Tabitha

This is more of a rant than anything, but I'm also looking to hear how other people get through forced "group work," "tasks forces," "team building," you-name-it BS. I work as a school psychologist. The administration has somehow suckered me in to joining a "school improvement counsel," which involves an ambiguous purpose and a hefty chunk of time. To make a long story short, I spent the better part of the afternoon sitting around and listening to rhetoric on the value of collaborative thinking, working towards common goals, and so on and so forth. But, for what? I left with absolutely nothing new. I know I'm not the only one that experiences the same angst and muddiness after "group work." But of course, when you qustion its value you risk accusations of "not being a team player." The problem is that, as Rand said, there is no such thing as a "collective thought." I think that if something needs to be improved, it would get accomplished much more effectively if one person drafted something in writing, and then ran it by a couple other people for correction and improvement. Sitting around and chit-chatting about it only breeds confusion. Is your school (or insert organization) really going to benefit from this time-wasting mumbo-jumbo?! I think not. Does anyone have any good talking points or strategies they use to articulate the purposeless of this stuff?

This hasn't been my experience, which is why I questioned it. From what I see, the "butch-femme" dichotomy in lesbian relationships has completely died out in many circles. The person I'm thinking of (feminine lesbian) says, "If I wanted someone manly, I'd be with a man." My guess is that "butch-femme" was more common in the "old days" (1950s?) because the relative stringency of gender roles at the time might have made it more socially acceptable / encouraging to relate to your "opposite." Yes -- this is starting to make some sense to me now.

This is what I was referring to: My concern was (is?) that Rand does dismiss women based on the collective actions of other women. These responses have all been great, btw. I have started to read the 14-page "Woman President." What I'll likely do is start responding to that thread once I get more into it.

Fair enough; "collectivism" would be a poor choice of term. Well, my point is that she wouldn't write an essay about blacks having a different psychological need, because one's psychology cannot be judged or determind by one's group (black, rich, poor, woman).

A few remarks to the comments on homosexuality: Not all feminine lesbians care much for butch lesbians, and vise versa. In fact, many do not. But even for gay couples that are comprised of one masculine person and one feminine person, hero-worship is null and void because no woman can be 100% masculine all the time, without being a man. The same goes for gay men. So, the bottom line is you are left with either two women or two men. Rand does refer to homosexuality as "immoral," because gay relationships can't fit into the hero-worship model. As such, is she arguing that gays cannot achieve romantic love? This is what I'm getting at. Also, I would argue that gays are covered by the scope of masculinity/femininity, inasmuch masculinity and femininity are defined as human traits.

How does that explain the lesbians out there that live full lives (and the heterosexual women, who despite having rational men, don't feel they are living full lives)? I know a gay female Objectivist, who despite having good friendships with men and otherwise "relates" fine to them... is, well, gay. Where does that place them? Leaving aside the "can of worms" homosexuality itself opens, it certainly wouldn't be in her rational self-interest to pursue a romantic relationship with a man. Doing such a thing would lead to undue stress and depression. On another note, Rand herself didn't exactly put her man before her career -- in the sense that she was considerably nontraditional. Furthermore, isn't it up to the individual to decide his own self-interest? Mind you, I'm not referring to the subjectivist, whimsical, anything-goes, "what's good for me may not be good for you" mentality. Rather, I'm referring to individuals deciding for themselves their own goals and romantic partners (all based on rational values, which, in turn, are the only way to achieve true happiness). I recognize the "men and women are metaphysically different" argument and the idea that sex/gender is a different grouping from race. Yet, for the reasons stated above which I could get into later when I have more time, I still find hero-worship problematic. (Again, I have yet to read up on it, which may be why. I'm just responding to this thread quickly before I run out to work.)

I'm on a mailing list for the Tufts University Ayn Rand club. It seems well organized and is considerably thriving. I've never been to a meeting; I just read the emails. I'm 28, so I think I would feel more comfortable in a mixed-age group (as opposed to one comprised of mostly college students). In an online search I found a meetup.com Boston Objectivist club, which may be worth checking out.

What do you make of the "hero worship" concept?

Sorry; I was quoting DavidOdden's first response (still in the process of mastering this message board). I plan to read the essay. My point is that grouping women, or anyone, is a form of collectivism. Again, it would be unacceptable to Rand to write an essay on "Black Presidents," as referring to people in terms of their categories is the antithesis of viewing merit before all else. This is a purely semantic issue, but I'm curious about the use of the term "woman Presidents" as opposed to female Presidents. "Female" (like "male"), is an adjective; "woman" is not. For instance, one would never say "man President" -- It's "male President." I hear teenagers speak like this all the time, saying things like, "I'm a fine female." But it sounds so dissonant coming from scholars. I realize this is a digression from the issue at hand; I just think it's worth pointing out. Anyhoo, I'll come back to this topic again once I have read more.

Well, I'm from Mass. (I was about to start a Massachusetts thread, but I don't think it's worth it!)

For the same reason that she sees a man as being a "man" first (though without the scare quotes). Although I don't actually recall ever having seen her say anything like "I think all women must be women first". If she said anything that resembles such a statement, I believe it would also lead to the conclusion that red-heads should be red-heads first, dog should be dogs first and so on. I'm referring to the conflict / contradiction of perceiving women as feminine beings before perceiving them as rational (human) beings -- of the reflexive dismissal of a female President (thanks for the other links, btw -- I see this has already been addressed elsewhere) because of the person's category (female). Rand would never dismiss a redhead or Black person from attaining firsthand rationality. Why are certain professions for women "improper?" Why is gender an automatic roadblock, but other traits (skin color, height) aren't? That's what I'm getting at.

I picked up this book the other day. I’m a quarter of the way through it, and the book’s thesis is still unclear to me. In particular, there is a piece by Camile Paglia, who is not only non-feminist, but has an embarrassingly poor understanding of Objectivism. In her two-page essay, she describes Rand as a "fellow Libertarian" (which Rand was not), dismisses her "intolerance towards religion" and accuses her of being "elitist" against the "working class." Paglia has always appalled me, but this I found especially frivolous. Scanning through the rest of the book, I noticed that one of the essays is by Wendy McElroy, founder of "Individualist Feminism"—which is a contradiction in terms (as Feminism, by definition, deals with group rights). To be clear, I’m not a feminist. Though the inherent collectivism is my biggest objection to feminism, another piece is that the contradictions in the feminist movement are glaring. For instance, the insistence of most feminists that women are oppressed… but simultaneously, might be “empowered” by turning to "sex work" (which, let’s face it, is a euphemism for prostitution)… but, I digress. I chose to read this book because I’m seeking clarity on Rand’s views of sex and gender, which, despite being a solid Objectivist, I do find problematic. The main question I have is: If people are to be regarded as individuals, why does Rand see a woman as a "woman" first? Susan Brown, one of the contributors in this book, sums this up as "a cultural model of gender that dichotomizes human characteristics in such a way as to cause people to choose between their sexual identity and their human identity." To put it bluntly, by categorizing women as being a certain way (the infamous "women president" comment) as a group before meeting a given individual woman, how is Rand not practicing the very racism she opposes? (Women, of course, are not a race. I’m referring to Rand’s essay, "Racism," in which she discusses the problem with judging individuals based on the group to which they belong.) I’m aware that sex / gender and metaphysically different than race and other "groups." That said, I still have a few questions / concerns. Are there any books or other reading material that actually deal with these questions, from an Objectivist standpoint (which I don’t think this particular book does)?

This book paints a particularly great illustration of Leftist hypocrisy: cow-towing to a pet group (Islamic extremists) that couldn't be more anti-gay!

If I lived in Sweden, I would have a huge problem with being forced to pay for other people to have and raise kids (among other things). Maternal and paternal leaves are 18 months per child; half is paid by the employer and the other half, by the state. Why should individual citizens be forced to subsidize your decisions (or anything, really) -- especially when the upshot is the creation of another generation of mooching?

I'm surprised the concept of the right to reason hasn't been brought up yet. I live above someone who blasts her TV to the point that I can hear the actual words being spoken. This interferes with my (and others') ability to read, study, think and produce -- to use my mind. While the arguments about property rights and ownership of sound molecules are worthwhile and not wasted, the bigger issue is a) People's desires to atrophy their brains -- their minds -- through these destructive practices* and b ) the fact that such noise is preventing others from using their minds, to their fullest capacities, on their own properties. *By "destrictive practices," I refer not to playing music, watching TV, hosting guests, and other noisy activities, but to what can (rightfully) be inferred about people who do these things on a continual basis -- to the point of having irrational (unproductive) lives.