A theory behind modern astrology's fire sign hatred and Scorpio bias.

[The19thLaw]

If I was to sum up modern day astrology, I'd say it is mostly Scorpio worship while berating the fire signs, especially Leo. Scorpios are unstoppable, powerful, and as for their worst traits? Vengeful and evil, ooo spooky, looks like we just described Marvel's Punisher at worst and Superman at best. This is whenever something pops up as you google astrology.

But what gives? Why is modern astrology so overwhelmingly biased towards one sign while targeting fire signs are weak, dumb, and brash?

I think it ties into the war on masculinity that is happening in society.

Scorpio is seen as the most feminine sign outside of Cancer while the fire signs are associated with masculinity, with Aries being the most masculine of them all. In society, there has generally been more and more hatred towards masculinity and I cannot help but think this rubs off on astrology. After all, given how subjective astrology can be (especially modern day astrology), it is very easy to write up articles based on your bias.

I think what is happening right now in astrology which leading to such overwhelming bias towards Scorpios is the fact that there is rebellion against masculinity and what it used to stand for. Being brash, direct, straightforward, "manly", and going after what you wanted in life were seen traditionally as masculine traits (whether in men or women).

Mars in Aries is a good example of this, direct and to the point, everything is on the surface. Yet why is it that modern astrologers will say this placement burns out fast and cannot maintain long-term goals?

Mars in Scorpio is deceptive and two-faced, portray yourself one way in public but then act another way. Why is this placement so revered by modern astrologers? Even more so than Mars in Capricorn where the planet is exalted? Why?

You never read anything bad about a Mars in Scorpio but why is this?

Because Mars is in a feminine position and modern astrology wants to talk it up because of it.

I genuinely think that the bias towards certain signs is based on this very thing and fire signs are just at the end of all of it.

 

[Lykanized]

Scorpios are definitely one of the most idealized and worshipped signs along with Aquarius, Pisces and Capricorn as far as I’ve seen(altho Aqua and Scorpio take the cake), but I haven’t seen this fire sign hatred...
Leo hatred I see, but in general, fire seems to be idealized to some extent. People love Sag and Aries

 

[wilsontc]

free will, to 19thLaw

19thLaw,

Modern astrology emphasizes a person's free will and how they can CHOOSE to use their energy. So, for example, while Scorpio energy CAN be vindictive, it also CAN be used for research. It depends on how the person CHOOSES to use that energy. The purpose of modern astrology is to show a person their astrological energy patterns so the person can best choose HOW they want to use their natal energies and take advantage of the energies around them (e.g., transits and progressions). Focusing entirely on the negative traits of one sign energy or ANY sign is overlooking the positive possibilities of that sign energy.

About free will in modern astrology,

Tim

 

[ardentika]

Thank you wilsontc, that was profoundly true.

The19thLaw, I'm yet to figure out who hurt you and where that Scorpio hate comes from. I know you will sta it's not true and yet this is prolly the 3rd topic I read of yours bashing Scorpios.

Anyways, you spoke something about masculinity war. Your knowledge seems to be like a hot air balloon. If you wanna bash Scorpio go deep.

First of all we are entering the age of Aquarius and it seems to play out in many ways. One of them is the fight for fall of patriarchy , gender equality, and breaking gender norms. Feminism is re born again. You have the right type of feminism and yet you have the social justice warriors and the deeply wounded women who get offended by everything and anything . It's true that modern feminism at times fight for dominance rather than equality. But how would you give that quality entirely to Scorpio ? Isn't that aries too? Let's not forget Aries and Scorpio are in conjunct with inheritly makes them a lot alike. The only difference is they go about their desires in completly different ways.

Mars in Aries burns out fast because that's Mars in general and that's aries. Most fire burns out fast. Cos they put all of their energy and drive and at the first set back they get burned out. This will be especially true if Mars is afflicted in the chart.

Mars in Scorpio is definitely not two faced and deceptive. You cannot judge that by a single position. That position has the same potential to burn out as fast as Aries just in a different way.

Mars in Capricorn wouldn't burn it fast hence why exhalted. Because Capricorn is an earth energy ,grounded energy. It's slow a s methodical. As anything else it has its own pros and cons.

Nothing is as black and white as you try to portray it. Not in life and definitely not in astrology.

Let's go back to the topic you touched about feminism. Astrology is all about perspective if you haven't still realized that. So it's normal when women become empowered after ages of suppression , that you will start reading different viwes on different signs. Instead of trying to bash that, try to open minded and see that perspective too. You don't have to adopt it but you don't have to bash it either . Just take whatever resoantes with you and move on.

And Scorpio is co rulled by Mars as well which is a masculine planet, so I don't see how Scorpio is a feminine sign.

 

[Andrea_]

But what gives? Why is modern astrology so overwhelmingly biased towards one sign while targeting fire signs are weak, dumb, and brash?

I think what you are noticing is free internet for all, meaning lesser quality materials get out there too sometimes and even among the first results. Or the 'third feminist wave'. Remember this is a North America thing, the rest of the world doesn't abide nearly by the same male-hating or female-hating rules Or at very least they manifest differently (except Ireland and UK, they love the States). Then again, I just don't read stuff I don't like and so I couldn't tell.

Personally, I've never noticed Capricorn or Pisces be put on pedestals, quite the opposite, they get ostracized. Stuff like Aries and Leo oftentimes get to be 'loved', and this according to older sources too. Just read old books about Aquarius, Capricorn, Scorpio... not the brightest descriptions, because of their rulers. But how this works is, if you already have a good dose of seriousness, practicality, inability to take jokes lightly, stern attitude etc... you will naturally look up and wonder how can other people be so much lighter and changeable? (hi there geminis!). On the contrary, if you are the social butterfly type but life presses you to show more responsibility and determination, you'll read those Taurus descriptions like they're the secret recipe to your success and wonder how can someone have everything you need...

Meanwhile, I like the Aquarius age theories (remember folks, even physics is a theory). Ideas will be challenged and technology put forward, though globalised dystopian scenarios seem more real than ever exactly because of this faith put in certain... people or technologies .

I'd like to ignore this enraged focus on genders and I have been doing that. Why did it suddenly become more important to be asked about your pronoun rather than about your hobbies? Why don't people greet each other instead with 'Have you planted a tree this year?'... 'Have you helped take medical care of a soul?'...

You see, there has undoubtedly been a ton of misogynism going on and still is, in so many parts of the world, from South-Eastern Europe and countries like Italy (street security at night for females in certain parts - RIP) to many other places where cat-calling, groping, honking and sexualising female figures is common; to not mention rape and violent crimes victims especially with females coming from monoparental families etc. The sex workers trade industry is still mainly with females from poor areas because males pay for these services still. In some cases, males doing these are victims themselves continuing the emotional or physical abuse cycle.

Even now, if you want to have a nice debate or discussion with a guy, as a girl, that is already in a relationship or married, it's your responsibility to either not do so or 'watch yourself' because if they seem to like you it's you fault, you spark jealousy, and poor little souls are just getting tricked by feminine wiles... like, lol, what? Hello, have a little responsibility, we're adults, both realise what's going on, and the fault should fall on the overly curious one's side.

Again, females are the ones expected to marry and not get old, and not show directness, power, and other bs 'let's pretend all females have an angelic presence' ideas.

So I think that feminism is needed, but not a clown fiesta of hypocritical and enraged rich (rich by my standards) women and young people claiming to be feminists. Many are doing more wrong than good by discrediting good deeds, not being able to make distinction between joke and reality, and acting for their own benefit because they've been 'hurt a little' in the past (due to their personal choices they don't want to be responsible of). Even when you get in an abusive or less ideal relationship (which happens more often than we'd like to admit), instead of victimizing yourself why not try to help the other person by showing calmness, stability, reason, good ideas, initiative, care, love, whatever form of help you can deliver; if not, what are you still doing in a relationship with that person?

I've always wondered why the feminine, especially in the eastern astrology, chinese comes to mind, is attributed so much to passivity and the negative polarity. It is something reflected in the western hemisphere as well. I can't say I am a fan of calling them feminine-masculine. It's... something different, terminology-wise. And we're all imbued with both polarities.

 

[ardentika]

I agree deeply with you Andrea.

I'm not even gonna get into the demonization of Capricorn lol (I am one). To be honest Capricorns and Aquarius have one of the best humor ever. It's realistic and up to date, it's a little dark, but that's how they deal with the sometimes not so pleasant reality. I'd call it a mature humor. Also these signs tend to have a good self irony, maybe Scorpio too.

And I don't know if I mentioned this before, excuse me if I repeat myself. I know what I'm gonna say doesn't have much astrological value , but just let your imagination work for a second.

No one really knows when did we enter age of Aquarius or if we did at all yet. (I personally believe we did) . However , if we had to make a sun chart , Aquarius being the 1st house , leo being the 7rh, Taurus 4th and respectively Scorpio the 10th. This would very much explain the Scorpio fame. Especially for the past 30 or so years having the powerful Pluto in Scorpio generation .

I think in general fixed signs will be brought forward into the light.

 

[The19thLaw]

I think I have said it many times, I am so sick and tired of one sign being promoted as being and if we all had to be impartial here and pick what that sign was, Scorpio would win hands down. Look at the description for Mars in Scorpio, what are the bad things? It's evil? It's immoral?

The desperate portrayal to make one sign the punisher and bada** marvel character of the zodiac, it truly is unreal.

I am also not buying Ardentika being a Capricorn, from my experience, they could care less about these sorts of things. I get the feeling she is a Scorpio herself in which case I have to say, no personal offense to you but you have to admit the bias towards your sign is unreal.

 

[david starling]

I agree deeply with you Andrea.

I'm not even gonna get into the demonization of Capricorn lol (I am one). To be honest Capricorns and Aquarius have one of the best humor ever. It's realistic and up to date, it's a little dark, but that's how they deal with the sometimes not so pleasant reality. I'd call it a mature humor. Also these signs tend to have a good self irony, maybe Scorpio too.

And I don't know if I mentioned this before, excuse me if I repeat myself. I know what I'm gonna say doesn't have much astrological value , but just let your imagination work for a second.

No one really knows when did we enter age of Aquarius or if we did at all yet. (I personally believe we did) . However , if we had to make a sun chart , Aquarius being the 1st house , leo being the 7rh, Taurus 4th and respectively Scorpio the 10th. This would very much explain the Scorpio fame. Especially for the past 30 or so years having the powerful Pluto in Scorpio generation .

I think in general fixed signs will be brought forward into the light.

Why don't we know if the Aquarian Age has begun yet? What are the facts of the matter? For example, we know when a Solar month begins, and all the rest of the ingresses. What makes the Ages any different?

 

[ardentika]

Why don't we know if the Aquarian Age has begun yet? What are the facts of the matter? For example, we know when a Solar month begins, and all the rest of the ingresses. What makes the Ages any different?

That no one can tell you exactly down to the date how long it takes to the earth to wobble around and it's axis to point to a new constellation . Also no one knows exactly when the age of pisces began.

 

[david starling]

That no one can tell you exactly down to the date how long it takes to the earth to wobble around and it's axis to point to a new constellation . Also no one knows exactly when the age of pisces began.

Well, since you're talking the constellations, are you comfortable with sidereal astrology?

 

[ardentika]

Well, since you're talking the constellations, are you comfortable with sidereal astrology?

In what way? Interpretation wise or just the whole idea signs are 24 degrees behind ?

 

[david starling]

In what way? Interpretation wise or just the whole idea signs are 24 degrees behind ?

The Aquarian Age you're talking about can be located exactly in a sidereal Chart, provided you have determined exactly where the Sign-boundaries are. Modern siderealism uses the Fagan-Bradley Sign locations, which means the astronomical point normally used to indicate the Ages, the "VP" (Vernal Point) reached 5 degrees sidereal Pisces in 2018. Since the sidereal Age movement is retrograde, that in turn means 5 degrees left to go before the VP reaches sidereal Aquarius. At 71.6 years per degree, that's 358 years, currently 357 years from now.

 

[david starling]

In what way? Interpretation wise or just the whole idea signs are 24 degrees behind ?

You know that the Ages are due to Earth's "wobble" as it rotates! That's more than most astrologers are aware of.

 

[ardentika]

"But even if you equalize the size of the signs of the Zodiac, you need to consider when the Age of Pisces started to be able to know when the Age of Aquarius begins. Apparently, there’s no firm consensus among astrologers as to when the Age of Pisces began, either. And thus there is no consensus as to when the Age of Aquarius begins. In The Book of World Horoscopes, Nicholas Campion suggests that approximated dates for entering the Age of Aquarius range from 1447 A.D. to 3597 A.D. Campion also reviewed published material on the subject from astrological sources. He says that most writers claim the Age of Aquarius arrived in the 20th century (29 claims). The 24th century is in second place (12 claims). Campion, by the way, is director of the Sophia Centre and Course Director of the M.A. in Cultural Astronomy and Astrology at the University of Wales, Lampeter. See Campion’s credentials here.

Some astrologers say the Age of Aquarius actually began in 2012. That’s because they believe the star Regulus in the constellation Leo the Lion marked the ancient border between the constellations Leo and Cancer. This star moved to within 30 degrees of the September equinox point in 2012, meaning that Regulus left the sign Leo to enter the sign Virgo in that year. Presuming equal-sized constellations in antiquity, that places the border of the constellations Pisces and Aquarius at 150 degrees west of Regulus, or at the March equinox point. By this reckoning, the Age of Aquarius started in 2012.

But again, although there is firm reckoning by many for the beginning of this astrological age, there is no agreement."

It's all speculations since there is no much concrete evidence. That too it seams to be left to belief. But I too believe it already began since we are entering technological ages are such fast speed.

 

[david starling]

"But even if you equalize the size of the signs of the Zodiac, you need to consider when the Age of Pisces started to be able to know when the Age of Aquarius begins. Apparently, there’s no firm consensus among astrologers as to when the Age of Pisces began, either. And thus there is no consensus as to when the Age of Aquarius begins. In The Book of World Horoscopes, Nicholas Campion suggests that approximated dates for entering the Age of Aquarius range from 1447 A.D. to 3597 A.D. Campion also reviewed published material on the subject from astrological sources. He says that most writers claim the Age of Aquarius arrived in the 20th century (29 claims). The 24th century is in second place (12 claims). Campion, by the way, is director of the Sophia Centre and Course Director of the M.A. in Cultural Astronomy and Astrology at the University of Wales, Lampeter. See Campion’s credentials here.

Some astrologers say the Age of Aquarius actually began in 2012. That’s because they believe the star Regulus in the constellation Leo the Lion marked the ancient border between the constellations Leo and Cancer. This star moved to within 30 degrees of the September equinox point in 2012, meaning that Regulus left the sign Leo to enter the sign Virgo in that year. Presuming equal-sized constellations in antiquity, that places the border of the constellations Pisces and Aquarius at 150 degrees west of Regulus, or at the March equinox point. By this reckoning, the Age of Aquarius started in 2012.

But again, although there is firm reckoning by many for the beginning of this astrological age, there is no agreement."

It's all speculations since there is no much concrete evidence. That too it seams to be left to belief. But I too believe it already began since we are entering technological ages are such fast speed.

The layout is clear--determine the Age Indicator and the location of sidereal Aquarius, calculate the rate and direction of motion, and you know the year the Age of Pisces began and when the Age of Aquarius will begin. As for disagreement, there are really only two major factors: 1) Where is sidereal Aquarius located; and, 2) Where is the Age Indicator located. Nearly all the disagreement Campion records is about where sidereal Aquarius is located. The VP is by far the Age Indicator of choice. So, who has it right? Is it the sideralists themselves, including the Vedics? Or, is it tropicalists who have no business [IMO] determining the location of the sidereal Sign-boundaries. I find the entire argument about the timing of the sidereal Ages specious. It makes Sun-sign astrology look sophisticated by comparison.

 

[david starling]

Ardentika, I'll be starting a new thread on the Ages that I hope you'll join in on. This is clearly not a topic for this thread. I'll call it "Untying the Gordian Knot of the Astrological Ages". I agree the Aquarian Age is in the offing, and is already having some effects, as you've noted. It really is a topic that requires clarification.
Btw, did the OP accuse you of lying about your own Sun-sign?!!!?

 

[ardentika]

Ardentika, I'll be starting a new thread on the Ages that I hope you'll join in on. This is clearly not a topic for this thread. I'll call it "Untying the Gordian Knot of the Astrological Ages". I agree the Aquarian Age is in the offing, and is already having some effects, as you've noted. It really is a topic that requires clarification.
Btw, did the OP accuse you of lying about your own Sun-sign?!!!?

Okay! I'm not that familiar really with details but I'd love to follow the topic. And I don't think anyone accused me of anything. Can't possibly lie, my chart is all over the forum haha

 

[love-thinking]

If I was to sum up modern day astrology, I'd say it is mostly Scorpio worship while berating the fire signs, especially Leo. Scorpios are unstoppable, powerful, and as for their worst traits? Vengeful and evil, ooo spooky, looks like we just described Marvel's Punisher at worst and Superman at best. This is whenever something pops up as you google astrology.

But what gives? Why is modern astrology so overwhelmingly biased towards one sign while targeting fire signs are weak, dumb, and brash?

I think it ties into the war on masculinity that is happening in society.

Scorpio is seen as the most feminine sign outside of Cancer while the fire signs are associated with masculinity, with Aries being the most masculine of them all. In society, there has generally been more and more hatred towards masculinity and I cannot help but think this rubs off on astrology. After all, given how subjective astrology can be (especially modern day astrology), it is very easy to write up articles based on your bias.

I think what is happening right now in astrology which leading to such overwhelming bias towards Scorpios is the fact that there is rebellion against masculinity and what it used to stand for. Being brash, direct, straightforward, "manly", and going after what you wanted in life were seen traditionally as masculine traits (whether in men or women).

Mars in Aries is a good example of this, direct and to the point, everything is on the surface. Yet why is it that modern astrologers will say this placement burns out fast and cannot maintain long-term goals?

Mars in Scorpio is deceptive and two-faced, portray yourself one way in public but then act another way. Why is this placement so revered by modern astrologers? Even more so than Mars in Capricorn where the planet is exalted? Why?

You never read anything bad about a Mars in Scorpio but why is this?

Because Mars is in a feminine position and modern astrology wants to talk it up because of it.

I genuinely think that the bias towards certain signs is based on this very thing and fire signs are just at the end of all of it.

Scorpio is a feminine water sign ruled by a male planet. That's why it's fascinating and "sexy." I will argue that pisces and cancer are more feminine than a scorpio. Scorpios are secretive, and passive in the beginning yes, but they are one of the most able signs there is.

The reason why mars does well in capricorn is becuase it is challenged and it is supported.

Mars gets dignity in 10th house, and cap rules the 10th.
Cap aids Mars not only to be active and get things done but challenges it to be disciplined.
Mars and Saturn, are both male, with a similar nature of taking action although it doesn't like eachother as mars is the general of the sun(king), and saturn is against the sun.

 

[david starling]

Love-thinking, are you using a combination of tropical and Vedic?

 

[love-thinking]

Love-thinking, are you using a combination of tropical and Vedic?

I use vedic principles and yes I do relate it to tropical zodiac. I use the tropical zodiac and do vedic astrology. In the books, I believe it was said to follow the equinoxes, but back in the day, to be precise they connected libra to a star called chitra, although things have changed. I follow earnst wilhelm and vic dicara.