Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
stellavision

Adopting Husband's Name

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I agree! But in my case, I really wasn't seeing her as an "object of desire". But you don't even have to go so far as to climb mountains, build empires, fight wars...what if you are so inspired by that person...you learn how to write?

It was my way of emphasizing the point of how much of a value such a woman could be. How you concretely seek that value can vary greatly, I'm sure.

There is a Sheena Easton song where she said something to the effect "Men fight wars over women like you." So, women know this, and I know that lots of women want it.

Oh, yes. I agree and have done so in my past. Though I'm pretty sure I actually liked the persons words more than I did them. I'm not saying I didn't like them as a person, it's just, my sole focus was always on their words, more than the writer of them. I then wasn't sure if what I was doing was for the writer or just to get more words out of them. ;) But all those days are seemingly behind me, I'm primarily concerned with my own words now. Dare I say, I might somehow do the same with my words to a reader someday. ...Prinzivalle made a name for himself to get noticed too...

I think that's a matter of determining if you love the person or not, which is a whole different question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was my way of emphasizing the point of how much of a value such a woman could be. How you concretely seek that value can vary greatly, I'm sure.

Yes, I agree.

I think that's a matter of determining if you love the person or not, which is a whole different question.

Yes, definately. This is the first time I actually thought about it that way. All I know is that I already determined I was/am in love...with their words. As for the rest...I...am too busy with my own words to even think about such matters anymore...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One can argue that the term does not describe it well but at the same time I can't think of anything better.

I agree, I would not say that admiration is the best suited word but I think it's better than worship, both respect and admiration contain within them the notion that someone sees a reflection of their values in another person, you can't admire or respect someone without having a reason for either. But the idea of 'worship' is just the effect in the emotional chain, one can worship another person without any attention paid toward a reason or cause. It can be a

I'm sort of stunned that folks have made it through both The Fountainhead and Atlas, and still have a revulsion to the use of the word worship as regards love

I think Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are about a little bit more than equating a woman loving a man with 'worship' don't you think? That whole struggle of the individual vs collectivism, the strike of the mind and all that? This folk is not a mindless automaton just adopts everything I read uncritically, even if it's Rand. I don't particularly think worship is a healthy psychological attitude, it's too much like dependance and 2nd handedness to me, I'm way to busy living my own life to live someone else for them or to have someone following me around like a puppy.

Rand in TF

"That love is reverence, and worship, and glory, and the upward glance. Not a bandage for dirty sores. But they don't know it. Those who speak of love most promiscuously are the ones who've never felt it. They make some sort of feeble stew out of sympathy, compassion, contempt and general indifference, and <tf_445> they call it love. Once you've felt what it means to love as you and I know it—the total passion for the total height—you're incapable of anything less."

These descriptions of love are very powerful to me, with the exception of the use of worship.

And it made her realize that there is a stage of worship which makes the worshiper himself an object of reverence.

See, to me, this is not even compatable with the idea of worship, but I think I am just using admiration in the same manner Rand and everyone here means worship (with an exception later noted)

but the instantaneous sum of its meaning, the knowledge that it was his hand, that it moved as if her flesh were his possession, that its movement was his signature of acceptance under the whole of that achievement which was herself, it was only a sensation of physical pleasure, but it contained her worship of him, of everything that was his person and his life—from the night of the mass meeting in a factory in Wisconsin, to the Atlantis of a valley hidden in the Rocky Mountains

Even though words like reverence and admiration contain an idea of values recognized, this passage makes me think they are not 'active' enough as the word worship is, as this passage contains more than just a recognition and the emotional response to that, and so would the proper idea of an expressed emotion for someone loved. But the lack of a response to values from the idea of worship still bothers me, I have no better word. Wait, I do. Love.

When a man gets down on a knee and proposes to a woman, that's bowing down to.

I wonder what objectivist woman think of this custom, personally I would not like it if anyone ever acted in this manner with me, but I have yet to propose to a woman so I'm not sure if I would do this or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These descriptions of love are very powerful to me, with the exception of the use of worship.

See, to me, this is not even compatable with the idea of worship, but I think I am just using admiration in the same manner Rand and everyone here means worship (with an exception later noted)

I'm guessing those images were very power to Rand too, with the inclusion of the word worship. So maybe the issue as I stated before when I provided you viable definitions of the word, is that you're hung up specifically on the regligious, nay Christian, connotation of the word, which is NOT how Rand meant it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It does - the natural or genetic tendency is the natural difference between men and women.

Hence my objection to Rand on this, "Natural" means nothing to me, it holds no meaning for something to be 'natural' the only thing that matters is what sentient beings choose for themselves. Recognizing physiological differences is one thing, prescribing pyschological dictums (oughts) is entirely different.

Sexually speaking, it does imply that.

So now worship is just something sexually, and is not psychological, is that your position? In other words, a woman as a romantic partner can be independant, assertive, intelligent, passionate, etc, but must be passive and submissive in bed?

Not and have the slightest hope of a romantic relationship with her. Not and have the least bit of masculinity in the context of doing so.

I find this comment particular disagreeable. If a man can not look up a woman, he is either looking at her on an equal level, looking down to her, or indifferent to her. Only looking up to a woman or being equal with her is a foundation for a psychologically fulfilling relationship. Unless you are merely seeking an audience to your greatness, you should admire and respect your woman, both of which can include 'looking up' to her, and she should feel the same. Niether partner should be in a permanent general state of 'worship' of the other, niether scenario is healthy or fulfilling.

Your point is based on the operating definition of masculanity being to be worshipped. But a man properly worthy of the kind of worship mentioned in this thread will be worshipped by many woman, so what guides the man's choice in the woman? Does he merely choose who worships him more? Worship is a paltry foundation for a healthy pyschological relationship. Besides, any man truly worthy of worship in this context is going to be the kind who doesnt want to be worshipped anyway, he will be a man of resounding dedication to his principles and his own individual self and goals, living a life based on achieving his own values regardless of admiration and 'worship' from others.

I frequently have acquintances tell me "you're so smart" and these comments almost inevitably come from someone who is decidely not. Now I think that generally most normal human minds have the same potential, though I know many things, I do not have a greater capacity to learn than any typical person. When someone tells me I'm smart, they are usually doing so in a manner that is absolving themselves of the guilt of not striving to be an intelligent person themselves, as if to say 'lucky you, being born smart, too bad I missed that gene' They say things like "how do you know this" and "wow I wish I could learn that" Well, ya know, I say, there's these things called books, and they have words in them, pretty amazing invention. Oddly, my friends who are actually motivated learners and very intelligent, never say things like that to me, nor do I to them. It's because we both know we are intelligent, and don't feel the need to point it out nor are we unsure of our knowledge unless recognized by another person.

My attitude is the same on this as it is on worship. If someone professes to worshiping me, I would be more inclined to think *they* are living a life not worthy of 'worship' and ought to think more about their own lives and goals. Hence, someone worthy of worship (if you attatch any kind of worth to it) wouldnt particularly care to be worshipped. If worship has no worth, and is blind reverence, than only a person not truly worthy of it would desire it.

She has to be on his level - worthy of him - in terms of being a human being. I.e. in terms of her attributes other than qua masculine and feminine. Not exactly equal but roughly so - at least on the same level as him. Too low and she couldn't spark his interest - too high and she would kill his masculinity in terms of their relationship.

I see a strong parrallel in our attitudes here, it seems you assert that they must be at an equal or near equal level, but with enough of a difference that the women in general will look up to the man intellectually (though I am not sure of that with your comments suggesting this is primarily a psychological-sexual thing, and not a general attitude) I feel, however, that they should be on equal or near equal level, with some things the man looking up to the woman on, and some things the woman looking up to the man on, both being worthy of respect and admiration in many areas but having many of their own interests because they should both be independant life loving rational beings and should be doing things and interested in manifestations of that love of their own existence.

Yes, if a man is perpetually looking up to a woman, it is pyschologically unhealthy, but I think if a woman is perpetually looking up to a man it is as well, or at least not as spiritually or emotionally as fulfilling for the both, so I dont think either should be perpetually looking up to the other, they ought to be able to challenge and stimulate each other on all levels.

Edited by Matus1976

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A definition of worship found on google: feeling of profound love and admiration .

Just plug in "define:worship" in google and you'll find it.

http://www.onelook.com/?w=worship&ls=a

As you will see from various sources in the above link, the definition is most closely associated with religion, be it right or wrong. If Objectivists are to educate others on our philosophy and try to change the world for the better, shouldn't we use terms the rest of the world understands? I understand the rest of the world may be completely at fault for not knowing the actual meaning of words, but part of our job is to educate them, not turn them away by thinking us hypocritical or worse. If I were to go around telling my non-Objectivist friends that I worship my new boyfriend (I don't have a new boyfriend, by the way) they would look at me like I was completely nuts. Who wants to go into a vocabulary discussion just to express how you feel about a loved one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Objectivists are to educate others on our philosophy and try to change the world for the better, shouldn't we use terms the rest of the world understands? I understand the rest of the world may be completely at fault for not knowing the actual meaning of words, but part of our job is to educate them, not turn them away by thinking us hypocritical or worse

I agree to an extent, certainly a word like "selfish" should not be abandoned, Objectivists need to take it back. We have no word in our language now that means to live for one's self without hurting someone else, and since it is a proper and just form of life, it should have the most succent word used for it.

Worship, though, has almost entirely negative connotations with me, and though I would fight to reclaim words that originated in religion yet named valid human emotions and concepts, like reverence and spirituality, I would not fight to reclaim words that have no proper place in a non-sacrificial relationship of mutual respect and admiration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree to an extent, certainly a word like "selfish" should not be abandoned, Objectivists need to take it back.

And for the record, I agree that many words need to be "taken back" but that will be a long process, particularly with religious words, IMO. With regards to the topic of this post and male/female relationships, I agree with Matus1976 that worship is just too negative a word for me to use to describe someone for which I care very deeply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Objectivists are to educate others on our philosophy and try to change the world for the better, shouldn't we use terms the rest of the world understands? I understand the rest of the world may be completely at fault for not knowing the actual meaning of words, but part of our job is to educate them, not turn them away by thinking us hypocritical or worse.
Well, I take a different approach. If we compromise concepts in order to get them across to people, then we haven't in educating anyone. If concepts are essential to the philosophy, then it's worth it to take them back from those who corrupted them. Take "selfishness" for instance. Rand was trying to be "in your face" when she called the book "The Virtue of Selfishness".Christianity corrupted the idea of worship. If you look back at the dictionary definitions I gave, Rand's connotation is in there. It's not like she took over a word and gave it a different meaning. Frankly, I want to take the word back. It's that important.
And for the record, I agree that many words need to be "taken back" but that will be a long process, particularly with religious words, IMO.
So why shrink from the task?
With regards to the topic of this post and male/female relationships, I agree with Matus1976 that worship is just too negative a word for me to use to describe someone for which I care very deeply.
But Kelly, you will admit that we mean the same thing then right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.onelook.com/?w=worship&ls=a

As you will see from various sources in the above link, the definition is most closely associated with religion, be it right or wrong.

Kelly, where do you come up with this claim? The meaning of words is not the "average" of the various connotations it may have. If meanings 1,4, and 7 do not mention religion, then the word can be used in context without carrying a religious connotation at all. That is a valid meaning of the word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frankly, I want to take the word back. It's that important.So why shrink from the task?

I'd most cerainly agree with you, Kendall, but I don't see it as taking back a word. It's still applicable to religion and so forth, whereever it's taken to. It's just a matter of us simply continuing to use it. If someone doesn't understand what we mean when we say "hero worship", then we explain then. What I think is important to say when intro'ing it to refer to it as "hero worship".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd most cerainly agree with you, Kendall, but I don't see it as taking back a word. It's still applicable to religion and so forth, whereever it's taken to. It's just a matter of us simply continuing to use it. If someone doesn't understand what we mean when we say "hero worship", then we explain then. What I think is important to say when intro'ing it to refer to it as "hero worship".

I think that is a very fair comment, and I'd agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that is a very fair comment, and I'd agree.

Great, let me go further. If there were words to take back in your sense of taking back, I think it would have to be "selfish", "selfishness", "capitalism". Would you agree with that too, or did I go to far with it?

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great, let me go further. If there were words to take back in your sense of taking back, I think it would have to be "selfish", "selfishness", "capitalism". Would you agree with that too, or did I go to far with it?

I certainly think worship isn't on the top of the list of concepts, so it's a judgement call. The ones you mention woudl be moreso.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, I would not say that admiration is the best suited word but I think it's better than worship, both respect and admiration contain within them the notion that someone sees a reflection of their values in another person, you can't admire or respect someone without having a reason for either.

The reason why the term 'deep admiration' is not the best fit for what Rand identified is because it is predominantly a platonic emotion. I have been fortunate to have met quiet few men in my life I could deeply admire (sadly far more than women) and yet whatever I felt toward them was/is nothing like the psychological state under discussion.

But the idea of 'worship' is just the effect in the emotional chain, one can worship another person without any attention paid toward a reason or cause.

Some people love for no reason. Should we then abandon the term love or should we claim it back with the RIGHT meaning, as Rand did?

This folk is not a mindless automaton just adopts everything I read uncritically, even if it's Rand.

That is very good.

I don't particularly think worship is a healthy psychological attitude, it's too much like dependance and 2nd handedness to me, I'm way to busy living my own life to live someone else for them or to have someone following me around like a puppy.

Did any of the Rand heroines followed anyone like a puppy? Think about it.

Have you had a chance to read any modern romances? If you did you would notice that women in those stories certainly 'look up' to their always very masculine hero (masculine: both the mind and body strenght) without dependence. In fact, a common theme is woman's emotional struggle (followed by a resolution - there is always a happy ending :lol: ) between her independence vs. this strong overwhelming feeling she now has for this man.

I wonder what objectivist woman think of this custom, personally I would not like it if anyone ever acted in this manner with me, but I have yet to propose to a woman so I'm not sure if I would do this or not.

My reaction is that I don't let myself get preoccupied with trivial things like how someone would propose. A much more important thing would be that the right man for me DID.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hence my objection to Rand on this, "Natural" means nothing to me, it holds no meaning for something to be 'natural' the only thing that matters is what sentient beings choose for themselves. Recognizing physiological differences is one thing, prescribing pyschological dictums (oughts) is entirely different.
Men and women do differ psychologically to some degree. What I experience as a mother, for example, you will never know. We operate within our specific context. I have free will but I also have a body which is a result of years of evolution. I don't think that there has to be (or is) a conflict between the two.
So now worship is just something sexually, and is not psychological...?
That psychological state is tied to sex yes. It is not a platonic emotion.
Worship is a paltry foundation for a healthy pyschological relationship.
Not with the meaning which you give it - which is not what I am trying to describe to you. It is a strawman. Instead of asking what it is, how does it feel - you are attacking it for what it is not.
She has to be on his level - worthy of him - in terms of being a human being. I.e. in terms of her attributes other than qua masculine and feminine.
Correct but then the masculine v.s feminine interplay - make up what we call - romance.
If Objectivists are to educate others on our philosophy and try to change the world for the better, shouldn't we use terms the rest of the world understands?
We claim back the right meaning of many words. One example is the world selfish, as already mentioned. But in the quote I provided Rand said that there are many words which describe human emotions which we have to claim back, because we don't have any other term to describe them and thus those emotions remain un-named leaving us only with an implicit understanding of them (and thus confusion). Edited by ~Sophia~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, a common theme is woman's emotional struggle (followed by a resolution - there is always a happy ending :lol: ) between her independence vs. this strong overwhelming feeling she now has for this man.

First of all, two great posts Sophia.

I am curious about what you describe here. My sense is that this is a false dichotomy that is in some ways brought on by the feminist movement. The idea that worship necessitates subjugation, compromise of independance or any other such thing is exactly what some people here have bought into, and why they have strong emotional reactions against Rand's very valid idea, which is a resolution of the dichotomy, not a capitulation to one side of it.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, two great posts Sophia.

I am curious about what you describe here. My sense is that this is a false dichotomy that is in some ways brought on by the feminist movement. The idea that worship necessitates subjugation, compromise of independance or any other such thing is exactly what some people here have bought into, and why they have strong emotional reactions against Rand's very valid idea, which is a resolution of the dichotomy, not a capitulation to one side of it.

Thoughts?

Yes exactly. Since we don't have an explicit understanding of this psychological state and since there is a lot of mixed/confusing ideas floating out there (like you mentioned feminism) - the stories reflect that. They know that something is 'ringing' true (many women read them) but they don't know exactly what is that makes it FIT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am curious about what you describe here. My sense is that this is a false dichotomy that is in some ways brought on by the feminist movement.

Interesting that you had bought up the feminist movement, Kendall. Last night I was watching Ayn Rand's "The Sanction of the Victim" video on the ARI's registered users page and she had something that I think is pertinent in a way to this discussion, let me transcribe it (check out my skills Jenni!!):

This is during the Q and A session in that video, at around 44:10mins - 44:17mins this is what Ayn Rand says:

"As far as the feminist movement is concerned, I am a male chauvinist. Proudly."

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes exactly. Since we don't have an explicit understanding of this psychological state and since there is a lot of mixed/confusing ideas floating out there (like you mentioned feminism) - the stories reflect that. They know that something is 'ringing' true (many women read them) but they don't know exactly what is that makes it FIT.

....and I for one have only recently come to understand (no thanks to the prevalence of feminist rhetoric) that this wasn't some quirk of Ayn Rand's psychology; that what she was describing is normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes exactly. Since we don't have an explicit understanding of this psychological state and since there is a lot of mixed/confusing ideas floating out there (like you mentioned feminism) - the stories reflect that. They know that something is 'ringing' true (many women read them) but they don't know exactly what is that makes it FIT.
Yeah, that's how I see it. And just so the ladies don't think we're ganging up on them, asking them to "submit" I will say that there is a parallel dichotomy with male psychology that has for all practical purposes emasculated many men today. I used to be a victim of this sort of thinking, being raised by very independant women in the time of the women's lib movement.I think both you and Kelley said that you found very few admirable men today, and I think this is also part of the reason. Too many men who are "wusses", and women who refuse to "need" anyone.
"As far as the feminist movement is concerned, I am a male chauvinist. Proudly."
I love this line! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason why the term 'deep admiration' is not the best fit for what Rand identified is because it is predominantly a platonic emotion.

Excellent point, respect and admiration are extremely limited in that respect. It is the expression of these then we are looking to have a word for. I suggested that Love is an adequate term for that, perhaps we don't need a seperate word, like 'worship' to describe the physical desire and our own emotional response manifestions.

yet whatever I felt toward them was/is nothing like the psychological state under discussion.

So are you suggesting that your progression of emotions go, say, from respect --> admiration --> worship ? to the degree with which they are expressions of your values? Is that last step Love *and* worship. Can you worship someone you do not love?

Some people love for no reason. Should we then abandon the term love or should we claim it back with the RIGHT meaning, as Rand did?

Obviously I feel we should reclaim it, hence my essay on the topic, but I am not sure that 'worship' is such a word. I am open to reconsidering that though.

Did any of the Rand heroines followed anyone like a puppy? Think about it.

No of course not, but one Rand charachter also raped another. Obviously what Rand means by 'worship' is not the negative idea I am portraying here, but I have a hard time spinning worship to have a positive connotation, and I have a problem with an emotion in a romantic relationship which can only be one way.

Have you had a chance to read any modern romances? If you did you would notice that women in those stories certainly 'look up' to their always very masculine hero (masculine: both the mind and body strenght) without dependence.

No, but I take note of the predominat cultural memes on love promulgated by romantic movies and usually see some form of codependance with no acknowledgement of shared values let alone respect or admiration. The dominant narrative of love in movies appears to be the 'mystical' one, where love is magical and mysterious and we have no control over it. What is the common one in modern romance novels? I hope by looking up to their masculine heroes, they have a respect and admiration for them for good things.

I like the relationship between Richard and Kahlan portrayed in the Wizards First Rule series by Terry Goodkind. Neither could be said to be worshipping the other (I dont think) and both can be considered to be heroes, yet they both love, cherish, and admire each other dearly.

Another example might be between Leonidas and his queen in "300", she was not a passive woman who 'worshiped' Leonidas, the story depicted them as both intelligent, passionate, indepenant, rational, and fighters for what they believed in.

In fact, a common theme is woman's emotional struggle (followed by a resolution - there is always a happy ending :lol: ) between her independence vs. this strong overwhelming feeling she now has for this man.

Thats good! too bad more woman don't take that lesson to heart.

My reaction is that I don't let myself get preoccupied with trivial things like how someone would propose. A much more important thing would be that the right man for me DID.

Of course, but lets say this man bowing down was the right man, would you prefer he kneel down and bow to you in proposal, or stand and look you in the eyes?

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....and I for one have only recently come to understand (no thanks to the prevalence of feminist rhetoric) that this wasn't some quirk of Ayn Rand's psychology; that what she was describing is normal.

It took me probably as long, and a failed marriage to boot, to really get this as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sophia, would you prefer to be in a relationship, which I expressed early, that included you, although being nearly equal to your partner, looking up to him in virtually every area (i.e. he is slightly more intelligent than you, slightly more physically attractive, coordinated, etc, slightly more emotionally intelligent, slightly more knowledgeable on pretty much everything you are interested in, etc (or whatever is being meant here by 'looking up to')

OR

One with a partner which is roughly equal to you yet (certainly not inferior) but which you can look up to on many (half?) of the things related to living a good life, and is stimulated by you on the remaining things (thus, I think, facilitating a perpetually mutually challenging and inspiring relationship) This seems to me to be a much more stimulating and healthy relationship.

And this is where worship presents a problem for me, my lover may worship me, but what am I to feel for her? I don't think she should get to feel something for me that I can't feel for her, but perhaps as is indicated here innate pyschological differences make that a necessity, but I am not convinced of that.

- Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And this is where worship presents a problem for me, my lover may worship me, but what am I to feel for her? I don't think she should get to feel something for me that I can't feel for her, but perhaps as is indicated here innate pyschological differences make that a necessity, but I am not convinced of that.

There are things a woman and a male are not going to feel in the same way, not only psychologically, think: physiologically too. It's all about gender, which is metaphysical. So she and you by the very nature of your gender, experience feelings/perspectives/roles differently, IMO.

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×