This week in feminism: The Hottest Thing a Man Can Do Is Not Be a Jerk About Astrology

[KeepTalking]

That isn't astrology per se, though. I might note I just said this:

A much more apt thing to consider "noxious" rather than "astrology" is "making big decisions on the basis of uninformed data."

How heavily someone is influenced by something and the contexts of that influence are separate and independent of the thing they are influenced by. That isn't a belief in astrology you are discrediting but rather a disbelief in or rejection of evidence based reasoning and specifically "making big decisions on the basis of uninformed data."

This is a different context from the article, wherein the critical action is independent of impact.

I don't think I had caught up with the thread by time you posted the above(I'm still not fully caught up, tbh), and given that statement I don't think we really disagree. I would still have an issue dating someone who holds an actual belief in astrology, but I agree that most believers in astrology won't be making big decisions on the basis of astrology alone.

 

[Toni]

Honestly, I don't get the huge hate-boner people here seem to have with astrology. Yes, I get that astrology has no predictive power. I get that there is no causal relationship between the stars and our lives and behaviors.

But it is not like astrology consumes vast quantities of otherwise useful money, does not demand people hate each other on the basis of trivia, and does not tell you to hate yourself for who you are. It generally does not recommend deferring medical treatment, nor does it recommend disregarding the nature of the universe as old. It is just not noxious in the way other beliefs are.

It is not in any way a belief worthy of disrespect, it is merely a belief that is not worthy of special respect.

Astrology can certainly consume vast quantities of otherwise useful money, professional astrologers don't work for free, and like all con artists, they tend charge a pretty penny for that "work". Followers who dive deep into related mysticism like fortune tellers, psychics, tarot, palm reading, etc. can certainly open themselves up to influence that might encourage deferring medical treatment. As noted previously, Ronald and Nancy Reagan were devoted to Astrology, and relied on psychic advice for running the Country. That is a huge potential impact on peoples' lives.

And yet less dangerous than whatever criteria it is that Trump uses

 

[KeepTalking]

Honestly, I don't get the huge hate-boner people here seem to have with astrology. Yes, I get that astrology has no predictive power. I get that there is no causal relationship between the stars and our lives and behaviors.

But it is not like astrology consumes vast quantities of otherwise useful money, does not demand people hate each other on the basis of trivia, and does not tell you to hate yourself for who you are. It generally does not recommend deferring medical treatment, nor does it recommend disregarding the nature of the universe as old. It is just not noxious in the way other beliefs are.

It is not in any way a belief worthy of disrespect, it is merely a belief that is not worthy of special respect.

Astrology can certainly consume vast quantities of otherwise useful money, professional astrologers don't work for free, and like all con artists, they tend charge a pretty penny for that "work". Followers who dive deep into related mysticism like fortune tellers, psychics, tarot, palm reading, etc. can certainly open themselves up to influence that might encourage deferring medical treatment. As noted previously, Ronald and Nancy Reagan were devoted to Astrology, and relied on psychic advice for running the Country. That is a huge potential impact on peoples' lives.

And yet less dangerous than whatever criteria it is that Trump uses

Yes, who would have thought that a malignant narcissist would be untrustworthy when it comes to selecting the right criteria on which to base Presidential decisions?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you think that the devotion of some women to discussions about astrology is absurd and beyond the pale, please consider the on radio discussions of play by play Packers games by Packers fans.

Unlike astrology, Packers are real.

And they're 3-0.

A particular individual's lack of interest in the details of football is perfectly normal. However, the actions, reactions, and outcomes being discussed are all real and explainable, unlike the fantasy world of astrology. I wouldn't be interested in a conversation about an orchestra's interpretation of a piece of music, but I know that what's being discussed is of this world.

Things don't have to be of this world to be worth discussing. There are two boards I visit discussing the works of various authors and they can get into some rather technical details. (For example, figuring out that the author failed to consider time dilation in figuring out what relativistic missiles do.) The problem comes when you mix up fiction and reality.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One of the worst things a boy or man can be called is girl or woman.

Not 60 seconds ago I was called "miss". By a woman with my medical records up on her screen. So what? The issue under discussion did not involve anything male-specific, the error was harmless.

 

[Toni]

One of the worst things a boy or man can be called is girl or woman.

Not 60 seconds ago I was called "miss". By a woman with my medical records up on her screen. So what? The issue under discussion did not involve anything male-specific, the error was harmless.

Not the same thing. At all. As I’m sure you know.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I wish I could say that I’m surprised that (some) men do not understand the difference between not sharing an interest in astrology (or knitting or gardening or (fill in the blank) and ridiculing women who are interested, but I can’t.

If I were dating (I have been married for 30 years, so I'm not exactly in the game), I think a woman bringing up any kind of serious religious belief on a first date, including a devotion to astrology, would also make it the last date. Of course, I would certainly be polite about it. I would also hope that it wouldn't get so far as that first date before I eliminated a prospective partner due to incompatible views on the nature of reality.

Yup. I've likewise been off the market for more than 30 years but back then one of my rules was any religious symbols, even if subtle, was a showstopper.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Contempt for astrology is not evidence of what the authors claim.

But the authors are claiming that it is not contempt for astrology itself but contempt for the women (and presumably men) who believe in astrology.

Personally, I don't agree with much of their argument but I do agree with the portion I quoted upthread a while ago: men tend to discount/do not have respect for what they consider to be 'women's interests.' I've found this to be very generally true--as in, of course there are exceptions.

That doesn't translate to patriarchy or woman-hating. A contempt for astrology leads to a contempt for it's adherents, whether male or female. It's just we tend to care more in dating situations. So what if a coworker is into astrology? I've got others that are also kooks. I care very much whether my romantic partner is a kook, though. What you're really seeing is that most people are heterosexual, not some mythical discrimination.

 

[Toni]

I wish I could say that I’m surprised that (some) men do not understand the difference between not sharing an interest in astrology (or knitting or gardening or (fill in the blank) and ridiculing women who are interested, but I can’t.

If I were dating (I have been married for 30 years, so I'm not exactly in the game), I think a woman bringing up any kind of serious religious belief on a first date, including a devotion to astrology, would also make it the last date. Of course, I would certainly be polite about it. I would also hope that it wouldn't get so far as that first date before I eliminated a prospective partner due to incompatible views on the nature of reality.

Yup. I've likewise been off the market for more than 30 years but back then one of my rules was any religious symbols, even if subtle, was a showstopper.

There’s nothing h wrong with having criteria. For me it was always anyone who didn’t like kids or dogs. Or who smoked. But I wasn’t an asshole about it. Which basically is what the article is about. Not ridiculing someone or being an asshole because they’re interested in something you think is ridiculous.