Ragnar Danneskjold

Here is the thing. What does it mean to be completely selfish. If you do something in your own interest, it can ONLY be long-term. If it benefits you now and hurts you a year from now, it was NOT in your interest to do it. Yes, at the time you may have thought it was, but it turned out it wasn't. My point is that any selfish act implies a gain in values, not a reduction. If it turns out in the long-run that the act reduced your values, then it was not selfish. In other words, a truly selfish act (truly should not be needed) is only a rationally selfish act (again rational is redundant). Any other use of the term is simply incorrect.

See my revision of above. I have some comments on the queen, but my logic seems flawed, so i am not going to post yet.

I take this two different ways: 1) "In a group that only consists of women, rationality exists. When a man shows up, it goes out the door." 2) "In a group that only consists of woman, with a queen ruling over them, rationality exists. When a man shows up it is only the queens rationality that goes out the door." Which did you mean? I responded to the the first one originally. My response follows: Rationaly has no bearing on femininity or masculinity. It is a trait determined by the amount of extrogen/ testosterone and on how someone chooses to portray his/herself. When the women are alone, they are rational. When the woman are in contact with a man, they are still rational. They also notice differences in his physical appearance. This noting of differences is what draws femininity and masculinity into the picture. I see no correlation between rationality and femininity/masculinitiy. I will respond to the second one soon.

They cannot be femininie EXCEPT WHEN A MAN IS IN THEIR PRESENCE. They can be rational. Femininity and masculinity only show up when there is a member of each sex present. Anyone can be rational without femininity or masculinity.

It is still unclear. What differentiate a friendly companionship from a romantic one? What makes one companionship more "romantic?"

First. Inspector. I need you to clarify your definition of inequalty. In what senses do you mean. As you have probably noted, this term is very misleading. Please specify in which senses you mean (Psychological, biological, etc...). See one of Kendal's earlier posts. If she was a very masculine woman (body-builder type, etc..), I think the logic would follow that she does not value femininity. Either she can then be president, because loosing femininity would be of no loss to her. OR - According to Rand she cannot be president because she would not be a rational being. I think Rand's argument here is quite silly. Companionship can be with anyone. A dog is a companion. Other males/ females are companions. So this cannot be the feature that separates a relationship from friendship. Is dominance (defined here as physical b/c it applies to masculinity) the differentiating factor? Let me clarify that last statement....

Very intersting comments FeatherFall. In regard to aequalsa's post. He is quoting comments from Miseleigh. I will put the appropriate comments in quotes. Younger is in most regards a weakness. Intellectually, financially, physically and otherwise. All strength requires time to develop. Very few people get weaker as they age. By young I mean being 19 as opposed to 40. Obviously at 97 years old you will be physically weaker. No, not necessarily. But her toughness is not what makes her sttractive to men. My point was only that the physical(not intellectual) attraction men feel is toward a woman's fragility. I didn't say that you did. I would agree that she doesn't have to be delicate to be valued as a person. But as a woman qua woman, I believe she does. No, I just havn't met any that do. Men have on average 3X's the upper body strength of women. Most men can't bench 200 lbs so I thought it was a safe number. The hormones just are not there for women to bulk up to the same extent men can. Great physical strength is the obvious one and probably what is most pertinant although I believe generally, greater psychological strength is the result of genetic roots also and is therefore a metaphysically given. As an example, a study recently showed that due to the fact that female infants have a tendency to hold the gaze of people longer do to better facial recognition abilities, they are held by caretakers 3 hours per day as opposed to 1 hour per day with male childern. The result is that from very early on males will tend to be less interested in the people around them and engage in more exploratory activities. This leads to a higher propensity for risk taking behavior and arguably more independence. Women on the other hand develop better linguistic skills and empathetic understanding in relationships with others. This early independence and risk taking behavior tends to create a greater degree of efficaciousness with regard to certain aspects of reality. One of those I think would be psychological strength. Soldiering on during difficult circumstances without emotional breakdown. (And yes, of course there can be exceptions) When you think of a hero,abstractly, are they very often short and soft? Is that the understood definition of efficaciousness? I would look up to her as a person...but not romantically as a woman. I think that you should try to. Rand is very clear that what a woman ought to look up to in a man is his masculinity, not any particular virtue she lacks. Those are necessarily in gauging a person but are not attached to either masculinity or femininity and as such are not a part of that attraction. OK...let me try another way....Ever watch one of those lame movies where the guy essentially sits locked up in the tower waiting for Rambet to come and rescue him. They are horrible not because a woman can't be heroic and a guy can't be weak, but because no one seriously believes that a woman like that would be romantically interested in a man she has to rescue. Women find firefighters and other heroic jobs like that sexy. Men don't(except the scantily clad firewomen in oversized suspenders you might see in a pinup ) There is a reason for that. I don't have any official information to back this up, just my personal experiences, but in every relationship I have been a part of or been close enough to the parties involved to know what was going on, there has been a period of time toward the beginning where guys get "tested" in a way. The woman is usually trying to see on some level what he's made of and how much she can control him. If he gives in then she usually looses interest pretty quick, if not they do pretty well. Like I said, this is my personal subjective understanding of what I see, but it has done a lot to confirm the fact for me that women are generally attracted to men who are stronger then them physically and psychologically in the context of the relationship. Not a lot stronger mind you, just a little bit stronger. For men the opposite is generally true. No doubt exceptions to this exist, and you may be one of them, but generally it is true. In most relationships men are the "metaphysically dominant" sex. It can be reversed of course, but Ayn Rand would argue and I would agree that in doing so, you are missing out on the most enjoyable aspect of a romantic relationship. EDIT: This entire post (besides the bold at the top and this edit) are from aequalsa.

Is this ok to do? I thought that writing the entire article, sending a copy of the text online, etc.. would infringe on copyrites. Am I incorrect? Or does this constitute one of the time when it is ok (education)? Just curious. I didn't offer to send it b/c of this.

From what you said, it seems like she is in touch with reality but refuses to acknowledge particular things. You say that she was like this from birth? Can you figure out where it went from an infant crying and kicking (completely normal) to a kid who knows what she is doing? I am going to assume that she is perfectly normal and the problem is that she is a brat and controlling. One question I should ask is: Does she do this with other people? Does she act this way outside the house? Are there any difference in her behavior towards other people? The following are my thoughts - not backed up by any theory: She is either doing this because she feels hurt and finds this to be revenge, or she is doing this because she can get away with whatever she wants. It could be a combination of both. If her reactions are based on some sort of historic event, perhaps she was beat up, molested, continuously punished, treated badly in school (elsewhere), or something else happened to her and she does not now how to get it out in the open. She feels harmed, does not know how to deal with it, and is taking it out on everyone. If her reactions are because she feels she can get away wiht things by kicking and screaming. Perhaps your mother gave your sister leeway when she was an infant and continued doing so even when she began to "understand," perhaps she learned that kicking and screaming were her way to get things accomplished. If your mother continuously gave into her, then this would be accepting your sister as "master" and granting her control over the house. Perhaps this is the same with babysitters, and at school. Regardless of the reasons, I think to some extent she knows that what she is doing is wrong. I say this for the following reason. My thought is that she sees this as a threat to her control over you. At all costs she needs to dissuade you from seeking outside help. She thinks you are incapable of disciplining her and wants to keep it this way. From waht I have heard, it does not sound like some genetic defect (etc...). I also would hate to rush to incorrect conclusions. I would start with: "she is an unruly brat of a child." My response would be to stop giving in to her. If she is uncomfortable with a situation, she can go to a place that she will feel more comfortable in. The house is a commmunal place. Not hers. Her room is hers. She can go there and kick and scream on her own. Inform her of this. Do what you please in your house. If she beigins to whine, tell her she can do as much of that as she wants in her room or elsewhere. But in the communal areas/ public, she is to respect other peoples rights. If she wishes to be disrespectful, she can. But not near you. Do not pick her up or force her to her room. Do not say "GO to your room!" Instead say, if you wish to behave rationally, you can stay here. If not, you choose to go someplace where you won't be disrespecting others. (Note: I did not say her room. She can go anywhere else. saying her room makes her think of the room as punishment and she will hate being in there. However, that is not he point of a room and will counterract any attempts at progress). If she refuses to go, turn up the TV. Do the things YOU enjoy. If she starts kicking, pulling hair, pushing, etc... Then she has resorted to physical force and can be dealt with. I don't mean beating her whatsoever. I mean pick her up, and physically move her to another room (you may be bitten, deal with it for now - I don't know if its appropriate, but maybe bite her back? <-- Not hard at all, just to proove a point). Lock the door of the room you are in and don't allow her to be with you guys. She will still be annoying in the other room. I am sure she will make you hear her. But at least your time will be a little more relaxing. Eventually she will tire in the other rooms (I suggest removing anything that can be broken). If you do this, it must be consistent. The second you switch back to the old mode is the second she "wins." To her it will become a contest. I hope this helps. I would suggest running it by someone more qualified before trying it. Perhaps someone else could comment on my post? EDIT: If you think its acutally a disease, make sure its verified 100% and that its not just a pained/ frustrated/ bratty kid. The worst thing you can do is falsely blame it on a disease and treat her for it. This will kill her self esteem even more and will not address the problem. Its an avoidance method and an excuse for her behavior.

Hey guys, its best to look at the original texts before making assumptions. Miseleigh, your quote Woman Qua Woman is missing quite a bit. It has been edited. You can find it in the Lexicon as an explanation of Feminity. You can also read the original which is the article: "An answer to Readers (About a Woman President)" <-- The Objectivist, Dec. 1968, 1.

If you look up to someone, it means that you admire them/ some of the skills they possess. This means that you are impresses with their skills, value their skills, and if you don't already have them, that you want to aspire to gain them. Thinking of romantic partners, you want someone who will improve your life. This means that he person must be someone that shares your values or someone that you admire and want to aspire to be like. For instance, would you (anyone) want to date a person who sits at home and does nothing with their life? What about someone who is always on the road making a lot of money and doesn't give you the time of day? What about someone who values your company, want to spend time with you, works passionately on the things he(she) enjoys the most, and enjoys their life? You are going to want the latter, because it adds the most value to your life. Ok that was very convoluted.

When you are with someone you love, are you posessing them? I think so. When you say to the person you love "I am yours," are you not saying that they have conquered you?

I completely disagree. First, what type of woman is dominique? Is she an objectivist? What does she think of herself? Why does she act? Dominique gets off on destruction (She throws the statue out the window). Dominique does not enjoy life. One of her comments is something like. I like to destroy everything that I see is good because I don't want it to exist in this world. That is one of the key reasons she helps Keating and not Roark. Luckily, she changes over the course of the book. If Rand had said, A large fat bearded woman, would this make any difference? The point is that Dominique, Dagny, etc... are proud of themselves. They are proud of the way they look. They enjoy it and the pleasure others take from it. Again, we are only talking about physical appearance. Slender, and delicate are attractive to most people. Fat, butch, or muscular (extreme) woman are usually not. Also, if someone is fat, what does it say about them? They don't appreciate their body, they don't have much self-respect. If someone is slender, it means that they care & enjoy their body and want to be healthy. Having a good body and looking good says a lot about your personality and self. Yes, there are the exceptions - looking good for others and not for the pride you get out of it. But these people usually lack something else. If you look the actual personalities and traits of these woman, they are all strong. Dagny and Dominque always hold their ground and have very powerful personalities. Compare this to Catherine. She was ordinary, you could probably think pretty, but she didn't really exist. She gave in to everything and it cost her life. Rand does not make these characters delicate because they are woman and because they are unfit for anything. She makes them delicate and beautiful because its attractive and shows that they enjoy their bodies. The fact that Dagny like the feeling of being chained to Hank did not mean that she was week or wanted to be the non-dominante person. It meant that she was connected to him, that he got pleasure out of her, and that she got pleasure out of him wanting her. Once more you are have come to the conclusion that woman are inferior to men when it was not stated or intended. Why? Do you think women are? Do you think the rest of the world actually thinks that? Perhaps the people you grew up around thought this way or told you the world acted this way. I see it rarely. for Miseleigh: Yes, woman and males are different. We covered this already in another thread. Their bodies are physically different, their minds work differently (there are many tests that show this - I think John Stossel did a show on this). Most woman's minds do work more on intuition and feelings. But again, so what? We are humans, we have this astonishing ability to adapt to our surroundings and change as we desire. If someone generally acts on their feelings, it does not mean that they are not thinkers. Nor does it mean that they cannot work and play with their minds to make themselves more of a thinker than a feeler. Note: Being different =/= inferior. So lets not have this argument.

Speaking of programming complexities. Have you looked at any MS products lately. What a load of crap. The software is so buggy and nothing ever seems to work properly. Oh yeah, has anyone seen longhorn lately? Oh thats right. They canned it and decided to create Vista in-house. Anyone know when Vista will come out? Oh thats right. It was postponed again. Has anyone seen or heard about Vista? Oh yeah, even MS admits it is very similar to OSX. My last job was with a partner of MS and we used to joke how MS and innovation were contradictions. MS purchases products and then bundles them together to create a piece of software. What horrid and messy code. And then there is the apple. So clean... Sigh.

Ok here is an interesting one. I am a "P." Or you could call me an ELSNTFP. I scores straight down the middel on EL, SN, and TF. The test actually accounts for these ties. It says, whatever the average is for society, you get the opposite. As a result I am an ENTP. I think its funny when people talk about these tests and say "I am xxxx" (like I just did). That negates the entire point of the test. The MBTI Type Self-Assessment test only tells you what your "preference" is when there is basically no external stimuli. It does nto say what you will do in any particular situation. In other words, if you have to think on your feet or do something that is not part of your "type" you will do it as the situation dictates, not as your "type" dictates. In other words. You have a "Tendency" to be xxxx, but in any given situation, you can adapt and go the other way. Oh yeah, when you take the test in person, they tell you "The test points you in a direction. You decide if it makes sense for you or not." In other words, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt. I also recognized many contradictions in the test. I can't recall any now though.