Since it appears that my suggesting so has raised the hackles on Astrology’s Quasi-Feminist Contingent, I thought to devote an entire thread to this topic.

For those who might have missed it, I’ll recap briefly.

In my Open Letter to Zane Stein thread, I made the case that astrology in our time-and by that I mean, the Modern Era, since Rudhyar, and the following rise of Psychology being used in astrology analysis, study and work-is what I called Gynocentric, or in other words, astrology in our time is more and more seen, evaluated, communicated and written/presented, in a way that is more favorable to women.

Now, as you might guess, I’m prepared to defend my proposition, and to offer the most basic evidence of this, one only need look at the extant literature on the subject; note how its written, the word choice, perspectives and point of view therein. Moreover, consider the bulk of attendees at conferences, retreats and the like, you will find invariably that they are women in the main, even if by a simple majority.

Now, before the howling starts, let me say that I’m not-NOT-arguing that this is in itself a bad thing. What I am saying, however, is that astrology runs the serious risk of painting itself in something of a corner, because its this astrologer’s view that a lot of guys would be interested in seeking what astrology has to offer were it not for the Girly Perspective and Presentation.

What has occured in astrology over the past three or four decades is the notion that a kind of "unisex" approach can be adopted, and that the symbols we see can equally-keyword here-apply to both sexes. All the while claiming individuality, no less! Yet even hard science has proven again and again that men and women are PROFOUNDLY different, and the astrology must follow suit.

Of course, I suppose it doesn’t help much that many of the men that fill up the ranks of astrology, either as leading voices (considerably more at this level than are women, see for yourself) or as hardcore hobbyists, for lack of a better word, either don’t seem very interested in this topic because their interests in astrology take them away from dealing directly with people and more into the area of abstract concepts, like Mundane astrology, etc., or they have a more "feminine" view of the world, or, more cynically, they go with the flow because as that famous bank robber once said, that’s where the money is. And its no accident who pays a working astrologer’s bills, and from this standpoint, a business model, it makes sense to focus on your target market. But as a self-professed Anomaly, I like asking pesky questions of our craft. That’s what Cosmic Pests do.

So-is Astrology Gynocentric? You make the call.

Comments?

Holla back

Salaam
Mu

Suggested Further Reading: Astrological Eye For The Regular Guy, muminspeaks.blogspot.com, or Google it

Yeah, its all too girly.

Hi Jill,
Yuk Yuk, very funny. C’mon, what do you really think? I’m trying to be serious here. Do you think astrology is presented in a gynocentric way, or what?

Salaam
Mu

Could it be explained as "catering to the (average) customer" or do you think there is more to it?

il Chiodo wrote:
Could it be explained as "catering to the (average) customer" or do you think there is more to it?

Hi Jim,
Good question! I do think it is part what you suggested and I alluded to this in my lead-off post. That said, I also think its a kind of a perpetual motion thing? You know what I mean? Like that one thing feeds another and you kind of get this cycle going or something. All I know is that it is real, and not terribly an issue of concern for our peers.

So, what do you think?

Salaam
Mu

Is astrology directed toward women’s interests from a paternalistic perspective? Gynecology is a branch of medicine which studies pathology specific to, or more probably occurring with women. Women are more relational then men. The medical approaches which women seem inclined to study seem to be directed toward the association between bodily systems as they relate to health rather than the more traditional approach typically associated with western medicine which isolates systems and treats them as though unrelated to overall health. A hunter’s approach.

Modern western astrology with its unexplained variety of house systems, orbital bodies and rulerships probably best reflects our current culture. There isn’t much in the way of a cohesive frame of reason so you can make up the rules as you go along. A little like jazz in that regard. Even jazz has notes and these astrological notes were developed primarily by men. If our current culture is dominated by the thoughts and impression of women I suppose this would be reflected more strongly by the modern western method. The framework is still paternalistic in its construct but more open to reflect womens influence as ideas develope.

As an example of what view drives thought and culture, we live in a youth oriented culture. Media markets to a youth audience because this is the group that is targeted by advertising dollars. In the mating game men are attracted to youth and beauty, women to wealth and stability. There isn’t much which can be done about aging so whose point of view is represented by this market strategy? Pop culture may be more masculine then we give it credit. On what frame is the vaneer being apllied?

Hi Phil,
While you make some very interesting points, as always, I don’t think they necessarily conflict w/the point I’m making, which is that it seems, especially to the average guy on the outside looking in, that today’s astrology seems very much attuned to how women think, behave, etc. Now we may or may not like that, but that’s my proposition, and I say that it is that perception that may in the longrun be problematic, IF, the goal is to appeal to a wider swath of people in the years to come.

As I said before, those males in the field, including the younger set, don’t seem terribly interested in this area, mainly because, I feel, they tend to be interested in typical "guy" things, which by definition are more abstract and impersonal, such as astrology’s history, or statistical models, or mundane astrology, and so on. If one notices, the female astrologers tend not to be terribly represented in this cohort. And, as I said, the male astrologers who are heavily involved on the counseling side know which side of the bread their butter is on. Whether they really go in for the stuff they’re selling, or whether they’re going along to get along, they ain’t likely to rock the boat, and from a business model perspective, I can’t blame em.

But astrology takes itself to be a forward leaning thing, and if that’s true, then the question becomes how to break into a pretty much untapped market-the so-called Maxim, or XXL market, so named after the "lads magazines" that are sold to 20 and 30 something aged males. Comparable mgazines onthe female side, say a Cosmopolitan or a Marie Claire, have horoscope columns and the like. Not so for these mags. Why?

Have you read my essay Astrological Eye For The Regular Guy? I’d be interested in hearing what you think.

Holla back

Salaam
Mu

At the moment I don’t see astrology appealing to the alpha males you and Gary have been talking about. Even the omega’s have their alphas so it’s in the context of the general population and broad social approval awarded to alphas which I am referencing. Astrology is an eighth house subject and eighth house subjects just slow the alphas in their climb to the top. Taboo subjects require to much explaining and alphas don’t like to explain themselves to get approval.

The beta’s might be more interested in subject for its own sake then an alpha so you might have some success at marketing to these guys. But here again there might be a tendency to go with flow, not rock the boat and stay away from the taboo. Explaining an interest in astrology might be more trouble then its worth.

The omega’s are a sort of outside the box group. Guys who could be interested in a subject regardless of social consequences. This would seem to be the best demographic to market towards. The methods being developed by the Hellenistic and Medieval astrologers might be something this group folks would find of particular interest. I find them interesting and I’m probably more omega then anything.

Many of the younger men into astrology are the ones who were born after the feminist movement came to fruition. They perhaps have been brought up with a different paradigm perspective and are now the emerging omega guys that are now interested in astrology and bring gender balance.

Each time we host an astrology program, the percentage of males seems to increase, however it is still predominately female.

Cristina wrote:
Many of the younger men into astrology are the ones who were born after the feminist movement came to fruition. They perhaps have been brought up with a different paradigm perspective and are now the emerging omega guys that are now interested in astrology and bring gender balance.



Each time we host an astrology program, the percentage of males seems to increase, however it is still predominately female.

Hi Cristina, Phil, Adam,
I think its important to note something here:

ALPHA males are at the top of a booty chain. These are the males whom are considered by the majority of females to be choice mating material. They are easily distinguishable by a number of features, which neither Betas nor Omegas possess. Natural leaders, Alphas always standout from the pack, unlike Betas. Omegas aren’t even on the radar screen.

BETA males are the vast majority of men anyone will see at any given time. They do not possess that which is needed to "standout" so as to be attractive to the choice females. However, they compensate for this by possessing other qualities that make them attractive for lower tier females. There is a good degree of variation in this group, as is always the case w/the large middle of any group. So, some Betas will be more "true blue", others leaning a bit toward the Alpha side, while still others tilting toward Omega, though not by much, since by definition they’re attractive enough to get at least one female.

OMEGA males are completely out of the loop, because they aren’t attractive as mates by either the top or lower tier females. They lack both genetic material and social resources w/which to attract mates. Therefore, they have virtually no chance at getting a female. This profoundly effects what they do in other areas. For example, using the cited examples here, please name a prominent Omega male in ANY field, even among criminals? Very difficult to do, right? Almost impossible to find a man who has mde himself standout and yet is completely not attractive at least to some extent by females. Of course, we leave the gay issue aside here. But one could argue that even there what I said above holds true-some gay men are clearly more seen as desirable mates than others.

Anyway, my point here is to make sure we get clear on what we’re talking about here, because its easy to get confused. Things like what we’re discussing is deeply uncomfortable to Americans, both because we don’t like negativity, and because we’re imbued w/a sense of egalitarianism. We all want to believe that we live in Lake Woebegone, where all the kids are above average. But it is not so.

So, what type of man is most attracted to astrology, and which is least? I think it fair to say that, especially in the area of astrological specialty that Cristina is involved in, that strongly Beta males would likely be in abundance. Not impersonal enough for Omegas, and as Phil alluded to earlier, hard to see how it would benefit Alphas, who already have a working program to procure the choicest fertile females.

That said however, something needs to be pointed out, and has indeed played itself out writ large on the MySpace landscape since my joining it in the Fall of 2006: whenever men and women get together, strong sexual overtones are inevitable. People will find each other and we all knows what happens next. And there will be a natural ordering along the lines I have explained, on both sides of the sexes.

So, let’s take Chris Brennan for an example. Now, in the outer world he would hardly qualify as an Alpha male, and though I’ve yet to actually meet him face to face, from what I’ve seen of him speak, he doesn’t present himself as an Alpha as well. At all. At best I’d say he’s Beta leaning toward the Omega side. However, because he’s very unique in a unique field-astrology-this raises his status. He’s a specialist in an obscure branch of astrology, has demonstrated both an ability to organize and work within the social network of astrologers and manage to reach the heights of it, and, most of all for our discussion, he’s young, very young in astrologer terms. All of these attributes makes him more of an Alpha in this field. And, as we’ve seen over the past year or two, its netted him real results in terms of booty. In fact, it would not surprise me in the least if Brennan’s already been approached by a number of different females, directly or indirectly at the bigger conferences, and if it hasn’t happened yet it is almost a given that it will. Women are hardwired to desire success in a male, and Brennan is by all accounts, a rare success in the astrology world. And with success, comes booty. Literally. That doesn’t mean that Brennan will accept all of even part of it. My point is that he’s in that position given his peculiar circumstances.

Contrasting him w/Adam however, we can clearly see where Adam fits on the scale. Though no fault of his own, Adam lacks the genetic material to be desirable to females. This impacts his ability to acquire social capital w/which to attract females. He’s on the PC all the time, yet hasn’t developed himself in any way comparable to Brennan. And they’re both the same age, race and I’d say, class-at least nominally middle class. Whereas its public knowledge about at least two Brennan-involved romantic entanglements, it is hard to see Adam involved in such a scenario. Hence, Adam is indeed an Omega male.

Gary would also be similar to Brennan although older insofar as his ability to work the existing social networks. And, though he’s physically older than Brennan, still for a pro astrologer he’s very young-I think the mean age is mid 50s? I’m sure if he wanted to he could have a number of females at the last UAC. Again, women like success, and by all accounts, Gary is successful-a requested speaker at the major conferences, published numerous times in the major trades (TMA) and journals, and is part of a collective of astrologers that invites speakers in from around the country. His ranking? I’d agree w/him, probably a "higher end" Beta, especially given his chosen area of expertise astrologically, which is closer to Evolutionary astrology.

Musa Siregar III is also closer to the Alpha end of the Betas, in that he’s created and rapidly become one of the most important conference organizers in the astrology world. Our history is well known, and he can tell you that we had a very similar conversation about these issues some years back. In fact if I had to choose his one outstanding feature as an astrologer to date, its his Blast conference, especially given his age, under 40.

Both Jeff Green and Steve Forrest are closer to the Alpha end of the Betas. Both have/had wives and in Green’s case, has at least one child. This means by definition they cannot be Omegas.

OK, I know someone out there’s wondering, so lets put it on the table: where does Mu rank? Well, I’m definitely not an Omega. Beta? Quite possible, since most men anywhere at any time fall in that group. Alpha? Probably not.

Yet, nam another African American male (or even female) who’s taught astrology of any kind at a major American university w/o a college degree themself. Who knows well, at least two different astrology systems. Who’s written more than 100 articles on the subject, and though admittedly banned by anumber of forums, still attracts new members to any forum he participates in, and has shown demonstrated ability to impact other said forums. Who has founded his own forum, which instantly attracted some of the better minds in the field. And who, despite considerable controversey, still attracts attention by the aforementioned and beyond.

You make the call.

Holla back

Salaam
Mu

yet... within the context of general society... all astrologers are a bit weird... and thus NOT ALPHA...
hence, you are looking at what I referenced as sub-set dynamics.

Ann wrote:
yet... within the context of general society... all astrologers are a bit weird... and thus NOT ALPHA...

hence, you are looking at what I referenced as sub-set dynamics.

Hmm.

OK Ann, let’s look at it this way: is an Alpha male in the White community automatically translate to the Black, Asian and Hispanic females? If US Census data is any authority on the matter, the answer would have to be "No". Asian females definitely would be so attracted; some Hispanic females; and Black females the least.

So, I’m not entirely sure I go in for your "sub set" theory. True, there are variations within any group, I’ll grant that. But unless one takes context into account, everything loses meaning. Within the context I mentioned, clearly there is a hierarchy, something that is directly important to males, and indirectly important to females. The reason for this is very simple: males compete for the choicest fertile females, while females wait to see who the winners and losers are, and if at all possible, choose from among the former and kick the latter to the curb. This is why Polygamy, which has always been a staple of Human history, has always been more advantageous to females, because its better to get a "time share" on a very successful male than having a low class/no status/no resources male all to yourself. In fact, for many females, knowing that other females want your male is a head rush (and the same can be said in the reverse; I’ve been studying some evo-work on that front of late).

Now, THIS is what I call "Evolutionary Astrology"! Excellent! Carry on...

Salaam
Mu

Interesting topic.

It seems that the male typology is being characterized based on ones social status and admiration of the female populous as well as the populus at large which has some merit but as we know in America, judging something based on its popularity with the masses is shaking territory.

In the African American community, traditionally the biggest standouts among men have been artists, entertainers, clergy and athletes. Some of whom might be characterized as Alpha males based on their fame and desirability amongst the masses, but very few who actually fit the profile of the stereotypical Alpha Male, since macho man is not usually what we think of when we think of R and B singers, Preachers or even social activists per sey.

If the ability to attract women is an indicator of one being an Alpha Male or not, one could easily become an Alpha Male overnight simply by coming into a large sum of money..lol

I wouldnt place myself into any of the categories, but I think the definitions would have to be specific to the areas of an individuals life.

Im not a standout guy per sey, but have never had a problem attracting a load of women who are interested in me, but I also dont do it with the knock of over the head with machismo thing either...so its tricky.

Im a standout amongst my friends to an extent, and definitely on the job im noted as one of the most efficient, unusual and creative individuals ever to hit the agency. However in terms of overall financial and career status, Im at the bottom of the ranks.

There are some people who have a certain something that comes with them and that people notice everywhere, but that could be said of a Luther Vandross as well as an 50 cent.

Mu,

Top of the Booty Chain?...LOL

My traditional perception of the Alpha Male was the classic Fire Sign male archetype etc. but when I was coming up it was the softer, pretty boy, slick type dudes that got all the girls.

I dont think theres that many guys out there that are hurting that bad to get some "booty"..lol

I don’t think the premise of the group was evolution from the physical standpoint, but rather from a spiritual basis. I’m with ya Mu in that I don’t think one can be considered without the other and arrive at conclusions which are relevant for most of us. We are physical and our thoughts are at least in part the product of our biology. The two veins of religious thought which I have brushing familiarity with depict the human experience as based on Maya or illusion or the corruption of original sin. Whether coming from the east or west the experience of physical life is viewed as something separate from the higher reaches of spirituality. There is philosophical antipathy towards life. I don’t see how this can be healthy.

Taking purely the physical basis for evolution, no rational argument can be made for morality. It is purely the survival of the fittest and biology prevails over any other concerns. Machiavelli offers a wonderful guide for those whose interests end at satisfying their desires. That may be a booty call or some other desire. Though we find this behavior pathological it also carries a fascination for us. We identify ourselves as individual and want to satisfy our desires but are hardwired for consideration. Consider the role mirror neurons play in our interaction. In most instances it hurts us to see someone hurt. There are people who are less sensitive to the needs of others and they fascinate us. We give them tacit approval to live our fantasy. Hunter Thompson is an example. It’s as though life got out of the way for Thompson to do whatever he wished and not suffer any consequences. An unlived fantasy for most of us.

Fortunately for astrologers most of us do suffer consequences and experience frustration so counseling astrologers have a ready supply of clients. Taking the adaptive angle of evolution, should the client then be advised to compensate for the difficulties reflected in their chart at the expense of others or should they be counseled to turn their attention inward? The turning inward stuff is very difficult and the rates of recidivism using this approach are high. They are likely to re-experience the frustration which brought them to the astrologer in the first place. Why not redefine it the problem as one of pressure and tell them to vent this frustration on someone weaker? While our laws may not encourage this behavior, our biology would does actually support this approach. Expressing anger and frustration is healthier for the one experiencing these emotions then leaving them unexpressed.

Which may explain why our religious traditions give so little credence to physicality. Life incarnate offers little in the way of rational solutions. However this is a peculiar point of view which discounts the experience and it is the experience which leads toward the solution. Experience leads to awareness, and eventually one becomes aware that they themselves are the ones experiencing their lives. Self-awareness is commonly used as a definition for differentiating our species from the rest of the animal kingdom. Though there is a high rate of recidivism concerning frustration and difficulties, most of us are brought back to the source. And we become self-aware. If the premise of Evolutionary and Vedic astrology hold true, this takes lifetimes.

The Vedics view Jyotish as the eyes of the Vedas and Alice Bailey states that astrology will usher in the New Age. East and West again; passive observer or active participant. Both have spiritual overtones which are difficult to mesh with our desires. The likes of Hameed Ali and Byron Katie have made interesting observations regarding our perceptions. I’m not sure that astrology is leading the field in taking an honest look at what’s in front of us.

Just trying to reframe the alpha concepts here.

Hi Zam,
Yea this is a very interesting topic, one that never comes up in astrology circles.

As I said to Ann earlier, these are some gut level, brutally honest truths, especially for females, to hear, and as Americans it is especially repugnant, because we are so thoroughly ingrained w/the idea that "all men are created equal". But as astrologers, it is a dangerous position to take.

All that you said in your posts above easily fits into what I’m saying. The preacher, activist, rapper, etc all have in common, is their seeking status w/which to attract females. And not just any female, but the most fertile (prettiest) ones. When one does not access to resources materially or socially, they turn to genetics, hence the bad boys. They really have any of the aformentioned two in any major degree, but they have raw choice genetic material, and hence why they continue to be a fave among femals, even as some (like Ann) protest to the contrary. Some women are like that, they’ll "protest" as you pull their panties off...

The nature of human and for that matter, animal evolution on he planet has decreed that females are more important for one reason and one reason alone, because they give birth to babies. And when it comes to women, who usually can only bring forth one life at a time, you need as many wombs as possible. I know that sounds harshly objectifying, but it is the truth.

All our culture on the planet has grown up around these evolutionary truths. No matter where you go, males will jockey for the right to have sexual access to the female. As Society has progressed from hunter/gatherer to agrarian, to industrial and finally to information-based, these truths have been covered over by proxies of all kinds.

For example, its common to hear a woman say that she wants a man who is "confident" or assured of himself. It is far less common to hear a woman say that she wants a successful man. At least it is among the middle classes on up, and the reason why is because Class is a matter of what other people think you have in terms of wealth and attendant status based on how you behave. So, for lower class women, its very common to hear them say outright, that they have little interest in men w/no success, ie, money.

Anyway, being successful naturally raises one’s profile and self esteem, hence confidence level. So, a middle class woman saying the latter is actually a proxy for saying that she wants a successful man, since saying that so blatantly will diminish her status among her peer group. And the higher you go in status, the more peer groups and social networks mean to you.

The ideal Alpha male has a combination of genes, social skills and success/money. However, it is very common for Alphas to rise based almost entirely on their genetic material, from which other traits are displayed, such as daring, leadership (getting other men to follow your lead, etc, to say nothing of females), innovation (a proxy for risk taing), and so on. In fact, almost by definition Alphas have to have at least nominally strong genetic material, as this forms the basis of female sexual attraction. Social skills and material success are important, but not deal breakers, and the Black community is an excellent case in point to prove this fact.

As is well known, for any number of reasons, either brought about externally or self-inflicted internally, Black men have a hard time getting the material resources and thus, attendant status, that other males, especially White ones, can. This makes them, especially the large swath of Betas, not seem to be optimal mate material, and hence what we see in terms of the high numbers of Black women never marrying in their lifetime. It is a dramatic and powerful signal on their part that they’d rather remain alone than to throw their lot in w/males who are not successful.

But there’s one caveat. Bad boys. By definition they are Alpha males, because they have one thin the Betas don’t have, or have enough of, and that’s choice baby creating genes. How many sistas in the hood have had babies w/these kind of guys? In fact, I’m pretty sure that if a headcount of all Black babies were done, at least half of them would be sired by Alphas alone. As we already established, virtually none would be sired by Omegas.

I would put you in the solid middle of the Betas, for the most part, Zam. As you’ve told me yourself on several occasions, quite a few ladies don’t see you as being suitable genetic material but do greatl appreciate your social skills, which I agree is your real strong suit. In fact, that’s the classic definition of a Beta male. Although there are a high number of Black women choosing to go it alone, there is another large group willin to "make do" w/the Betas provided they are strong in other areas, like you. This explains why many of them take a liking to you, although let’s be clear here-these are largely women who aren’t top shelf themselves. They are pretty but not Beyonce’ level bombs, if you follow.

Holla back

Salaam
Mu