The Dawning of the Age of Female Leadership

PZ is talking about underrepresentation of women in the movement again. A piece recently came out in Bitch Magazine, reprinted in the Guardian, pointing out that maintaining the male face of modern, movement atheism requires quite a bit of forgetting about the women who got things rolling and have kept them moving ever since. PZ agrees and points out that, with all that talent, solving the problem is much easier than continuing to wring hands over it.

The comments, as usual when this topic comes up, are mostly a mishmash of “Prove there’s a problem to my satisfaction or STFU,” repeated attempts to bash that information through thick skulls, venting of frustration over the impossibility of the task, and side chatter. There are a few people saying very sensible things that don’t require any reply, and a few others saying, “But how do we make this happen?” That last one, at least, I can answer.

It’s all so simple, but I never would have discovered it if Jason weren’t in an ongoing trollfest with an astrologer. Checking to see whether the astrologer/jerk’s failure to receive his emails could possibly be due to his stars, Jason’s wife Jodi landed on this page about Mercury in retrograde. And as I was reading it, what did I behold?

Relevant to My Interests

Venus is still in conjunction with the Sun in Leo as Merc turns, but this Sun/Venus conjunction is also opposed to Pallas Athene, the wise female warrior, and Vesta, the divine flame, in Aquarius. The asteroids are very active in this chart, along with the Moon, Venus and Neptune (all considered feminine influences). It seems that women and what might be described as feminine concerns will come to the forefront during this phase. This is especially notable, given that there are currently 20 female world leaders in power, a record number! Women now lead some of the most powerful countries, including Germany, India, Brazil, Australia, Argentina and a host of others. And even more if you consider the reigning queens and vice-regal governors across the world. [Here is an interesting list (offsite).]

See? None of this requires a struggle. None of it requires work or attention to overcome often unconscious bias. When the stars and planets align, those women’s concerns will be front and center! We only have to wait until…oh.

The retro period begins some days before the actual turning point (as Mercury slows) and lasts for three weeks or so, until August 26, 2011, when the Winged Messenger reaches his direct station. At this time he halts and begins his return to direct motion through the zodiac.

Everything finally straightens out on September 9th, as he passes the point where he first turned retrograde.

Oh, well. I guess we’re going to have to put some work into this after all.

The Dawning of the Age of Female Leadership
The Orbit is still fighting a SLAPP suit! Help defend freedom of speech, click here to find out more and donate!

4 thoughts on “The Dawning of the Age of Female Leadership

  1. F

    Weird how all these women attained their positions prior to Mercury’s retrograde action, and will likely remain in their positions for some time after “he” returns to “direct motion”.

    But if there turns out to be some problem, just shoot the Messenger.

    I really like your overall description of the comments pattern, which is, indeed, as usual. “I don’t see a problem, and no, I won’t remove my cool triple-dark shades”. Ugh.

  2. 2

    And now the post title makes sense.

    Oh, and HA!

    Anyway, I wonder why it’s so important for people to respond ‘I don’t see X problem in Y.’ What do they hope to accomplish? Are they trying to discourage you from discussing whatever problems you’ve seen? Do they want you want you to stop feeling indignant? What?

    It can’t be them trying to add to the conversation. If that were it they wouldn’t constantly hound you until you stopped mentioning it. They can’t possibly object to what your ultimate goal is (more diversity in X), could they?

    Except that they do, and that’s what I honestly don’t get. So many skeptics feel that trying to attract women or blacks or basically any underrepresented community will weaken skepticism. That it will make skepticism ‘feminist’ (said with particular disdain) and taint the purity of the group. It’s so insulting and obviously full of the same assumptions bigots have always made how can someone who claims to live rationally believe it?

    Gah! To hell with that and to hell with those people. I’ve got better things to do than discuss big foot.

  3. 3

    Anyway, I wonder why it’s so important for people to respond ‘I don’t see X problem in Y.’ What do they hope to accomplish? Are they trying to discourage you from discussing whatever problems you’ve seen?

    Pretty much, yes. It makes them uncomfortable, so they’d much rather the whole issue just went away so they can go back to congratulating themselves about how rational they are. Most people will do almost anything to avoid confronting (or even becoming aware of) their own privilege.

Comments are closed.