by Gary Stamper
“In postmodernism, many women who have integrated their masculine have integrated the only version of the masculine that has been modeled for them: The Patriarchy, with all of its shadows and pathologies. Unfortunately, there are very few models for what I call the authentic, healthy masculine: A masculinity that has integrated the healthy masculine and feminine within themselves, and women are the losers for that.”
Congratulations. You got past the title of this article. My book, “Awakening the New Masculine: The Path of the Integral Warrior,” owes everything to Anyaa McAndrew’s (my ex-wife) work with the feminine. It was through Anya’s work with women that has helped me more deeply understand the archetypes of the masculine, the feminine, and patriarchy.
In a developmental context, Anyaa’s work with women centers around assisting postmodern women who have become overly “masculinized” to reclaim their more powerful (and more compassionate) integrated feminine, which includes the masculine. By contrast, my work with men in my Integral Warrior Men’s Process revolves around helping postmodern men who have been “overly feminized” to reclaim the healthy aspects and fullness of the new masculine without shame and with a strong sense of purpose and a clear sense of their sacred mission of service, while still maintaining their healthy feminine, as opposed to the wimpy codependent version of the masculine that often shows up in postmodernism.
Men and women who who display the postmodern versions of masculinity and femininity are trapped, with men denying their authentic masculine and women denying their authentic feminine, unable to express the fullness of who they truly are. This denial can lead to pathologies of the worst kind.*
In postmodernism, many women who have integrated their masculine have integrated the only version of the masculine that has been modeled for them: The Patriarchy, with all of its shadows and pathologies. Unfortunately, there are very few models for what I call the authentic, healthy masculine: A masculinity that has integrated the healthy masculine and feminine within themselves, and all of us are the losers for that.
I’ve watched Hillary Clinton from afar since since the early days of Bill Clinton’s presidential candidacy, as First Lady, especially through Bill’s infidelity, the accusations from the right and the impeachment, a US Senator from New York, paid special attention to her journey through the 2008 presidential primaries running against Barack Obama, and finally, as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.
I have contended, and still do, that the reason she lost the Democratic party nomination was because she did not have her feminine on board. She came across hard and unyielding—like a man—where Barack Obama was not only able to show his masculine side but was also able to display a softer, more compassionate side—his feminine—and the voters responded. In other words, a woman candidate who exhibited the unhealthy and patriarchal version of the masculine and had not re-integrated her healthy feminine side was not appealing to most voters.
After resigning as Secretary of State on February 1st, her supporters are now urging her to run for the presidency again in 2016. When asked, she says, “I am not thinking about anything like that right now.”
She has also said she’ll “do everything (she) can to make sure that women compete at the highest levels, not only in the United States but around the world.” Bill is urging her to run.
A political action committee has been formed to raise money for 2016, Hillary for 2016 T-shirts are already for sale, insiders say she’ll run, and over 80% of Democrats back her candidacy. Two thirds of American women support her, and two thirds of Americans give her high ranks as America’s top diplomat. At the peak of her influence, the NY Times called her “an instant presidential front-runner.”
It looks as if she will run, and once again, it’s all about winning.
So who is Hillary Clinton today? Is she displaying the patriarchal qualities of the old masculine, the bully, the tyrant King archetype, the cold, calculating Warrior archetype undeterred by the compassion of the healthy feminine? Is she just more of the same? A wolf in sheep’s clothing?
After eight years of Barack Obama it’s not an unreasonable question. Don’t forget George W. Bush’s famous quote: “fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”
Or can we?
Stephen Lendman, a well-known columnist for a website called Veterans Today, and who also hosts The Progressive Radio News Hour on The Progressive Radio Network., points out Hillary’s record:
If it walks like patriarchy and talks like patriarchy, it’s probably not a duck.
Update, March 7, 2014: Hillary Clinton just compared Russian leader Putin to pre WWII Hitler for his actions in the Ukraine, ignoring that the side "we" support in this dangerous dispute are the neo-cons and neo-nazis. Typical.
Addt'l Update, March 7, 2014: I've received from flak about this article from women who are criticizing me for not supporting women. On the contrary, I'm not anti-woman, I'm anti-patriarchy, no matter who exhibit it...even women.
*Disclaimer: Not all men carry a preponderance of masculine energy just as not all women carry a preponderance of feminine energy. There can be many variations of these energies within one person, and not all are unhealthy. Regardless of gender, healthy integration is the key.
“In postmodernism, many women who have integrated their masculine have integrated the only version of the masculine that has been modeled for them: The Patriarchy, with all of its shadows and pathologies. Unfortunately, there are very few models for what I call the authentic, healthy masculine: A masculinity that has integrated the healthy masculine and feminine within themselves, and women are the losers for that.”Congratulations. You got past the title of this article. My book, “Awakening the New Masculine: The Path of the Integral Warrior,” owes everything to Anyaa McAndrew’s (my ex-wife) work with the feminine. It was through Anya’s work with women that has helped me more deeply understand the archetypes of the masculine, the feminine, and patriarchy.
In a developmental context, Anyaa’s work with women centers around assisting postmodern women who have become overly “masculinized” to reclaim their more powerful (and more compassionate) integrated feminine, which includes the masculine. By contrast, my work with men in my Integral Warrior Men’s Process revolves around helping postmodern men who have been “overly feminized” to reclaim the healthy aspects and fullness of the new masculine without shame and with a strong sense of purpose and a clear sense of their sacred mission of service, while still maintaining their healthy feminine, as opposed to the wimpy codependent version of the masculine that often shows up in postmodernism.
Men and women who who display the postmodern versions of masculinity and femininity are trapped, with men denying their authentic masculine and women denying their authentic feminine, unable to express the fullness of who they truly are. This denial can lead to pathologies of the worst kind.*
In postmodernism, many women who have integrated their masculine have integrated the only version of the masculine that has been modeled for them: The Patriarchy, with all of its shadows and pathologies. Unfortunately, there are very few models for what I call the authentic, healthy masculine: A masculinity that has integrated the healthy masculine and feminine within themselves, and all of us are the losers for that.
I’ve watched Hillary Clinton from afar since since the early days of Bill Clinton’s presidential candidacy, as First Lady, especially through Bill’s infidelity, the accusations from the right and the impeachment, a US Senator from New York, paid special attention to her journey through the 2008 presidential primaries running against Barack Obama, and finally, as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.
I have contended, and still do, that the reason she lost the Democratic party nomination was because she did not have her feminine on board. She came across hard and unyielding—like a man—where Barack Obama was not only able to show his masculine side but was also able to display a softer, more compassionate side—his feminine—and the voters responded. In other words, a woman candidate who exhibited the unhealthy and patriarchal version of the masculine and had not re-integrated her healthy feminine side was not appealing to most voters.
After resigning as Secretary of State on February 1st, her supporters are now urging her to run for the presidency again in 2016. When asked, she says, “I am not thinking about anything like that right now.”
She has also said she’ll “do everything (she) can to make sure that women compete at the highest levels, not only in the United States but around the world.” Bill is urging her to run.
A political action committee has been formed to raise money for 2016, Hillary for 2016 T-shirts are already for sale, insiders say she’ll run, and over 80% of Democrats back her candidacy. Two thirds of American women support her, and two thirds of Americans give her high ranks as America’s top diplomat. At the peak of her influence, the NY Times called her “an instant presidential front-runner.”
It looks as if she will run, and once again, it’s all about winning.
So who is Hillary Clinton today? Is she displaying the patriarchal qualities of the old masculine, the bully, the tyrant King archetype, the cold, calculating Warrior archetype undeterred by the compassion of the healthy feminine? Is she just more of the same? A wolf in sheep’s clothing?
After eight years of Barack Obama it’s not an unreasonable question. Don’t forget George W. Bush’s famous quote: “fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”
Or can we?
Stephen Lendman, a well-known columnist for a website called Veterans Today, and who also hosts The Progressive Radio News Hour on The Progressive Radio Network., points out Hillary’s record:
Obama exceeded the worst of George Bush. Clinton joined his war cabinet. She’s ideologically hardline. She was a Wellesley College Goldwater Girl. She was president of Wellesley’s Young Republicans.
She’s militantly pro-war. In the 1990s, she was very much part of husband Bill’s foreign policy team. As an aggressive first lady, she had lots of influence.
At Secretary of State, Clinton headed foreign policy. She’s complicit in crimes of war and against humanity. She represents the worst of imperial arrogance. She is the old warrior, a reliable spear-carrier.
Her outbursts reflect bullying and bluster, not diplomacy. She’s contemptuous of rule of law principles. She scorns democracy. She’s committed to war, not peace.
She’s unabashedly hawkish. As first lady, she urged husband Bill to bomb Belgrade in 1999. She ignored international and constitutional law. She lied about Slobodan Milosevic.
“You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time,” she said. “What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?”
For 78 days, NATO ravaged Yugoslavia. Nearly everything targeted was struck. Massive destruction and disruption followed. An estimated $100 billion in damage was inflicted. A humanitarian disaster resulted. Environmental contamination was extensive.
Large numbers were killed, injured or displaced. Two million people lost their livelihoods. Homes and communities were destroyed.
Nobel laureate Harold Pinter called NATO’s aggression “barbaric (and despicable), another blatant and brutal assertion of US power using NATO as its missile (to consolidate) American domination of Europe.”
Lawless aggression became humanitarian intervention. An avenue to Eurasia was opened. A permanent US military presence was established. American imperialism claimed another trophy.
Clinton’s unabashedly pro-war. She’s a war goddess. Straightaway post-9/11, she urged waging war on terror.
She said any nation lending Al Qaeda “aid and comfort will now face the wrath of our country. I’ll stand behind Bush for a long time to come.”
She supported annual defense (aka war) budgets. She voted for the Patriot Act and other police state legislation. She endorsed cluster bomb use in civilian areas and refugee camps.
She’s against banning land mines. She’s dismissive of human suffering. Wealth, power, privilege and dominance alone matter.
In 2005, she was one of only six Democrat senators opposed to blocking deployment of untested missile defense systems. They’re first-strike offensive weapons.
She supported restriction-free nuclear cooperation with Israel and other US allies violating NPT provisions. She endorsed nuclear weapons use in Afghanistan and Pakistan. She calls them deterrents that “keep the peace.”
She was one of the largest recipients of defense contractor cash. She backed war on Afghanistan and Iraq. She opposed a Democrat resolution. It would have required Bush to try diplomacy before launching war in 2003.
Her 2002 Senate speech supported war. She lied. She said “intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein rebuilt his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.”
“He has given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members….It is clear that if left unchecked, (he’ll) continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
“Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”
“Now this much is undisputed.” What’s undisputed were her bald-faced lies. She repeated them ad nauseam as Secretary of State.
She supports the worst of Israeli lawlessness. At AIPAC’s 2008 convention, she said:
“The United States stands with Israel now and forever.”
We have shared interests….shared ideals….common values. I have a bedrock commitment to Israel’s security.”
(Against Islamic extremists), our two nations are fighting a shared threat.”
“I strongly support Israel’s right to self-defense (and) believe America should aid in that defense.”
“I am committed to making sure that Israel maintains a military edge to meet increasing threats.”
The only threats Israel faces are ones it invents.
“I am deeply concerned about the growing threat in Gaza (and) Hamas’ campaign of terror.”
She lied saying its charter “calls for the destruction of Israel.”
She lied again saying “Iran threatens to destroy Israel.”
She lied a third time, saying “I support calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard what it is: a terrorist organization. It is imperative that we get both tough and smart about dealing with Iran before it is too late.”
She backs “massive retaliation” if Iran attacks Israel. In 2008, presidential aspirant Clinton said:
“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
In other words, she threatened to murder 75 million people. Today it’s nearly 80 million. She’s extremist on all foreign policy issues. She favors police state harshness domestically.
She endorses outsized military budgets. She’s done nothing to contain nuclear proliferation. She supported Bush’s unilateral nuclear first-strike option, including against non-nuclear states.
She represents the worst of America’s dark side. She’s a war criminal multiple times over. She’s arguably America’s most shameless ever secretary of state.
She’s clearly the most brazen. Her language and attitude exceed the worst Cold War rhetoric.
Her take-no-prisoners thinking, character, and demagoguery tell all. She’s addicted to self-aggrandizement and diktat authority.
She relishes death, destruction, and war spoils.
She’s indifferent to human suffering. She’s a monument to wrong over right. She’s a disgrace and embarrassment to her country, position and humanity.
She may become America’s 45th president. Perhaps she won’t get a chance to try. Humanity may not survive its 44th. The fullness of time will tell.
Update, March 7, 2014: Hillary Clinton just compared Russian leader Putin to pre WWII Hitler for his actions in the Ukraine, ignoring that the side "we" support in this dangerous dispute are the neo-cons and neo-nazis. Typical.
Addt'l Update, March 7, 2014: I've received from flak about this article from women who are criticizing me for not supporting women. On the contrary, I'm not anti-woman, I'm anti-patriarchy, no matter who exhibit it...even women.
*Disclaimer: Not all men carry a preponderance of masculine energy just as not all women carry a preponderance of feminine energy. There can be many variations of these energies within one person, and not all are unhealthy. Regardless of gender, healthy integration is the key.
5 comments:
Your post begins with you honoring your wife for helping you know as much as you do about personality archetypes, etc. Then you go on to damn Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. So, I am not a woman, but I can sense narrow minded white male thinking when I read it.
I have no idea how you have justified the two, or what one has to do with the other, and I don't see that your last sentence makes any sense at all. Let's see....according your thought process, because I honor my (now exe) wife, I can't criticize Hillary or Barack? back to the so-called "mean-green meme," Bill.....
Here's your comment about women criticizing your article. I'm with them.
Addt'l Update, March 7, 2014: I've received from flak about this article from women who are criticizing me for not supporting women. On the contrary, I'm not anti-woman, I'm anti-patriarchy, no matter who exhibit it...even women.
Like you about me, I have no idea what you mean.
I just found your article partisan, and shocking in calling Obama a wolf in sheep's clothing. You and history are on two different sides.
I'm often pleased to be on the "wrong side of history since it's often inaccurate since it's usually written from the "winner's" perspective and justifying or ignoring attrocities.
Post a Comment