Get your own
 diary at DiaryLand.com! contact me older entries newest entry

1:08 p.m. - 2003-10-29
Headaches
Right now in astrological terms, the planet Pluto is approaching a conjunction with my birth-time ascendant. Now Pluto is the planet of power and control (compulsive behaviour) and the ascendant traditionally is interpreted as how one is perceived in their world both physically as well as to personality and character.

Why is this an issue right now? Well, I'm hearing a lot of comments from people who have given themselves permission to critique or interpret my behaviour and appearance (having Venus in my birth chart conjunct the ascendant emphasizes the physical and public traits that other people see as defining me)based on their own beliefs rather than the factors that combined so that I made certain choices. Those are things that I've done with a clear conscience and a willingness to deal with the consequences of my actions. Or others choose to critique my behaviour based on my gender, race, income, faith system - you get my drift.

For example, years ago, I was an active volunteer in the local Amnesty International (AI) group. Now AI has a policy of requiring its membership NOT to carry out AI sanctioned work in one's own country. It has the two fold benefit of reducing the risk of a local chapter being polarized or balkanized by local politics, but mostly it is meant to be a protection for members who, in other countries, would likely be jailed or murdered for speaking out against their own government - just about any Middle Eastern country for example. However, AI also encourages its membership to be good, responsible citizens in their own country with respect to human rights violations within the context of their own political or social culture. The emphasis is always on non-violent means to highlight or protest those inequities. A very fine line to walk.

When I was volunteering for AI, there were two very serious civil rights issues playing out here in our province both over August and September about twenty years ago (one eclipse cycle?). There was a very active white supremacist organization openly acting on and publicly celebrating their beliefs. They had a gathering in central Alberta, that was being monitored by both the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the media. The supremacists fired on both sets of observers claiming that it was their right to do whatever they wanted on their own property ( a farm) without interference or surveillance. When it went to court - the court agreed it was their right to defend their privacy, even if they did shoot at other citizens. Any discussion of the participants past criminal history was downplayed after that for fear of libel suits.

At the same time, the provincial government decided to build a dam on a reservation against the will of the tribe involved. One of its members discharged a gun at an RCMP helicopter when it flew over the place where the man was holding a "sit-in" in the path of the bulldozers. That man was charged with obstruction of justice and with interfering with the province's right to expropriate land for public use. He was the subject of a province wide man hunt and a public campaign designed to bring his character into question.

The tribe, in response to this, set up a public meeting in Calgary where they invited representatives of church and peace groups to attend so they could hear the tribe's side of the story, without it being filtered through "official" sources. The chair of our AI group at the time asked if I would attend in his place, as a private citizen and observer, so that an eye-witness report could be sent to the central AI headquarters in England. There had been several other conflicts that year between aboriginal groups and police groups across our country and the truth of the matter was being sought by the larger organization so it could determine if it was an area they should become involved in. The presenters included two professors and a recognized environmental scientist who worked out of the University of Lethbridge as well as the tribal elders. I recognized a lot of the other attendees and knew that they were people with a long history of work for civil rights, either through their churches or through groups like mine or Project Ploughshares - for example.

As we entered the community hall where the meeting was being held, uniformed police officers were taking pictures of each person entering. I remarked to my ex - who had dropped me off - that the least they could do was take a photo of my face instead of my fanny. The meeting discussion focussed on the factors that caused the tribe and the environmental specialists to oppose the construction of the dam and the peace groups were asked for assistance in finding peaceful ways to stop the project. Shortly after the meeting, I received a phone call from a friend who worked for the military at that time. They wanted to discredit the person who had fired at the RCMP helicopter by telling me he had been charged with an act of family violence, knowing how much time I had spent working as a volunteer trying to get support in place for survivors of spousal abuse. I had followed that trial, because I knew of the defending lawyer and wanted to see how she would manage the case, for the period it was underway and responded that he had been acquitted in a court and a community that was known to have a very strong bias against aboriginal people. I commented that that was enough to make me think that he likely wasn't guilty of the charge. Anyway, I wrote up my report of my observations, sent the material to our local AI chairperson and forgot about it..

This morning, 20 years later, it was brought up again, obliquely, by someone else who had political connections in a context that seemed to imply that it made me a security risk for this country. I agree that there are many people who are dangerous to the health of our communities but I am inclined myself to think they are the ones who use stereotypes and racism to control public behaviour or to rationalize actions that would not be acceptable in any other context, or those who suppress the reporting of such behaviour.

Other examples? The response I got from someone when discussing scientific theory in a forum. They didn't respond with their disagreement on the ideas I was presenting, but used a slur against faith systems instead. Example two, at city council - an accusation of not being respectful of tradition, because a number of female aldermen, and women in the community, wanted the title changed to the more gender neutral councillor. Every other gender specific title designating city employees has been changed other than the alderman one. The bad interview I cited the other day is another example. Many times, in the industry I work in, I've been told I will do as I'm told and will take what is dished out because I am a single parent and have no other choice if I don't want to find myself forced onto welfare. A number of my co-workers in the same situation have been told the same thing. One fellow actually told me in an interview that I would say "how high" whenever he told me to jump and I jolly well better obey. That included attending to his personal needs like taking out his laundry or doing personal shopping on command. All at a wage that would put me further in debt each month since it didn't cover my basic bills (heat, light, food, shelter, transit)each month. Ummm, right. Having worked in personnel in the industry, I can attest to the fact that on average, women are still paid one third to one quarter less than a male with the same qualifications, because "they don't really need the money you know". The fact that a lot of women are now the main or sole breadwinner for their families or themselves, if they are single, is not acknowledged. We're still told it is our responsibility to "go find a man, then" if we want a standard of living that male co-workers are enjoying. The idea of equal pay for work of equal value or a payscale based on merit/productivity has not even registered as a twinkle in the industry's eye. Last example,I've been coming across a lot of other women's weblogs recently, that are discussing the issue for them at this time with reference to multiple double standards that are still being imposed now, even though denial is the norm when confronted.

The question Pluto asks then is if one is willing to compromise and if so to what degree between meeting other people's expectations and beliefs about your "place" in society as defined by them as opposed to your own internal beliefs about ones appearance or place in their society. What is an essential "be true to yourself" position and yet still means you are being flexible enough with one's self image, that conflict with the outer world's view doesn't create too much outer conflict for you to be able to function as part of your social milieu. And now dear diary, I'm going to go to bed. Either the electro-magnetic storms from those massive solar flares or my inner ones are giving me a headache.

previous - next

about me - read my profile! read other Diar
yLand diaries! recommend my diary to a friend! Get
 your own fun + free diary at DiaryLand.com!

web stats