issues with Liz Greene

[Modcleopatra]

Does anyone else here have problems with how Liz Greene discusses sexuality in her work with astrology?

I have read much of her work about Saturn and Venus (I myself have a square between the two) and have been displeased with her strict adherence to gender/sexuality norms. For example, she attributes this square to "problems with my feminity." Now, being a Sun Square Pluto I of course immediately question the power structures in place that require us to see certain sexualities and gender performance as normal, and what makes us think the sexed body should immediately dictate how one behaves as either masculine or feminine, and what one should sexually desire.

The rather archiac relationship of Venus to one's feminity seems to me a sign of lax scholarship on Greene's part, and a reliance on ignorant sexist traditions pronounced by ptolemic philosophers who went unquestioned due to the role they played within the social scene- not an actual truth divined from a higher Spiritual Unity. (If anything I've taken to believing spiritual messages are often in the forms of mixed riddles, backwards to what someone might want the spiritual message mean) Let us not look at Venus as merely the sign of one's "feminity and love nature," but the point in our chart which represents our capacity to self heal and to receive love beyond the mere sensual (Moon and Mars, for example) and that which comes . I am interested to hear what people speculate and theorize with any coming Venusian impact on this planet and how the changing sexual climate represents this.

I also have issues with Greene's (and traditional astrology as a whole) take on homosexuality. She frequently reduces it to a pathology, a problem with one's Mars (if a woman) or one's Venus (if a man.) The same old Venus square Uranus shows up, along with the boring and redudant indictments of Libra and Pisces in a man's chart, and Virgo and Aries in a woman's chart. PLEASE people let us consider the soul beyond the physical and let us look past the tradition readings of the planets/signs/houses/etc to find the zen riddle lurking with a more compassionate, responsive, spiritual answer. And of course, to look for sexuality in a chart is a problem to begin with, as it again assumes the heterosexuality is normal, since who would begin the quest to see if one was heterosexual in a chart?!

I don't mean to single out Liz Greene but I know people use her a lot and use her positively and I just wanted to bring to the fore some negative consequences of her work.

Any thoughts?

[Nexus7]

Here is an article that might be of interest:

http://www.aplaceinspace.net/Pages/PClampHomophobia.html

[archergirl]

I think you're thinking too much about it. :p

I'm not disagreeing with you regarding Greene's take on things; I find her reasoning for finding signs of homosexuality in a chart iffy at best, mainly because I don't think the Universe in its infinite wisdom cares whether one is homo, hetero, or the many shades in-between.

But sometimes when people take umbrage at another's viewpoint, it's because there are underlying struggles within the person who is offended. People who don't have issues around their perceived femininity or masculinity, don't put any thought into whether they are feminine or masculine, if you see what I mean. They don't care what other people think about it, either. We think about, and get wound up about, things that we personally are sensitive to.

Greene uses a lot of Jungian archetypes in her work; archetypes seldom address the grey areas that make up so much of human existence.

AG:)

[Modcleopatra]

Mr. Archergirl (interesting play with the mister and female gender... are you a sag? Do you like Diana from I think... greek mythology?)

Interesting point you make about the Universe. I can't quite seem to get down with the indifferent take on the Universe... absentee landlord always makes me feel like there is no point in fighting for justice/humanity/utopia. However, I do so see why it can be helpful as it certainly encourages one to relax and because perhaps it forces more responsibility into the arms of humanity (which of course, I like, because I have so much Capricorn) and to question who's image of utopia we are working for.

I know Liz does work with Jungian archetypes, which I have a problem with. I basically have problems with psychoanalysis in general because it pressupposes a lot of things, and operates from a Western-centered modality on thinking, experience, and the spirit, to name a few. But, since I am of Western culture, I suppose I should at least honor and acknowledge its place.

And I can't help but think faaaar into things. I am out of school right now and hungering for education.

Thanks for your post here and elsewhere. The comments you made really brightened my outlook! :)

[Modcleopatra]

love it! I have read his work before. Very well done. thanks for the post.

[Jilly]

I have always found this lady to be a star amongst astrologers and devour her books avidly.

I agree with archer, you are thinking way too much about yourself. To me, you are screaming out to be 'approved' when there is quite clearly something inherent in your personality which I think you are deeply ashamed of and are trying to blame things ie charts, world famous astrologers, aspects.

This is highly unfair to all the above, and may I suggest that a touch of counselling will be far more advantageous to your developement as a person than looking for things to blame?

To be honest, having looked at your chart, I think with your current attitude, you are scheduled for a rocky ride. You have to lighten up and live normally, stop trying to be something you know you are not. Many people are not what they want to be, but they have to deal with this themselves.

Ultimately, you have to do this alone, we can only give you some advice, but if you maintain your current attitude, I would imagine you are destined for a lonely and bitter life.

[Modcleopatra]

Jilly,

While I agree with Mr. Archergirl was saying, and I see what you are saying. I think you really took it a step too far with commenting on my person and my chart as a whole. Indeed I know I am in for a rocky road, though a few nice people have indeed pointed out there are a few nice things in my chart which I should count on and rely on. And I very well know that airing one's displeasure or disagreement with a popular personality in any field of research/insight, immediately creates a situation in which others, in defense of that star personality, will turn on the critic, commenting that it must be something "deeply within" that would cause so much strife around the particular issue.

Being that I value constructive criticisms and insights as paramount to understanding astrology or any field that delves into the human experience, I do not see any problem, both on a public level or private level, to constantly question those who we consider most powerful, most correct, most of what-have-you. There are no reasons I can think that prevent this from being a positive and productive direction, on all fronts. Liz Greene's work, which I have also studied is helpful, and excellent in a lot of respects, but let us not ignore where she falls short. As I mentioned, I did not mean to suggest that Liz was all bad, but rather, when I see so many people relying on her as a valuable source of information, I can't help but think of the times when she was detrimental and harmful on a whole.

My post was not to open me up to such criticisms as the one you offered, nor did I post my chart on here for anyone to turn to me and say "life will be hard for you young one," or to indeed point the finger at me and say "you need therapy to quiet your little overzealous nerves." This is precisely how your post made me feel. I am young and would like to be encouraged to fully develop, not to be placed patronizingly among those of us with "difficult charts destined for a bitter life."

I consider struggles of masculine and feminine and how we understand these to operate, to be of paramount importance on the social scale. And, as we can see, should we look at it even slightly more deeply than a topical glance, that what dictates the inhumane flow of the world, begins with how we understand masculine and feminine to operate within our core beings. I do not want an important astrologer such as Liz to propagate the major components behind the world's inhumanity. Moreover, an entire academic field is dedicated to the precisely the issues I raised. To reduce these to "merely problems within my inner being" is to reduce an entire academic field to just that. I find that reprehensible to say the least.


I found your post, Jilly, to be very disheartening, and extremely personal in its attack. It frustrates me enormously to know that there are individuals who seek to force their views, rather than open up a discussion, which is what my post was doing. I was not looking to draw personal attention to my being.

And it was immensely painful to read the words you used to describe my path in life.

Teddi

[Jilly]

Thank you for proving what I said to be correct.

If I may say, your later sentences and one in particular in which you refer to it being a 'personal ATTACK'.

That sums it up, young lady, you feel you are being attacked, BUT by nobody in this room, only your psyche.

I am a Scorpio, we are known for getting to the point rather quickly and in a less scenic route than many other signs.

I don't know you, why do you feel attacked?

Have you ever heard of.......

wait for it................................



FREE WILL?:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Modcleopatra]

I'm just going to take a moment longer to respond specifically to this being about me personally...

I suppose because my post seemed out of left field that perhaps it came from some personal issue. I have had to work out issues with my sexuality, but because of childhood sexual abuse. In all of my time centered around healing that part of me, I had to learn lessons about masculine and feminine and the spirit, and it ended up being a strong message about of course, inner balance of the two that has little to do with one's sexed body or sexuality. Such lessons are not easy.

I'm just a bit shocked with the stigmatizing effect my post had on me. Suddenly this has become about me personally, as if everyone is the giant therapist to my little life. I have a problem with how the world works. Who doesnt!?

Its so hurtful that anyone would begin to point at me as if I have never examined myself, my reasons for doing things, my struggles and motivations. I want a better world. I'm not sure what that means. Really this is quite a sensitive issue for me.

What am I ashamed of? Being a survivor of incest. This post has deteriorated and I feel a bit cornered as if my calling into question that tactics and stance of a popular astrologer renders me as having issues or problems within my psyche.

[Modcleopatra]

Jilly all I said was that I felt attacked. Of course I know of FREE WILL. I would say your sarcastic tone is well... worth mentioning as a bit nasty.

[Modcleopatra]

Plus I am used to forming debates around points in the form of "attacks.." i learned that in debate team... jeez. I think you might be the serious one here.

[Jilly]

At last! You said it....incest.
I knew it was something along those lines but you have to open up before we can help you. Stop feeling persecuted, we and especially I, want to help you.

[Modcleopatra]

Well I can't help but feel, given your tone, that you were condemning me.

[leslie1979]

Hello all:)

I've read some Liz Greene myself and I just laughed my *** off when it came to her views in the chart's of women & men who have predominant venus/uranus aspects (square/opposition) = homosexuality, androgenous characteristics (spelling*?), etc. Beacause myself and my two brothers all have harsh venus/uranus aspects and MAN! I am straight as they come. And as far as I know, my brothers are totally straight. None of us are androgenous looking. But! I am a very non-traditional woman, ex: no desire to bear children or be a homemaker. But theoretically Liz Green's ideas make sense on a text book level.

[Jilly]

Cleo, I think just now you are at war with the world and think everyone is out to get you. I can assure you, we all have lives outside of this room, we all have our own problems without picking on you.....especially me!:eek:

[archergirl]

OK girls, keep it down.

I never said anyone was thinking too much about themselves...what I said was, I thought Modcleopatra was 'thinking too much' about the issue...and it was said a bit tongue in cheek.

Disagreements about authors and philosophies are absolutely fine; this is how we learn and grow...but let's stick to debating Greene's, or anyone else's, astrology:- whether we agree with it, disagree with it, what we disagree with, etc....instead of veering into what we think about individual members' opinions. If it goes personal, I'll close the thread.

Modcleopatra, my comment about the Universe comes a bit on the heels of Greene's writings on homosexuality; we have had a lot of debate on this site about the viability of astrology addressing such a thing (to no agreement whatsoever:p ).

My view of it is: I simply think that a natal chart shows "A Human Being" without showing sexuality or any other sort of preference, because fundamentally that is what we all are: simply "human beings". It has nothing to do with the Universe being indifferent or not...that implies a sentience that passes judgement on us. All I mean is that homosexuality or heterosexuality or any other preference (my preference for expensive shoes, perhaps) is (or should be, to my idealistic mind) so arbitrary and, in the widest picture, utterly unimportant. That we place importance on defining sexuality and having endless discussions about it (everywhere, I mean, in the press, etc.) only means that we are not yet comfortable with sexuality in general. If the world was a balanced place, sexuality wouldn't even be an issue for consideration; it would simply be what it is to each person, without all the angst and analysis.

BTW, when I talk about "Mr. Archergirl", I do mean my husband, a most annoying (okay, he's a good guy, too) sextuple Gemini...not me. I am indeed a Sadge. I myself am rather androgynous, however. Not on purpose. I just like short hair and functional clothing.;)

Cheers,
AG:)

[Jilly]

Well said AG:)

[Modcleopatra]

Well I suppose that's precisely how I was trying to have the discussion, it became personal when it became all about me and my problems... which I wouldn't have felt inclined to include if it hadn't been mentioned that it had something to do with me personally. Which it didn't.

[archergirl]

Let's all let it go.

I think another issue I have with Greene's homosexuality stuff is that it is 'all about the mother'; she gives an example of a homosexual man with a high-maintenance mother. This seems to me to be a bit of a cliche and a false equation. I have known *plenty* of homosexual men in my life, many of them very good friends, and I can't think of one of them who has a mother remotely resembling the mother in the example chart. Do all men with stage mothers 'turn' homosexual? Um, I don't think so. Unless she can come up with definitive data from a large cross-cultural cross-section of people with homosexual preferences, I'll remain sceptical.

I have unfortunately just packed up all my books into boxes to ship overseas, so I can't pull out my Greene books; it seems to me there was some issue with an afflicted Saturn being in the 10th? (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

And the whole feminine-masculine thing IS a bit irritating as well, although I have to point out that Russell Crowe, a Sun/Mars Aries, is all man, and I like it that way!:cool:

AG:)

[Jilly]

AG

Having studied the above, I can only say that I agree with the findings about the lack of a mother throughout the childhood and the problems that this invariably causes in later life. I know a young man with an adulterous mother who has and continues to suffer dreadfully because of her.

[leslie1979]

HI,


Just from my personal experience, (my brother's and myself) Our mother was the mother's mother. She was the ultimate, comforting, giving, sensitive, strong, loving mother anyone could ask for. Pure, unconditional love. For which I am incredibly thankful for. Our father, on the other hand....he was not absentee, my mother and him were married for 30 years. But he was a cold and mean alcoholic. Not abusive physically, but emotionally. I am not sure if this would apply to the Venus/Uranus thing. But...it does count against the mother archetype being modified by the Venus/Uranus aspects. ???...N-E-whoo

Cheers

[Natasha]

For me personally I see the Jungian archytypes (which are central to Liz Greenes astrology) as archytypes not as human examples of particular signs placements & aspects. This is why the Jungian archytypes - Greek mythology (they are directly linked) are symbolized by the gods and goddesses.

In other words I see archytypes as that which is 100% of that particular symbolism
They are not the ideal or hoped for definitions but products our society and our culture and the culture upon which it was based.

I dont not see the Jungian / Greek Myth feminine & masculine as representive of women and men but of the divine or archytypal representation of that element within humans
For instance Venus Urania as far as it goes is the Libra archytype - the myths of Venus' seem to somehow be an equivalant of the Venus Urania / Libra archytype. Even the glyph symbolizes Venus with the hand mirror.

This archytype is present within men and women. Due to our culture we can see glimpses of the archytype more openly in women. But every man has a Venus and a Libra and he will either project it or act it out at some time.

I am a great fan of Liz Greenes (who wrote many books and did many seminars with Howard Sasportas who sadly died of AIDS in the 90s') writings and for me personally Liz & Howards insightfulness on archytypes has contributed to my astrological understanding.

I am also greatly in favor of questioning sacred cows tho Cleo and love to do this myself when I feel society or a vocal group etc has looked the other way and smiled because a certian person or value is seem to be correct. I think this is one of the powers of a strong Pluto - Pluto cannot tolerate the truth not to be spoken.

[archergirl]

Having studied the above, I can only say that I agree with the findings about the lack of a mother throughout the childhood and the problems that this invariably causes in later life. I know a young man with an adulterous mother who has and continues to suffer dreadfully because of her.

Hi Jilly, I'm not disagreeing that having a terrible mother causes one to suffer; I'm disagreeing that having a horrible mother makes one a homosexual; or that one is homosexual due to having a horrible mother, to put it conversely. The idea is absurd. This is what Greene seems to imply in her analysis of the homosexual man.

I agree that archetypes are not meant to be taken literally; however, (and I am a fan of Liz Greene, by the way; I have a couple of books and have ordered several of her various personal horoscopes for myself and family) I sometimes find her use of archetypes in implying causality a bit of a stretch. To quote Freud: "Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.":p

AG:)

[Jilly]

Anyone got a light?:60: :60: :60:

[aquarius7000]

For me Liz Greene is just another astrologer, so it's like getting to know her views on a topic, if & when I read her stuff, but Greene doesn't belong to the first few on the pile of my reference material - she does tend to exaggerate - just my opinion. ..BUT whether you go along with someone else's views on a subject or not, it always does broaden your horizons, I feel!!

**Anyways, I think we should let Liz Greene be the one and only subject of discussion of this thread and not contributors of posts - would only be fair to all others here**

Peace
:)aquarius7000

[EJ53]

Does anyone else here have problems with how Liz Greene discusses sexuality in her work with astrology?.......I don't mean to single out Liz Greene but I know people use her a lot and use her positively and I just wanted to bring to the fore some negative consequences of her work.....Any thoughts?

Hi Teddi,

I see Liz Greene as a pioneering astrologer. Someone with the courage to put forward a personal view that challenges established thinking, accepting that it may get "shot down" immediately or superceded in the future. And, I agree that much of what she has said on sexuality is/has always been questionable.

But, my problem lies with those who fail to question expert opinion rather than with the opinions themselves. The passage of time invariably reveals that to-days expert is tomorrows novice - mainly because of the few who dare to challenge the establishment/status-quo (excellent rock group though they are).

Questioning/challenging expert thinking is what every astrologer should do - so keep it up.

EJ:)

[Caprising]

Does anyone have Liz Greens birth data? I remember reading a couple of years ago how her 2nd partner died. I'm not sure if they were partners as in lovers, or astrologers who were doing research with Liz. Can anyone clear this up?

[Nexus7]

Modcleopatra

Any further reaction to the link I sent you?

Havn't there been other threads here on Liz Greene, her strengths and limitations as an astrologer and thinker? Anyone care to take a look and find them?

I agree that she was very much a pioneer in astrology - her books are always a great read, even if we not not agree with them (which, by the way, I often don't.) I should think it is normal enough to read her books and then start wondering afterwards how this applies to your own chart and wondering which horrendous affliction is 'responsible' for every manner of reprehensible deep and dark complexes you may have - bit like reading medical textbooks and then desiding that you must have incipient signs of all the latent diseases described therein. I think many a new student has been there.....

But astrology and psychology are 'soft' sciences (well, psychology is), where we might always feel justified in questioning the beliefs and assumptions of the astrologer concerned and I seem to remember that the great Doctor Greene's alleged chart also turned up for inspection somewhere on an earlier thread here...... Someone also mentioned on an earelir thread that the school where she got her profesorship was a bit fringy in the sense of being, shall we say, not very left of center..)

She may well have regretted using the particular case study on homosexuality she did after working and collaborating with Haward Sasportas, who was gay. Her book Saturn is saturated with ideas from esotericism, but by Relating, Bailey is supplanted by Jung, where it seems, the sun itself did indeed appear to shine from the proverbial posterior itself in this case - but fast forward another 20 years to Uranus, Greene is rather more critical of the Great Man and his habit of keeping two mistresses, for example. A long way from being critical of the animus possessed women that she took issue with in Relating.

I also raised the question of her 'take' on autism in the earlier threads. There, she quotes Bettelheim pretty extensively - another example of a pioneer speculating about things where most angels would not dare to speculate nowadays.

No, I have many a book of hers on the shelf and would still be happy to beg, steal (ok, maybe not steal) or borrow her book on psychopaths form somewhere - or cadge an e-copy for that matter. Still does not mean I agree with everything she says and I don't think anyone here should either. I think we should kep an open mind - keep looking for the wheat of her insights and discard the chaff, though I daresay there will be a lot of deabte to come with what was wheat and what chaff in her case.

And yes, then there is the case of psychoanalysing. I have read the tapescripts of Liz Grren in action in books such as the Uranus one, where she takes issue with a member of the audience for quibbling with orbs over a particualr aspects á Greene castigates her for being Uranian in a 'you are in Pain and In Denial' sense. Well, ok, the good member of the audience had signed up for dirt-digging into her psyche, so it may have been appropriate....

....then again, the question of orbs is still an area where the jury is still, very much out.

[Nexus7]

Cap Rising

As you were asking too - Got it:

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6517&highlight=Greene+autism

[Rasalhague]

Not in defense of Liz, but here's my thoughts on the subject:

"Problems with femininity", who ever said this is an internal "problem" that magically appeared out of nowhere? Something that developed internally, without anyone ever having an influence on that?

While I love psychological astrology, I tend to say two this:
Viewing or doing something differently from the rest does not make it a "problem" for oneself specifically. While that is certainly true, it will cause friction with your environment and thus the term "problem" pops up. View it as "other people's problem" and not "your problem" when something like this appears. Of course you must introspect and think about it, but you're also the only one that can decide whether it's a "problem" you'd want to change or not. What you're basically trying to change is how others view the matter. Astrologers are by all means, more rightfully capable to do this when they remain objective. Perhaps we are also the ones to suffer less from peer pressure, society standards, etc and risk being outsiders.

I never had any "problem" with my femininity (I have Saturn conjunct Moon), felt just fine as a woman and also doing "women's stuff", until people started calling me names! She-Male! Butch! Lesbian! Anyone with a powerful identity risks being called a shemale. Unfortunately I wasn't born blue eyed, golden locks and I ain't 1.50m tall, which is apparently a lesbian (which I'm not). Me? I embrace my male side as well as my female side, but the outside world will remain having problems with me embracing my male side, which is by their standards: displaying (head)strong behaviour. Perhaps, if you look at it like this, it may make sense.

Astrology isn't always a matter of inside -> out, but mostly it is a matter of outside -> in. Unfortunately in today's society we are being taught that any "problem" you have is your fault and you will need to resolve. The "your fault" bit, that's modern psychology's hickup from time to time because it often preimposes people don't want to see or are unable to see their "problem". The solution is learning to live with everyone elses problem with your gender views or identity while understanding "problem" does not mean "wrong" or "your fault". Seldomly properly done, hence this issue exists.

Conclusion: I think some planetary aspects truly do mean "problems with femininity", but whether you should be ashamed instead of mighty proud you have issues with today's still male oriented world should be obvious. Astrology's job is not to show you how it should work, but how it works. Perhaps, eventually, hundreds of years from now we will have to revise the Saturn conjunct Moons and Saturn square Venuses of this world. Todays just not the day sister;)

[archergirl]

Rasalhague, I had to laugh at this:
I never had any "problem" with my femininity (I have Saturn conjunct Moon), felt just fine as a woman and also doing "women's stuff", until people started calling me names! She-Male! Butch! Lesbian! Anyone with a powerful identity risks being called a shemale.

I am much in the same boat; I, too, have Saturn conjunct Moon (Saturn/Taurus; Moon/Aries) AND a 1st house Mars, and I have also been misperceived by others.
Unfortunately I wasn't born blue eyed, golden locks and I ain't 1.50m tall, which is apparently a lesbian (which I'm not). Me? I embrace my male side as well as my female side, but the outside world will remain having problems with me embracing my male side, which is by their standards: displaying (head)strong behaviour. Perhaps, if you look at it like this, it may make sense

LOL. When I was in my early twenties I was very often thought to be lesbian (I had very short bleached blonde hair...and I'm 1.55m!:p ) and I lived close to a mainly gay neighbourhood in Seattle. I guess I can understand it now...

I guess the whole masculine/feminine confusion has never been an issue for me. I was always comfortable being a tomboy (and I was one tough kid!) and to this day I prefer more 'androgynous' clothing: trousers or jeans; boots; a sweater made of fine wool; and I certainly have never been fixated on whether I was 'too masculine' for other people, or 'not feminine' enough...what can this possibly mean, to be 'too much' or 'not enough'?

As it is, while I do think that global development issues do come down, in part, to a huge misunderstanding of the roles of masculine/feminine archetypes (they have become completely gendered in most places and used to perpetrate horrific abuses), I'm not quite sure it's as pat as many astrologers try to make it. That doesn't mean it isn't interesting to study, however...:p

AG:)

[Rasalhague]

Rasalhague, I had to laugh at this:


I am much in the same boat; I, too, have Saturn conjunct Moon (Saturn/Taurus; Moon/Aries) AND a 1st house Mars, and I have also been misperceived by others.


LOL. When I was in my early twenties I was very often thought to be lesbian (I had very short bleached blonde hair...and I'm 1.55m!:p ) and I lived close to a mainly gay neighbourhood in Seattle. I guess I can understand it now...

I guess the whole masculine/feminine confusion has never been an issue for me. I was always comfortable being a tomboy (and I was one tough kid!) and to this day I prefer more 'androgynous' clothing: trousers or jeans; boots; a sweater made of fine wool; and I certainly have never been fixated on whether I was 'too masculine' for other people, or 'not feminine' enough...what can this possibly mean, to be 'too much' or 'not enough'?

As it is, while I do think that global development issues do come down, in part, to a huge misunderstanding of the roles of masculine/feminine archetypes (they have become completely gendered in most places and used to perpetrate horrific abuses), I'm not quite sure it's as pat as many astrologers try to make it. That doesn't mean it isn't interesting to study, however...:p

AG:)

XD! One can always find someone who is just like you in some aspects here on astroweekly. To make matters more exciting, I have a Mars in an angular house as well; the seventh house! Perhaps this is the difference of a 1st house vs 7th house Mars?

I understand, as much as I understand the 1st poster for this issue. The only problem is, I'd like astrology to be a reflection of how reality is. To me 'perpetrate horrific abuses' is a day to day thing to experience. Perhaps this is my disposition talking, but I am also convinced not all these positions lead to the same result. Take you and me for example. You were never bothered, I simply cast the issue aside after thinking about it (hard and long) and then there will be others that truly adopt the "problem" as something they caused. I think we can be very happy to still have a field which allows to still make the difference between outside and inside very sharply without going against something. (I had a better word, which I forgot... I so flunk english).

[archergirl]

That isn't to say that I haven't been plagued with doubts about myself, or with my ability to 'love'...perhaps with a Saturn/Moon conjunction emotions are an issue...but luckily gender-orientation, sexuality, and masculine/feminine stuff hasn't been a huge part of it for me.

Perhaps this is because as I said I have masculine planet-feminine sign/feminine planet-masculine sign...and they are unaspected, so I don't feel the need to 'do' this particular sticky wicket.

Despite my devotion to astrology, I like to keep a healthy scepticism about it. I am happy to accept many things in life on faith, but I am also wary of simply pigeon-holing people, or people's issues, into one thing or another simply because they have an aspect or a planet in something-or-other. There are just too many variables, environmental and cultural variables notwithstanding.

Debbi Kempton-Smith, I think it was, said we have to be careful in deciphering people's charts; she gives the example of talking about an Aquarius VOC moon and how we might extrapolate that the individual's mother was cold, remote, uncaring, etc...when actually the mother had died during the client's childhood. So 'cold, remote, uncaring' was only one of many, many interpretations for that particular planet/sign. I tend to pepper my readings with words like 'possibly' and 'maybe' and 'perhaps', because of this. You just never know.

AG:)

[Svencanz]

Hi Modcleopatra,

My astrological warning bells rang when I read your post - not my "personality" warning bells, there's a difference.

In my book you do not have Saturn square Venus; nor do you have Sun sq Pluto. The aspects are far too wide. You're using seven degrees for the Sat Venus, and seven for Sun Pluto, right.
I use three degrees for ALL aspects, sometimes four degrees if multi-planet aspect. So for me, you have neither aspect.

What you do have, though, is Mercury sq Pluto, and trined by Juno and Saturn. That would mean: difficulty (square) in power-related (Pluto) discussions with siblings (Mercury) and possible tragedy and control (Saturn) issues in relation to this, with a tendency to have a sizzling effect (Juno) baked into the cake. I have not read all the posts in this thread, but I think I may have hit the nail on the head (again.)

Again, no criticism or anything - but I'd look at my (your) communications patterns, as derived in the family setting. I will read your other posts later, as I find them interesting.

Cheers,
Sven

[waybread]

modcleopatra, I also have some problems with Liz Greene. Like Jilly, I have "devoured" her books and really learned a lot from them. To me the issues are a bit different, and relate (1) to her occasional reliance on Freudian psychology, which is now pretty well discredited to the best of my knowledge; and (2) to her apparent belief that you can say all kinds of things about someone's parents (or other people) simply by looking at the individual's chart, and not necessarily at the chart/s of the other/s in questions.

Freud, as you probably know, dismissed his female patients' accounts of incest as fantasies, and theorized that children simply fell in love with their parent of the opposite sex. Author Jeffrey Masson studied Freud and became convinced that Freud could not or would not address the incest issues staring him in the face. If there is a fantasy, however, it is probably the notion of the Oedipus complex or the Electra complex.

Freudian psychologists also tended to blame a lot of neuroses on the "bad mother." If some man grew up ******* up, it was because his mother was too narcissistic, cold, or somesuch. Greene has sometimes pointed to the moon or another planet in her patient's chart as evidence of a bad mother or father. We never see the parent's point of view.

I find Greene's Jungian symbolism and use of mythology to be intriguing, but I have trouble understanding the Joe and Jane Average people with whom I come into regular contact as somehow living their lives out of the Holy Grail legend or whatnot. I find people too complex to be typecast.

In fairness to Greene, she has been writing astrology books for decades, and I don't know whether she would still write the earlier ones in the same way today. Psychologists in the 1970s, for example, did tend to see same-sex orientations as pathological, so she probably has to be understood as a product of the time in which she was writing. Also, as a practising psychologist, a lot of her patients/clients are seriously troubled people.

Nexus, I loved the article--thanks for posting it.

[Nexus7]

'In fairness to Greene, she has been writing astrology books for decades, and I don't know whether she would still write the earlier ones in the same way today'

I have devoured her books too, but likewise would question a lot of her ideas. As I have tried to sho in earleir poasts here and elsewhere, I do think she developed and changed her ideas, though I suspect that even with these sea-changes in perspective, she did tend to rely on certain gurus and Great Thinkers a little too much.

[aquarius7000]

Thanks for this Nexus:)

Ms Greene has a stellium of Mars/Ven/Jup and Chiron in 11, and 3-H in Aquarius => that says it all for me - here's a person attracted to the avant-garde, the latest advances in human thought and development, and is eclectic and cosmopolitan in her tastes.
Though Greene is not an Aquarian by her Sun, but has a highly pronounced Aqu side to her personality, which makes her very daring when it comes to addressing 'tabooed' issues such as 'homosexuality' very openly. EJ53 has aptly called Liz G 'a pioneering astrologer'. She doesn't care, if she shocks (11th naturually bears Ura-quality) the society (11=society) with her views (3rd H=thinking and style of communication in Aqu), and with her Virgo Mer squaring her Asc - she doesn't shy away from being critical (Virgo) in public (Asc). Plus she belongs to the Ura-in-Gem- generation, which was forced to re-shape their thought process towards a more progressive one, with a very 'unique' style of thinking and communicating - which might (or is bound to) even 'shock' others (Ura is in 7-others).

One more thing, Mer is the highest planet in her chart making communicating her thoughts her ultimate goal, and it's no wonder that with a Virgo Sun and Mer in 9 she is attracted to all that (psycho-) analytical (Virgo=analysis) stuff, as though in her never-ending search for 'truth' (9=higher learning/ spirituality).



:D aquarius7000

[waybread]

Aqua7000, Do you have Liz Greene's chart? Can you post it? Thanks! Also, by 3H do you mean the third house or third harmonic? Usually 3H or 11H means the 3rd harmonic or 11th harmonic respectively, but I can't tell in this context. By "H" do you mean "house"?

[Nexus7]

The link I put up in the last post I made will take you to a link that starts with her chart

[aquarius7000]

Hi,
I am attaching the chart now, I don't know why I cant't paste the chart in this space itself.
And, yes, by 3-H, I meant 3rd House.

:) aquarius7000

Edit: Oops, I only just read Nexus' post directing you to Greene's chart, but will leave the attached on in any case now.

[Otay]

Oy, Mod at times astrology is used by persons to mask a 'twist' in their own personality and for some the art is an excuse to lord it over people and make them frightened and feel badly about themselves. It's an expression of mental illness and horribly destructive to the unsuspecting.

It makes me personally furious. It's like having your mind poisoned. Really dark.

As for Liz Greene I'll take Jung any day. I have heard her professed higher credentials are false as well. So far as signatures for 'gayness' I often see mars and saturn, but not always. I don't believe there is such a signature.
Adventurousness, sure. Problems w/mom & dad identification sure. Using astrology to 'nail' people is a sig for a crude personality, IMHO.

You might enjoy Paul Levy who offers a far less dense interpretation of projections and shadows and whatnot. Lots more workable than some of this heavy morose approach, of which nothing workable or constructive is ever produced out of a mind****.

[Otay]

Besides, any offering devoid of humor and kindness is automatically a lie.

[Otay]

(Always the afterthot *sigh*)

Whenever a client needs counsel over sexual identity I always say, "Well, it's who you fall in love with".
I've noticed certain sexual acting out aside from those one tends to have love feelings for, is usually related to certain types of parental or adult abuse or inappropriate messing with some poor kid's head.

[waybread]

Hi,
I am attaching the chart now, I don't know why I cant't paste the chart in this space itself.
And, yes, by 3-H, I meant 3rd House.

:) aquarius7000

Edit: Oops, I only just read Nexus' post directing you to Greene's chart, but will leave the attached on in any case now.

Thanks for attaching the chart. Sorry, Nexus, that I didn't catch your link previously. Funny, I always thought Liz Greene was British by birth. BTW, this chart contains some symbols that are unfamiliar to me. Do you know what is the meaning of the smiley face, the yin-yang, the black diamond, and what appears to be a capital letter "L" in script?

[aquarius7000]

Thanks for attaching the chart. Sorry, Nexus, that I didn't catch your link previously. Funny, I always thought Liz Greene was British by birth. BTW, this chart contains some symbols that are unfamiliar to me. Do you know what is the meaning of the smiley face, the yin-yang, the black diamond, and what appears to be a capital letter "L" in script?
Here goes the decoding of the symbols ;)
L=Lilith (Dark Moon); the rest are all Arabic parts - the smiley denotes Point of Fortuna; yin-yang = Point of Passion; the diamond = Point of Profession. And now the real smiley :) aquarius7000

[Svencanz]

Hi all,

Back in the rebirthing days (oh, how I miss those days - at times) we had a saying that made us all fall over one another with laughter.

It was: "my intellect is superior to your experience".

But seriously, this is a question I think astrologers need to use more: "Here I see, X and Y, and sometimes this means Z - how has that played out in your life?"

For me, the ability to ask somewhat-directed questions is the astrologer's greatest asset.

I would never to presume to fix a client's reality because of something I have (with my limited experience and non-complete sense of interpretation) seen in their chart.

ASK QUESTIONS and explore together, would be my advice.

Sometimes we forget this: the astrologer is part of a Trinity: the astrologer, the chart, and the client. Number Three (The Empress in Tarot) and the duplicity (?) The Lovers (number Six) has a natural predisposition to FLOW.

At the end of the day, flow is what you want. And the astrologer also need to remember, and sometimes realise, they are only the "next step" - and not the Kmart-ready fully-complete solution.

I have never been into trying to decipher a client's sexual orientation; this because I find the enquiry boring. I have never read Liz Greene.
Perhaps this disqualifies me from being in this threat, but my advice would be to "ask the question" if it appears.

To some extent, sexual orientation is a derivative of culture as well. Look at the Greek culture, for instance. Some heavy stuff going on there.
It is also a part of current culture.
In New Zealand, for instance, we have this macho rugby culture that I know masks some dark stuff. When I spoke to this guy about male sexual overpowerment (read rape) I said that to my astonishement, I believed (from practise) that one in ten NZ males had been raped by another male.
"Sorry," he said.
"It is one in four."

I have Mars (Pisces) directly opposed Venus; but sexuality has never been an issue for me, at least not when it comes to identity. (I could, as you suspect, write a thesis about this.)

If an astologer would ask me, here I see: "Mars opposite Venus - how has that played out in your life?"
Well, they would get a big answer, and one that is not found in books.

The thing is, on this planet, in this experience: sexuality (second chakra) is tied into so many things: it neighbours the first (survival) and it deals with procreation, creative expression (in part) and with sexuality (which is, in a sense, the relationship to THE OTHER.)

So, for any astrologer - from the vantage point of the chart - to presume to know "the experience" of that person would be, well - limited.

Sven

[Otay]

Sven, that was brilliantly said. Thank you. The world and people are too colorful and full of tricks to be nailed down by astrology or some lantern-jawed malcontent who fundamentally rejects the generosity of the question, and (horrors) allowing the dialogue between client and astrologer to be (gasp) open-ended and respectful of the client's intelligence.

Like yourself I find the topic of homosexuality or other digressions from the "average" to be somewhat irrelevant and besides the point. The point being human experience and how interesting are the nobility of each one as soon as we let them be to express themselves.

Also like you I have mars in pisces which at some point would like to have a discussion of that. I call myself the Queen of Mishaps in so many rich and varied ways and so it is with many of the personal experience of clients who also have such surprising misfortunes an eyebrow at least has to be raised.

[aquarius7000]

The thing is, on this planet, in this experience: sexuality (second chakra) is tied into so many things: it neighbours the first (survival) and it deals with procreation, creative expression (in part) and with sexuality (which is, in a sense, the relationship to THE OTHER.)Well said Sven!
Sexuality, and even more so, trying to label the sexual orientation of another person on mere basis of date, time and place of birth of that person is not only foolish, but downright irresponsible on the astrologer's part. So are any 'generalisations' esp with regard to this topic that are meant to be then applied as 'rules' to masses. Also, sexulality, as Sven rightly pointed out, is the 'connection' between A and B, two individual personalities.
Also, sexuality, and even more so, sexual orientation depend on so many very 'basic' factors like society and societal norms, education, family, etc..
For e.g. how many men would you see living in a 'relationship' together in the Muslim part of the world (please, I am not implying anything here).


And this is where I find that even a brilliant astrologer such as Greene (and that's the sad part) takes it a bit too far on the subject. This is the kind of 'exaggeration' I hinted at in one of my previous posts. Just my opinion:rolleyes:

The golden rule to remember, both with regards to astrologers in general, and those like us that devour their books, is that different minds mean different interpretations!

:) aquarius7000

[Svencanz]

Dear Otay,

I knew I liked you from the moment I saw your signature.
Just one of those things,

Sven

[Svencanz]

I am clearing this post now, since it contained a number a names that could have been picked up in a Google search; hopefully those who wanted to read it has read it.

Sven

[delilah4]

I'm not a fan of Liz Greene. Admitadly however I have not perused through all of her writings. Just don't think I could take them seriously based on the stuff of hers I've already read.

Personally I find her interpretations to be too theoretical and...vague. I don't find them to be very helpful and in fact my experience has been that they have been rather damaging as I felt she watered down many of the transits I had been expecting. I ended up confused until I found more tangible straightforward interpretations which surprised me with their accuracy. For instance, I've read interpretations for Venus in the 12th that talk about hidden forces in the human psychie that can make one feel uncomfortable with their femininity yada yada yada...and I've read interpretations that simply state these people tend to have secret love affairs and secret enemies that tend to be women. I find the latter type of interpretation much more useful, testable and it also saves astrology from being nothing more than a pseudo-science. Two people that I know with venus in the 12th have many secret love affairs and female enemies so that mini test made do for me. The first type of interpretation which is psychological by nature can mean pretty much anything and is completely untestable and untangible. This is why I have such a difficult time understanding Saturn in the 12th - I've yet to find any interpretation on it that doesn't make my head spin.

Ofcoarse it could just be that my strong Pluto makes me like to get to the point and makes me more apt to investigate what I assume to be 'fluff'. This may also make me less able to see the value in less direct interpretations like Greene's. Where as someone who perhaps has a strong neptune and uses it positively would probably find more value in more poetic interpretations or find matter of fact ones to lack all the nuances and undercurrants of an aspect.

It would be interesting to see which astrologer's teachings each sign enjoys/values the most.

[milkywaygirl]

Does anyone have Liz Greens birth data? I remember reading a couple of years ago how her 2nd partner died. I'm not sure if they were partners as in lovers, or astrologers who were doing research with Liz. Can anyone clear this up?

Howard Sasportas died in 1992. Greene and Sasportas worked together very closely. They founded the Centre for Psychological Astrology in London in 1980.

http://www.cpalondon.com/centre/history.html

[Otay]

Anyone know dates of birth for Liz Greene and her partners? What, 3 of her partners bite the dust as it were. Gloomy gloomy. Can't help but wonder about the health of her approach altogether.

[aquarius7000]

Anyone know dates of birth for Liz Greene and her partners?
Liz GREENE,
born September 4, 1946 at 1:01 PM in Englewood (NJ) (USA)

[Nexus7]

Liz GREENE,
born September 4, 1946 at 1:01 PM in Englewood (NJ) (USA)Today 04:29 PMBe curious to know where that source is from, Aquarius7000, in view of all the doubts cast on the chart that was puported to be hers on an earlier thread.

Howard Sasportas was a colleague and co-author with Liz Greene, wasn't he? Still, I suppose 'partner' can have many meanings.

[aquarius7000]

Liz GREENE,
born September 4, 1946 at 1:01 PM in Englewood (NJ) (USA)Today 04:29 PMBe curious to know where that source is from, Aquarius7000, in view of all the doubts cast on the chart that was puported to be hers on an earlier thread.http://www.astrotheme.fr/en/portraits/qn3V8kEpKg6y.htm

:)aquarius7000

[Shining Ray]

Neptune is in 10th for greene, she states it in astrology of fate.