This is not a response I have to that other hard-man of politics, Dame Margaret "What did feminism ever do for me?" Thatcher. I do not like her, she is dogmatic and narrow and brutal, but she is who she is. And in certain respects she successfully did a job that needed doing.What I feel with Hillary is that she is not who she is, because there is a big bit of her repressed. This is why she comes across as calculating and lacking in passion. In astrological terms, the problem is her Moon in Pisces, which is a potentially wonderful place to have the Moon, and which has found partial expression throughout her adult life in her ongoing work on behalf of children (which she seems to keep quiet about). But Moon in Pisces is also easily crushed, and in this case it does not stand a chance against the ambition and ruthlessness of her Scorpio-Leo configuration.
We do not know her birthtime, and if she was born after 9.30pm her Moon would be in Aries. But I don’t read her that way: if she was Moon in Aries, she would be right up front about how she felt, you wouldn’t have had, for example, such a big deal about the ‘emotional moment’ in New Hampshire. Which was in any case too little, too late. So this is the difference between Margaret Thatcher and Hillary. Thatcher is who she is, a Caliban-like creature that needs exposure to culture. She has Sun in Libra, the politician who wanted to set the country to rights, the iron fist in the not-so-velvet glove; Saturn Rising in Scorpio gave her determination and lack of compassion; and Moon conjunct Neptune in Leo reflected her ability (at one point) to connect with the public and her eventual royal airs.
Thatcher was firing on all cylinders, her Sun, Moon and Saturn Rising were all fully functional: it wasn’t very pleasant in many ways, but she was all there. Hillary is not all there, the woman in her is missing, and we can all feel that - maybe that's why we call her Hillary? Obama’s aide reminded us of this. What she needs is healing. She does not need to be President, and the US does not need her as President. She needs to have her ambitions foiled so that she can find another way of being.
Fortunately for her, she does not have that indefinable quality, that Zang, that you need to be a leader. If you’ve got Zang versus no-Zang, the Zang wins every time. Take, for example, Bill Clinton versus Bush senior (who used to scratch his head over ‘the vision thing’); or Bush junior versus both Gore and Kerry; or, in the UK, Tony Blair versus John Major, William Hague and then Michael Howard. In each case it was the one with the Zang who won – the ability to connect with people, to know instinctively what the people want, and to communicate a sense of passion and vision.
This ability doesn’t make you a good guy or a bad guy, and in itself it doesn’t make you a good leader. But it does win you elections, and we all recognise it when we see it, even though we might not vote for it. In the case of the Democratic nomination, Obama has buckets of Zang, Hillary has very little, and we can all see that. For that reason alone, it seems certain to me that Obama will eventually win the nomination.
In the UK, David Cameron, the leader of the Tory Party, has much more Zang than Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister. I think Brown has more depth and experience than Cameron, but that's not the point. Cameron will probably win the next election. (Like Thatcher, he has Sun in Libra and Moon in Leo: there has to be something in this.)
As for Obama versus John McCain, I haven’t seen enough of McCain to know. But a man who sets himself against popular feeling so readily and strongly, whether in the country over the Iraq War, or within his own party over social policy, doesn’t look like a winner to me, whatever the merits of his positions.
19 comments:
Can't argue with you on astrology, Dharmaruci - you are way more experienced than I'll ever be, but I will argue your comment that Ms Powers' remark that HRC is "a monster" needed saying.
Powers is supoposed to be a professional, she acted like a schoolgirl. Her personal opinion should have been locked away until she left the studio. I have no respect at all for women like her.
I do not see Senator Clinton as a monster, I see no possible reason for her to be described that way. Hitler was a monster, Mussolini was a monster, Jack the Ripper was a monster.
I suppose Ms Powers was short on vocabulary.
Hillary Clinton may lack perfection, as do we all, but she has spent her career trying to make things better in America, not worse - so did did her much maligned husband.
As for her needing to heal - well that's for her to decide, not for us. She offers America her professional abilities, not the opportunity to analyse her on the psychiatrist's couch.
Sorry to disagree, but I'm so tired of reading anti-Clinton stuff recently. I've just about lost patience.
She may not have a Zang, but she does have a vagina. And for that reason alone, millions of women would vote for her.
Hi Twilight. I think in the case of GWB, a bit more psychoanalysis by the voters might have helped!
I think the fact that she has a vagina is the reason why millions of American women will choose NOT to vote for her.
There seems to be such mistrust of women in positions of political power in the U.S. Maybe it's the American public who need psychoanalysis for their 'mother issues'.
If the thought of a highly intelligent dedicated woman leading the nation terrifies so many in the 21st century, something deep in the core of the nation's psyche needs healing.
Considering that the U.S leads and encourages the rest of the world in disrespecting and abusing our earth MOTHER, no wonder there is such tremendous fear, repulsion and projection onto Hillary.
I think the mother archetype is actually very central to the American consciousness actually. (we say 'as American as mom's apple pie' for example). It just so happens that one typically forgotten feature of the mother consciousness is materialism. Its the rampant consumption, shopping-as-a-leisure-activity that has contributed more than anything to putting a strain on the world's natural resources.
Whenever I hear someone talk about how 'bad', 'negative', 'polarizing', 'monstrous', 'harsh', or even 'evil' Hillary is, I always want to ask: Just what did she do to you? Even you, D, while saying she's not 'right', admit to her ongoing work for children.
Being a Hillary contemporary (and supporter), I feel she's still caught in the feminism trap. Keep in mind that women still make substantially less than men, men still dominate the boardrooms and the legislatures, and make up most of the talking (pundit) heads on TV. If she keeps that Fishy Moon shut down all the time, can you blame her? Look what people say/think if it comes out! She's calculating! Go back to the Scorpio Sun. (I'm one myself.) Passionate intensity freezes itself in so control can be maintained--It's the ONLY way to get things accomplished!
We may be locked into a political choice between our subconscious projections in this race: Obama's happy Neptunian image of Hope vs. Hillary's apparent cold, calculating political posturing.
I believe Hillary has the chops to get the job done both in the campaign and in the office, and will be able to withstand all the garbage the right wing noise machine will throw at her (or any Dem nominee!) yet again, and overcome a lot of people's doubts in the process. If Obama gets the nomination, I can only hope he is all he presents himself to be. (I will vote for whoever is the Dem nominee.)
In the meantime, I see a lot of people in the thrall of Obamania. We need to be careful of all that blind allegiance, even to a good guy like Obama. If he doesn't deliver, there will be a lot of very unhappy, very cynical people.
One other story: As I was taking my 18-yr-old son back to college after the holidays, he told me that America's not ready for a 'Mommy' as president. (He's Obama all the way.) If I hadn't been driving, I'd 've slugged him.
-Anonymous in NH
If only she was more of a 'Mommy'! That's the problem.
Hilary is pictured as a 'nasty mommy', that's the problem. A cold harsh vindictive mommy who her potential 'children' fear will somehow torture them if she's let loose.
A Cruela Deville figure, you could say.
All this is clearly a projection, as she's obviously been a loving mother to her own child, and does as DR stated, do a lot of work for children in general.
Margaret Thatcher is like the very british archetype of a bruiser of a mother-in-law, who won't let her hapless son-in-law get away with anything. You didn't like her but you sure did respect her.
Margaret Thatcher, despite her personality, was like a mother who got the household out of debt. Hillary is a mother who would be taking a household which is already trillions of dollars in debt even DEEPER into debt. That is a MASSIVE burden on the future generations.
And as for women 'still making less than men', this is largely due to the choices that women themselves make in terms of not working in such large numbers as men in dangerous or technical jobs, not being so willing to relocate, travel or work overtime, not being so committed to their work (as opposed to their personal life). Equally, just because most people in 'top jobs' are men, does not mean that most men have top jobs.
I don't think the pay gap is because women are less willing to do skilled jobs, though there are going to be some that men will tend to be better at and some that women will be better at. Let's not pretend we're the same, life is much more interesting than that.
I think the main factor is raising young children, and I don't think there's an easy way round that one. Legislation and changes of attitude help. But there's also a problem the other way, in that your performance in the market-place, often within narrow boundaries, is too much equated with your worth as a human being.
hmmm -
Isn't the point of this column the proposition that the crux of electibility (at least in somewhat childlike America) is the Zang factor, as D puts it.
Senator Clinton may be qualified 100 times over -
no charisma, no president-elect.
Hang on! I'm not sure any country is immune from Zang. You can't put down the Americans for it. The British, for example, also do it, as I said.
By the way, the Rottweiler picture is supposed to represent Thatcher, not Clinton.
D-
Thanks for that clarification on the dog image.
I thought it was another 'rhymes-with-rich' allusion, and I'm really tired (and insulted) by that kind of talk. Oddly enough, it seems to come most often from apparently upperclass, high-come 'country-club'-type women! Not very lady-like. (The most recent instance was a female supporter asking John McCain "How do we defeat the b----?". The video got a lot of play here in the States.)
On the other hand, may be I should take the image as the mother defending her young...
-Anonymous in NH
Dr. Warren Farrell studied the sex differences in pay in depth, and identified about (I think) 25 reasons why - overall - the male sex earns more. The reasons are things like men being more likely to study things that are seen as hard or boring (like physics or chemistry) rather than English or Psychology, greater willingness to work long hours, taking on work that has high responsibilities, working overtime, etc. He also found that when you control for all these factors, women tend to actually make more per hour than men! All the data is in his book 'Why men earn more'. Equally, people forget that men are under pressure to be higher earners to support the family and so on. A man is judged on his earning power far more than a woman is, so of course that is going to make men invest more time and energy in their careers and climbing the corporate ladder. Finally, you have to remember that these figures are AVERAGES. There are plenty of men who work really crappy jobs for little money. Also, the vast majority of workplace fatalities are men. Its men who work the dangerous jobs.
Thanks for that, interesting. The gender pay gap is popularly presented as being mainly due to prejudice againast women.
The fact that the media pushes the message that men are deliberately conspiring to pay women less no doubt creates a lot of bad feeling from women towards men. If I was female, and I was constantly told that men are getting paid 20% more than me for doing exactly the same job, I think I'd be angry.
However, even aside from the data, this logically can't be true. If you could hire a woman at 20% less than a man, then companies could hire all women and slash 20% off their costs.
I can't really speak on many things associated with politics, it's just not my forte. However I can agree with you on Hillary. I was shocked to hear that she has a Pisces Moon, I would have never have guessed, being a Pisces Moon myself. I do like the Clintons very much, but I do not believe that I will be voting for Mrs. Clinton this time around. There is something about her that makes me believe that once the rallies and hoopla is gone, that she would revert to some hidden agenda that we cannot even comprehend. There's a tangible shield around this woman, and something about that is frightening... even more so that the foolishness of GWB. I'm going to have to trust my Pisces Moon intuition on this one.
"There is something about her that makes me believe that once the rallies and hoopla is gone, that she would revert to some hidden agenda that we cannot even comprehend."
I get that exact same feeling!
I get that same feeling, that something ain't right with her.
I would love to see a woman president, and I realize what a slap in the face it is to the second-wavers that I didn't vote for Clinton in the primaries. But, I didn't.
I just don't see her as the best candidate, and after 20 years of the same two families, I'm ready for someone else. This ain't a frickin monarchy.
Post a Comment