This
looks a bit lop-sided. Throughout most
of February, all the planets are on one side of the sky wheel; the other side is empty. So for example, when
the sun is setting, all the other planets are in the western half of the sky as
well. And when it’s rising, all the
other planets are in the east. Like a
bunch of true believers, a bunch of sycophants.
Like Congress these days.
After February
22, the moon breaks away and ventures into the empty half of the sky. But until then, it hangs out with the others,
forming what’s called a “bowl” pattern.
In an
astrological chart, a bowl pattern gives a great deal of certainty. All planets
occupy the same reality, and reinforce each other, and there is no access at
all to “the other side”, the empty side. There can be a sense that there’s something
missing, but since it’s not clear what that is, a person with a bowl chart
tends to double down on what she/he knows to be true.
This is
not to say that there’s anything intrinsically bad about this pattern. Because a person with a bowl chart isn’t
distracted by many contradictions, she can be particularly confident, creative
and focused. She knows what she knows,
and acts on it. Certainty is very partial
to manifestation.
At the
same time, that certainty is based on a fallacy. Even if the person doesn’t see or understand
it, there is a whole unexplored half-world out there. There is a field of experience equal to her
own, one that might challenge her convictions.
And if she doesn’t know it exists, she can’t go there.
Successful
politicians often have bowl charts, an advantage because they don’t have to
waste energy pretending to consider inimical viewpoints. Donald Trump has this pattern in his chart, as
do some of his nearest and dearest: Ben Carson, Betsy DeVos, Jared Kushner, Steve
Bannon, and Kim Jong-Un. The Duvaliers
(Baby Doc and Papa Doc) had it, as did Slobodan Milosevic and Hugo Chávez.
But
before you get the wrong idea about this not-so-common planetary pattern, note
also that it’s a signature in the charts of Abraham Lincoln, Elizabeth Cady
Stanton, Helen Keller, Eleanor
Roosevelt, Eugene McCarthy, Bill Clinton, Al Sharpton, Bernie Sanders, Aung San
Suu Kyi, and Assata Shakur. A singular vision can magnify flaws, but it can also
give courage, idealism, and commitment.
So, during
the next month, people are more likely to center themselves in a particular viewpoint,
and not budge from it. The planetary configuration
makes it easy for all of us to see what’s all around us, supporting our
position, and renders the opposite stance invisible.
We will
all find reasons to be right. Those with
fiery charts will be on the moral high ground, while those with earthy charts
will claim that there’s only one practical possibility. Airy folks will have lots of reasonable
arguments, while watery people will base it all on gut feelings. All of this begs the question: what if the other side is making equally
valid points?
Lately, I’ve
been dealing with many expressions of passionate certainty in a lesbian writers’
group. The issue of transgender acceptance
has come up, and this has been a divisive issue for the lesbian community for
many years. Michfest, our long-time
women’s festival, beloved by many lesbians, floundered largely on this point.
I’ve
followed this discussion with great interest.
I have good friends – people I respect - with diametrically opposite stances. And so I have been trying to see both sides
of this struggle. That’s my intent, and
sometimes I manage it, and sometimes not so much.
On the
one side, trans women are people, and exclusion is hurtful. They’ve dedicated years and money and energy
to becoming women. There’s no going
back. Why can’t they just be
accepted?
On the
other side, women have struggled for years to divorce womankind from all gender
expectations, and when men start to identify as women, often they dive into
these female trappings with great alacrity.
At the same time, they may be unconscious of such male tendencies as
centering their own comfort in every situation.
This is by no means intrinsic to maleness; it’s part of being in a privileged position. It’s learned behavior over many years, and it
isn’t unlearned immediately.
I think
the only solution is to recognize that gender roles are flimsy at best. There are plenty of specific gendered
situations, like menstruating and giving birth, but these events don’t usually constitute
the whole of a person’s life. So why
should gender play such a big role? Why
is it such a core part of our identities?
And I’m
speaking as a feminist, as someone who has worked hard to affirm and strengthen
women. But that’s only because we’re a
less-privileged class, not because of some shining star within our souls. Like all less-privileged groups, we need to
connect with our own power on a very basic level.
And eventually,
I’m thinking that all these variations in dressing and make-up will become
nothing but stylistic preferences, equally available to everyone. Meanwhile, I believe we should be kind to
each other, whenever possible. And I
also believe we should tell the truth about what we feel - although sometimes
those two things are not compatible with each other.
And meanwhile,
my group – after a lot of emotional discussion – has agreed to a more inclusive
approach. This is not just an opening
for trans women. It turns out that many of us feel “othered” for many reasons, judged
as “not a real lesbian”, or even “not a real woman”. And many others are
foraging around for non-traditional words and pronouns to describe ourselves. Making room for misfits acknowledges that
none of us really fits.
But who
knows? Perhaps I too am only seeing my
half of the grapefruit, and thinking that that’s the way the fruit dropped from
the tree.
