issues with Liz Greene

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?
 

archergirl

Well-known member
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:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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! :)
 

Jilly

Banned
Long live Liz Greene

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.
 
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

Banned
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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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

Banned
Success

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.
 

leslie1979

Active member
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

Banned
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

Well-known member
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:)
 
Re: Sanity at last

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

Well-known member
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

Banned
Nature nurture debate

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.
 
Top