miquar
Well-known member
How was I back-pedaling?
Yes, the "Saturn = Pluto" bit was bad for my side.
I apologize for my last sentence. It's mostly speculation and it is quite hard to read.
Hi. 'Back-pedalling' was rather harsh - sorry. I just felt that you had loosened your assertion.
But in any case, I just wanted to say that as far as I can see, Liz Greene goes to great effort to understand and teach the essence of an archetype as a way of avoiding assumptions and generalisations. If you start with the essence, you have not pidgeon-holed anyone any more than they are already pidgeon-holed by constellating a particular archetypal pattern at birth.
I think most people, myself included, and as you know also Liz Greene, that there are, generally speaking psychological differences between the genders. But of course this in a sense is just another typology - psychological male and psychological female - and some will fit one pole or the other more neatly than others, and some will go against the psychological gendering of the the majority of those who share their biological gender (and there are some who are born not even fitting neatly into a biological gender-type). And of course we don't know how much is down to socialising.
I personally believe that we are all ultimately psychologically androgynous, wherever we start off in terms of biological or psychological types.
I hope you don't mind me asking, but are you female, and if so, do you dislike Greene's astrology because the generalisations you feel she has made are counter to your feminist views? I don't see Greene as anti-feminist.