Betrayal of the Magdalene: Subjugation of the Feminine and the Extinction of a Species

Originally, this piece was destined to be a book review and was finished and ready to go long before now. However, I have since realized that it has turned into an Op-Ed or ‘opinion’ piece rather than the former. (Of course, many would argue that all my book reviews should be placed in the Op-Ed category!) Further, because of its nature – its possible (probable?) controversiality, I’ve hesitated to publish it. My intention is certainly not to offend anyone, regardless of their gender. And being a transformational astrologer as well as a relationship counselor with the responsibility that that entails, again, I have hesitated for those reasons alone.

However, after re-reading it for the umpteenth time, editing, proofing and replacing possibly offensive words or phrases with something a bit softer yet just as expressive, I realized that there probably wasn’t much else I could do with it. It was either leave it the way it is and send it out, or just let it sit on my computer because I didn’t want to create any more dissention than is already so prevalent in the world.

Yet, when I realized this, I also realized that this is exactly why these thoughts – which, admittedly, have been ‘thunk’ on the shoulders of others far greater than I – MUST be conveyed. For change to occur, it is up to those of us who are either brave enough or stupid enough (depending on how one looks at it) to take a stand, make a move, take that one small step that leads to the ‘change we wish to see in the world.’

My thoughts, my beliefs may be ridiculed and rejected by many who are not yet ready or willing to make this change. Yet, for many more of us that change is far past due.

Please understand that my intention with the (still) harsh words uttered below, is to relate what I and many others have gleaned from history and still see happening in the world and between the genders that has caused so much of the previously mentioned dissention.

Like many of you, I want Peace, Compassion and Love to prevail. In my mind, the best way to do that is to begin at what I believe is the root cause of the problem: the interaction between the genders.

So please bear with me. The ride may be a bit bumpy, but I assure you, there is a method to my madness. I wish all of you – even the males in my audience – only the best.

In A Different Voice
Psychological Theory and Women’s Development
Copyright © 1982 Carol Gilligan
Harvard University Press; Cambridge, Massachusetts/London, England
ISBN: 0-674-44543-0; ISBN: 0-674-44544-9

Jacket Blurb:

Carol Gilligan believes that psychology has persistently and systematically misunderstood women -- their motives, their moral commitments, the course of their psychological growth, and their special view of what is important in life. Repeatedly, developmental theories have been built on observations of men's lives. Here Gilligan attempts to correct psychology's misperceptions and refocus its view of female personality. The result reshapes our understanding of human experience.


Kat’s Book Nook Review

There are very few books that have caused a radical shift in my perspective. This one blew everything I believed about interactions between males and females completely off the planet.

I must preface this essay with the following: I am not a feminist. Nor do I dislike men. Actually, quite the opposite. I believe in love and equality for both genders and for ALL species. I also believe that in order for our society to survive it is necessary for males and females to understand and get along with each other. However, in order to do so, a balanced and respectful approach on both sides is required; not only with regard to relationships in general, but especially where intimate relationships between the genders is concerned.

* * * * *

Women’s development plays a crucial role in relationships of all types. For the most part, however, women are the only ones who seem to acknowledge this fact.

Freud, misogynist that he was, saw women as frequently irrational, often psychologically abnormal and unbalanced, always emotional, and a creature far less than human with a gargantuan case of penis envy. Alas, we had no redeeming qualities, as far as Freud was concerned.

Unfortunately, this view of women has changed little, even 25 years after the release of Carol Gilligan’s book.

Because I’ve had such an extraordinarily difficult time letting go of guilt I’ve carried for most of my life over some pretty serious issues, my therapist felt that Gilligan’s book might help shed light on not only my role in those events, but on what is truly behind the guilt which I’ve carried for so long.

After reading the book, what I have concluded is that my reasons for continuing to feel guilty over these issues were created by a paradigm that is, in actuality, no longer functional in today’s society, if it ever truly was.

Instead of being taught that what is needed is balance in determining what is best for others and for ourselves, women have been taught that if we aren’t selfless and don’t sacrifice our own wants, needs and desires for others, then we’re selfish, immoral and bad. Conversely, if we do, we find ourselves in the same dilemma in which I found myself – damned if I did and damned if I didn’t.

Ultimately, this mindset has benefited no one. In fact, if anything, it has created a world full of angry and guilt-ridden individuals of both genders, who ultimately lash out at each other because of the nonsensical restrictions imposed on women by a patriarchal society.

Each of us – female and male – is certainly obligated to observe moral strictures in relation to obvious issues such as physically harming another. But where is the line to be drawn in relation to what should be a societal norm and who should abide by those norms?

While the main theme of the book is, as the blurb states: “to correct psychology's misperceptions and refocus its view of female personality”, in my view it raises two additional issues. First, who originally determined what is considered ‘right’ or moral versus what is unacceptable? And, second, are we yet obligated to follow the dictums laid out for us by our fathers, husbands and brothers simply because they say that their way is the better or only way?

Are we not yet cognizant of just where these dictums have led us as a society?

The answer to this question, I believe, can be found in humanity’s distant past. Strangely, it seems that it was only after the globally documented deluge that the reptilian brain – which rules aggressiveness in humans – began exerting its influence on society, especially testosterone-driven males.

Ironically, what we are finding through the negative exposition of our academically force-fed human history, is that during the pre-deluvial period when societies were governed according to the feminine principals of love, compassion and respect of and for others, males and females lived together in far greater harmony than they have since the inception of our current patriarchically-based society.

Many may say that the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible is the one who decreed that women should be subservient and submissive to men. And they may very well be correct. However, the bloodthirsty, vengeful, hypocritical and do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do attitude which is predominant throughout what is commonly referred to as the Old Testament, has created followers who are full of fear and prejudice and who have been taught to believe that anyone who doesn’t do things their way is sinful and should be put to death. Further, this ‘God’ was a mere glint in the eye of history until a Chaldean named Abram (the Biblical Abraham) chose to build an empire based on his own male-oriented beliefs, effectively debasing females and creating rigid and emotionally scarred perceptions of both genders.

One would think that with the ‘introduction’ of the discipline of love and compassion advocated by Jesus of Nazareth some two thousand years ago, the followers of this comparatively neophyte belief system would have understood that the love and respect which they were being instructed to bestow on others was meant to include women as well.

Sadly, although Jesus’ mother was revered (in imitation of so many other ‘virgin’ mother and child salvation stories before it), his wife, Mary Magdalene -- a powerful teacher and force in her own right -- was discredited and stripped of her authority in the very belief system that should have and would have strengthened the bond between the genders, had Jesus' teachings been followed. Yet, as most of us are aware, the feminine influence and principles which permeated so much of what Jesus taught, were significantly downplayed and in many cases, done away with altogether in favor of much less balanced edicts. This, in turn, has contributed to the gradual degradation of societal mores and, thus, the erosion of the positive relationship between the genders, and by association, our whole species.

Considering the heinous atrocities that have been perpetuated in the name of this and other male dominated religions, it is painfully evident that we need to rethink not only our view of the roles of both women and men, but humanity as a whole.

For the last several thousand years, society has been governed by this patriarchal form of thinking which has relegated women to the lowest echelons of the hierarchy established by males. And yet, while the male element sought to gain power over women, it inadvertently compromised the structure and balance of the very nature of the inter-relatedness which should be the foundation of the society in which we live.

Due to this polarized ostracism, society has covertly – and oftentimes overtly – perpetuated the belief that women are not as intelligent as men, that they lack logic, and therefore what they say is not worthy of consideration.

Consequently women have been inculcated with the belief that their identity is somehow less important than a man’s, and that what little identity they do have, is tied in with their relationship to their father, husband, brother, clergyman and/or male employer. In other words, historically, women have lacked a personal identity.

Gilligan points out that women generally think in terms of relationships with and attachment to others. Whereas men typically think in terms of separation and relationships with themselves; very rarely do they see their world and their lives revolving around their relationships with the woman or women in their lives.

Therefore, while women strive for connection with men, men have simultaneously striven to withdraw into themselves, effectively closing themselves off from this connection, conveying their displeasure should we attempt to compromise this breach in any way.

No wonder there has been so much disparity between the genders: each of us has been sending and receiving mixed messages! While women have been taught to be selfless and sacrifice themselves for ‘their man,’ thus negating the nourishing of their own spirits, men have, in most cases been thinking more of their own needs and attempting to sew every last wild oat they possibly can while expecting their women to remain at home, barefoot, pregnant and ignorant.

Because of this lopsided paradigm, the morals which have been branded into the hearts and minds of young girls seem to be missing in the education of young boys. This double standard is no where more evident than in adolescence, when teenage girls are often threatened with extreme punitive measures should they become pregnant. While a boy who impregnates that same girl is typically allowed to go his way with a slap on the wrist and a slight snicker that, “boys will be boys.”

It’s these conflicting messages that cause women to feel abandoned by the very men who claim to love them, and ultimately, to develop the emotional issues with which Freud and others have ‘diagnosed’ women.

And, as Gilligan further states: “the opposition between selfishness and responsibility complicates for women the issue of choice, leaving them suspended between an ideal of selflessness and the truth of their own agency and needs.” Is it really any wonder that this is the case, in view of the ambiguity of the messages women have historically received from the male half of society?

In spite of this, it is not only women who suffer for this perpetuated ignorance; all of society – including our male children – suffer along with us. Studies have shown that young boys who have been raised in negatively female-influenced environments generally become insecure, reactionary – often violent – adult males who pass their own behaviors and beliefs about ‘a woman’s place’ down to their children.

Does this mean that women are without blame? Certainly not. We, too, must accept responsibility for our part in the continuation of this unhealthy and often fatal belief that women are not as ‘good’ as men.

Why? Because, it is disrespectful beliefs such as this which contribute to the erosion of the foundation that underpins the fabric of society; an erosion that is not only already well underway, but unraveling further with each passing day.

To accomplish this feat, it is this writer’s belief that men and women must sincerely make a balanced effort to understand, communicate with and develop respect for each other in order for our society to continue as a viable entity.

In my estimation, it is only by doing so that we – as a species – will learn to be compassionate of and for all others, which in turn will allow us to love unconditionally. Unconditional Love is the precursor to Peace.

And Peace is what ALL species on this planet desperately need in order to survive.


Namaste and Much Love,

Kat Starwolf

© 2007 Kat Starwolf All Rights Reserved

Kat Starwolf is a practicing relationship and empathic counseling astrologer, researcher, metaphysician and avid reader of anything pertaining to human inter-relatedness, emotions, sexuality, sociology and psychology and SuperString and M-Theory. She is also currently working on her degree in counseling psychology. She may be contacted at 400 Capital Circle SE, Suite 18-255, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, by phone at 850-980-0250 or via her website http://www.starwolfastrology.com .

Signs of Mental Ilness: An Astrological and Psychiatric Breakthrough

Signs of Mental Health
An Astrological and Psychiatric Breakthrough
© 1998 Mitchell E. Gibson, M. D.
Llewellyn Publications; St. Paul, MN
ISBN: 1-56718-362-6

Jacket Blurb:

The Next Revolution in Astrology

Introducing a provocative breakthrough in the sciences of astrology and psychiatry

Psychiatrist Mitchell E. Gibson, M.D., demonstrates new astrological techniques for predicting mental illness, based on his study of more than 400 astrological birth charts and the use of scientific research models.

The average person’s birth chart, for example, contains about three marker aspects for depression. The birth chart of someone with major depression contains an average of 10. Princess Diana had 10 marker aspects in her chart.

Other famous cases highlighted in this book include Mike Wallace, Howard Hughes, Adolph Hitler, Charles Dickens and Edgar Allen Poe.

All the patients depicted in Dr. Gibson’s study were diagnosed according to DSM-IV, the gold standard of psychiatric diagnostic criteria. The diagnostic groups represented include (1) major depression, (2) anxiety, (3) addictive disorder, (4) schizophrenia, and (5) attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Even with no previous astrological experience, you will learn how to spot the indicators for mental illness though [sic] the declinations and multiple planet aspects that form the basis of this pioneering work.

====================================================================

Kat’s Book Nook Reviews

Wow. I was really psyched (no pun intended) when I first read the jacket blurb for Signs of Mental Health on Amazon and couldn’t wait to read the book. I’m an empathic transformational relationship astrologer working towards my PsyD in counseling psychology and have been focusing mainly on astro-psychology or astrology with a psychological bent; therefore, I believed this book would be just the ticket.

Boy, was I wrong! What can I say about this book? It was virtually incomprehensible.

There was very little organization or coherency that was immediately discernable. Further, instead of presenting the material in a more generic way so that it could be applied to anyone, the author uses anonymous case studies. Case studies are fine as additional examples. However, I don’t necessarily need to know what the markers were for each individual case study. In fact, in the long run, case studies are virtually useless when attempting to understand markers for a wide spectrum of the population. I want to know what the overall markers are for ANY client. Give me a table that shows the specific markers and longitudinal and declinational aspects between signs and I will be quite happy, thank you very much!

Further, I’m quite familiar with the MAGI Society, to which he refers. I have all of their books as well as their ephemeris. And while I believe that they, too, could do with a bit more organization of subject matter (excuse me; I suppose that’s my Mercury in Virgo speaking there), at least their definitions were comprehensible and their tables and generically applied criterion helped tremendously.

Case in point re: the good doctor’s definition of ‘elevation’ on page 29 (this is not a MAGI Society term, to my knowledge): “Specific aspects and/or declinational positions that affect the basic expression of a planet’s energies. Elevations may be positive or negative, depending on the planet’s position and/or the planet(s) it interacts with [sic].” Since ‘elevation’ seems to be Dr. Gibson’s basal terminology utilized in the various astrological declinational descriptors, one would think that he would have spent just a bit more time explaining exactly what his idea of ‘elevation’ actually is.

To what does ‘elevation’ refer? Is it a location? I get that they can be both positive and negative, and that ‘they affect the basic expression of a planet’s energies,’ but somehow, ‘specific aspect’ doesn’t quite clarify things enough. Looking at his version of the declinational chart, I thought, “Ok, well… maybe the ‘elevation’ is referring to the planets as they appear above or north of the ecliptic.” But then later, on page 61 he refers to a Grand Elevation of Mars which appears at -20 BELOW or south of the ecliptic. So now I’m back at square one and still stumped. What does he mean by ‘elevation’? Could it be that anything below the ecliptic and farther away from the base line is considered (by Dr. Gibson) to be elevated? Probably. But he doesn’t elucidate this fact, if that is, indeed, the case.

I realize that everyone processes information in different ways. And I also understand that – according to Dr. Gibson, himself – he’s a genius (he was/is a member of MENSA). Therefore, he probably thinks far above the average individual. But, let’s be honest here: it’s not that difficult to write in such a way that the material is understandable and coherent (I’ve recently had to be reminded of that myself).

What does this have to do with my review of this book? I am more than capable of understanding extremely technical information. But the information presented here is far from organized or useful.

I’m not sure to what the other readers who thought he was brilliant were referring. Maybe they know him personally and he’s informed them of something he’s not sharing with the rest of us. However, after reading all of the reviews for this book on Amazon.com, I'd have to say that the only individuals who gave him anything other than 1 star were obviously those who have little true knowledge of astrology. Most everyone else with even an average amount of astrological knowledge found this book just as difficult to understand as I did.

Regardless, in my opinion Dr. Gibson is little better than the scientists and academicians who proclaim astrology to be a pseudo-science without accurately and thoroughly studying, testing and making an attempt to understand it. He’s taken a complex subject and rendered it even more incomprehensible (if that’s possible), by over-analyzing some aspects and under-explaining others.

Being an astrologer-cum-psychologist, I’d have to say that this book is anything but a breakthrough into either astrology or psychiatry.

Copyright © 2007 Kat Starwolf All Rights Reserved

The Law of Attraction

The Law of Attraction
© 2006 Ester & Jerry Hicks
Hay House Publishers, Inc.; Carlsbad, California
ISBN 13: 978-1-4019-1227-7

April 15, 2007

Jacket Blurb: “This book presents the powerful basics of the original Teachings of Abraham. Within these pages, you’ll see how all things, wanted and unwanted, are brought to you by this most powerful Law of the Universe: the Law of Attraction (that which is like unto itself, is drawn). You’ve most likely heard the sayings “Like attracts like,” “Birds of a feather flock together,” or “It is done unto you as you believe” (a belief is only a thought you keep thinking); and although the Law of Attraction has been alluded to by some of the greatest teachers in history, it has never before been explained in as clear and practical terms as in this latest book by best-selling authors Esther and Jerry Hicks.

“Here, you’ll learn about the omnipresent Laws that govern this Universe and how to make them work to your advantage. The knowledge that you’ll absorb from reading this book will take all the guesswork out of living. You’ll finally understand just about everything that’s happening in your own life, as well as the lives of those you’re interacting with. This book will help you joyously be, do or have anything that you desire!”

===============================================================
Kat’s Book Nook Review

Back in the mid-to-late ‘70s, when I was still a fairly young pup, I tried my hand at wading through the works of existential guru, Carlos Castaneda. Even now, Castaneda is a powerhouse of metaphysical gems of wisdom designed to expand the mind; so I occasionally venture down memory lane and re-read all those tomes of wisdom he produced in an attempt to better understand his thought processes. For the most part, I have been successful. Yet the one thing that I still had a difficult time with until recently, was comprehending Castaneda’s concept of ‘intention.’

What was this mysterious ‘intention,’ to which Castaneda repeatedly referred, and why couldn’t I grasp it?

Finally, after reading the words of Abraham in The Law of Attraction, the meaning became clear: intention is merely the process of creating, or bringing into existence, that which we desire. Simple; yet, for some reason, one of the most difficult things for most of us to comprehend, much less attain. Yet, again, it all boils down to ‘intent.’ When one desires something strongly enough the Universe has no choice but to oblige.

Lately, however, it seems the Law of Attraction on which the recent movie, The Secret, is based, has come under fire. How, postulate many who are either unable or unwilling to see the logic behind this Law, can creating be as simple as the adherents proclaim?

Are the debunkers right? Is this ‘Law’ merely some New Age, woo-woo mumbo jumbo or a bona-fide Law similar to gravity, or possibly something in between?

In all fairness, I have to admit that, I too, wondered how it could be so simple. How could one possibly desire something badly enough to ‘create’ it into existence without, oftentimes, even acting on that desire, other than to think about it? And what about such desires as, say, wanting to fly? Could we manifest an ability that seems to go totally against the physical Laws with which we all must (seemingly) abide? Although I’ve not personally experienced this, what about those who are purported to levitate or bi-locate or miraculously heal themselves or others of terminal diseases? It seems to me that if it is, indeed, possible to do these things, could it not also be possible to fly?

And yet, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that…isn’t that what we do every day? We desire something that to many would seem impossible, we think about having it, and if we think long and hard enough, eventually (if not sooner) we find a way of manifesting whatever it is we so strongly desire into existence. As the saying goes, a house begins as a fleeting thought, then becomes an idea, eventually makes its way to a blueprint, and ultimately finds expression in being ‘manifested’ or constructed out of tangible, material substance. Yet, it began as a mere thought, a desire.

In fact, some of our greatest Teachers and thinkers – from the ancient Sumerians, Egyptians, Hindu, Chinese and Native Americans to Socrates, Plato, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Gandhi and Mother Teresa taught some version of ‘thoughts become things.’

Even with all the evidence indicating that humans are capable of achieving feats far greater than even they realize, why have the majority of us believed that either the average person isn’t capable of greatness, or that the greatness which has, historically, been achieved is some fluke?

I suspect that, for the most part, it may be because we, as a conglomerate society, have been taught that only ‘the gods’ are capable of creation. Further, that we must sacrifice all to ‘the gods’ and rely on their good graces (and their whims) in order to experience the benefit of their bounty. Has this not been what has happened throughout the world over the last three- to four-thousand years in the forms of various religions?

Yet, is this really true? Do we really need to worship some elusive Concept of our own (or possibly someone else’s?) imaginative creation in order to reap the benefits we all so richly desire and deserve?

Speaking from a scientific-cum-psychological point of view, my belief is that we certainly ‘reap what we sow.’ If we choose negative thoughts, we will reap a negative outcome. If we are positive in our intent, we reap positive benefits. So, why is this concept so difficult for us to understand or believe?

Who of us doesn’t know at least someone who is so tenacious, relentless and ambitious that they never once listen to the ‘realistic’ advice of friends and family who tell them something can’t possibly be done, but instead follow the beat of their own drummer and end up achieving exactly what they always knew they could achieve while we stood on the sidelines gaping, jealous and in awe.

Individuals such as Hammurabi; Abraham (father of the Jews and Muslims); the Hebrew prophetess, Deborah; Buddha; Cleopatra; Jesus; Michelangelo; Leonard de Vinci; Nikola Tesla; Einstein and many others come to mind. Had they listened to well-wishers who just ‘knew’ that they were following the ‘wrong’ path, the world would be without all the great achievements it has accrued to date.

I fully believe that we are all part of the Collective Unconscious, the One, the All That Is and therefore have access to abilities of which we have, previously, only dreamed. If that is true, then are we not all gods and capable of manifesting anything we so desire?

~ Kat Starwolf
http://www.starwolfastrology.com/

“Whatever you do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius and power and magic in it.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe quotes (German Playwright, Poet, Novelist and Dramatist. 1749-1832)