Masculine and negative signs?

For those who "know"...
I have just started reading The Astrologer's Handbook by Frances Sakoian and Louis S. Acker and have stumbled on the short early section about masculine and feminine signs (pp.19-21). Masculine signs are described as positive and feminine signs as negative. It is accompanied by a chart showing the "Masculine signs" and the "Negative signs". For example:

"In a man's chart such a preponderance [of masculine signs] is favourable. However, in a woman's chart it can indicate an inclination to be more aggressive than is traditionally considered appropriate for her sex."

Now, I'm not a femininist by any means (I can't even spell it) but this does strike me as a little harsh. Is this just an outdated view or is there a basis in astrological theory and, if so, can anyone explain it a little more kindly?

Pip

Sakoian and Acker don't say what 'preponderance' means in the statement that you've quoted. It's very rare to have a perfect balance of elements (Fire and Air being 'masculine' and Earth and Water being 'feminine'). I would have thought that there would only be 'problems' if the element distribution was very skewed and there was no opportunity for compensation in the chart.

It might be that society would tolerate excessive agressively masculine behaviour from a man, more than a woman but this is simply to say that society as a whole can be and often is sexist. If this is what they mean (and I suspect that it is) then they are simply pointing to sexism in society.

A better modern approach is to treat it as a Yin/Yang type of dichotomy. Positive and Negative in this sense are simply like the poles of a battery. It can even be brought into a discussion of locating the 'anima' or 'animus' in a chart, for a male or female respectively.

The masculine/feminine split has a long history and I've seen it used by classical writers to 'sex' an unborn child. It's probably used more in traditional interpretations in looking at day or night births. Night births are ruled by the Moon and if the Moon is in a feminine sign, she is better placed than in a masculine sign. Indeed all planets are either diurnal (day) or (nocuturnal) except Mercury. Some planets are therefore better placed in masculine or feminine signs.

Thank you Minderwiz, you cover several aspects in your reply and make the whole issue of postive/negative, male/female, yin/yang signs sound very interesting. It wasn't that The Astrologer's Handbook put me off in any way - it just sounded like an outdated approach to me. Your explanation is much more intriguing!

I especially like that it can apply to day/night births. Very interesting...

Thanks,

Pip

Yes, I don't think they mean "negative" as bad. It *is* rather structuralist though, as you say. The energy of earth and water is more "receptive", air/fire more "active".

And sadly, I do find that people - who are strong in signs that do not fit gender stereotypes (Cancerian men I find in particular, have it rough) struggle more.

Moon Houses & Sun Houses

MOON 2 4 6 8 10 12
Cancer >< Capricorn
Taurus >< Scorpio
Virgo >< Pisces

SUN: 1 3 5 7 9 11
Leo >< Aquarius
Aries >< Libra
Gemini >< Sagittarius

Note: Because of their Mercury & Jupiter powers,
The Mutable Houses have a peculiar magic that
transcends exclusive Moon & Sun rulership.

Just an interesting aside on the 'outdated' views. The Seventeenth Century Astrologer, William Lilly, lists masculine and feminine degrees of EACH sign.

In his natal interpretations he doesn't apprear to make an reference to masculine and feminine placements in terms of sign and tends to use signs to qualify planets mainly in terms of strength but also by using now defunct classifications, such as fruitful and barren, or humane and bestial.

It seems that the sexism indicated in the modern interpretation is a product of the twentieth century.