A couple more paragraphs:

"Today, many women are rediscovering the Sun. It heals them, makes them whole. They are finding their solar power: their self-reliance, their voice, their creativity, their ability to shape the myths, symbols, and future of society.
Meanwhile, men are beginning to rediscover the Moon. They too are healed and made whole as they reabsorb their own lost lunar capacity to love, to ask for help, to cry, to feel, to nurture.

That's the good news.

The bad news is that both women and men are terribly out of practice with their Suns and Moons. They don't know quite what to do with them yet. As this epochal reintegration takes place, there is a period of awkwardness. Like a blind man whose vision has been restored, the acquisition of these "new" solar and lunar functions causes both genders to spend a while bumping into things."

I'd best be polishing up my Sun then!

(Steven and Jodie Forrest's website can be found HERE)