Tabitha

This is the crux of it for me. I am much more inclined to give to something if I can see the results with my own eyes. I have a problem with tossing $20 here for cancer research, $30 there for another nebulous research project, $15 there for.... However, if I know someone personally who was touched by a certain type of cancer (for example), I would be more inclined to donate.

That's a pretty collectivist way of looking at it! For instance, infertile heterosexual couples and elderly heterosexual couples can't reproduce, which according to your logic renders their love irrelevant. Objectivism isn't concerned with the "survival of the species;" it's concerned with each life as a means and ends to it's own. (This is for the same reason that environmentalist arguments don't fly.)

My Realtor told me this past weekend that according to Realtor ethics, they can no longer say things like "walking path" or "starter home" when they write up ads. Because, don't you know - if you call something a "walking path" you're not being inclusive of those who can't walk(!) And, of course, since not everyone can afford bigger homes down the road, it's not fair to refer to some homes as "starter homes." I believe "empty nesters" is another term they can no longer use.

I have this on now...!

Have you not read any of the posts in this thread?

Yeah, I pretty much do the same. For instance, I might say something like "the homosexuality of so and so" because that rolls off the tongue easier / sounds more natural than "the gayness of so and so." "Gay" is preferred, but "homosexual" still has its place given the context of the sentance.

Yes, "slash words" are cumbersome. I can buy that, though I'm not sure semantic laziness is a good enough reason to abandon it entirely. Rational lesbians (myself included) couldn't care less whether they're called gay or lesbian. For what it's worth, I don't know why "lesbian" even needs to be a word (what function does it serve?), but there ya go. How is gay/lesbian perjorative if it's what people want to be called? Again, if you can see why blacks prefer "black" to "negro," why not simply extend the same courtesy to gays? I just don't get why it's so complicated. No one's asking anyone to do anything labor intensive here. It's not "political correctness" run amok, it's basic respect. For instance, it is also semantically correct to refer to people with mental retardation as "idiots," but we don't do that anymore... and no one cries about being forced into "political correctness" over that one. But "gay" isn't one of those recent trends that people defer to out of political correctness. The word has been around for almost a century. It's not like it's a word that's constantly being updated to fit an agenda, or that anyone's demanding it be changed every five minutes (unless you're dealing with the "GLBT" crowd -- see below). And for myself, "homosexual" conjures up the rightwing Christian mindset, or as I said the "homo" playground insults, which in practice is just as collectivist as the "GLBT" stuff. Which, by the way, I am also against for the reasons you mentioned... and then some. "Gay" is not the same as the GLBT nonsense, and that's where I personally draw the line.

I was wondering about the Rattigan society myself. For instance, they have a group on Facebook, but there are only two people in it! In Peikoff's last podcast he addressed a question someone had asked, which was, "Why is there a proportionately high number of gays in Objectivism?" This question surprised me because it has not been my experience at all. If anything, I've found that most gays and lesbians are put off by Objectivism. If they knew more about Objectivism, perhaps they wouldn't be, as one of the underlying cores of Objectivism is figuring out what you want (rationally, not the whimsical) and living for yourself. I don't know about anyone else, but Objectivism helped me immensly during the coming out process in that it dissuaded me from forcing myself to be something I wasn't just to please other people. Interestingly, on the other hand, I know a high number gay Christians. (Of the "liberal, new age-y, love everyone" Christian variety, not Christian conservatives.) Which, at its core, is all about sacrificing the truth of who you are (among other things) for the sake of other people. Or sadly, when I meet a potential new friend who identifies as a gay Objectivist, they over time reveal themselves to be libertarians with a poor understanding of how and why much of libertarianism isn't even compatable with Objectivism. On a related note, I'm curious about the use of the word "homosexual" in Objectivism. That is, Objectivists seem to favor "homosexual" over the more current "gay/lesbian." I was wondering, is this intentional? Sure, you're only calling a spade a spade. I mean, we are homosexuals, so why not, right? But there seems to be certain ignorance of the history and context of the word. Mainly, we are more than who we sleep with. Being a "homo," as they say, is only a very small part of my life and philosophical outlook. To myself and most other people, "homosexual" is reminiscent of dated medical terminology and schoolyard slurs. That's seriously the first thing I think of when I hear "homosexual." Sure, it's what we are, but over the years the word has taken on a context that makes most people think of rightwing Christians (Pat Robertson on the 700 Club says "homosexual" all the time) or guys in white coats and thick glasses pouring over 1950s textbooks. Using "homosexual" is just as dated as using "negro" when referring to a black person -- and I'm surprised that Objectivism either hasn't caught on to this or seems to be doing this intentionally to send some sort of message. So I'm curious to hear anyone's thoughts on this matter.

THANK YOU!

Rand also thought there was nothing wrong (ie: hazerdous to the self) with smoking, either; as did most people living in the 60s and 70s. It's called gaining new knowledge about the world as it arises and adjusting your thinking accordingly. Scary thought for some, I know. Are you implying that were Rand alive today she would be in disagreement with her own intellectual heir? That's a pretty bold assertion.

I've recently started reading about Reality Therapy, and am having a difficult time distinguishing it from CBT. It seems rational enough, but I don't know what to make of the focus on improvement of relationships. On the outset it seems that relationships are considered a primary (in contrast to the self). Any thoughts?

What! How can you favor Piekoff over an online poster who uses such lofty, intelligent language as "you're on crack."?

"Evolve?" Oh, please. It's called staying in the closet until you're ready to be honest with both yourself and others. Yes, let's argue that individuals should be dishonest to their own minds in order to please others. How very "Objectivist."

I would caution against "spanking" as such as it only teaches the child that you can get your needs met through force, as opposed to reason. That said, the context should be considered. If a child is about to put himself in danger, such as touch a hot stove, then a quick swat is appropriate. The same goes for putting others in physical danger. If for instance a child aggresses toward another child, the parent might grab the 'aggressing' child and remove him from the situation (if the child is small enough). But spanking in situations that reason can be applied is problematic.

No, I obviously don't. If I meant those things, I would have said them. This idea of "force" is your projection.

Oh my! Yes, I just went back to the site and saw there is a full discussion forum...! The philosophical flaws in this movement are obvious, but the central one is that because happiness is an offshoot of production, rational people do not hate their work. I don't mean to imply that ALL rational people love their jobs 100% of the time. A fully rational person could very be in a situation that would keep him from pursuing his ideal work. For instance, many people take so-called "ho-hum" jobs to provide the money and means for future careers that are of value to them. However, such situations are usually temporary and serve a higher value in the end. But by and large I don't know too many Objectivists / Objectivist-leaning people that actually hate their jobs - especially if the are at the stage in there lives that they are doing what one would call a career. ETA: You have got to be kidding me! http://www.whywork.org/action/lifestyle/income.html

Hah!!! The sad thing is that it took me a minute to figure out that this is a joke! (Not sad for myself - sad in that there are people out there who really do think like that!

Wow; thanks for all the responses. I'll be sure to check all these out. What I don't understand is how a good therapist or psychology theorist cannot be Objectivist, or at the very least Objectivist-leaning. If the purpose of therapy is to help the individual strengthen his own self-esteem, doesn't Ellis' (and others') promotion of "social responsibility" (atruism) negate this goal? I've also found this to be true from my own personal experience. I went to a therapist a few years back just for some minor anxiety issues. This woman was a hippie in every sense of the word. She had pictures of herself with Timothy Leery allover her office. No joke! Statues of Buddah, 60s political stickers, the whole nine yards. Because I was aware of her philosophical leanings, I had a hard time talking to her. I went a few times but I began to feel guilty for being "me;" if that makes any sense. I mean, if someone thinks human beings are sacrificial animals, and therefore thinks that I'm a sacrifical animal, how could this person possibly help me? I just find it so disconcerting that so many of my colleagues (people in the mental health field) are left-leaning. Not only is this counterproductive but it's harmful to clients.

I was wondering if anyone has any knowledge of leading (or even not so leading) Objectivist psychologists. This has been becoming a budding interest of mine, but my online searches have left me only with Nathanial Brandon's works. Which are well and good, but there has to be more out there. Right now I'm reading about Albert Ellis' Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT). Has anyone heard of it? I think I'd read about it originally in one of Brandon's books, so I thought I would give it a shot. What's throwing me off is that in priniciple, REBT makes a great deal of sense from an Objectivist standpoint; but Ellis seems to have a lot of weak premises (he questions the value of the ego, for starters!) and is an overall postmodernist. So I'm trying to take REBT for what it might have to offer, but it's always nice when the theorist's personal philosophy is actually in sync with what he's teaching.

I work with many children who carry this diagnosis. 99% of them come from disfunctional homes or are under another form of significant stress. Seriously, look at anyone with "ADD" and you will find another underlying issue. "ADD" does not exist in a vacuum and I find that it is in a way an excuse for treating the symptoms of a problem (the child's reative behaviors) rather than the root of the problem (family dynamics, in most cases). If I were a child living in this culture of irrationality, I would have "ADD" too. Who wouldn't?

Yeah, I would also say that I haven't seen much correlation between one's religion and one's views on homosexuality. If anything, I know more Christian types that are pro-gay out of the whole "love thy neighbor" mindset than I do Christians that are opposed to gays for religious reasons.

I don't know if anyone's seen his movie "Sicko," but at the end it shows him giving a $10,000 check to one of his enemies whose wife lacked health insurance and needed money for an operation or something. (This enemy is the founder of the largest anti-Moore sites on the web.) Of course, you could tell he wanted everyone to react by thinking, "Oh, what a great guy!" But clearly this was an example of passive-aggressive altruism at it's worst. Moore didn't give a damn about this woman, he gave her the money only to prove a point (in promotion of universal health care). Now that's a real sicko!

I find the politics of transgenderism fundamentally contradictory. Transgender activists argue that gender is a "social construct," that we are born male or female ("sex") but that our "genders" are a product of socialization. Also, many believe that these "gender constructs" should be abolished because they are the root of oppression, and yada yada. This is contradictory because if gender is a social construct that should be abolished, then why feed into gender, rather than leave things as they are? How can you say you want to destroy the masculine / feminine dichotomy, but also revel in it? A clearer way of looking at this. Take a boy who has always "felt feminine." According to transgender theory, one's "gender" (in this case, the boy's feminine traits) should be cherished and accepted. But at the same time, they would conclude this means that well, he must really be a girl. This is where I say, wait a minute. If his "femininity" is a construct, why would you need to change your body to fit the very social construct you despise? Wouldn't the real "radical" thing to do is to leave his body alone and let him be as he is? By arguing for sex changes transgender theorists are shooting themselves in the foot. Bottom line: something cannot be both a "social construct" and aninherent trait. If masculine / feminine traits are "constructs" (can be learned), which transgender theorists argue, then they can also be unlearned, and the boy could eventually learn to be more masculine. I have never understood why transgenderism gets lumped with the gay and lesbian movement. (GLBT = "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered.") As others have pointed out in this thread, being gay has nothing to do with being unhappy as your sex. On a further note, I have never understood what bisexuality has to do with the gay rights movement. For instance, a lesbian has nothing in common with a "bisexual" woman married to a man who lives a heterosexual life. It just doesn't make any sense. Interestingly, it was precisely my annoyance with this forced GLBT identity (read: "group politics" / "rights movements") which has lead me away from group politics to individualist politics, and ultimately to Objectivism. I think it's unfortunate that many gays / lesbians are turned off by Objectivism because of Rand's statements. The way I reconcile it is that context is key, and Rand was writing at a time in which homosexuality was more of a mystery than it is today. In the same way is that Rand was a voracious smoker, but during her lifetime, little was known about the hazzards of smoking.

That topic has already been beaten to death in more than one thread. I would suggest using the "search" feature for that one.

Dan's argument has a lot of merit, and I do think it translates well into cases of homosexuality. For instance, I'm gay and I feel just as unsure about having very close friendships with (straight) men as any straight woman here might. Obviously, it's not myself I have to worry about. My experience has been that due to my feminine appearance, most (straight) men either deep down don't believe my sexual orientation or see it as some sort of challenge. Even though the friendship is never going to go any further, the "masculine / feminine" energy is still there, and the fact that it would always remain "unresolved" would be a continual source of tension in the friendship. I feel the same away around lesbians that are exceedingly butch, and with lesbians that are already in relationships. While I have friends of both genders and orientations, my closest friends are straight women.