PDA

View Full Version : Astrology & The Culture Wars


Mu'Min M. Bey
05-14-2006, 07:14 PM
Astrology & The Culture Wars

5:30 AM 05/14/2006 Sun

Last week on my way in to work, I heard something over the radio that made me wake up right out of my snooze. Here's the deal...

Guy meets gal; guy likes gal and vice-versa, and they're off to the chapel and gonna get married. After awhile, gal gets in the family way, and then there's three.

All's well for a minute; but one day, it dawns on guy that things aren't passing the smell test; gal is acting strange, and the baby, now that he/she's going on 3 years old, isn't looking anything like him or the missus. So, one day, he decides to take the kid to the DNA spot, just for his own peace of mind.

Well, don't you know, the test comes back, with all intents, a virtual 100% NEGATIVE that guy is the daddy. Gal didn't preggers until after they met, or so he thought...which only leaves one conclusion-

She was creepin'.

Well, since this is a clearcut case of adultery, guy can just call it a day and go about his business, right? WRONG - according to Pennsylvania state law, if dad sticks with the kid for two years or more, he's considered the dad, no matter what the DNA says, no matter if he was duped into believing that was his kid when in reality it wasn't. According to the "paternity rights" attorney sitting in the radio studio as a guest of the talkshow host, dad is dad, period, and this is to protect the rights and welfare of the child. Even though the host, himself an attorney by trade, pointed out that guy in the example above was clearly cheated on, it was all to no avail; the paternity rights expert insisted that the way PA law is is what's best for the child.

Just out of curiousity, I asked the fellas at the gig what they thought of such an example; now, keep in mind, there's about 30 guys in my shop. NONE of them thought that was fair in any way, to the fella, or should I say, SUCKER, in that example, and in fact, most of them openly voiced the fact that they felt the justice system was stacked against you if you were a male.

Two weeks earlier, I got an email from a good friend, in which he delivered what I considered to be very sad news: a young lady with whom he had some intimacies some months back, had conceived and decided to abort; the baby, had it lived, would have been born this month. My friend just found out two weeks ago, when she decided, finally, to tell him.

I have no idea how he feels about the issue, although my guess is that he had to have felt something about that, due to the fact that he would email a group of friends something so personal.

No matter how you feel about the two scenarios above, it's quite clear that the LAST person who is considered is the guy; the rights of the child is protected in the former case, the rights of the woman is protected in the latter. The guy's rights however, be damned.

These and other issues are a part of the "Culture Wars", a roiling debate that has spilled out into the public square, the courtroom floor, and into the voting booths accross this country. It is so-called because there is a fight to determine what kind of society we want to be - more God-fearing or less; more government dependent or less; more libertine or less; more radical or less. While Gay Marriage and to a lesser extent, at least for now, Abortion have taken centerstage, the two instances I cited above are right on the horizon and ready to burst.

As astrologers, we should be weighing in on all of this - afterall, we've all had to, at some point, deal with these issues. And while we all know that for the most part women tend to consult astrologers in our culture than men, I can say from personal experience, that I've had both types of men mentioned above consult with me, usually, because they have no other recourse, legally or otherwise.

Most of us are at best natal astrologers, and those of us who consider ourselves interested in mundane, for some reason never get around to delving into what's been mentioned above, or the subject line of this post. I have my own reasons for why that is, one of them being, that so many of us never come into contact with the guys talked about above, and/or, many of us see no problem with the continued massiave social and legal changes afoot.

Those of us who watch the Outer Planet transits know, that Saturn has moved out of Cancer and into Leo, both of which are Signs where Saturn is said not to be at his best; in a few months, he will oppose Neptune, a further debilitating period for the Ringed One, and all he represents, like fathers and men. Perhaps not without a sense of Celestial Irony, Mars, surely a representative of men, is currently transiting Cancer.

At the time of the radio show, which I heard as I was headed to work, Saturn was sitting right in the 4th House in Leo, quindecile Neptune in the 11th and ruling both the 9th Houses of law and courts, and the 10th House of fathers. The Sun, ruling the 5th House, children - was rising in Taurus in the Taurus Asc. And Mercury, also in Taurus, was sitting right on the Asc.

At the time I got word of my friend's email, Saturn was sitting right on the Leo Asc in the 12th House, square the Sun again in Taurus, this time with the Sun in the 10th; Mars in Cancer rules the 10th; and Saturn is once again quindecile Neptune, this time Neptune in the 7th and conjunct the Moon. Jupiter rules the 5th in Scorpio, sitting in the 4th and quindecile the Sun in the 10th; Pluto sits in the 5th.

With the first of the Baby Boomers beginng to retire (those born in 1946 - Pluto in Leo, Neptune in Libra, Uranus in Gemini, Saturn in Cancer), it's a good time to consider all they have brought to us, the good and the bad, and look forward to what Pluto's transit in Capricorn will bring for the Boomers' progeny - the Gen Xers and Generation Me's, both of whom are in their mid to late 30s and late teens and mid 30s respectively. There is no doubt that the Boomers have brought along sweeping cultural shifts, but the full impact of said shifts will be felt the most by their children.

The Outer Planet passages of Uranus and Pluto thru Virgo and then Libra, saw unpreceedented shifts on the social and marital fronts, so much so that they still have large impact today.

In the late 70s to early 80s, with the passage of Uranus into Scorpio, the paternity DNA test was born, an interesting and in my view, potentially devastating follow-up to Roe v. Wade and The Pill. Although intended at first to pinpoint fathers with absolute certainty so as to force them to pay up, the DNA test has the very strong potential to do more harm than good - if the guy isn't the daddy, he can usually go about his business - and then the child is left with no father at all. In times gone by, men never really knew for sure if a child was his or not - he had to take the woman's word for it, unless it was real obvious otherwise. Now, there are increasing incentives for men not to have children, settle down and marry - and we're talking marriagable men now, not louts.

My own sense of things is that once Pluto enters Capricorn in 2008, things will begin to finally go back to normal socially, etc., but not without a fight from the ideologues.

What say you?

Salaam,
Mu

Francesca
07-14-2006, 03:07 PM
What exactly do you mean, "things will go back to normal socially"? You mean the normal where men owned women and children? I would have to seriously consider taking my grandaughter's life before allowing her to be owned like a domestic animal. The only God fearing I will ever do is when God is appropriated by people with your views.

That paternity law was written to protect children and that's the way it has to be if we want society to survive. It is the best product of a bad situation, and I say this as a Law Guardian who defends children in court everyday.

The issue has to be the best interests of the baby, although I question any man who can parent a child for three years and then want to dump it. What kind of parent could he possibly make?

I rather hope that Pluto in Capricorn brings about heightened responsibility of both parents for children, and more structure in society to defend the helpless of whatever age.

Sanem
09-04-2006, 08:17 PM
I read a book a while ago that put up the well-known genetic theory:

- the male's strategy of genetic survival is to impregnate as many females as possible. He's going for the numbers.

- females on the other hand are in it for the long run, and they cannot afford to raise a child without a provider. Thus they need to find a guy who is willing to stick around, provide and protect.

Now a dutyfull male might love a female enough to stay together and raise their child.

However, apparantly once a month a woman's needs change, and she no longer wants a male that will stick around (the Moon type), but rather one with strong genes (the Mars type).

Research used by the book suggested that females find it worse if their male is in love with another woman, while males find it worse if their female had sex with another man: her priority is to keep him around, his' is to "possess" her for his genes exclusively.

If a girl gets pregnant with a Mars guy who dumps her, but she finds a good Moon mate who agrees to take care of her and the child, her genetic heritage is protected by a provider, as well as given Mars genes for a best chance of survival.

But if the Moon guy's girl is impregnated with the Mars guy's genes, his genes are lost. According to the rule of genetic survival, Moon guy loses, girl and Mars guy win.

On a personal note, I love kids, and I intend to have plenty myself one day.

I do not mind the idea of providing for a child which is not mine, appart from the fact that I am not really the father, and thus do not really have anything to parent.

There is certainly an emotional and cultural value in adopting a child, which can be just as strong as a genetic tie. From a Moon-perspective it is perfectly sensible that in the example given, the stand-in dad stays around, walking out isn't exactly a reasonable thing to do.

But from a Mars-perspective, that is... to put it gently, unacceptable.

Howl
09-05-2006, 09:51 AM
As Lapis once wrote:

Warning, mini Howl lecture coming! Warning!

I'd like to take a minute to differentiate two different issues presented here:

1. Parents whose children are not biologocally related to them
2. Lies between partners/parents/spouses

As you said, Sanem, adoption can provide a bond as strong and as positive as biological parenthood. Indeed, sometimes adoption actually improves a child's situation. The only thing that really matters is that a child has an able, loving and supportive family (of whatever type, in my opinion).

The other issue brought up here is that of lies between committed partners. It is a different thing to knowingly raise a child that isn't biologically related to you, than to actually find out that your child isn't related to you at a later date. The latter involves a lie, or at least an ommission. Personally, honesty (after kindness), is THE crucial quality I seek in any committed relationship. I can see how deception to hide infidelity could hit someone, male OR female, very hard.

BUT, I would, like Francesca said, question the worth of any parent who abandons, or wants to abandon, a child due to lack of a genetic inheritance, EVEN if they were to find this out through discovering a partner's lie. You love a child, then you love them. If you've been their parent for however many years, then surely, you ARE their parent. The child hasn't changed!!

Surely, it makes sense to question your relationship to the partner who lied to you, but not your relationship with a child who you already love, and who loves and depends on you. What has changed between you and the child? Nothing!

Thinking from a broader perspective, it is worth also noting that a woman often faces much harsher repercussions for admitting infidelity than does a man. The repercussions are often even worse if she is pregnant. Few women on Earth live with a social system that will adequately support them to bear children without a partner. It's also worth thinking about this: women (and men, yes) don't always have the option of controlling who they have sex with. Fidelity might not have been, or be, a choice for women, for a variety of reasons in different settings. These paremeters don't apply the same way in every case, but it does help to keep in mind that women often face socially coercive reasons to lie about their sexual actions, and experiences, as well as often lacking personal control over these. Infidelity isn't just a clear case of two equals in a partnership, where one person lies to the other. Yes, I do believe that societies create and maintain inequalities in interpersonal relationships, yes, even in Australia. This needs to be a the backdrop for any discussion on culture, women, men and children.

So, there is a broader context in which this original story occurred. It's not an ideal situation, no. I wouldn't want to have any aspect of it happen in my life. I can see that you wouldn't either, Sanem :)

Sanem; I can't tell from your writing to what extent you would actually agree/disagree with my statment of opinion above, so I will just say this. I am always very critical of accepting any 'fact' about humanity, ESPECIALLY 'biological facts', that are meant to explain away our behaviours, opinions, and differences.

In short, I think that particular genetic theory is a poorly disguised and already energetically debunked excuse for a persistent double standard in sexual behaviour between men and women. I don't buy it. Infact, if you can't already tell, I rather resent it :D

Ok, I'm done. If anyone has any responses to my own entirely non-astrological response, then here or by PM is fine :)

Sanem
09-05-2006, 12:11 PM
Sanem; I can't tell from your writing to what extent you would actually agree/disagree with my statment of opinion above, so I will just say this. I am always very critical of accepting any 'fact' about humanity, ESPECIALLY 'biological facts', that are meant to explain away our behaviours, opinions, and differences.

Lol, I actually have a strong tendency to go against the ruling opinion, I'm something of an underdog fanatic. Meaning at one point I'll be tempted to switch side, if nothing else out of principle.

With the exception of Astrology and Ki Aikido: getting older does seem to increase my Tauran, stubborn single-mindedness, in a limited but increasing number of opinions.

I did not agree with the book as such, I've studied plenty of those when I was younger, and it has thought me to be sceptical about them.

Than astrology (and Ki Aikido) thought me something else: every experience is different, depending on the situation. There is no such thing as black and white, only a huge number of shades of grey.

But the book was a fun read and it's easy to get swept away and overwelmed by them, which often happens when I only hear one side of a story. My post was in a large way a manner of releasing myself from that book (another trick I learned from astrology): now that I've released my thoughts and emotions on a subject, I can let it go and move on.


1. Parents whose children are not biologocally related to them

Two situations:

A) I end up in an episode of Lost, except that I'm the only adult amongst a group of young kids.

Now I have Saturn in 10th and Mars in 4th, and experience thought me I'm an extremely dedicated parent if put in that situation.

B) I marry a girl who has shared custody of her child.

I actually experienced this situation from a child's perspective, and I never really saw my mom's mate as my father; a father-figure yes, but not my father as such. This ment he couldn't raise me as his own child, but on the other hand he didn't have to take responsibility either. But than again I wasn't that young anymore when he moved in.

So I figure if the child in the example has no father figure as such, than there is a good chance I'll concider the child as my own, dedicate myself to the task and take responsibility, and thus actually become the child's father.

If however the child actually has a father, things will get complicated. I find it hard to imagine a man to just turn his back on a child he's thought of as his own for three years, but I can also see a point that if the child is not his, in a lot of situations he must not or can not take responsibility over the child.

In the original example of this thread, apparantly the man in question could, and had to take care of the child. But that does not necesarily mean he will accept the child as his own, or visa versa.

At any point this is all just theoretical bs ranting. I love kids, but there is a difference between watching someone else's kids, and actually having some of my own. The first are not my children per se. The second ones are, genetical or not, and no one can deny my right as a parent. Or perhaps they can, if say I neglected them for long enoug.

So if in the original example the man in question did not feel enough emotional connection with the child, or perhaps he wanted children of his own, than I can understand he did not find it enough grounds to continue living with the child and taking care of it. But that is Mars thinking, and I can respect Saturn speaking it's influences through a law system.

Anyway, do not take my opinions too seriously, they tend change with the wind, and are of little real importance I think; I believe I am more interested in compromising than setting standards.

I'm also a bit intrigued by the double social sexual standards topic, but I have not enough experience I think to formulate any emotions on that.

Now than, let's see if I can find a mouse trap and catch myself some lunch :rolleyes:.