Why straight men hate astrology so much: an examination

Sci-fi writer Arthur C. Clarke left his native Britain because, in the 1960's, they were intolerant of gay men like himself.  

VICE writer Hannah Ewans contemplated the relationship between astrology, gender, and sexual norms in her recent article, Why Straight Men Hate Astrology So Much. Just by giving her essay that name, she caused a few of my conservative friends to react like a vampire being shown a crucifix. One of them angrily responded “because it’s bullshit!” Alas, I am no conservative and didn’t react to people discussing gender and sexuality like Dracula when he is confronted by Van Helsing. I am, however, both a skeptic and a history geek that spends a great deal of time reading about the role that natural magic played in the Scientific Revolution. 

Before reading this essay, my own answer to “why do you hate astrology” went something like "I 'hate' (although I think this is way too strong of a word) it because it's based on false assumptions about our cosmos and it takes advantage of the gullible. In a world that's starved of evidence-based reasoning, I cannot stomach something so nonsensical being so popular. There is also the fact that the modern horoscope industry makes a mockery of the honest, yet mistaken, attempt of understanding our cosmos made by astrologers from Antiquity to the Renaissance." The article appeared in the Astrology section, so I did not expect the author to share this view. 

With that said, I don’t think that implies anything about Hannah’s moral character or intellect. Its apparent by the article’s tone and how well written it is that she is a smart person who doesn’t like to see people shit on for having strange beliefs. I 100% share this sentiment and, to extend an olive branch to a well-intentioned person, I decided to examine her article for the sake of seeing where we agree and disagree and, as a skeptic, to offer some feedback. Hopefully this will lead to a more productive conversation which isn’t based on people being insulted and dismissed.

One thing that Hannah and I both agree on is that the rapid grown of astrology is impressive. Near the beginning of the article, Hannah touts this growth: 

“Over the past two to three years, astrology has shifted from being a niche interest to a major point of enthusiasm for many women and queer people. Broadly, VICE's channel geared towards women and the LGBTQ community, gets a huge amount of traffic from astrological features and horoscopes. Other media platforms for women have noticeably ramped up astrology content from filler to the forefront. In the UK, Google searches for "birth chart" doubled between November of 2013 and November of 2018. Since September of 2017, there's been a steady increase in people searching "astrological compatibility". All that interest has given publishing a boost: sales of mind, body and spirit books are booming; in 2017, sales rose by 13 percent in just a year.”

As a skeptic, I am envious of those numbers. Our movement, thanks to the internet, has grown quite rapidly. Skeptics no longer must look so hard to find media or meetups. I, however, don’t think we hold a candle compared to the recent surge in interest in astrology. I find this surge of popularity staggering and don’t get how something based on no evidence could grow so rampantly in popularity. I am also struck by how something that cuts so against the grain of our modern culture when it comes to generalizing about people (replace your “sign” with your ethnicity or gender and see if it doesn’t strike you as offensive) could flourish in a community filled in such an open-minded people. It’s truly flabbergasting (maybe this means that I am the target for this article).

After this very astute observation, Hannah starts to explain why, in psychological terms, so many straight men hate astrology and why it’s so popular with women and members of the LGTBQ community. Because of her article essentially being one long argument, I am going to address most of her points in the order that they appear. 

“If you're a straight man with a lot of female friends, you probably tolerate astrology ("It's gotten to the point where I'm sharing Virgo memes in the group chat like 'lol, me', but I still don't like it," says Adam from Manchester). And if you don't, you likely think it's a load of shit ("If you try to bring up that shit with me, I'll think you're a mindless bimbo," Tom, 25, London). There are obviously women and LGBTQ people who feel similarly, but why is this attitude so prevalent among straight men in particular? Is it because astrology is generally seen as a "women's" interest? A couple of the men I spoke to referenced their dads reading daily horoscopes in the tabloids, realising that any of the vague summaries could apply to them and deciding they would never return to astrology. "It was the first time I'd noticed something so embedded in our culture was surely just bollocks, and it sent me into a tailspin," says Sam Hill, 27, from Lincoln. Most admitted being put off because astrology had been so gendered. "As a child, the females [would go] for tea and biscuits round my nan's, where the astrology columns of the Mail and the dreaded Sun would be read out with various degrees of mystery and giggling," 36-year-old Bob from Kent remembered. "Nowadays, [horoscopes are] near the women's section in the papers or in female-specific weeklies such as Woman’s Own or Take A Break. I can't remember Esquire or Loaded having such pages when I read them many moons ago.’”

Whether or not I agree with this statement hinges on what is meant by “tolerate.” If Hannah just means that I don’t walk around making fun of my female friends who believe in astrology, then I am certainly tolerant. After all, you would have to be an ass to belittle people just for having a different worldview. I also don’t doubt for a second that there is something to the charge that some men reject astrology because its seen as feminine. There are many skeptics such as me, however, who see it as dangerous to conflate all criticism of astrology to a criticism of gender and sexual identity (I am not saying this is what the author is doing. I am just saying this is a very grave concern). Equating believing to astrology to female or queer identity walls off thoughtful examination and makes it impossible for our society to analyze its cultural assumptions without attacking individuals. 

The objection that “horoscopes are so vague that they could apply to anyone” is also nothing to scoff at as simply a complaint charged by straight men. James Randi, the most prominent skeptic to ever live, is a gay man and has made this exact criticism. In fact, he has shown quite convincingly that you can give a classroom full of people the same vague horoscope and everyone thinks it applies to them (no, I am not kidding). Is this objection somehow less true when I say it than when The Amazing Randi says it? My words are certainly less eloquent than Randi’s (read his book Flim-Flam! if you don’t believe me), but not any less true. 

“Sam feels similarly that astrology has always been gendered, and that the male response to that – to ignore it – makes sense. "It's hard to indicate what I mean, but, for example, if a girl in school likes a certain book, the boys can't like it for fear of being called gay or whatever, so that book becomes a girl's book," he said. "The same can be said of horoscopes. I think women are drawn to them out of a sense of curiosity and spirituality that is drummed out of boys at a young age." Unsurprisingly, dating has provided a stage for tension. As women become more hooked on astrology, more straight men are being forced to engage with it. Most of the men I spoke to talked about astrology chat ruining dates, or ex-girlfriends who were "too obsessed" with the cosmos.”

Saying that astrology has always been gendered (associated with femininity) is, historically speaking, false. Although it is much, much older, Claudius Ptolemy laid much of the foundations for European astrology in the second century AD, At this time it was viewed as a branch of mathematical knowledge (Cohen, 2015). Mathematics, given the patriarchal nature of Western society, has until very recently been done by men. This is also true of natural philosophy. The Renaissance Neoplatonists that extolled the virtues of astrology, like Marsilio Ficino, mainly idolized Hermes Trismegistus, Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus, and Iamblichus (Walker, 2003). Even with the noteworthy exception of the great natural philosopher and mathematician Hypatia, the pursuits of nature knowledge by the Neoplatonists were carried out overwhelmingly by men. While this historical sexism is unfortunate, it is enough to put the nail in the coffin of the interviewee’s point that astrology has always been gendered. It may be the case now, but not throughout history.    

While I can only speak for myself (and the interviewees she spoke to may be cut from different cloth), I can state emphatically that I’d love to date a girl who is “obsessed with the cosmos.” The problem however is that astrology doesn’t study the cosmos. Astronomy does. If one’s picture of reality is built on astrology, then they are missing out on the mind-bending facts that modern astronomy has discovered. This actual science has, since it started to be painstakingly fleshed out by Copernicus, revealed a cosmos far grander than anything the astrologers of the ancient, medieval, and renaissance periods could have ever dreamed up. Our universe contains hundreds and billions of galaxies that themselves contain black holes, alien worlds, and stars that pulsate like strobe lights. Our star is just one of billions and billions found in the Milky Way which itself is only one of billions and billions of galaxies. This stunning picture makes the seven planet, Earth centered astronomy which Ptolemy used as the foundation of his astrology look vapid and sterile. 

"After the initial stages of 'getting to know you', it became apparent that she was quite into her spiritual side: short of a nose piercing and a gap year spent in India, she was a paid-up member of the horoscope crew, with a little smattering of tarot reading and general warnings to 'watch out for karma'," says Laurie, 29, from London. "At first I quite enjoyed it: as a spiritually bankrupt man it was nice having some direction to consider in my life beyond the deep-set, middle-class guilt I'd had bullied into me at school. She met my parents – a meeting I thought went well, until my dad laughed in her face when she asked what his sign was and suggested that cancer signs typically struggled with appreciating music. The family ended up having an "icy" tube journey home, the ex upset that Laurie's dad had given her beliefs so little patience. Both had an explosive argument about astrology that ended in her "consulting some charts for me there and then to see if my decision-making or reasoning was being negatively affected by Mercury or some similar shite", and Laurie breaking up with her via text.”

As a vegan with face piercings and tattoos that include occult imagery, I feel personally attacked by the “spiritual side” description of Hannah’s interviewee’s ex. She fits the description of a lot of my friends and, at least on the surface, myself. To me, however, it doesn’t seem like the problem with this story is that the men in it didn’t believe in astrology or that they are male or straight. It is that they are jackasses. That’s just not how you talk to another human being and this doesn’t change if they are into Tarot, astrology, UFO’s, or haunted houses. You can have differing beliefs (and even very strong opinions about those beliefs) without laughing in someone’s face or insulting their intelligence. 

 “All of the above has been observed by working astrologers, too. Jessica Lanyadoo, who hosts Ghost Of A Podcast, said, "I know lots of cis straight male astrologers, but not as many cis straight male astrology fans." Astrologer Randon Rosenbohm agrees, telling me "it's for girls and gays". “Astrology is a natural, intuitive way of telling time, and women are more in tune with nature," Randon continues. "Men, however, are builders who work with the material world. Unless you give a straight man evidence of astrology being real, they're less likely to find it remotely interesting."

While I get that this is supposed to be a generalization, I take a tiny bit of offense to this because I find astrology, despite thinking it is false, to be exceedingly interesting (I get that my stance may be unusual). I am fascinated by its historical roots and how many of the great humanists and natural philosophers of the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution took it very seriously. I appreciate how hard they worked to provide astrological forecasts (unlike present astrology, they considered the sky at the exact moment someone was born). I am also dumbfounded by the high degree of confirmation bias which makes so many smart people in 2018 believe in it. To me, these topics totally merit the ink that has been spilled addressing them.  

“In other words, Randon thinks men might be more likely to be immediately dismissive, while women might feel something out. A large study released this month found that women are more empathetic and men more analytical, and there is some evidence to show that women's brains will stay with a distressing feeling while a male brain will seek a solution. But gendered biology is a highly disputed field: not every man is a builder, and neither is anyone with a womb somehow bound to be more naturally in tune with nature. With or without that purported "natural intuition", women are undoubtedly driving the wider self-help and therapeutic industries. Often, there's little separation between self-help and astrology; the latter is often used as a type of the former. Ghost Of A Podcast, for example, has a set-up where the first-half is self-help agony aunt, and the second astrological forecasting for the upcoming week.”

I am going to avoid addressing the psychology at work here. Like Hannah, I am not an expert and that topic seems quite controversial, so I want to avoid speculating. Her point about astrology feeding into the self-help industry is just obviously true. It is also true of the rest of the New Age and, ironically, the prosperity gospel (which, at least to this heathen, is an abomination). This, however, says nothing about the truth of the claims made by Joel Osteen and the late Sylvia Browne. Only that it makes people feel good. In my opinion, I think the claim that we should afford ourselves the luxury of believing in stuff just because it makes us feel good is not obvious. For example, supposed it made a bigot feel good to think that people of different skin colors are inferior. Should he be warranted in believing it? Of course not.   

"Astrology doesn't shy away from symbols that explore our weaknesses and 'weak feelings', like grief, trauma, sorrow, denial, misperception, projection, self-sabotage, victimisation," says astrologer Danny Larkin. "And that runs counter to how straight men are constantly encouraged in their lives to man up instead of open up. It’s easier and more palatable to observe that women and queer people are often on the short end of the stick in many situations, so it's easier for them to identify with these difficult themes that astrology probes."

In many cases, it’s certainly true that men are viewed as weak for expressing their emotions and talking about their trauma. Anecdotally, I know many men who have served overseas and, as a result, have had to deal with horrors and tragedy that I can’t even begin to fathom. Despite this, some have told me that it was initially hard for them to open about their experiences because it goes against what they have had drilled into them about what it means to be a man. While I have not endured anything remotely like the horrors of war, I do take anti-depressants and see a therapist. I can personally attest that range of emotions is quite hard to deal with. I, however, am concerned about someone substituting certified therapists, psychologists, and psychiatrists with astrologers, palm readers, and mediums. That seems like a recipe for disaster (I am not saying that Hannah or the astrologer she is quoting is recommending this. Just that it would be a horrible thing if it happened). 

“To understand your and others' personalities, to try to predict the future: ultimately, it's grasping for control, when we have none. Women and queer people are drawn to astrology because it offers community and refuge, something to lean on during a time in which religion has taken a backseat. In a heterosexual patriarchy, cis-het men arguably have less to seek refuge from. It is during times of significant stress that people turn to astrology, after all. In a 1982 study, the psychologist Graham Tyson found that people who consult astrologers did so in response to stressors, writing, "Under conditions of high stress, the individual is prepared to use astrology as a coping device, even though under low-stress conditions he does not believe in it."

The claim that astrology and comforting philosophies flourish during eras of uncertainty seems corroborated by historical and psychological data. Epicureanism flourished in the era where Rome transitioned from a republic to an empire because, in a time of social upheaval, the nobility found it comforting (Adamson, 2015). The types of superstition that Hannah is fond of thrived in Germany following World War I for a similar reason (Padgett, 1982). While I can only attest to it anecdotally, this seems to also be the reason why so many older white men have turned to Donald Trump. He provides a comforting narrative and reassures them that he can return us to a heralded Golden Age where people who look like them were more prosperous and welded more power. 

“Personally, a vague interest I'd had in astrology since I was a kid was solidified once I did my birth chart and found it to be eerily accurate. As soon as conflicting deadlines strike in tandem with my rising anxiety levels, and if I've not been looking after myself properly, I notice I'm checking astrology apps and podcasts more. But without that initial "in" I’d never have gone down the rabbit hole. It's just about the entry point and who gets there. I ask Joe if I can do his birth chart. He says I can, so I go onto Cafe Astrology and work it out for him, sharing some of his characteristics: stubborn, stoical, likes pleasure and the arts, might easily get a bruised ego if not "heard". It is, he says, pretty much accurate – but to express any kind of joy over astrological correctness would be an endorsement he could never give. As I mentioned earlier, there is good grounds to think that the success of astrology is that it takes advantage of the was the human mind works.” 

Galileo supposedly once said that astrological predictions were far easier to make after their fulfillment (Sobel, 1999). If he did say this, the father of science was unknowingly referencing the role the “myside bias” plays in convincing people that there’s something to astrological forecasting. This cognitive bias causes people to interpret and remember data in a way that confirms their hypothesis while disregarding or explaining away instances that undermine it (Baron, 2000). This is the same reason why people can go to a psychic that asks them 40 general questions, have them guess 17 of them correctly, and come out say “wow, they knew everything about me.” Without being too blunt or dismissive, I would wager this is largely responsible for the supposed accuracy of Hannah’s forecasting.  This makes Hannah’s claim that “the success of astrology is that it takes advantage of the was the human mind works” true regardless of if the aforementioned psychological reasons as to why women and members of the LGBTQ community are drawn to it are cogent.