Skyscript Astrology Forum

Why Men Don?t Listen and Women Can?t Read Maps
By Barbara and Allan Pease
www.broadwaybooks.com

A little lighter reading with an underlying serious note. Why don?t men listen or ask for directions, why can?t they do more than one thing at a time? Huh? Why can?t women read maps? Why are they so emotional? Why don?t they say what they mean?
It?s all here, and it may have some value for astrologers. The book is the work of Barbara and Allan Pease, an Australian husband and wife team of researchers. Who tackled the subject of the vast differences in the way the sexes perceive their worlds.

The authors? claim that scientific studies of the human brain reveal vast differences in the way we are wired. That wiring occurs in the womb, not in the environment, and it is demonstrable on live and not so live humans. Men are left-brain dominant. That is the rational, logical side. Men focus. Women are all brain dominant. They are the multi taskers because there is better communication between the two sides of the brain the female human than occurs in the male human.

They believe this occurred as a result of human evolution. The male was the hunter or ?lunch bringer? as they call it. And the female was the gatherer. The male guarded the cave; the female guarded the nest, and evolution saw that this was good and made it so. However folk, today nearly 50% of the workforce in most Western countries is female. The male no longer is the sole breadwinner, but this is a relatively new phenomenon and we haven?t had time to adjust. The effect is devastating. 50% of all marriages end in divorce, and if we include other live in arrangements it probably closer to 70%. This is not healthy for male, female and offspring. Why? We don?t understand each other.

The authors propose that we learn about each other?s differences and accept them and work with them not against them. It does not good to exhort a man to act like a woman and talk through his problems than it does for a man to expect a woman to sit in solitary confinement while she solves hers. Give the man his space, and let the woman talk her problems out until she feels better. DO NOT try to solve her problems and DO NOT try to persuade him to ?open up.?

Relationships dominate the astrologers? work. So visualize the female astrologer commiserating with the female client as they discuss the client?s insensitive husband. Most of the advice given is going to be the kind that works for women: so why shouldn?t it work for men? We?re not wired the same, that?s why. I want to root for my team to the point of pain, and Deb and Sue, think it is ridiculous to get so involved. Sport is like hunting was to my ancestors. I like the contact, the contest, the victory. You think that?s silly, but if Annie?s cousin Susie?s former best friend broke up with her boyfriend again ? that?s important. And so it is ? for both of us. Fun Read.

Tom

This is basically a diurnal/nocturnal, yang/yin or solar/lunar division isn?t it? And very much in keeping with the principle of dualism (I?m championing duotheism today). I think in astrology we expect it to apply in a general sense, and that?s why we take the Sun as a general significator for a man and the Moon as a general significator for a woman. The Sun being linear, finite, focused, ego-driven, etc., the Moon being circular, infinite, aware and responsive.

But the problem with these generalisations is that they are only generalisations. If we are reading a horoscope we don?t say ?oh you?re a man and therefore your solar principle is strong?. We just weigh up the factors for each individual, but ? I do agree that there may be a big difference between a solar driven man and a solar driven woman because biological urges, environmental factors and expectations of roles play such a big part in how we live our lives.

But you see Tom, being a woman, and being basically ?aware? I figured this out when I was about five. Men may need to read the book because it is so much harder for them, being so singular-tasking, to grasp a concept unless they are directly confronted by it. The whole matter was clinched for me when I read a report that most women would rather their partner was having sex with someone else whilst thinking of them, than having sex with them whilst thinking about someone else. Men, as you know, don?t care what anyone is thinking, so long as they?re having sex. Just bear that in mind and you will never underestimate the futility of assuming we are just the same.

What surprises me about these books, and there?s a lot of interest in these ?Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus? type publications at the moment, is well how popular they are, as if they are presenting some incredible truth that?s been forgotten. I think most people, especially people struggling with relationships, need to read at least one of these books to remind themselves of basic primeval modes of expression. Nowadays it is very vogue to consider that there is no fundamental difference between the sexes, and that it?s only society that needs to change to allow 20th century man to be fully comfortable in the role of domestic carer and child-rearer and modern woman to be fully committed to her career. In the UK, we are just coming out of a government push to get women into the workplace and the emerging trend now is to recognise that, women as mothers and homemakers, have been hugely underrated. But there?s going to be a lot of problems, because our expectations are different nowadays. It is going to call for a lot of understanding of the problem if people are going to form solid and lifelong relationships. Perhaps the whole concept of a monogamous lifestyle is being challenged.

I want to root for my team to the point of pain, and Deb and Sue, think it is ridiculous to get so involved. Sport is like hunting was to my ancestors.

Actually, what we think is humorous to the point of ridicule, is the way we know we can draw you on this. Men are so predictable you see.

But you see Tom, being a woman, and being basically ?aware? I figured this out when I was about five. Men may need to read the book because it is so much harder for them, being so singular-tasking, to grasp a concept unless they are directly confronted by it.

Hah! I didn't need the book either, but this being such a politically incorrect thought, it is considered gauche to bring it up unless it has the "authority" of scientific rigor. I'll never know now, but I wonder how many women would read this and think "male chauvinist pig" in an instant.

Nowadays it is very vogue to consider that there is no fundamental difference between the sexes, and that it?s only society that needs to change to allow 20th century man to be fully comfortable in the role of domestic carer and child-rearer and modern woman to be fully committed to her career.

It is more than in vogue here; it is gospel. The authors pointed out the irony of the notion that men and women are identical except for body parts and environmental conditioning is taking hold in the popular consciousness at a time when science is demonstrating the opposite. It is the clash of expectations that may be at the root of so many divorces. Or it might be (dare I say it) the "you can have it all" propaganda dished out to high school girls and college women all over this country.

Just this past week one of those incessant studies about salaries popped up with a different twist. Yes the average man makes more money than the average woman in the US, but this time the study noted that part of the reason is that women stay in the work place for less time than men in order to raise a family. [It took our government some 15 years to begin to grasp what economist Thomas Sowell pointed out that long ago]. This, of course sent shock waves through the morning news shows prompting one bright light to ask what the government could do about this "problem?" Problem? Government? I thought these people believed in choice.

emerging trend now is to recognise that, women as mothers and homemakers, have been hugely underrated.

This is true, but it isn't only men who are doing the undervaluing. A lot of it comes from political ideology whose basis is contradicted by books such as these. Study after study has shown that a secure homelife made possible by women being at home is of paramount importance to children, yet politcal groups rant about the real and imagined inequality of salaries. Women are told they can have it all, but although they might be good at multitasking, they have yet to master the art of being two places at once. Nothing is free including having it all.

In the US at least it is difficult to maintain a decent standard of living with one income, and this sends women to the workplace. The reasons for this are mostly that the very government our heroine mentioned above wished to solve her "problem" is the cause of most of them. But this takes us elsewhere.

But there?s going to be a lot of problems, because our expectations are different nowadays. It is going to call for a lot of understanding of the problem if people are going to form solid and lifelong relationships. Perhaps the whole concept of a monogamous lifestyle is being challenged.

Yes it is going to take a lot of understanding, and understanding isn't promoted with the use of raw political power attempting to change innate behavior. As for monogamy, I doubt that is going anywhere. According to the authors it is the evil substance testosterone that drives men to uh distraction. Women don't have a lot of that good stuff and are more inclined to give in to their natural nest feathering urges. In order to maintain the nest a man is needed (oh the feminists will love that word) to hang around and help raise the children directly or indirectly by providing for the family. Men, on the other hand, wish to spread the seed with the noble purpose in mind of continuing the race.

Testosterone isn't only used for sex. It is the substance that gets men into battle. Winning or losing wars has the same effect on the male population; it depletes it. Fewer came home than left. In some tribal communities polygamy was the result of trying to keep the tribe going. It was the society's way of self preservation. It would take a tremendous loss of life to create that situation in a modern Westen culture. And frankly one woman is enough for me.

Actually, what we think is humorous to the point of ridicule, is the way we know we can draw you on this. Men are so predictable you see.

Yes, while tacitly avoiding the fact that soap operas and silly movies bring tears to the eyes of my feminine counterparts.

Himself

This book is great! I picked it up used about three months ago; the part about the man's sex drive is true but kind of a drag, nature is so against us to stay monogamous. Guess the ability to say no,and reason stuff out is what separates us from animals, I'm just glad it wasn't just me. A fun, quick read.

Hi Pat,

The sex part was the least satisfying (no pun intended), and most disappointing as it went to and stayed with the knuckle dragging male stereotype.

What I did notice was the reporting of a test. It seems a man, probably young, made love 5 times to the same woman in one day. At the sixth attempt, he couldn't rise to the challenge. However when they substituted a different woman, he was able to perform. What I want to know is this: how do I get a job like that?

Tom