There are a number of “cookbook” astrological texts available which delineate planets through houses, signs and aspects. I find the latter most lacking.Some are too brief. Others are quite wordy, but say little. Many are excessively negative. But the majorities share the failing of seeing only one side of certain aspects. (I assume that such authors have met a limited clientele or only deal with certain issues from one perspective.)Consider, for example, a Sun-Pluto conjunction. Many books will discuss only the power-hungry, overbearing potential of this combination. A few will acknowledge the danger of repression and blocked self-esteem when individuals project their personal power into other people. Hardly any writers recognize that both possibilities are inherent within the Sun-Pluto mix. Some people, at some times in their lives, will be master manipulators, maneuvering everything for their ego aggrandizement. At other times, they will feel held in, suppressed and unable to find joy and self-expression in life. They may seek power through love or creativity. They may love power and control. They may focus on material possessions or on sensual indulgence, or on self-knowledge and self-mastery.
A major key to aspects is provided by comparing and contrasting the basic issues of each planet. In what ways are they similar? In which respects do they differ? The Sun and Pluto share a drive for power, authority and control. Thus, any aspects between them highlight the issues of competition, ambition, potency and mastery.The Sun and Pluto, however, are fire and water planets. The Sun (fire) represents an urge to express outwardly, to be joyful, to create, to do more than one has done before. Pluto (water) represents an urge to go within, to delve more deeply, to understand fully, to organize details. Depending on the time and place and on the drives symbolized by the rest of one’s chart, inward power or outward power may have more appeal. And the emphasis can and does change at different times in one’s life. We may seek to control others or ourselves, and could overdo the desire for dominance in either case.
Both the Sun and Pluto have a core focus on sensual and sexual issues. The joyous orgasmic release of the Sun, however, contrasts with the intense, compulsive focus of Pluto. Issues of letting go, of feeling safe (power eschews vulnerability) may arise, particularly in arenas of sexuality. Increasingly, as I work with aspects in natal charts, I believe that the nature of the aspects matters little and the nature of the planets involved matters a great deal. It seems worthwhile to consider the conjunction as the most basic aspect and as the underlying model for all others. In my delineations, I suggest that you read the conjunction section regardless of the aspect involved. Harmony and conflict aspects indicate tendencies toward inner agreement or inner contention, but they should not be given too much weight.
And there is always the problem of dealing with one factor or combination at a time, isolating it and taking it out of the context of the whole chart. I always feel that when I am describing the potentials of a single fragment in a chart, I should keep saying “provided the balance of the chart supports this,” or “other things being equal, whom they never are.” Of course, one cannot do that in every sentence, but please consider that the thought is implicitly included in the following material. I am currently working on a new book: Astro Essentials; planets in signs, houses and aspects. ACS Publications hopes to release it in late 1990. The following excerpt is taken from the section on aspects. Because the outer planets take many years to circle the zodiac; they can hold aspects to one another for long periods of time. Thus, millions of people may share the same aspect involving Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and/or Pluto. Such aspects point to generational themes and are less individually significant than aspects involving the faster moving bodies, Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus and Mars. A Saturn-Uranus conjunction, for example, highlights a large number of people dealing with the polarization between old and new, conservative and radical, caution and risk, stability and change, etc.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Planetary Mandalas
Inspired by Neil F. Michelsen’s book which came out in the summer of 1990 (Tables of Planetary Phenomena from ACS Publications in San Diego, CA), I moved the idea of creating planetary mandalas forward from the back burner. I actually started writing a planetary mandala program the evening of November 6, 1990. I have spent (and am still spending) quite a bit of time adding options and playing with it since. Below is a sample and more will be elsewhere in The Mutable Dilemma and in Asteroid-World.Planetary mandalas are a way of enjoying patterns. The technique I have used most draws straight lines between the positions on a solar system map of a pair of planets on a series of evenly spaced dates. Think of it as the diagram someone would produce by setting a timer and drawing a line between the current map placements of two planets whenever the timer goes off. The diagrams use standard (heliocentric) astronomical coordinates in the plane of the ecliptic. From this simple principle, a large variety of striking mandalas appear. The mandalas depend on the pair of planets chosen, the time between measurements, and the number of measurements.
The time between the first measurement and the last can be anywhere from a few days to several millennia. (When the mandala incorporates millennia of motion, precession is a significant factor.) The basic motions being shown are circular or elliptical. The circles or ellipses or partial arcs of the two planets’ orbits can usually be seen, but sometimes they are not both obvious and sometimes other circles are more visible. Many mandalas include star patterns with varying numbers of points, and several sorts of heart shapes also show up. Some mandalas are quite simple and straightforward, but many contain enough ambiguity or complexity to allow viewers freedom to interpret them like Rorschach inkblots. Others can contain interesting features in both figure (lines) and ground (spaces).Another type of mandala maps the apparent position of one planet as it would be seen in a coordinate system centered on another planet. Most such figures look fairly similar, with circles and retrograde loops. A few are more intriguing: Ceres and Pallas stay no farther apart than a semisextile for many years, producing a fascinating map.
Beyond their visual appeal, I think properly chosen sets of mandalas can also be used as teaching tools to help illustrate points about planetary motion. Concepts like sidereal period (time to orbit around the sun), synodic period (time for two planets to return to a particular phase angle), the mutuality of retrogrades, the difference between heliocentric and geocentric returns, precession (movement of the coordinate system against a fixed backdrop) and more can all be illustrated. Star points, horns, hooks, spikes, flares and hearts all come from changes in relative motion at various distances and phase angles. Many shapes come from harmonic relationships between the orbits of the planets (ratios between their orbital periods). The sampling interval (days between lines or points) can have a major effect on the final shapes produced. Short sampling intervals (a few days or even tens of days for outer planets) tend to produce fairly complete pictures of the overall relationship between the pair of planets chosen for the period shown, though sometimes the time period can make a significant difference.
Longer sampling intervals can produce a variety of shapes not otherwise seen. Exact harmonic divisions and multiples of both sidereal periods and synodic periods can produce interesting mandalas. Exact sidereal periods have one end of all lines going to the same point—giving either a conical effect with the longer sidereal period or a rising sun effect with the shorter sidereal period. Exact synodic periods produce mandalas in which each line represents the same heliocentric aspect (as nearly as the circularity of each orbit involved allows), with the aspect you get determined by your starting date. Intervals slightly shorter or longer than the exact multiples produce whole new sets of shapes. Almost any combination of planets, dates and intervals might produce an informative or visually interesting pattern. Since my program lets me view the mandalas on screen as I create them, I only save and print the ones I find interesting for technical or visual reasons.
There are so many possibilities that verbal descriptions just can’t do justice to the subject. We will include mandalas on any partially blank pages in this and future issues of The Mutable Dilemma to let you, our readers, see for yourselves.
The time between the first measurement and the last can be anywhere from a few days to several millennia. (When the mandala incorporates millennia of motion, precession is a significant factor.) The basic motions being shown are circular or elliptical. The circles or ellipses or partial arcs of the two planets’ orbits can usually be seen, but sometimes they are not both obvious and sometimes other circles are more visible. Many mandalas include star patterns with varying numbers of points, and several sorts of heart shapes also show up. Some mandalas are quite simple and straightforward, but many contain enough ambiguity or complexity to allow viewers freedom to interpret them like Rorschach inkblots. Others can contain interesting features in both figure (lines) and ground (spaces).Another type of mandala maps the apparent position of one planet as it would be seen in a coordinate system centered on another planet. Most such figures look fairly similar, with circles and retrograde loops. A few are more intriguing: Ceres and Pallas stay no farther apart than a semisextile for many years, producing a fascinating map.
Beyond their visual appeal, I think properly chosen sets of mandalas can also be used as teaching tools to help illustrate points about planetary motion. Concepts like sidereal period (time to orbit around the sun), synodic period (time for two planets to return to a particular phase angle), the mutuality of retrogrades, the difference between heliocentric and geocentric returns, precession (movement of the coordinate system against a fixed backdrop) and more can all be illustrated. Star points, horns, hooks, spikes, flares and hearts all come from changes in relative motion at various distances and phase angles. Many shapes come from harmonic relationships between the orbits of the planets (ratios between their orbital periods). The sampling interval (days between lines or points) can have a major effect on the final shapes produced. Short sampling intervals (a few days or even tens of days for outer planets) tend to produce fairly complete pictures of the overall relationship between the pair of planets chosen for the period shown, though sometimes the time period can make a significant difference.
Longer sampling intervals can produce a variety of shapes not otherwise seen. Exact harmonic divisions and multiples of both sidereal periods and synodic periods can produce interesting mandalas. Exact sidereal periods have one end of all lines going to the same point—giving either a conical effect with the longer sidereal period or a rising sun effect with the shorter sidereal period. Exact synodic periods produce mandalas in which each line represents the same heliocentric aspect (as nearly as the circularity of each orbit involved allows), with the aspect you get determined by your starting date. Intervals slightly shorter or longer than the exact multiples produce whole new sets of shapes. Almost any combination of planets, dates and intervals might produce an informative or visually interesting pattern. Since my program lets me view the mandalas on screen as I create them, I only save and print the ones I find interesting for technical or visual reasons.
There are so many possibilities that verbal descriptions just can’t do justice to the subject. We will include mandalas on any partially blank pages in this and future issues of The Mutable Dilemma to let you, our readers, see for yourselves.
Roots of Independence
On many occasions, among them the last USA-USSR summit in May-June 1990; President Mikhail Gorbachev blamed the Lithuanians for "proclaiming independence through one night," without well-based consideration. Nothing could be further from the truth. The struggle of the Lithuanian nation for independence began just at the moment of the country's occupation by the Red Army on June 15, 1940. The losses in this struggle were tragically enormous for a nation which had a population of about three million. Two thousand of the Lithuanian government's top officials, businessmen, politicians, journalists, and clergymen were arrested and deported to the USSR on the night of 11-12 July, 1940. An additional 34,260 persons, mostly members of Lithuania's intelligentsia, were deported from Lithuania between 14 and 18 June 1941. Anti-soviet resistance war deaths are estimated to be 50,000.
Another 260,000 were deported from Lithuania to Siberia, most of them farmers; total losses in home-grown population in the years from 1939 to 1953 were estimated as 1 million (about 140,000 Lithuanian Jews killed during the German occupation and 50,000 who emigrated to the West and to Poland (150,000) are included). Population losses in Lithuania during the war and during the postwar period could be estimated as the largest percentage losses in Europe. Those figures could explain the fact that, even 20 years after World War II, the population of Lithuania did not reach the level of 1939 (2,954,000) compared to 3.1 million in 1939 in postwar borders. The roots of Lithuania's statehood go very deeply into the history. King Mindaugas in 1253 joined all Lithuanian territories into the Lithuanian Kingdom. Until 1569, Lithuania was one of Europe's biggest powers, and defended its independence successfully from the Russians as well as from the Germans.
From 1569, Lithuania was in confederation with Poland until both countries in 1795 were occupied by Russia. After 123 years of Russian occupation, during which two unsuccessful rebellions in 1831 and 1863 took place, in 1918 Lithuania restored its independence and was a relatively prosperous European nation. It was a member of the League of Nations until World War II. In 1939. Russians and Germans signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which caused the second Lithuanian occupation on June 15, 1940.
Therefore, it would be extremely naive to think that with such an historical heritage the Lithuanians could lose an idea of their nation's statehood. On the contrary, this idea has been alive during the past fifty years of occupation. The historical mind-set explains the victory of Sąjūdis (the Lithuanian movement for national revival) during the first free elections since 1940 to the People's Congress of the USSR. Sąjūdis, which was established only ten months before the elections, won thirty-six seats of forty-two. Among an additional sixteen deputies from organizations and creative societies, four-teen expressed their support for Sąjūdis during the first meeting of the People's Congress deputies from Lithuania in Vilnius in April 1989. In such a way, Sąjūdis got fifty of fifty-eight seats in Congress.
In addition, the Communist ideology was never popular in Lithuania. When the tragic events of 1940 began, the Lithuanians were a nation of individualists, so the ideas of vulgar collectivism did not get support. There were 287,380 private farmers in Lithuania who were well expressed individualists because of their occupations. The other large group of individuals was the Lithuanian intelligentsia. It was against these groups that the first blows of the Soviet KGB (then NKVD) were directed. The Communist Party in Lithuania hardly existed; in fact there were no more than 1499 party members, about half of them non-Lithuanians, and they had no real support in the nation. Among the delegates of the 5th Congress of the Lithuanian Communist Party in February 1941, only 30.5 percent were Lithuanians and barely half of them had any education beyond primary school. After the World War, the numbers of Lithuanian Communists grew, but a large number of them joined the Party not for ideological reasons but to ensure the best career possibilities
Another 260,000 were deported from Lithuania to Siberia, most of them farmers; total losses in home-grown population in the years from 1939 to 1953 were estimated as 1 million (about 140,000 Lithuanian Jews killed during the German occupation and 50,000 who emigrated to the West and to Poland (150,000) are included). Population losses in Lithuania during the war and during the postwar period could be estimated as the largest percentage losses in Europe. Those figures could explain the fact that, even 20 years after World War II, the population of Lithuania did not reach the level of 1939 (2,954,000) compared to 3.1 million in 1939 in postwar borders. The roots of Lithuania's statehood go very deeply into the history. King Mindaugas in 1253 joined all Lithuanian territories into the Lithuanian Kingdom. Until 1569, Lithuania was one of Europe's biggest powers, and defended its independence successfully from the Russians as well as from the Germans.
From 1569, Lithuania was in confederation with Poland until both countries in 1795 were occupied by Russia. After 123 years of Russian occupation, during which two unsuccessful rebellions in 1831 and 1863 took place, in 1918 Lithuania restored its independence and was a relatively prosperous European nation. It was a member of the League of Nations until World War II. In 1939. Russians and Germans signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which caused the second Lithuanian occupation on June 15, 1940.
Therefore, it would be extremely naive to think that with such an historical heritage the Lithuanians could lose an idea of their nation's statehood. On the contrary, this idea has been alive during the past fifty years of occupation. The historical mind-set explains the victory of Sąjūdis (the Lithuanian movement for national revival) during the first free elections since 1940 to the People's Congress of the USSR. Sąjūdis, which was established only ten months before the elections, won thirty-six seats of forty-two. Among an additional sixteen deputies from organizations and creative societies, four-teen expressed their support for Sąjūdis during the first meeting of the People's Congress deputies from Lithuania in Vilnius in April 1989. In such a way, Sąjūdis got fifty of fifty-eight seats in Congress.
In addition, the Communist ideology was never popular in Lithuania. When the tragic events of 1940 began, the Lithuanians were a nation of individualists, so the ideas of vulgar collectivism did not get support. There were 287,380 private farmers in Lithuania who were well expressed individualists because of their occupations. The other large group of individuals was the Lithuanian intelligentsia. It was against these groups that the first blows of the Soviet KGB (then NKVD) were directed. The Communist Party in Lithuania hardly existed; in fact there were no more than 1499 party members, about half of them non-Lithuanians, and they had no real support in the nation. Among the delegates of the 5th Congress of the Lithuanian Communist Party in February 1941, only 30.5 percent were Lithuanians and barely half of them had any education beyond primary school. After the World War, the numbers of Lithuanian Communists grew, but a large number of them joined the Party not for ideological reasons but to ensure the best career possibilities
Women’s Right
Armenian Women's Rights through History
Over its 3,000 year history Armenia has survived wars, persecutions, changing borders and various political and social systems. The one stable institution throughout this change has been the family. In ancient times and still today the strength and sanctity of family ties have helped us to survive. These strong family ties have deep roots. In the first Armenian Book of Law, written by the monk Mekhitar Gosh in the fifth century AD, it is specified that men and women had equal rights and were equally responsible for the welfare of the family. Men and women acted independently within their range of duties-men as family providers and protectors, women as household and family organizers as well as transmitters of customs, traditions and moral values. Of course, this delegation of roles in the family has changed over time.
During Roman rule in Armenia, women's role in society increased and they were given more rights, such as rights to property and education. Later, during Turkish rule, these rights were taken away. By the beginning of the 19th century, the youth of wealthy families in big cities could get education in Europe and Russia. The introduction of Armenian youth to the works of European philosophers began a wave of cultural energy that awakened the national and political consciousness of Armenians. Students returned home with an agenda for their country.
Some of this new energy was for women's rights. The Declaration of Women's Rights was drafted by two representatives of the nationalist intelligentsia, the widely-read women writers Serpui Vahanian Dussap and Zabel Assadour. The stipulations of the declaration were as follows:
Equal rights for men and women.
The right of women to choose a career and to be gainfully employed.
The removal of double standards favoring men in married life.
The right of women to higher education as a means of improving child rearing.
The right of women to participate equally in community activities.
Elimination of the custom of the dowry.
Respect for ethnic values and traditions and acceptance of modern liberal education that enhances and strengthens national identity and develops civic consciousness. Respect for women's role in protecting the nation and transmitting its culture. This declaration was more than merely slogans. The most basic philosophy of the declaration is that education and equal rights serve the family and the nation. The idea that educated women are the wealth of society and pass their knowledge and values to their children is in the heritage of these women writers.
During the many periods of upheaval in Armenian history, the role of women in society greatly increased, and gender discrimination gave way to true equality. While not demanding specific rights, Armenian women took the role of supporting husbands, brothers, and fathers and collecting and transmitting national culture and traditions; they also established schools and orphanages.sWhile Armenian society remains patriarchal, the acceptance of gender equality has grown. It is interesting to note that the main articles of the Declaration of Women's Rights written by Dussap and Assadour are similar to the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights written almost 50 years later. They also resemble the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which was ratified by Armenia 100 years later.
Over its 3,000 year history Armenia has survived wars, persecutions, changing borders and various political and social systems. The one stable institution throughout this change has been the family. In ancient times and still today the strength and sanctity of family ties have helped us to survive. These strong family ties have deep roots. In the first Armenian Book of Law, written by the monk Mekhitar Gosh in the fifth century AD, it is specified that men and women had equal rights and were equally responsible for the welfare of the family. Men and women acted independently within their range of duties-men as family providers and protectors, women as household and family organizers as well as transmitters of customs, traditions and moral values. Of course, this delegation of roles in the family has changed over time.
During Roman rule in Armenia, women's role in society increased and they were given more rights, such as rights to property and education. Later, during Turkish rule, these rights were taken away. By the beginning of the 19th century, the youth of wealthy families in big cities could get education in Europe and Russia. The introduction of Armenian youth to the works of European philosophers began a wave of cultural energy that awakened the national and political consciousness of Armenians. Students returned home with an agenda for their country.
Some of this new energy was for women's rights. The Declaration of Women's Rights was drafted by two representatives of the nationalist intelligentsia, the widely-read women writers Serpui Vahanian Dussap and Zabel Assadour. The stipulations of the declaration were as follows:
Equal rights for men and women.
The right of women to choose a career and to be gainfully employed.
The removal of double standards favoring men in married life.
The right of women to higher education as a means of improving child rearing.
The right of women to participate equally in community activities.
Elimination of the custom of the dowry.
Respect for ethnic values and traditions and acceptance of modern liberal education that enhances and strengthens national identity and develops civic consciousness. Respect for women's role in protecting the nation and transmitting its culture. This declaration was more than merely slogans. The most basic philosophy of the declaration is that education and equal rights serve the family and the nation. The idea that educated women are the wealth of society and pass their knowledge and values to their children is in the heritage of these women writers.
During the many periods of upheaval in Armenian history, the role of women in society greatly increased, and gender discrimination gave way to true equality. While not demanding specific rights, Armenian women took the role of supporting husbands, brothers, and fathers and collecting and transmitting national culture and traditions; they also established schools and orphanages.sWhile Armenian society remains patriarchal, the acceptance of gender equality has grown. It is interesting to note that the main articles of the Declaration of Women's Rights written by Dussap and Assadour are similar to the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights written almost 50 years later. They also resemble the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which was ratified by Armenia 100 years later.
Lives of Women
It is almost as if people with disabilities are alien beings who inhabit one of those alternative universes, the existence of which scientists have begun to postulate recently (4), and an impenetrable, unknowable shadow universe where the ordinary conventions of human society do not apply. There are a number of reasons for the continuing tendency to relegate persons with disabilities to this shadow universe, a tendency which is as well entrenched in the women's movement as anywhere else, but they all ultimately derive from the way in which society has always viewed disability as alienating, as being a 'handicap' which prevents a person from leading a fulfilling and useful life.
There is a widely held belief that the mere fact of having a disability is the cause of all a person's problems. This is simply not true in the majority of cases. A disability may be uncomfortable to carry about, but it does not of itself constitute a handicap. The handicap arises from the barriers which people with disabilities encounter in the social milieu in which they live. Melbourne disability rights activist Fiona Strahan stated this proposition very clearly in her address to an International Women's Day rally in 1989:"It (disability) is not a medical problem. Nor is able-ism just a set of prejudicial ideas about disabled people......Our societal position has been shaped by history and is inextricably woven into the fabric of our culture. There is no reason to assume that medical conditions or physical, emotional or intellectual differences are disabilities or that they should be necessarily stigmatising".
In Strahan's view, the marginalisation of people with disabilities derives from the period of the industrial revolution, when they began to be regarded as useless for generating productivity and hence profits, like broken machines. This is compounded by the exaggerated individualism of modern western society where it is almost a crime not to be self-sufficient and independent. She concludes: Disability keeps being regarded as problematic for society, not as a socially constructed problem. There is some support for Strahan's argument in the format of the Australian Bureau of Statistics publication Disability and Handicap, which provides statistics on the number of persons with disabilities in Australia and their educational, employment and residential status. The publication distinguishes between people who have a disability and people who are 'handicapped'.
In many cases limitations in these areas are not so much a result of the disability per se, but a function of the environment in which the person has to operate. For example, mobility may not be so much of a problem where there is adequate public transport, or where there are wheelchair accessible buildings; schooling may not be a problem where there are sufficient teachers trained to assist the child with a disability. It might be more appropriate for the community to request its statisticians to tabulate the number of people with a disability who experience barriers to their day to day activities. Such an approach would automatically focus attention on the way society functions in relation to people with disabilities, rather than implying that there is a class of person who is invariably 'handicapped' irrespective of the social milieu in which they live.
There is a widely held belief that the mere fact of having a disability is the cause of all a person's problems. This is simply not true in the majority of cases. A disability may be uncomfortable to carry about, but it does not of itself constitute a handicap. The handicap arises from the barriers which people with disabilities encounter in the social milieu in which they live. Melbourne disability rights activist Fiona Strahan stated this proposition very clearly in her address to an International Women's Day rally in 1989:"It (disability) is not a medical problem. Nor is able-ism just a set of prejudicial ideas about disabled people......Our societal position has been shaped by history and is inextricably woven into the fabric of our culture. There is no reason to assume that medical conditions or physical, emotional or intellectual differences are disabilities or that they should be necessarily stigmatising".
In Strahan's view, the marginalisation of people with disabilities derives from the period of the industrial revolution, when they began to be regarded as useless for generating productivity and hence profits, like broken machines. This is compounded by the exaggerated individualism of modern western society where it is almost a crime not to be self-sufficient and independent. She concludes: Disability keeps being regarded as problematic for society, not as a socially constructed problem. There is some support for Strahan's argument in the format of the Australian Bureau of Statistics publication Disability and Handicap, which provides statistics on the number of persons with disabilities in Australia and their educational, employment and residential status. The publication distinguishes between people who have a disability and people who are 'handicapped'.
In many cases limitations in these areas are not so much a result of the disability per se, but a function of the environment in which the person has to operate. For example, mobility may not be so much of a problem where there is adequate public transport, or where there are wheelchair accessible buildings; schooling may not be a problem where there are sufficient teachers trained to assist the child with a disability. It might be more appropriate for the community to request its statisticians to tabulate the number of people with a disability who experience barriers to their day to day activities. Such an approach would automatically focus attention on the way society functions in relation to people with disabilities, rather than implying that there is a class of person who is invariably 'handicapped' irrespective of the social milieu in which they live.
OAKLAND MEN
The women’s movement and a 1978 national conference in SanFrancisco on violence against women were our immediate Inspirations. For years, women’s groups had been responding to the needs of women survivors of male violence by operatingshelters and rape crisis centers. One result of this organizing was to
Make the public aware of the tremendous need for shelter, counseling, advocacy, and legal intervention. During this periodthe devastating effects of the violence on women, children, andeven on men became more and more visible.Some men began to see that we could no longer discount sexual harassment, battery, and rape as women’s problems.
These were clearly part of a nationwide social problem. We could see that the effects of past violence and the threat of future violence was keeping women off the shop floor, out of the corporate office, and out of public office. It was keeping them in dangerous marriages and in poverty. Some women said, “You’re doing the violence. You are men. Take responsibility for your actions and address other men
There was a lot of attention paid to the question, “Why are men violent? “Some people argued that men are unalterably gressive because of their genes, hormones, chromosomes, or just because all males are “that way.” None of these “theories” had any scientific legitimacy, however. Male behavior is immeasurably variable. Most feminists wanted to hold men responsible for their actions and looked to male power and male socialization as sources of male violence. The huge amount of violence promoted in popular
Culture led them to the conclusion that boys learn male roles, and violent behavior was part of that learning.
Women were hurting from the violence. They were angry at the men who committed violence and the men who condoned it by their silence. We assimilated much of their anger. Partly motivated by self-hatred, we took the anger directed toward us and directed it at other men for not seeing what was happening to women. We used that anger to encourage other.
Make the public aware of the tremendous need for shelter, counseling, advocacy, and legal intervention. During this periodthe devastating effects of the violence on women, children, andeven on men became more and more visible.Some men began to see that we could no longer discount sexual harassment, battery, and rape as women’s problems.
These were clearly part of a nationwide social problem. We could see that the effects of past violence and the threat of future violence was keeping women off the shop floor, out of the corporate office, and out of public office. It was keeping them in dangerous marriages and in poverty. Some women said, “You’re doing the violence. You are men. Take responsibility for your actions and address other men
There was a lot of attention paid to the question, “Why are men violent? “Some people argued that men are unalterably gressive because of their genes, hormones, chromosomes, or just because all males are “that way.” None of these “theories” had any scientific legitimacy, however. Male behavior is immeasurably variable. Most feminists wanted to hold men responsible for their actions and looked to male power and male socialization as sources of male violence. The huge amount of violence promoted in popular
Culture led them to the conclusion that boys learn male roles, and violent behavior was part of that learning.
Women were hurting from the violence. They were angry at the men who committed violence and the men who condoned it by their silence. We assimilated much of their anger. Partly motivated by self-hatred, we took the anger directed toward us and directed it at other men for not seeing what was happening to women. We used that anger to encourage other.
Atomic Bomb
On August 2, 1939, just before the beginning of World War II, Albert Einstein wrote to then President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Einstein and several other scientists told Roosevelt of efforts in Nazi Germany to purify uranium-235, which could be used to build an atomic bomb. It was shortly thereafter that the United States Government began the serious undertaking known then only as "The Manhattan Project." Simply put, the Manhattan Project was committed to expediting research that would produce a viable atomic bomb.
A massive enrichment laboratory/plant was constructed at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Harold Urey and his colleagues at Columbia University devised an extraction system that worked on the principle of gaseous diffusion, and Ernest Lawrence (inventor of the Cyclotron) at the University of California in Berkeley implemented a process involving magnetic separation of the two isotopes. Next, a gas centrifuge was used to further separate the lighter U-235 from the heavier, non-fissionable U-238. Once all of these procedures had been completed, all that needed to be done was to put to the test the entire concept behind atomic fission ("splitting the atom," in layman's terms).
The most complicated issue to be addressed in making of an atomic bomb was the production of ample amounts of "enriched" uranium to sustain a chain reaction. At the time, uranium-235 was very hard to extract. In fact, the ratio of conversion from uranium ore to uranium metal is 500:1. Compounding this, the one part of uranium that is finally refined from the ore is over 99% uranium-238, which is practically useless for an atomic bomb. To make the task even more difficult, the useful U-235 and nearly useless U-238 are isotopes, nearly identical in their chemical makeup. No ordinary chemical extraction method could separate them; only mechanical methods could work.
At 5:29:45 (Mountain War Time) on July 16, 1945, in a white blaze that stretched from the basin of the Jemez Mountains in northern New Mexico to the still-dark skies, "The Gadget" ushered in the Atomic Age. The light of the explosion then turned orange as the atomic fireball began shooting upwards at 360 feet per second, reddening and pulsing as it cooled. The characteristic mushroom cloud of radioactive vapor materialized at 30,000 feet. Beneath the cloud, all that remained of the soil at the blast site were fragments of jade green radioactive glass created by the heat of the reaction. The brilliant light from the detonation pierced the early morning skies with such intensity that residents from a faraway neighboring community would swear that the sun came up twice that day. Even more astonishing is that a blind girl saw the flash 120 miles away.
Upon witnessing the explosion, its creators had mixed reactions. Isidor Rabi felt that the equilibrium in nature had been upset as if humankind had become a threat to the world it inhabited. Robert Oppenheimer, though ecstatic about the success of the project, quoted a remembered fragment from the Bhagavad Gita. "I am become Death," he said, "the destroyer of worlds." Ken Bainbridge, the test director, told Oppenheimer, "Now we're all sons of bitches." After viewing the results several participants signed petitions against loosing the monster they had created, but their protests fell on deaf ears. The Jornada del Muerto of New Mexico would not be the last site on planet Earth to experience an atomic explosion.
A massive enrichment laboratory/plant was constructed at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Harold Urey and his colleagues at Columbia University devised an extraction system that worked on the principle of gaseous diffusion, and Ernest Lawrence (inventor of the Cyclotron) at the University of California in Berkeley implemented a process involving magnetic separation of the two isotopes. Next, a gas centrifuge was used to further separate the lighter U-235 from the heavier, non-fissionable U-238. Once all of these procedures had been completed, all that needed to be done was to put to the test the entire concept behind atomic fission ("splitting the atom," in layman's terms).
The most complicated issue to be addressed in making of an atomic bomb was the production of ample amounts of "enriched" uranium to sustain a chain reaction. At the time, uranium-235 was very hard to extract. In fact, the ratio of conversion from uranium ore to uranium metal is 500:1. Compounding this, the one part of uranium that is finally refined from the ore is over 99% uranium-238, which is practically useless for an atomic bomb. To make the task even more difficult, the useful U-235 and nearly useless U-238 are isotopes, nearly identical in their chemical makeup. No ordinary chemical extraction method could separate them; only mechanical methods could work.
At 5:29:45 (Mountain War Time) on July 16, 1945, in a white blaze that stretched from the basin of the Jemez Mountains in northern New Mexico to the still-dark skies, "The Gadget" ushered in the Atomic Age. The light of the explosion then turned orange as the atomic fireball began shooting upwards at 360 feet per second, reddening and pulsing as it cooled. The characteristic mushroom cloud of radioactive vapor materialized at 30,000 feet. Beneath the cloud, all that remained of the soil at the blast site were fragments of jade green radioactive glass created by the heat of the reaction. The brilliant light from the detonation pierced the early morning skies with such intensity that residents from a faraway neighboring community would swear that the sun came up twice that day. Even more astonishing is that a blind girl saw the flash 120 miles away.
Upon witnessing the explosion, its creators had mixed reactions. Isidor Rabi felt that the equilibrium in nature had been upset as if humankind had become a threat to the world it inhabited. Robert Oppenheimer, though ecstatic about the success of the project, quoted a remembered fragment from the Bhagavad Gita. "I am become Death," he said, "the destroyer of worlds." Ken Bainbridge, the test director, told Oppenheimer, "Now we're all sons of bitches." After viewing the results several participants signed petitions against loosing the monster they had created, but their protests fell on deaf ears. The Jornada del Muerto of New Mexico would not be the last site on planet Earth to experience an atomic explosion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)