Sunday, October 28, 2007

Astrological Considerations Of Roe V. Wade - For Men

Astrological Considerations Of Roe V. Wade - For Men

6:26 AM 10/28/2007 Sun

You knew it had to happen.

On Mar 9 2006, Matthew Dubay, a 25 year old computer programmer of Saginaw MI, filed a lawsuit against the State of Michigan with the help of the National Center for Men, a men's rights advocacy organization. Dubay and NCM contend that he should not have to be liable for paying child support for his daughter, on the grounds that he did not want any kids, and that his 20 year old ex-girlfriend had assured him that she was medically unable to get pregnant. The case drew wide media and internet attention, and created a firestorm of controversey surrounding the landmark case Roe v Wade.

In a nutshell, this is Dubay's and NCM's argument, taken from the latter's website:

"The practical intent and effect of Roe v Wade was to permit a woman to engage in intimate sexual activity while, at the same time, choosing not to be a parent, even in the event of a contraceptive failure...that is the fundamental right created by Roe. The Supreme Court specifically rejected the argument put forth by Wade, that a woman could make a procreative choice by abstaining from sex. Clearly, the Court intended for a woman to have a private, intimate life, without sacrificing the right to procreative choice. By its very nature, this is a fundamental right that must apply regardless of biology. It cannot survive both as a fundamental right and as a limited right, limited only to people with internal reproductive systems."

In essence, Dubay and the NCM are arguing that Roe as it now stands, violates the 14th Amendment of Equal Protection and hence, un-Constitutional; it defends the reproductive choices and rights of women, and denies the same when it comes to men.

Both Dubay and the NCM fully expected their argument to be rejected by the courts - it was - but in their view, they had hoped that the very act of bringing suit would force out into the open a much-needed debate regarding Roe and the issues surrounding it, chiefly, its open discrimination against men based on what Dubay and NCM view as outmoded norms and oblibations. And man oh man, what a debate it's been.

NCM proposes the following solution: grant a man the right to decide, whether he will "man up" and be a father, and this timeframe would be the same window women have to get abortions; should they decide "no, thanks", they can sign papers to that effect, and would be legally free from prosecution stemming from financial and parental responsibilities. This "Opt Out" clause gives men the same choices it gives women to be free from the consequences of their sexual activity, so the NCM says.

Ladies and Gentlemen, choose your weapons!

Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows, Indeed
As it currently stands, and as has been the case for the past three decades, there have been three distinct views regarding Abortion/Reproductive Rights in the USA. The Pro-Life side of the debate, which is in the main comprised of Rightwing groups, regard Abortion as morally wrong under any circumstance; the Pro-Choice side, made up largely of Left of Center groups and organizations, view a woman's right to choose to abort (or not) to be a bedrock principle of American Democracy, rooted in individual Liberty, or, as those on the Left put it, "personal autonomy" - and under that rubric, cannot be impeded whatsoever.

Then there's the wide middle of America, who sees Abortion as necessary, but should have some limits, best characterized by former President Bill Clinton, when he said that Abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare". In the minds of many Americans, he struck the perfect-pitch note of the debate, something everyone, obstensibly at least, could get behind. In the years since he made that quote however, it seems that the debate surrounding Roe has become even more shrill, with moves in recent years to more openly challenge Roe on the state and federal levels - the US Supreme Court's overturning of Partial Birth Abortion, and the state of South Dakota's challenge to Roe being two glaring examples.

So, with all that said, one would think that the "Roe For Men" (aka "Choice For Men", or R4M/C4M, respectively) argument would fall along clearly defined lines - those on the Pro-Life side would flatly reject it, on the same grounds it argued against the original Roe ruling - if you didn't want kids, you should not have had sex. Moreover, since the Pro-Lifers tend to be quite religious, they would further contend that a man has a moral duty both to his child and to God to support him or her, and to do so within the confines of Marriage. Love or hate Conservatives, at least they're consistent.

The problem however, comes in when we examine the Pro-Choice side of the fence, where things get (predictably?) murkier; what one thought might be a slamdunk suddenly becomes a weak lay-up. Feminist groups, one would think, would be the first ones in line to side with Dubay and the NCM, on the grounds that women are independent, and don't need any man to help them fend for the kids, right?

Think again.

Throughout the Internet, one is bombarded by blogs and sites and chatrooms where Feminists congregate and the word "patriarchy" is a fixture, are livid at the Roe For Men challenge; there are several reasons for this outrage, of course, part of it being viewed as an assault on the very essence of Roe itself. But the real ire is saved for the argument that should Roe For Men come down the pike, it would let men off the financial hook for siring kids, rending Society asunder in the process - in fact, the Feminists make the same argument that their nemesis, the Pro-Lifers make - if he didn't want kids, he should have kept it zipped up! Or at the very least, used a condom.

The Feminist Conundrum
Then there are those on the Feminist Left who argue that since men and women are fundamentally different biologically, only women can and should have the final say as to whether a child is born (and that this fact should be protected by force of law), and if so, that a man must be compelled to support it (and this fact that should be enforced, by the power of the state). They maintain that a man's "choice" is when he makes the decision to have sex or not, and if he does, whether to use protection or not. Moreover, the most avowed Feminists say that the issue isn't the reproductive rights or choices of the man, but what is in the best interests of the child.

This line of reasoning, of course, takes us right into the heart of Conservatism, which makes the case that men and women are inherently different, that our actions public and private should be dictated by moral imperatives, that this is especially true in when it comes to areas surrounding sexual activity, and that our Society would be a better place if only individuals within it took more personal responsibility for their actions and life choices. Interesting, ain't it?
Kim Gandy, President of the National Organization for Women, summed up the Feminist position this way:

"None of these are easy questions. But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do, or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."

That was from CBS News. Here's another quote, this time taken from Gandy's bi-weekly column, "Below The Belt", Mar 22 2006:

"Nice, huh? Either way, he'd (Dubay) have zero consequences and zero responsibility. Now some men have been saying that since time immemorial, but this time Dubay and his lawyers at the National Center for Men want the courts to back them up."

"This lawsuit, which has been splashed accross the media recently, is supported by men who want to control women's bodies. The other side of Matt Dubay's coin is the men who want to force a woman to *have* a baby for him (i.e., block her from having an abortion) because that too, should be his "choice".

"The bottomline is that it's her body, so it has to be her decision. Once there's a baby, that child is entitled to support from both parents, plain and simple".

Uh, not really.

Roe For Men advocates can and will easily say that RVW effectively removed the "what about the kids" argument off the table by saying that women had the right to abort if they so chose, regardless of what anyone, including a married man, said. They would say that RVW granted women both the right and the freedom to have sex without any consequences whatsoever. They would also argue that there are thousands of single women nowadays, who both adopt and give birth to kids - single *by choice*, mind you - and that of those who make use of fertility clinics and sperm banks, the courts have upheld the right of donors not to be held responsible for the outcome of their donations. Moreover, RFM supporters would say that, since Roe come down in 73, women have vastly expanded educational and economic opportunities, making it easier than ever to afford to raise a child (or a number of children) completely on their own - all that is needed is the aforementioned few drops of DNA, administered by way of the turkey baster or done the good ole-fashioned way. They would say that the age-old saw about the need for economic support from the dad is old hat, gone the way of the typewriter and the hand-cranked telephone, since women now often earn as much and in increasing numbers, outearning men.

And in any event, it doesn't take Socrates to see that the Pro-Choicers are trying to have the argument both ways, even if you support Gandy's position. All of the rhetorical jiujitsu just says to a lot of men that the Double Standard, rightly or not, is alive and well.

The oft-repeated argument, put forth both by the courts, Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers alike, is that it is the interests of the child that is paramount; this is why Child Support is so important. But is it really? Can anyone take a look around at the United States today - or at any point in its over 200-year long history - and honestly say with a straight face that we are concerned first and foremost, with the welfare of kids? Now don't get me wrong here. We're certainly not the Soviet Union, or India, or China. We do care about children. It's just that, well, we care about our own individual freedoms, too. A lot.

One gets the sense that while the rhetoric about "it's about the child" sounds good, in truth it's about the money - for the State, they don't want to get stuck with the bill if a kid is left high and dry by daddy; for the women, and especially, it oddly seems, Feminist Women, it's about holding those no-good incorrigably patriarchal men financially accountable (despite so many of them saying that the little bit that guys like Dubay pay out monthly couldn't possibly make up for the nine months of agony, lost wages and life chances that women go through to give birth to a child). In fact, when reading any of these comments throughout the Web, one can't help but get the sense of vengence on the part of these ladies - a "sock it to him!" tone that's very apparent in the posts, blogs and articles. For guys, the "it's about the child" piece rings hollow, especially in light of the aforementioned facts noted earlier with regard to the strides women have made economically. It's about the money.

And it's about something mentioned only in relation to men - Responsibility.

So - with all that said (whew!) - what does Astrology have to say about this Gordian knot? Can this age-old science/art sort out the issues, clarify things, and give us some clues as to how things will ultimately turn out? If you've made it this far in my humble missive, surely you're as interested as am I in this issue. Read on, interested reader - read on!

Astrological Specifics - A Quick Overview Of The USA
We begin with a quick astrological overview of the horoscope of the United States of America, founded on Jul 4 1776 at 5.10PM LMT at Philadelphia PA, per British astrologer Ebeneezer Sibly. This clocktime yields a 12 Sag 19 Asc, and is found in Nick Campion's Book of World Horoscopes. Although it must be said that the USA has quite a few charts based on important foundation and development times, the aforementioned option is the one which I have found works the best out of over a decade of the most intense study and observation of our country. It is here that we consider our approach to the question of children.

Astrologically, the Moon represents infants and young children, and of course, women in general, maternity, childbirth and all that is associated with it. The 5 house also represents children, as well as the sexual act that (usually) brings them about. Planets connected to these factors gives the astrologer strong clues as to how an individual, or in this case, a polity, approaches these matters.

In the case of the USA, the Moon in Aquarius, placed in the national 3 house, and participating in an Air Grand Trine, suggests that our approach to children is bit detached and intellectual, despite the four planets placed in the Moon's Sign, Cancer (Sun, Venus, Jupiter and Mercury); we see our kids more as "friends" and equals, rather than in a more traditional role, where children were seen and not heard. Indeed, recent studies show that more and more, children and young teens are having more of a vocal say in the home, especially when it comes to expenditures and so on. On the positive side this gives our kids more freedom to express themselves and to be heard, but on the downside, it can force them to grow up too fast, and in this case especially, it can suggest a familial breakdown due to extreme emphasis placed on individual drives, interests, aspirations and needs. This is especially true when it comes to the parents, since they are the ones most in a position to act - and here is where Roe v Wade comes in.

Because the Moon represents women, as noted earlier, and Roe granted personal autonomy to women - individual freedom - as to whether a woman will or will not become a mother. The Moon is in Aquarius, which means that it is ruled by the planet Uranus, which in this map is placed in the 6 house of health and illness, yet conjunct the 7 house cusp or Dsc. Note how Roe has been defined as "reproductive health" and so on - and how this choice is in play regardless of the marital status of a woman.

Uranus is Peregrine, per Noel Tyl's desgination. By this he suggests, that a planet is not connected by way of Ptolemaic aspect, and as such, is a "live wire" acting out all over the place in the chart; all of the attention is placed on said planet, and ends up being the tail that wags the dog, so to speak. Despite our fight as Americans to live up to the ideals of Familiy, the Uranian urge to take a walk on the wide side is strong indeed.

Aries is on the USA 5 house, ruled by Mars in Gemini - again, here we see the national view of children not as underlings of a sort, but more like junior adults. We encourage our kids to be independent thinkers, to have wide and varied interests, to speak up and out in their own voice. But with Mars square Neptune in the 9 house, we also have clouded or confused views regarding childrearing; the aforementioned values and ideas conflict with our religious and moral underpinnings that are very strong in American life. Nowhere are these underpinnings stronger than in the areas of children and sex.

And here we see the crux of the current Roe For Men debate, as both Aries and Mars are Male - Paternity - and comes into conflict with Neptune in the 9 house of both the Courts, and with our country's Morals. Remember, the word "responsibility" comes up only when the question of Men and their role in society is put on the table with regard to children; "choice" and "rights" are words that seem to be reserved for American Women. The Mars to Neptune square, involving the 5 and 9 houses then, clearly shows the confusing and convoluted nature of the Roe debate.

The National Organization For Women
NOW, as it is commonly known, was born on Jun 30 1966 at Washington DC according to its website. No time is known so 12 noon is used, giving an Asc of 22 Vir 57. Although NOW claims to have varied interests in the pursuit of protections for women, its centerpiece has been Roe v Wade. The astrology of NOW gives vivid witness to this fact.

Note the Virgo Asc, with the epic Uranus-Pluto conjunction in the same Sign sitting right on the Asc from the 12 house side. As we'll see below, Virgo classically is not considered a particularly fertile Sign, and in any event this Sign is that of the workplace, another huge area of interest for NOW. The aforementioned conjunction is in tight square to the Moon which is both in Sagittarius and placed in the 3 house of media communication, getting your message out, national debates, etc. NOW has been a powerful voice for women's interests on the academic, political and legal fronts now for more than four decades. The hard aspects of Uranus and Pluto to the Moon, even while the latter is nearing its Full phase, doesn't augur well for fecundity and childbirth; indeed, it suggests the opposite, of birth control and abortion.

Capricorn is on the NOW 5 house, which as we noted earlier, represents issues surrounding children, reproduction and sex. Capricorn is yet another Sign that is classically designated as "barren" - and note that its ruler Saturn, is placed at the last degree in the Sign of Pisces in the 7 house (Marriage) and widely square Mars in Gemini, who itself is at the top of the chart and conjunct the MC (fighting for a cause, through Geminian means, i.e., the media, internet, academia, ideas, etc.). Mars rules the NOW 8 house - death, in this case, of unborn children.
I have found in my years of study, that in the charts of females, the coming together of the planets Mars and Saturn by way of hard aspect, usually tends to suggest that the woman involved has "men issues" beyond the norm. In fact, over the years when women have approached me to have their charts done, that those women who seem to have the most trouble with men almost always have Mars and Saturn in very prominent hard aspect in their charts. Please note the Mars-Saturn relationship in the chart of NOW. It, along with the events that have led to its creation, speaks for itself. It has long been argued by Men's Rights Advocates, that NOW doesn't really want equality, but rather to turn the tables on men, and that the current Roe debate is just another, if not glaring example of just that.

Furthermore, I have found that in the charts of prominent Feminists and Feminist organizations, events etc, that the planets Moon and Venus tend to be prominent in some way, usually by way of aspect. Although the Moon and Venus are a bit too wide to form an opposition to each other in terms of orb, it is nonetheless telling to see this signature playing itself out yet again in the chart of the country's premiere women's advocacy organization. Although this combination can indicate a person or entity that is very pleasing and easy to get along with, the downside of such a pairing can be self-indulgence and selfishness. For years charges have been made that NOW seems to be interested in issues of "fairness" only when it is women who are aggrieved. Whether that is indeed the case for NOW, the perception persists nonetheless, and with the Moon in the 3 and Venus in the 9, the perception axis if you will, it certainly makes lots of sense.

Going Further - The Astrology Of Roe V Wade, 1973
The Roe v Wade decision came down on Jan 22 1973 at Washington DC; in the absence of an accurate time I've set the chart for the standard and accepted Mundane astrological practice of 12 noon, yielding a 16 Tau 24 Asc. This chart clearly and emphatically reflects the decision itself: note the Moon in Virgo in the 5 house, and square the Mars-Saturn opposition running from the 8 to 2 houses, respectively. The Sign Virgo has long been associated with reduced or no fertility, Mars in the 8 is a classic signal of death, and Saturn in harsh aspect to the Moon doesn't help the unborn much either.

Then there's the square between Jupiter in Capricorn in the 9 and Uranus in Libra in the 6 ("reproductive health/freedom" again) - the interplay between expanding the principle of the 4th Amendment, where the "right to privacy" comes from, as well as the 1st Amendment, where appeals to religion could not be used to bar or otherwise impede on a woman's "right to choose". "Personal autonomy" is seen here, in the Uranus in Libra placement, giving wide freedoms to women accross the board, if not in fact at least on paper. This mundane transit occured during the height of the Sexual Revolution of the late 60s and most of the 70s, when Uranus was passing through Libra, late 1968-1975. The Jupiter-Uranus combination, often brings with it unbounded freedom. But with Jupiter's placement in Capricorn, and Uranus' inherent "unintended consequences" vibe, women's "choice" came at a price - and not in the way they might have expected.

Most astrologers would agree that the Sun, Mars and Saturn are Male Planets, and here in the original Roe map, we can see that all three are significantly weakened. The Sun is in Detriment in Aquarius, Mars is classically Peregrine and in the 8 house, and Saturn is also classically Peregrine and Rx. Although both the Moon and Venus are also classically without Dignity, Venus is helped considerably by the fact that she both is the Queen of the Chart and is placed in the beneficial 9 house. The Moon is helped by the fact that it occupies the 5. All of these factors helps the cause of American Women getting the right to determine what happens to their bodies.

It is the weakness of the aforementioned planets that gave birth to Roe For Men, and give testimony to astrologers.

Roe V Wade For Men
Matt Dubay took his case to US District Court at Detroit on Thu Mar 9 2006; again, in the absence of accurately timed data, I've set the chart for 12 noon. This gives an Asc of 2 Can 13, and quickly explains why this issue would strike such a deep nerve on all sides - the event chart is defined in the main by a Water Grand Trine between the Moon in Cancer, the Sun-Uranus conjunction in Pisces, and Jupiter in Scorpio. To add fuel to the fire, Mars in Gemini is placed in the 12 house, and squares Uranus - Mars rules the 11 house of "community" and Uranus, the 9 house of the courts and morals - the debate sparked by the RFM case has had a great deal to do with with the effects of unbridled male sexual activity on Society, and the moral imperatives men have to care for the children they had a hand in creating.

The moral argument, expressed mostly in "in the interests of the child" and "his responsibility" terms, is also seen in the square between Jupiter and Neptune, with the former in Scorpio and Rx in the 5 house (a retreat from duty, if you will), Neptune in the 9 house - note that this square is exact! The Pisces cluster of the Sun, Uranus and Mercury Rx, all placed in the 10 house of the Father, speaks in vivid fashion to the issue at hand, whether a man has a right to decline any responsibility for a child he didn't want. Note the prominence of Uranus here, and recall its role in the previously mentioned charts - the USA, NOW and Roe 1973. Democracy is alive and well in the USA.

Note also the mundane signature of Saturn Rx in Leo - Saturn Rx has long been associated with "daddy issues" most often abandonment, lax involvement, irresponsibility and vagueness.
And note that Venus, ruler of the 5 house in this chart, is placed in Aquarius - sound familiar anyone? - and placed in the 8 house of debt. It opposes Saturn, placed in the 2 house, and ruling (and holding Venus) the 8. Despite the flowery rhetoric, the State doesn't want to get stuck with the tab. It's also interesting to note that Dubay's child is a girl; Venus again, rules the Libran 5 house.

This chart doubles both as a Mundane Event map and as well, as a Horary map, specifically, one having to do with litigation issues. In such charts, the Asc represents the Plaintiff, and the Defendent is signified by the 7 house. The 9 house is the Courts in general, the 10 house is the Presiding Judge, and the 11 house is the Jury, if there is one. Moreover, the old Horary Rule is in effect here: the chart must describe the situation in order to be valid. So, Dubay/NCM is represented by the Dignified Moon in the 2 house (monetary concerns), the State of Michigan is represented by Saturn in Leo Rx (also placed in the 2 - money again), and the judge is represented by the 10 house, where the Pisces stellium is.

That the judge ruled against Dubay is hardly surprising, given the condition of Saturn; it is placed in a financial house, rules another, is classically weakened by Sign AND is Rx. Saturn is disposed by the Sun in Pisces in the 10 - the judge - and that is that.
Or ir it? The aforementioned weaknesses of Saturn, plus the prominence of Uranus on the MC in the chart, suggests the high likelihood that the judge's ruling could be overturned on appeal; afterall, Dubay has a strong argument, shown by the dignity of the Moon. Note too Mercury's Rx status in the 10, again highlighting the strong potential for poor judicial reasoning, and the case being revisited.

Enter The Supremes
As of this writing, the Dubay/Roe For Men case is working its way through the Appeals process, with oral arguments being made in the Sixth Circuit Court at Cincinatti OH on Sep 15 2007. Dubay and the NCM intend to fight this all the way to the US Supreme Court, and win or lose, they say, they intend to continue to raise questions about a man's right to reproductive choice, rights and freedom, the same as women enjoy. They will continue to argue on the grounds that the 14th Amendment must be applied equally, or not at all, and will ask the highest Court in the land to give a final judgment either way. So, what will the Supremes do?

According to the superb research work of Mundane astrological specialist JohnTWB, the US Supreme Court was founded on Feb 2 1790 at 1PM LMT at New York City NY. Using Placidus Houses this gives an Asc degree of 20 Gem 28. Comparing the RFM chart to that of the Supreme Court, what immediately leaps out at me is the exact square between the RFM Jupiter and the SC Pluto - a combination that usually denotes grand success. It should also be noted, however, that the RFM's Neptune sits exactly upon the same SC Pluto - in the 9 house - suggesting a deeply divided court. What else is new?

Mu's Prediction: Roe Radically Altered
Considering the short-term astrological outlook for the Supreme Court, we note the following: transit Uranus sqaure the SC Asc in the Spring and Fall of 2008, suggesting a change of heart with regard to Roe (and several Conservative voices on the Court have openly expressed the desire to overturn Roe); SA Neptune=Jupiter Jun 08; and SA Saturn=Pluto, Jul 08. In that anything can happen, given the rather unusual nature of the case in question, we have to note that if history is any indication, Roe as we know it will indeed be significantly changed, either found unconstitutional, which kills the RFM argument, or, upheld while also granting men the right to "opt out". Back in 1973, the SC had SA Uranus=Asc, with transit Jupiter square Neptune, clear echoes between now and then. Either way, as I've stated in previous writings, it is very, very difficult to see Roe continue in the way it has come the end of this decade.

That the Roe For Men case, and the debate it spawned (pardon the pun) comes as a surprise to many on the Feminist Left reveals just to what degree they have failed to fully think through their most cherished prize, Roe 1973. It was only a matter of time before someone, somewhere, would challenge the idea that, no matter how it was worded, women and only women get to decide not only if they get to be parent, but also whether men get to be parents. Moreover, the common arguments that were used against Roe, cannot be applied to the Dubay case - not with a straight face, I mean. If men have to use birth control or abstain from sex in the first place, then so should women. If it's immoral to leave a kid high and dry, its at least as immoral to do away with an inconvenient pregnancy. If women and men are indeed fundamentally different based on biological realities, those realities should be clarified and upheld by force of law throughout the whole of Society, and not cherrypicked when it suits one side or the other.

Maybe the fierce opposition to RFM by Feminists, highlights the biological point brilliantly - no matter where anyone falls on this issue, it's generally accepted that while a woman's right to choose may or may not effect everyone else, what men choose to do with their nether regions can have grave consequences for all concerned. But since the Feminists have successfully tossed such an argument aside in the name of "progress", such an argument cannot be used here either. Here we see the flipside of the Outer Planets - the very ideas and new concepts Uranus, Neptune and Pluto bring, have within them the means to destroy a Society. In this case, Uranus - the Planet of Democracy, Individuality, and Identity Politics - is inherently at odds with notions of Family, Marriage and most of all, Childrearing. Left to its own devices, Uranus can tear down not only those structures that have outlived its usefulness, but destroy the structures a Society needs to survive.

The very argument used to advance Roe - that, should it be removed as an option, women would resort to back alley abortions - can be used with just as much vim and vigor by MRAs - that men are voting with their feet and wallets NOT TO BE DADS already, even in the face of awesome public censure, threat of garnishment of wages, and certainty of imprisonment. At present, some $100 BILLION is owed in back Child Support - a sum comparable to the amount of money spent in fighting the War on Drugs, and we know how that turned out, right? We used to think that these men were "deadbeat dads". Maybe it's because they don't want to pay for kids they don't want. It hurts to say that, it hurts to type it. But I think it's the nasty, ugly truth. Dubay's case only lifted the rock up for everyone to see. If we can't force women to have kids they don't want, how can we force men to support kids they don't want?

After more than a week of near round-the-clock intense study of this issue, I have to side with Dubay. But before the chorus of "Aha!!!-I KNEW Mu was a hate-filled Misogynist!" starts, please let me say that I don't do this with any sense of glee or "gotcha" at all. Matthew Dubay is no heroic Lone Ranger or Wyatt Earp for Men's Rights - in fact, in truth, at best he could be compared to the iconic yet anti-heroic character lionized by Clint Eastwood in those Sergio Leone "Spaghetti Westerns" of the 60s - a man who acts by purely selfish interests, who just happens to do the right thing along the way.

Here I'm reminded of the quote by Harvard scholar Harvey Mansfield, who said in his piece "Why A Good Man Is Hard to Find" the following:

"Of course feminism did not create male irresponsibility, and it is not the only cause that Dad is so often no longer around. But it gave him a license to take off. Women's liberation is liberation for men too, and not of the best in men. The feminists should have known that a tendency to promiscuity is in the nature of a male. You can call that tendency a "stereotype" and suppose that it need not be. But what if you are wrong? You are taking a big risk with the happiness of women who do not want to be deserted."



P.S. For Astrologers: What does the chart of a man who would make a good father look like? Any ideas, observations, comments, suggestions? Any charts of good dads you'd like to share? How would you deal with the issues in this piece? Please let me know!

Suggested Further Reading:

The Astrology of Roe v. Wade: Three Decades Later Jan 2005

Who's Your Daddy? - The Primacy Of Saturn Retrograde Jan 2005

The USA Supreme Court: A Changing of The Guard... Sep 2005

US Supreme Court Upholds "Partial Birth Abortion" Ban Apr 2007

- all found at

Mu'Min M. Bey is a Western and Vedic astrologer with 15 years training and experience, including 5 years teaching Western astrology at Temple University's PASCEP program. Mr. Bey lives in Philadelphia and is founder of the University of Astrology discussion forum found on MySpace: Contact him at:, or at his MySpace page:


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home