“They’re not as receptive to growing thoughts about who they are,” says astrologer Ash Reed, explaining why males are resistant to astrology. They claimed that men are too arrogant to desire to go deeper into themselves because they believe they know everything there is to know about themselves. Women are open to expansion and self-improvement, hence this viewpoint is diametrically opposed to them. This hypothesis explains why males are put off by astrology because, once again, introspection is associated with femininity. As a result, astrology has become a convenient target for males who dismiss it as a hoax based on a lack of evidence. Women, on the other hand, are warm to astrology for the same reason Ash Reed mentioned. Women find astrology comforting because it provides them with another means of communicating, whether with others or spiritually. They feel involved in an environment where they are safe. It’s the same thing that happens when guys become interested in things that are traditionally associated with men, such as cars, sports, and video games. They have their own set of interests as well as a unique way of communicating. The difference is that they are not subjected to the same level of scrutiny as women when it comes to their own interests.
In This Article...
What makes so many young women trust in horoscopes?
We all know that astrology is mostly targeted towards women; whether through social media, advertising, or other types of marketing, we’ve been sold it since its inception. It is frequently regarded as a simple past time for women with too much time on their hands, in the same way that vanity and popular culture have been marketed. As a result, many men, particularly heterosexual males, subconsciously adopt this viewpoint and are less likely to believe in or take it seriously. What we’re left with raises a more fundamental question about the ideological makeup of the country. As a result, we must tackle the difficult question: where did this notion originate, and why is astrology regarded as so frivolously female?
What is the feminisation of astrology?
The feminisation of astrology refers to the dismissing of astrology as a serious discipline as a result of society’s gendering of it as a female-led activity, eroding its legitimacy as a result of women’s interest.
Any discipline that subscribes to deeper reflection is sometimes criticized as an illusion of the female imagination, as we’ve seen throughout history. We may see signs of this in the 1950s gender binaries and the emergence of female-led fan culture. The origins of fan clubs were frequently found in the homes of housewives looking for a way to escape their surroundings. Women were frequently chastised for creating venues in which to express the emotionality of their experiences. This relationship opened the stage for a long-held patriarchal response, depriving other areas, particularly the occult, of legitimacy. This reluctance is what gives astrology the reputation of being a female-only science.
Why? Because introspection is still mistakenly considered a feminine trait, astrology has become an easy target for women because it is founded on this. As a result, there has been a perception of illegitimacy in the discipline, which has resulted in its continual dismissal. However, astrologer Chani Nicholas stated in a recent podcast from her app that it is highly accepted among women for the same reason. Women typically find solace in astrology since it allows them to express themselves freely, whether with people or spiritually. In a space that values emotions, women feel understood. Unfortunately, males, who are societally bound to an emotionally strict yardstick, are not the same.
Feminism and astrology
The 1960s were a watershed moment for astrological and female empowerment. In the years leading up to the sexual revolution and the birth of the Aquarian Age, sexism was scrutinized and studied in great detail. In this milieu, freedom of expression and contemplation were encouraged, and astrology and spiritual practice flourished. While we’ve kept many of the same spiritual ideas, it appears that we’ve lost what we achieved back then. As a society, we are no longer encouraged to delve deeper into our psyches, relying on introspection to find answers to our problems. Instead, we’ve resorted to prescriptive gender boundaries, which allow women to be marginalized just for expressing their spirituality.
You’ll frequently hear astrologers refer to signs and planets as masculine or feminine. Of course, they are not discussing gender differences, but rather differing energy qualities. Unfortunately, we have not yet successfully incorporated the use of correct pronouns for astrology in our Western culture. Consider the concept of yin and yang. The rejection of this legitimate astronomical terminology demonstrates how long these sexist linguistics have existed, going unnoticed for generations. And we’re left wondering if it’s not time to rethink our approach, as well as our personal attitude on gender roles and equality, and whether or not we’re aware of the reality we’re creating in this area.
After everything is said and done, not everyone who disagrees with astrology or denies its validity should be labeled sexist; only if such a denial arises from toxic masculinity, which, as we all know, has distorted many things for women throughout time, should such a refusal be considered sexist. This includes things like astrology, which are basically genderless. When, in fact, astrology was not designed only for cis women.
Due to the broad range of gender expression, modern astrologists have chosen to ignore gender in their readings in order to be inclusive to all, as astrology has always been meant. Excluding gender from the exploration of energies has no effect on the discipline’s efficacy or substance, but it does help to bring in a broader group of people. Having a gender divide in astrology is detrimental to the history of astrology’s concepts and spirituality. By bridging this divide, we may move away from the idea that astrology is only for women.
What proportion of women believe in astrology?
According to a Pew Research poll conducted in 2018, roughly 29% of American people believe in astrology.
Similarly, women are more likely than males to believe in astrology (37 percent), according to the poll (20 percent ).
According to the research, Catholics are slightly more likely than Protestants to believe in astrology (33 percent) (24 percent ).
Unsurprisingly, atheists are the least likely (3%) to believe in astrology and zodiac signs, according to the poll.
Is it more common for men or women to believe in astrology?
However, not everyone agrees. Straight males appear to be frequently apathetic or hostile to astrology, and Joe is not alone in his dislike of the cosmological boom. In a Gallup UK study from 2005, slightly over twice as many women as males believed in astrology (30 percent to 14 percent of a data pool of 1,010 people). According to a 2017 Pew Research Center research, 20% of adult men in the United States believe in astrology, compared to 37% of women.
Is astrology a woman’s or a man’s science?
What you should know about them is as follows. Male zodiac signs include: Fire and air signs are masculine according to astrology, hence Libra, Gemini, Aquarius, Aries, Leo, and Sagittarius are all male zodiac signs. Cancer, Pisces, Scorpio, Taurus, Virgo, and Capricorn are all feminine zodiac signs associated with earth and water.
Is there anyone who believes in astrology?
Christine Smallwood’s fascinating piece, “Astrology in the Age of Uncertainty:
Astrology is currently experiencing widespread popular acceptability that has not been seen since the 1970s. The transition began with the introduction of the personal computer, was expedited by the Internet, and has now reached new levels of speed thanks to social media. According to a Pew Research Center poll from 2017, about a third of Americans believe in astrology.
Astrology, like psychoanalysis before it, has infiltrated our collective vernacular. At a party in the 1950s, you could have heard someone talk about the id, ego, or superego; now, it’s normal to hear someone explain herself using the sun, moon, and rising signs. It isn’t just that you are aware of it. It’s who’s saying it: folks who aren’t kooks or deniers of climate change, who don’t find a conflict between utilizing astrology and believing in science…
I ran a short Google search and discovered the following Pew report from October 2018:
The religion breakdown was the only thing that surprised me about this table.
I had the impression that mainline Protestants were the rational ones, but they believe in astrology at the same rate as the overall population.
But, hey, I guess they’re ordinary Americans, so they have average American ideas.
Only 3% of atheists believe in astrology, which is also unexpected.
This makes sense, yet it seemed reasonable to me that someone may not believe in God but believe in other supernatural things: in fact, I could see astrology as a type of replacement for a traditional religious system.
But it appears that is not the case.
Brian Wansink has been compared to an astrologer who can make astute observations about the world based on a combination of persuasiveness and qualitative understanding, and then attributes his success to tarot cards or tea leaves rather than a more practical ability to synthesize ideas and tell good stories.
Does Brian Wansink, on the other hand, believe in astrology?
What about Marc Hauser, Ed Wegman, Susan Fiske, and the rest of the bunch who call their detractors “second-string, replication police, methodological terrorists, Stasi, and so on?”
I doubt they believe in astrology because it symbolizes a rival belief system: it’s a business that, in some ways, competes with rah-rah Ted-talk science.
I wouldn’t be shocked if famous ESP researchers believe in astrology, but I get the impression that mainstream junk-science supporters in academia and the news media feel uncomfortable discussing ESP since its research methods are so similar to their own.
They don’t want to be associated with ESP researchers because it would devalue their own study, but they also don’t want to put them under the bus because they are fellow Ivy League academics, so the safest plan is to remain quiet about it.
The greater point, however, is not astrology believing in and of itself, but the mental state that allows individuals to believe in something so contrary to our scientific understanding of the world.
(OK, I apologize to the 29% of you who don’t agree with me on this.)
When I return to writing on statistical graphics, model verification, Bayesian computation, Jamaican beef patties, and other topics, you can rejoin the fold.)
It’s not that astrology couldn’t be correct a priori:
We can come up with credible hypotheses under which astrology is real and amazing, just as we can with embodied cognition, beauty and sex ratio, ovulation and voting, air rage, ages ending in 9, and all the other Psychological Science / PNAS classics.
It’s just that nothing has come up after years of rigorous research.
And the existing theories aren’t particularly convincing: they’re speculative world models that may be good if the purpose was to describe a real and enduring occurrence, but they’re less so without actual data.
Anyway, if 30% of Americans are willing to believe such nonsense, it’s no surprise that a significant number of influential American psychology professors will have the kind of attitude toward scientific theory and evidence that leads them to have strong beliefs in weak theories with no supporting evidence.
Indeed, not only support for specific weak theories, but support for the fundamental principle that pseudoscientific views should be treated with respect (although, oddly enough, maybe not for astrology itself).
P.S.In defense of the survey respondents (but not of the psychology professors who support ideas like the “critical positivity ratio,” which makes astrology appear positively sane in comparison), belief in astrology (or, for that matter, belief in heaven, gravity, or the square-cube law) is essentially free.
Why not believe these things, or not believe them?
Belief or denial in evolution, climate change, or unconscious bias, on the other hand, can have social or political consequences.
Some opinions are purely personal, while others have a direct impact on policy.
I have less patience for famous academic and media elites who aggressively support junk science by not just expressing their trust in speculative notions supported by no real data, but also attacking those who point out these emperors’ nudity. Furthermore, even a hypothetical tolerant, open-minded supporter of junk sciencethe type of person who might believe in critical positivity ratio but actively support the publication of criticisms of that workcan still cause some harm by contaminating scientific journals and the news media with bad science, and by promoting sloppy work that takes up space that could be used for more careful research.
You know how they say science corrects itself, but only because individuals are willing to correct themselves?
Gresham’s law is also true, but only when people are willing to distribute counterfeit notes or money they think is counterfeit while keeping their lips shut until they can get rid of their wads of worthless stock.
P.P.S.Just to be clear:I don’t think astrology is a waste of time, and it’s possible that Marc Hauser was onto something real, even while faking data (according to the US government, as mentioned on Wikipedia), and the critical positivity ratio, ovulation, voting, and all the rest…
Just because there isn’t enough evidence to support a theory doesn’t mean it’s untrue.
I’m not trying to disprove any of these assertions.
All of it should be published someplace, along with all of the criticism.
My issue with junk science proponents isn’t simply that they advocate science that I and others perceive to be rubbish; they can also be wrong!
However, they consistently avoid, deny, and oppose valid open criticism.
P.P.P.S.Remember that #notallpsychologists.
Of course, the problem of junk research isn’t limited to psychology in any way.
Professors of political science, economics, sociology, and history, to the extent that they believe in astrology, spoon bending, or whatever (that is, belief in “scientific paranormalism as describing some true thing about the natural world, not just a “anthropological recognition that paranormal beliefs can affect the world because people believe in it), this could also sabotage their research.
I suppose it’s not such a big problem if a physicist or chemist believes in these things.
I’m not attempting to shut down study into astrology, embodied cognition, ESP, beauty-and-sex-ratio, endless soup bowls, spoon bending, the Bible Code, air anger, ovulation and voting, subliminal smiley faces, or anything else.
Allow for the blooming of a thousand blooms!
Given that a sizable portion of the populace is willing to believe in scientific-sounding notions that aren’t backed by any good scientific theory or evidence, it should come as no surprise that many professional scientists hold this viewpoint.
The repercussions are especially evident in psychology, which is a vital field of study where theories can be hazy and where there is a long legacy of belief and action based on flimsy data.
That isn’t to say that psychologists are awful people; they’re merely working on difficult challenges in a field with a long history of failures.
This isn’t a critique; it’s just the way things are. Of course, there is a lot of excellent work being done in the field of psychology. You’ll have to work with what you’ve got.
Is astrology backed up by science?
Astrology is a collection of belief systems that assert that there is a connection between astrological phenomena and events or personality traits in the human world. The scientific community has dismissed astrology as having no explanatory power for describing the universe. Scientific testing has discovered no evidence to back up the astrological traditions’ premises or alleged effects.
What are the symptoms that someone is more narcissistic?
Narcissists also believe they are superior to others, and this is what narcissism at its best looks like. When you speak to them or try to converse with them, they will try to persuade you that they are correct and that what they know is the best. We are here to assist you if you want to be prepared before speaking with a narcissist. The following are the four zodiac signs that are most likely to be narcissists.
Why do more women than men believe in astrology?
A new study examines why women believe in astrology more than men, concluding that it may be related to “entrenched misogyny.”
According to Mashable, women’s increased belief in astrology could be considered a side consequence of a male-dominated society.
Because men tend to dominate roles associated with power and privilege globally, women welcomed the psychological comfort and institutional backing of religion, according to Dr. Phil Zuckerman, an author and sociology professor at Pitzer College.
Scientific study like these, as well as statistics polls, have opened the way for astrology to be aggressively promoted toward women, according to blogger Nicole A. Murray.
Points you can use if you believe in astrology:
- It’s a whole science that revolves on the positions of stars and planets.
- A large number of people believe in astrology.
- Many astrologers’ forecasts have come true.
- Astrology can aid with future planning.
Points you can use if you don’t believe in astrology:
- There is no guarantee that the forecasts will come true.
- The majority of astrologers are con artists.
- Astrology is for the gullible.
More on the subject of personal responses: