Mu'Min Debates A "Feminist" Astrologer
Mu’Min Debates A "Feminist" Astrologer
Readers of my humble missives know well that unlike far too many astrologers in our time, I like to deal with that which is actually relevant in our times, taking up themes and issues that are ripped right from the headlines, and are part of the cultural zeitgeist. One of them, has been the ever-increasing Feminization of our Craft, Astrology. I have written extensively on these matters, and have more to say in the coming weeks ahead; but for now, the following realtime dialogue, will serve as yet another prima facia example of that which I mean.
On Sun Aug 23 2009, at 12.53PM, I decided to write and send blog comments to one "Lucy", a self-styled feminist astrologer out of New York City, and who writes a blog, Lucy Watch The Sky, hosted by Wordpress. Her post, which I present in full on the recent George Sodini tragedy, prompted me to write a piece of my own on the affair. The following exchange between us clearly shows the serious lapses in thinking most feminist possess, and is becoming an increasingly large area of concern for astrology, since it harbors so many who adhere to its views.
I’ll post up the astrological representation of the "debate" in due course; for now though, as you read the exchange, ask yourself why you’re hardpressed to ever see any feminist of any reknown, ever going head to head with a William H. Buckley type (who was a man after my own hear - a Sag)? Well, now you know the answer.
Lucy’s post about Sodini himself will appear in my Sodini thread.
Comment and reply, as always, invited!
Salaam
Mu
LUCY, SELF STYLED FEMINIST ASTROLOGER: Hi ……,
Thanks for visiting and for your comments. I definitely appreciate your perspective, and your analysis on Sodini’s chart, especially the consideration of the outer planets. It’s true that expectations for what each gender desires in a partner have radically changed, in that working women don’t necessarily require a traditional “provider” anymore, which is probably very different from what Sodini’s generation grew up with. Indeed, since the family model is often a subconscious guide to what we want in a partner, it’s probably additionally confusing for people of his generation still seeking relationships. Not only is the traditional patriarchal model not really the norm anymore, but the current economy just does not support it.
What I take issue with is 1) the assumption that feminism is not concerned with the male perspective, and further, your seeming perplexity as to why most female astrologers would be understandably rattled by such a cold-blooded and specific tragedy and 2) the fact that you, like many men blogging on the subject, seem to view this as a further sign of how WOMEN AT LARGE need to modify their behavior to better accommodate men.
I’m shocked that you buy into this whole “nice guy/bad boy” fallacy. I want to point you to two brilliant articles on this exact subject as it relates to Sodini. Basically, he was not really a “nice guy.” He was someone who was seriously disturbed, and who was perfect bait for these R. Don Steele types who pitch the snake oil that men are entitled to anything and anyone they want, and if they’re not getting it, it’s the fault of women as a whole. Furthermore, twelve women who had nothing to do with Sodini suffered as a result of his sense of entitlement. No one knows if those women preferred “bad boys” or “playas.” It doesn’t matter. Some of them are dead now.
I am terrified that you really believe there will be more “rage killings” like this one. (Personally, I don’t think the term “hate crime” is that far off the mark.) And if they continue to happen such as this one did (that is, innocent women being gunned down in a public place by a lunatic), that will say even less about how Women As A Whole (you know, because we all regularly convene and plot how we’re going to continue to mess with men’s heads) need to modify their choices. What it really ought to address is this exact kind of entitlement shown pretty exclusively by men, and how one man’s personal rejection does not justify globalized venom towards all women, just as much as one woman’s violent experience of men (such as the one I had) does not necessarily justify globalized hatred towards all men.
From what I read on your blog, particularly your analysis of “alpha,” “beta,” and “omega” men, I would imagine that you buy into evolutionary psychology, which I personally think is fundamentally flawed because, in addition to being based on extremely ethnocentric and sexist assumptions, it implies in not so many words that people will never really change. I find those kind of absolute statements about gender to be limiting as far as psychological growth goes. It also makes me wonder- to really, intellectually excuse someone like Sodini and mean it, which one do you believe you are?
by lucywatchthesky August 23, 2009 at 5:28 pm
MU’MIN BEY: Hi Lucy,
Yes, I’m quite familiar w/both the Salon piece and the Alas, A Blog post, which also dealt w/an alternative perspective from another blog that I read from time to time, and to which I might refer you: Roissy in DC has taken up the Sodini issue and offers a compelling analysis that, no surprise, raised a rather violent reaction from corners familiar to you. You might want to checkout what he and other commenters have to say about Sodini. Its worth a read.
As for evo-psych, for my money it makes far and away more sense than the grave misnomer known as “evolutionary astrology” which you might be familiar with and may even be cool with. If so, what a case of the pot calling the kettle black that would be.
Finally, let’s be clear. I did not excuse Sodini’s actions, indeed I went out of my way to speak to this. And as for what I said about what Women Really Want, only a grossly naive or perniciously disengenuous individual would attempt to explain away what we all can easily see w/our own eyes. History is replete with the simple fact that rakes, cads and badboys get far and away more Women than meek, mild guys like Sodini, presumed mental illnesses or not. To even have to entertain such a discussion among obstensible adults, is kind of laughable on its face, really.
Lastly-in no way do I wish Women to have to change anything about themselves. I don’t want them to do anything they don’t want to do, etc. All I’m saying is that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction, that even minute changes to the social-ecosystem can radically alter the way human beings do business, and that we all, Men and Women alike, would do well to think about this moving forward.
I think it’s very unfair of you to give Steele short shrift. Though I’m not particularly familiar with him, I applaud him and other Men who in their own way, have attempted to help Men like Sodini-who are legion, make no mistake about it-in a make or break area of their lives. For all the talk of compassion in other things, even animals, some of whom can be dangerous to human beings, just a bit of compassion for the plight of Men like Sodini from us astrologers would be a nice thing to see.
August 24, 2009 at 8:21 am
MU: Oh, and I meant to speak bout your assertion that I do not think feminism isn’t concerned w/Men, etc. Well-for the most part, they aren’t, lol. Nor am I saying that they should be. I’m only pointing out a fact-that astrology has within its ranks, a heck of a lot more folk like you, than of me, and its up to folk like me to raise up. And so, in my own small way, I do.
August 24, 2009 at 8:37 am
MU: Lucy,
I thought you might find this interesting. Sueng-Hui Cho, who killed more than 30 people and wounded upwards of 50 before commiting suicide, was born on Jan 18 1984 in Seoul, South Korea. No birthtime, but we see some similarities btw his chart and Sodini’s:
First, note that both Men had Mars in Water Signs. Second, both have their Mars in aspect to both Neptune and Pluto, the latter being very important, because of the fact that it forms a formidable Sexual Aspect-and because Pluto disposes of key planets in Scorpio. In Sodini’s case, Venus and Neptune are in Scorpio; in Cho’s, Mars, Saturn and Pluto are in Scorpio.
We see in Sodini’s case that the Sun is square a Mars-Saturn axis, a clear indication for the potential for violence. In Cho’s case, we note that while not technically in conjunction, we can see that Saturn being in the same Sign as his Mars and Pluto play a powerful role in explaining his frustration sexually.
As we both know, Scorpio is among the most powerful sexually-inclined Signs. Had both these Men had help-and Sodini was closer to that help than Cho-things might have turned out differently. A lil Nookie goes a long way toward soothing the savage beast.
Think on it.
August 24, 2009 at 8:47 am
L: You know, I have to say- I was listening with full attention until this: “Had both these Men had help-and Sodini was closer to that help than Cho-things might have turned out differently. A lil Nookie goes a long way toward soothing the savage beast.”
What a nauseating thing to say. Really. You write that you don’t think women need to modify their behavior, but a statement like this implies that Sodini and Cho (and all men, really) are ENTITLED to sex, and if only some women had put out, this could have been avoided. No individual is entitled to sex, regardless of gender, nor is it women’s responsibility to be sexually available, for any reason, but especially not to be vessels for seriously mentally disturbed men’s aggression. I’m not at all surprised that you read Roissy in D.C., which I have no desire to revisit. He and R. Don Steele and countless others only think they are helping men, but in fact they are worsening the problem. They are driving men and women further apart by convincing vulnerable men that women are less than their inferiors, that they’re pure commodity.
I do have compassion for Sodini; clearly he was mentally ill. But I’m also not going to excuse that his killing spree was deliberately planned to target women, and the fact that he did, in the truest sense of the word, hate women. Because I have met men like him before, and when something like this happens, it reminds you that you really can never know how deep someone’s hatred goes, and what kind of things they might do if in their megalomaniacal minds they believe they have had enough. As a woman, it worries me. And just like Kate Harding wrote in her Salon piece, I will not concede that he was “really a nice guy,” because he WAS NOT. There WAS something wrong with him. Same with Cho. Same with more guys than I even have room to list that I’ve personally dealt with. And that’s exactly the problem- no one is telling these guys that there is something wrong with them, which would solve far more of their difficulties than trying to make them into Pick-Up Artists.
by lucywatchthesky August 24, 2009 at 10:24 am
MU: Lucy,
Just got finished reading Kanazawa’s piece, and while you made it clear you disagreed with him, you didn’t layout specifically WHY. I would like for you to do so, we can have a more informed discussion on the matter, as I’ve found Kanazawa’s work to be an interesting read.
As for Sodini, again, I am not excusing what he, or Cho, did. But let’s be frank. Please name me a Sodini or Cho-like figure, say, 40 years ago? And no, Charlie Manson wouldn’t cut it, because he had far and away more access, sexually and otherwise, than either of these men did.
The truth of the matter is that there have ALWAYS been guys running around w/a screw or two loose, Lucy. What is different in our time, are guys like Cho and Sodini who decide to take their pain out on those whom they believe are their tormentors-women. I don’t agree w/them, but that doesn’t change the fact that, as I’ve said before, times have changed, and with it, both the good and bad.
And finally, if I may-if you have such a long list of men in your life that you can instantly recall off the top of your head that are in your view psychotic, perhaps they aren’t the only ones who need to be told about themselves.
Please don’t hate on the PUAs or Game; they’re doing a serious Public Service.
August 24, 2009 at 1:03 pm
L: Thanks very much- you’re banned.
Your sexism is disgusting, and personally attacking me is uncalled for.
Get out of my blog.
…………………………………………
*Back To Mu*
As we can see, such tactics are commonly employed by feminists, with the ultimate trump ca(na)rd being banning - and censoring (which is preceeded by all manner of shaming tactics, namecalling and goalpost shifting-again, common amongst the feminist ilk). Lucy, greate advocate of Free Speech that she is, has since "erased" our exchange. But, being the all wise, all knowing guy that I am, I had the foresight to save the record, knowing what to expect from such types.
My friends, make no mistake - Uranus in Pisces has been a horrible time for our Astrology - and its Feminization has brought it to an all time low. When we can see folk like Lucy out there, saying the kinds of stuff you see here and on her blog, it makes one wonder how astrology ever dug itself out of the Dark Ages to begin with.
Come on, Uranus in Aries!
Salaam
Mu
Readers of my humble missives know well that unlike far too many astrologers in our time, I like to deal with that which is actually relevant in our times, taking up themes and issues that are ripped right from the headlines, and are part of the cultural zeitgeist. One of them, has been the ever-increasing Feminization of our Craft, Astrology. I have written extensively on these matters, and have more to say in the coming weeks ahead; but for now, the following realtime dialogue, will serve as yet another prima facia example of that which I mean.
On Sun Aug 23 2009, at 12.53PM, I decided to write and send blog comments to one "Lucy", a self-styled feminist astrologer out of New York City, and who writes a blog, Lucy Watch The Sky, hosted by Wordpress. Her post, which I present in full on the recent George Sodini tragedy, prompted me to write a piece of my own on the affair. The following exchange between us clearly shows the serious lapses in thinking most feminist possess, and is becoming an increasingly large area of concern for astrology, since it harbors so many who adhere to its views.
I’ll post up the astrological representation of the "debate" in due course; for now though, as you read the exchange, ask yourself why you’re hardpressed to ever see any feminist of any reknown, ever going head to head with a William H. Buckley type (who was a man after my own hear - a Sag)? Well, now you know the answer.
Lucy’s post about Sodini himself will appear in my Sodini thread.
Comment and reply, as always, invited!
Salaam
Mu
LUCY, SELF STYLED FEMINIST ASTROLOGER: Hi ……,
Thanks for visiting and for your comments. I definitely appreciate your perspective, and your analysis on Sodini’s chart, especially the consideration of the outer planets. It’s true that expectations for what each gender desires in a partner have radically changed, in that working women don’t necessarily require a traditional “provider” anymore, which is probably very different from what Sodini’s generation grew up with. Indeed, since the family model is often a subconscious guide to what we want in a partner, it’s probably additionally confusing for people of his generation still seeking relationships. Not only is the traditional patriarchal model not really the norm anymore, but the current economy just does not support it.
What I take issue with is 1) the assumption that feminism is not concerned with the male perspective, and further, your seeming perplexity as to why most female astrologers would be understandably rattled by such a cold-blooded and specific tragedy and 2) the fact that you, like many men blogging on the subject, seem to view this as a further sign of how WOMEN AT LARGE need to modify their behavior to better accommodate men.
I’m shocked that you buy into this whole “nice guy/bad boy” fallacy. I want to point you to two brilliant articles on this exact subject as it relates to Sodini. Basically, he was not really a “nice guy.” He was someone who was seriously disturbed, and who was perfect bait for these R. Don Steele types who pitch the snake oil that men are entitled to anything and anyone they want, and if they’re not getting it, it’s the fault of women as a whole. Furthermore, twelve women who had nothing to do with Sodini suffered as a result of his sense of entitlement. No one knows if those women preferred “bad boys” or “playas.” It doesn’t matter. Some of them are dead now.
I am terrified that you really believe there will be more “rage killings” like this one. (Personally, I don’t think the term “hate crime” is that far off the mark.) And if they continue to happen such as this one did (that is, innocent women being gunned down in a public place by a lunatic), that will say even less about how Women As A Whole (you know, because we all regularly convene and plot how we’re going to continue to mess with men’s heads) need to modify their choices. What it really ought to address is this exact kind of entitlement shown pretty exclusively by men, and how one man’s personal rejection does not justify globalized venom towards all women, just as much as one woman’s violent experience of men (such as the one I had) does not necessarily justify globalized hatred towards all men.
From what I read on your blog, particularly your analysis of “alpha,” “beta,” and “omega” men, I would imagine that you buy into evolutionary psychology, which I personally think is fundamentally flawed because, in addition to being based on extremely ethnocentric and sexist assumptions, it implies in not so many words that people will never really change. I find those kind of absolute statements about gender to be limiting as far as psychological growth goes. It also makes me wonder- to really, intellectually excuse someone like Sodini and mean it, which one do you believe you are?
by lucywatchthesky August 23, 2009 at 5:28 pm
MU’MIN BEY: Hi Lucy,
Yes, I’m quite familiar w/both the Salon piece and the Alas, A Blog post, which also dealt w/an alternative perspective from another blog that I read from time to time, and to which I might refer you: Roissy in DC has taken up the Sodini issue and offers a compelling analysis that, no surprise, raised a rather violent reaction from corners familiar to you. You might want to checkout what he and other commenters have to say about Sodini. Its worth a read.
As for evo-psych, for my money it makes far and away more sense than the grave misnomer known as “evolutionary astrology” which you might be familiar with and may even be cool with. If so, what a case of the pot calling the kettle black that would be.
Finally, let’s be clear. I did not excuse Sodini’s actions, indeed I went out of my way to speak to this. And as for what I said about what Women Really Want, only a grossly naive or perniciously disengenuous individual would attempt to explain away what we all can easily see w/our own eyes. History is replete with the simple fact that rakes, cads and badboys get far and away more Women than meek, mild guys like Sodini, presumed mental illnesses or not. To even have to entertain such a discussion among obstensible adults, is kind of laughable on its face, really.
Lastly-in no way do I wish Women to have to change anything about themselves. I don’t want them to do anything they don’t want to do, etc. All I’m saying is that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction, that even minute changes to the social-ecosystem can radically alter the way human beings do business, and that we all, Men and Women alike, would do well to think about this moving forward.
I think it’s very unfair of you to give Steele short shrift. Though I’m not particularly familiar with him, I applaud him and other Men who in their own way, have attempted to help Men like Sodini-who are legion, make no mistake about it-in a make or break area of their lives. For all the talk of compassion in other things, even animals, some of whom can be dangerous to human beings, just a bit of compassion for the plight of Men like Sodini from us astrologers would be a nice thing to see.
August 24, 2009 at 8:21 am
MU: Oh, and I meant to speak bout your assertion that I do not think feminism isn’t concerned w/Men, etc. Well-for the most part, they aren’t, lol. Nor am I saying that they should be. I’m only pointing out a fact-that astrology has within its ranks, a heck of a lot more folk like you, than of me, and its up to folk like me to raise up. And so, in my own small way, I do.
August 24, 2009 at 8:37 am
MU: Lucy,
I thought you might find this interesting. Sueng-Hui Cho, who killed more than 30 people and wounded upwards of 50 before commiting suicide, was born on Jan 18 1984 in Seoul, South Korea. No birthtime, but we see some similarities btw his chart and Sodini’s:
First, note that both Men had Mars in Water Signs. Second, both have their Mars in aspect to both Neptune and Pluto, the latter being very important, because of the fact that it forms a formidable Sexual Aspect-and because Pluto disposes of key planets in Scorpio. In Sodini’s case, Venus and Neptune are in Scorpio; in Cho’s, Mars, Saturn and Pluto are in Scorpio.
We see in Sodini’s case that the Sun is square a Mars-Saturn axis, a clear indication for the potential for violence. In Cho’s case, we note that while not technically in conjunction, we can see that Saturn being in the same Sign as his Mars and Pluto play a powerful role in explaining his frustration sexually.
As we both know, Scorpio is among the most powerful sexually-inclined Signs. Had both these Men had help-and Sodini was closer to that help than Cho-things might have turned out differently. A lil Nookie goes a long way toward soothing the savage beast.
Think on it.
August 24, 2009 at 8:47 am
L: You know, I have to say- I was listening with full attention until this: “Had both these Men had help-and Sodini was closer to that help than Cho-things might have turned out differently. A lil Nookie goes a long way toward soothing the savage beast.”
What a nauseating thing to say. Really. You write that you don’t think women need to modify their behavior, but a statement like this implies that Sodini and Cho (and all men, really) are ENTITLED to sex, and if only some women had put out, this could have been avoided. No individual is entitled to sex, regardless of gender, nor is it women’s responsibility to be sexually available, for any reason, but especially not to be vessels for seriously mentally disturbed men’s aggression. I’m not at all surprised that you read Roissy in D.C., which I have no desire to revisit. He and R. Don Steele and countless others only think they are helping men, but in fact they are worsening the problem. They are driving men and women further apart by convincing vulnerable men that women are less than their inferiors, that they’re pure commodity.
I do have compassion for Sodini; clearly he was mentally ill. But I’m also not going to excuse that his killing spree was deliberately planned to target women, and the fact that he did, in the truest sense of the word, hate women. Because I have met men like him before, and when something like this happens, it reminds you that you really can never know how deep someone’s hatred goes, and what kind of things they might do if in their megalomaniacal minds they believe they have had enough. As a woman, it worries me. And just like Kate Harding wrote in her Salon piece, I will not concede that he was “really a nice guy,” because he WAS NOT. There WAS something wrong with him. Same with Cho. Same with more guys than I even have room to list that I’ve personally dealt with. And that’s exactly the problem- no one is telling these guys that there is something wrong with them, which would solve far more of their difficulties than trying to make them into Pick-Up Artists.
by lucywatchthesky August 24, 2009 at 10:24 am
MU: Lucy,
Just got finished reading Kanazawa’s piece, and while you made it clear you disagreed with him, you didn’t layout specifically WHY. I would like for you to do so, we can have a more informed discussion on the matter, as I’ve found Kanazawa’s work to be an interesting read.
As for Sodini, again, I am not excusing what he, or Cho, did. But let’s be frank. Please name me a Sodini or Cho-like figure, say, 40 years ago? And no, Charlie Manson wouldn’t cut it, because he had far and away more access, sexually and otherwise, than either of these men did.
The truth of the matter is that there have ALWAYS been guys running around w/a screw or two loose, Lucy. What is different in our time, are guys like Cho and Sodini who decide to take their pain out on those whom they believe are their tormentors-women. I don’t agree w/them, but that doesn’t change the fact that, as I’ve said before, times have changed, and with it, both the good and bad.
And finally, if I may-if you have such a long list of men in your life that you can instantly recall off the top of your head that are in your view psychotic, perhaps they aren’t the only ones who need to be told about themselves.
Please don’t hate on the PUAs or Game; they’re doing a serious Public Service.
August 24, 2009 at 1:03 pm
L: Thanks very much- you’re banned.
Your sexism is disgusting, and personally attacking me is uncalled for.
Get out of my blog.
…………………………………………
*Back To Mu*
As we can see, such tactics are commonly employed by feminists, with the ultimate trump ca(na)rd being banning - and censoring (which is preceeded by all manner of shaming tactics, namecalling and goalpost shifting-again, common amongst the feminist ilk). Lucy, greate advocate of Free Speech that she is, has since "erased" our exchange. But, being the all wise, all knowing guy that I am, I had the foresight to save the record, knowing what to expect from such types.
My friends, make no mistake - Uranus in Pisces has been a horrible time for our Astrology - and its Feminization has brought it to an all time low. When we can see folk like Lucy out there, saying the kinds of stuff you see here and on her blog, it makes one wonder how astrology ever dug itself out of the Dark Ages to begin with.
Come on, Uranus in Aries!
Salaam
Mu
Labels: badfaith, blogs, censorship, Confused Astrologers, Feminism, freespeech, logicalfallacies, men, women
posted by Mu'Min M. Bey at
9:32 AM
7 Comments
