Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Adopting Husband's Name

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

The cultural norm is irrelevant. The point of the symbolic gesture is to communicate your affection to your lover, and your lover only. What's more, it is an optional gesture. You could just as well tattoo your lover's name on your arse in giant block letters to express the same feelings. It does not matter a twit how others interpret your statement as long as it is understood by your other half.

I disagree that a tattoo could just as well "express the same feelings." I have Ayn Rand tattoed across the fingers of my left fist and another woman's name on the inside of my bottom lip (they are my two favorite and most influential writers), but neither of those express the same feelings as the other said symbolic gesture, even if dare I say the latter was *somehow* my lover as in your example. The difference is rather enormous to me and I'm absolutely sure the woman whose name is on the inside of my lip would agree that there is an enormous difference even if there was, dare I say, love involved. The symbolic gesture of changing your name upon marriage does not "express the same feelings" as tatooing a lovers name on you.

And as Inspector said, in which I completely agree with:

The symbolism is still there, regardless. The fact is that you do live in a culture where this is the norm, so like it or not you will be making a statement if you refrain. This is not a subjective matter.
(bold mine) Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps this is why there aren't more women Objectivists out there?

Bingo.

I have read every piece of Objectivist literature on the nature of men and women, backwards and forwards, and I still cannot reconcile Rand's philosophy of femininity with my own. I would say she has me sold about 95%. She has me up through the "hero-worship" concept, but when it comes to placing my femininity before my individuality... no thanks, I'm all set on that.

And, quite frankly, it is this (and only this) that makes me wonder if people who argue that Objectivism is simply code for "Conservativsim" really aren't that far off the field.

(ETA: I responded to K-Mac's quote as it stands outside the context of the particulars of her separate discussions on this thread.)

Edited by Tabitha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear with folks, Rand's views on the topic are NOT Objectivist philosophy. These are the realm of psychology, not philosophy. They are assertions about the nature of feminity that Rand took to be true, but offered up little evidence that it was so. One can argue from a point of view of man's nature, but then one has to prove that this actually is man's and women's nature. Most offer up introspective arguments, which is a bit dangerous.

Tabitha, I'm curious how you think that Rand argues anywhere that femininity involves giving up one's individuality? How do you reconcile your admitted idea of hero-worship with not conceding your individuality.

I find most people who make this a big issue either

a. misrepresent what Rand said entirely. OR

b. make their own introspective argument. i.e. "I don't feel this way."

b is fine with me. It could be that there is room enough for both within a definition of femininity or it could be that one introspection is wrong and the other is right. Either way, I don't think psychology has determined enough to say. Either way, one can still be an Objectivist and disagree with this point.

a however, is the one I take issue with, mostly because it is usually someone putting words in Rand's mouth, either explicitly or by implication.

From "About a Woman President" [emphasis mine]

The issue is primarily psychological. It involves a woman's fundamental view of life, of herself and of her basic values. For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero worship—the desire to look up to man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear with folks, Rand's views on the topic are NOT Objectivist philosophy. These are the realm of psychology, not philosophy. They are assertions about the nature of feminity that Rand took to be true, but offered up little evidence that it was so. One can argue from a point of view of man's nature, but then one has to prove that this actually is man's and women's nature. Most offer up introspective arguments, which is a bit dangerous.

This is an astute observation. Well said.

Tabitha, I'm curious how you think that Rand argues anywhere that femininity involves giving up one's individuality? How do you reconcile your admitted idea of hero-worship with not conceding your individuality.

I would like to think that I'm a person first, woman second. Sure, teasing the two apart is inconceivable; I'll grant you that. But when a person (woman) is expected to make decisions based on her sex, rather than based on her own reason, that's where I draw the line.

It is shameful to argue otherwise, for a philsophy that prides itself on upholding reason of the individual -- outside of race, sex, or any other external characteristic. I'm not suggesting Rand or anyone here has done this. I say this more out of fear of potential obfuscation of Objectivism as a movement. Though I find the term "hero-worshiping" a bit silly, I agree with its underlying argument.

I find most people who make this a big issue either

a. misrepresent what Rand said entirely. OR

b. make their own introspective argument. i.e. "I don't feel this way."

b is fine with me. It could be that there is room enough for both within a definition of femininity or it could be that one introspection is wrong and the other is right. Either way, I don't think psychology has determined enough to say. Either way, one can still be an Objectivist and disagree with this point.

a however, is the one I take issue with, mostly because it is usually someone putting words in Rand's mouth, either explicitly or by implication.

Agreed. I would never put words in Rand's (or anyone's) mouth. I am speaking from my personal reading / thinking experiences only.

Edited by Tabitha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From "About a Woman President" [emphasis mine]

The issue is primarily psychological. It involves a woman's fundamental view of life, of herself and of her basic values. For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero worship—the desire to look up to man.

That's all well and good, but she apparently put this on her own back burner when she was aggressively pursuing her passion (of being a highly successful writer). That doesn't exactly smack of femininity.

And she should have done exactly that. Any woman of self-esteem looks up to herself (pursues her own interests) before she "looks up to a man." At the same time, she clearly loved him in a way that was whole.

I don't have any answers. I'm just along for the journey of hashing out my own thoughts on the matter.

Edited by Tabitha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Far worse than putting words in my mouth, which you've done, you tried to tell me what I feel and what I think is symbolic. No one can tell me how I think or feel or whether what I am doing is symbolic or not. Speak for yourself and NOT FOR ME!!!

I'm not telling you what you feel. I am simply pointing out that what you do feel is not as relevant to the argument as you think it is. Your feelings do not determine the meaning of an action - at least, not in the way that you're taking them to.

As I said,

The point is that simply saying that you "feel another way" does not justify your choice. As I illustrated above, there are all manner of irrational reasons why a person might "feel another way." What you need to figure out is why you feel another way [and if it is rational to do so]. You don't just get to say "well I feel differently and that's goodie, end of story."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said,

QUOTE('Inspector')

The point is that simply saying that you "feel another way" does not justify your choice. As I illustrated above, there are all manner of irrational reasons why a person might "feel another way." What you need to figure out is why you feel another way [and if it is rational to do so]. You don't just get to say "well I feel differently and that's goodie, end of story."

I left it at "end of story" because in my multiple previous posts on this subject, I thought I had laid out why I feel another way and why I find it rational. Me and a few others had already presented our cases and were at the point of agreeing to disagree. I was trying not to be redundant. Redundancy makes the forum boring.

And Kendall and Tabitha, thank you for great posts. Gave me more stuff to think about. :)

Edited by K-Mac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's all well and good, but she apparently put this on her own back burner when she was aggressively pursuing her passion (of being a highly successful writer). That doesn't exactly smack of femininity.

And she should have done exactly that. Any woman of self-esteem looks up to herself (pursues her own interests) before she "looks up to a man." At the same time, she clearly loved him in a way that was whole.

See Tabitha here is where I have an issue. Could you please very clearly show me how exactly you get from what Rand said to your statement that "she put this on the back burner" when she pursued her writing career? What is "this"? How do you get for "hero worship" to "one must put their career on the back burner to do it"? Wehre does she say that a woman shouldn't pursue her own interests before looking up to a man?

I submit to you, that you've got is all wrong. I've also read most everything Rand had to say on the topic and she says no such thing anywhere. She didn't put any of her principles on the back burner to become a successful writer. Her discussion of this topic doesn't even have to do with career, and she says as much in the woman president article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's fine, but it doesn't really address the matter at hand. We're saying this is a matter of Human Nature, as you put it, and since you do agree with that, then we've come full circle.

No, because Human Nature, as I was trying to establish, is only made partly of what is 'natural' to humans, i.e., the psychological tendancies we have because of evolution. Some aspects of human nature that come from natural tendancies might be good things to temper with volitional checks, doing so repeatedly habitualizes that behavior and removes it from one's "Nature" Men, by nature, prefer passive women and small communist social groups, neither of which are conducive (my conjecture) to long term healthy inspiring romantic relationships.

By human nature, you might mean a series of behavior consitent to all 'humans' or do you mean the nature of behavior conducive to rational beings? If the former, in reconciling free will with genetic inclination it becomes clear that if all humans in effect choose to behave in a manner poor compared to the standards of the later; a rational entity, than using 'human nature' as a standard is equitable to mobocracy. If the later idea of Human Nature is something we choose for ourselves which is most conducive to our long term pyschological health and well being as rational independant entities, than 'worship' might or might not be a good component of that.

Or, is "Human Nature" (like 'instict') those things common to all humans without exception?

I think you would have a hard time make the case that a woman worshipping a man is a fundamental component of "Human Nature" So what aspects of what is natural to humans do you choose to allow to be intergrated into your nature? A woman may choose to worship her man, but the reasons she does may very and the ultimate psychological healthyness of this attitude is still questionable depending on what kind of relationship she desires (and would never be conducive to the kind of mutually stimulating relationship I am talking about)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are not. Sorry, I hope I did not irritate you. I just saw similarity of argument.

What I was refering to was that the theory of socialism assumes man as self-less instead of selfish. In communism, it was argued that a man does not have to accept how the nature made him, that he can get beyond his animal selfishness and by choice become (or at least strive for) something 'better', more sophisticated, self-less version. You know how well that worked.

I do believe that to a great extend we are self made; that we chose our character; that we can and should be in charge of our emotions in terms of making sure that they reflect our concious convictions. At the same time I don't believe that a man is somehow outside of the law of identity because of free will. I can certainly choose to act selflessly but it won't be good for me; I won't flourish that way. I can't somehow escape what I am.

This issue under discussion is no different.

No you did not irritate me, but I understand now why you made that interpretation. Essentially my comments do suggest that, and essentially I do believe that we can volitionally choose our nature, with time and effort, over a long time. BUT, that does not mean that no matter what you choose to integrate is good and psychologically healthy for you, in this case, the choice of the self to be self-less can be nothing by pyschologically damaging.

So I would say, in a way, because we will always exist as independant entities that require material sustenance for existence, a self could never adopt an anti-self pyschological with positive results, even though mechanically it is possible, it would only achieve either zen like nihilism with no recognition or desire to exist. So because we are still physical entities we do still fall under the law of identity, but that identity is primarily that of an independent rational entity that exists, not much else (like a woman worshipping a man) falls under that catagory.

And flourishing is exactly what i am talking about, how much can I flourish in a relationship with a woman who is so far my inferior that she 'worships' me, conversely, if worship is undertaken regardless of level differences, (as Rand suggests) than it doesnt really mean anything, it's like admiring or respecting for it's own sake just because it feels good to admire someone.

Ultimately I am looking to identify the psychological attitudes to adopt which are most conducive to long term human flourishing (the most common translation of Aristotlean Eudaimonism)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A BINGO for Tabitah on

She has me up through the "hero-worship" concept, but when it comes to placing my femininity before my individuality... no thanks, I'm all set on that.

That is exactly my theme here, as I said early on, Rand did not sufficiently elevate individuality to its proper level, that is above everything else as evidence by her comments on the necessity for a female to 'hero worship' a male, her comments in general about a woman president, and her comments on homosexuality. Axiomatically elevating these things above individuality is just another (and obvious to me anyway) form of collectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is exactly my theme here, as I said early on, Rand did not sufficiently elevate individuality to its proper level, that is above everything else as evidence by her comments on the necessity for a female to 'hero worship' a male, her comments in general about a woman president, and her comments on homosexuality. Axiomatically elevating these things above individuality is just another (and obvious to me anyway) form of collectivism.

Well, be careful here. Claims of individuality are often veiled forms of subjectivism, so to somehow claim that Rand is committing this fallacy is something to be really careful about.

Does this mean that if it is not in my nature to be rational that I have no moral impetus to do it. The argument from the objective nature of something is not what you claim per se. It is the province of psychology to prove whether or not Rand's view of feminity is generalizable.

Stop implying this is a philosophical argument.

We axiomatically elevate reason above individuality. Is that a form of collectivism too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recognizing physiological differences is one thing, prescribing pyschological dictums (oughts) is entirely different

I did not say that NO OUGHTS can ever come from ANY IS's Do you suggest that ALL IS's should automatically be made in OUGHTS?

what is essential is that there are at least enough contexts where it is in play

The points of contention seem to be

1) Should a woman look up to a man, a man to a women, or roughly equal in a psychologically healthy long term relationship

2) Whether 'worship' should be a part of the way the woman looks up to the man, or the man to the women, and if that is an appropriate term for it.

Our position again does not seem to differ *too* much. You seem to suggest that this 'looking up to' dynamic needs to be in play on at least some contexts, though not necessarily all, and not to too much of an extreme. But in all cases, either they are equal, or the Woman must look up to the man where the dynamic is at play, but the man can not look up to the woman in anything (or at least only a very small portion of things)

My conjecture is that the number of dynamic differences should be roughly equal (or soon become so) so that a man can admire his woman and a woman can admire her man, this I think is more conducive to a long term healthy psychological relationship (is not Rand's affair with Natheniel Branden a decent example of this? Though it seems she loved and admired Frank, perhaps she did not look up to him in enough ways or to a great enough extent) conversely, as she asserts in Atlas Shrugged, a man will want the women who is the 'strongest, hardest to conquer' clearly a man must respect and admire his woman. To what extent should he for a pyschologically healthy relationship is the nature of the quesiton here.

You said:

The best of them, as long as he doesnt look up to her in any scenario, correct?

In response to my

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?

but you dropped the context of the question, which was :

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?

If the essence of masculinity is to be worshipped then he ought to like the woman who worships him the most. If not, why?

Well, I disagree.

Thats good, but why do you disagree? Properly, especially according to objectivism, a person ought to create and achieve for his own pyschological amibitions and well being and as a manifestation of his love of existence. His achievements and attitude toward life come from the manifestations of his deepest values, and AS SUCH ought to be completely dissaociated from the fact that another person worships him because of those achievements, because that would mean the goal of his achievements was achieving the worship of another person, an awfully second handed existence. The only reason I can think of that one might disagree is because they are not worthy of worship, yet enjoy it immensely anyway, or their ultimate purpose in achieving was to secure worship from others.

The intellect is an equal attribute between the sexes, so I don't think it's the most essential in this regard. Of course, it could be essential for other aspects of a relationship; it's just not for this aspect.

If not necessarily the intellectual, what aspects ought a women look up to and worship a man for? What aspects ought a man never look up to a woman for?

I do not want to imply here that I would be 'keeping score' in such a relationship, I think you can judge or get a sense of the relative levels of each other in various areas with a little bit of interaction, enough to know how good it would be to further pursue something or not.

You seem unsure of this. It seems like you're willing to see it's a total relationship-killer for a man to be a worshipper but only that it would be "at least not as spiritually or emotionally as fulfilling" for the woman to be in that role. Interesting.

I am unsure, though my opinion is pretty strong, I am open to being convinced that is necessary and proper in a long term healthy relationship for a woman to look up to a man to such an extent that 'hero worship' would be applicable, but I am skeptical of this, and do not think it to be the case.

I think you somewhat understand this issue, but are reluctant to acknowledge it because you think it will mean a number of bad things which it really doesn't

I dont think the results would be any more unhealthy than that of typical relationships, and if you are all ready both objectivists you probably share a great many common values and can have a healthy and relatively fulfilling relationship, but I dont think it would be as good for the man and ultimately the woman in the long run if he does not have some intellectual, emotional, spiritual stimulation from the relationship, ideally, I think both partners ought to have a great amount of stimulation in all these areas from each other, with constant growth inspiration, where perhaps many individual areas of relative superiority would swing back and forth over time as each learn new things and feed and grow off of each others knowledge and discussion.

because frankly it's wonderful.

I don't doubt that, but I think it could even be more wonderful for both people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, be careful here. Claims of individuality are often veiled forms of subjectivism, so to somehow claim that Rand is committing this fallacy is something to be really careful about.

Does this mean that if it is not in my nature to be rational that I have no moral impetus to do it. The argument from the objective nature of something is not what you claim per se. It is the province of psychology to prove whether or not Rand's view of feminity is generalizable.

Stop implying this is a philosophical argument.

We axiomatically elevate reason above individuality. Is that a form of collectivism too?

I said to ~Sophia~

So I would say, in a way, because we will always exist as independant entities that require material sustenance for existence, a self could never adopt an anti-self pyschological with positive results, even though mechanically it is possible, it would only achieve either zen like nihilism with no recognition or desire to exist. So because we are still physical entities we do still fall under the law of identity, but that identity is primarily that of an independent rational entity that exists, not much else (like a woman worshipping a man) falls under that catagory.

We are principally rational individual entities which exist in the real world, abandoning or negating any of those will automatically lead to our deaths, so no, 'individuality' can not be elevated above and usurp the very concept of existence and reason and individuality, *you* can not 'choose' to not exist as an individual entity, unless you kill yourself (either slowly or quickly)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Men, by nature, prefer passive women and small communist social groups, neither of which are conducive (my conjecture) to long term healthy inspiring romantic relationships.

I don't think you can prove that assertion. Human nature is such that men, by nature, don't prefer anything. They are born blank slate. This isn't about what people prefer by nature - it's about what their nature implies they ought to prefer.

Let's try to get this down to something simple. Are you attracted to women who are larger and more muscular than yourself? Do you think this is right? Are women attracted to men who are larger and more muscular then themselves? Do you think that is right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not say that NO OUGHTS can ever come from ANY IS's Do you suggest that ALL IS's should automatically be made in OUGHTS?

Well, yeah:

every "is" implies an "ought."

conversely, as she asserts in Atlas Shrugged, a man will want the women who is the 'strongest, hardest to conquer' clearly a man must respect and admire his woman.

This is key - it even answers your later question.

You said:

I didn't say that - you're misquoting me.

If the essence of masculinity is to be worshipped then he ought to like the woman who worships him the most. If not, why?

The reason why not is that his goal is not "to be worshiped;" it is "to conquer." I.e. that the value of his conquest is tied to its difficulty. To get a more independent woman to become his worshiper is of greater value than a woman who will worship anyone and anything. It's the same reason why the sexual conquest of a slut is not an achievement.

His achievements and attitude toward life come from the manifestations of his deepest values, and AS SUCH ought to be completely dissaociated from the fact that another person worships him because of those achievements, because that would mean the goal of his achievements was achieving the worship of another person, an awfully second handed existence.

So you're saying that relationships, as such, are second handed? This is why I hate these discussions so much - because a lot of people, when learning Objectivism, drop all common sense instead of integrating it and only dropping the bad bits.

If not necessarily the intellectual, what aspects ought a women look up to and worship a man for?

The most essential is, as I said, strength. But of course this isn't just physical strength, but all kinds of strength. But more specifically, all those attributes in which man is metaphysically different from woman. I.e. testosterone doesn't just make one physically stronger, but also more sexually initiative, etc. Again, naturally, this is not to drop or ignore the rest of ethics - so it's as much about a man who uses his strength for good as anything else.

And beyond that - the man has to recognize that it is a metaphysical difference - to be magnanimous in his conquest. So his superiority in this regard to a woman would not be seen in the same way as if he defeats another man in such a contest. If you've seen the show Scrubs, where Turk wins against Carla in arm wrestling, then you see the (comically) wrong attitude. (if you haven't seen it - he's all like, "IN YOUR FACE! THAT IS WHAT YOU GET WHEN YOU MESS WITH THE WARRIOR!!!)

What aspects ought a man never look up to a woman for?

Strength, specifically. If a man is sexually excited when a woman is stronger than him, that is a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Essentially my comments do suggest that, and essentially I do believe that we can volitionally choose our nature, with time and effort, over a long time.

Well, I do believe that we can alter our personality somewhat if we don't buy into the idea of being a certain and rigid type. I think the boundries of our behavioral preferences can be stretched by a lot. Also, we can be in charge of our psychology to a great extend especially when it comes to things like mood control, making sure that our emotions are in line with our conscious convictions, control of our behavior, motivation ect.

But I can not somehow alter the fact that I am heterosexual or that psychologically I feel like a gender: female. My body physiologically goes through menstrual cycle and gets very weak physically at times which affects my psychology. I also can not somehow will myself into being attracted to mentally weaker than me men, even if they are a lot more knowledgable, more competent, physically stronger. I can not change the fact that I have a very strong nurturing side, which got even more reinforced by experiences such as breastfeeding. I can evade it, try to push is aside, num myself to it, if you will, but I can't get rid of the preference. I would not be able to change those things and flourish no matter how much time I would try to work on it.

BUT, that does not mean that no matter what you choose to integrate is good and psychologically healthy for you, in this case, the choice of the self to be self-less can be nothing by pyschologically damaging.

But what is psychologically healthy depends on my nature as a human female and if that can change, as you claim, then what is proper to flourish also changes.

In the example of self I gave - the idea was that we can (they claimed) change our nature to become less of a self and more of a collective type of being to whom living for the good of everyone will be as equally rewarding as living for self is to us, right now.

So because we are still physical entities we do still fall under the law of identity, but that identity is primarily that of an independent rational entity that exists, not much else (like a woman worshipping a man) falls under that catagory.

My gender is part of my identity.

And flourishing is exactly what i am talking about, how much can I flourish in a relationship with a woman who is so far my inferior that she 'worships' me, conversely, if worship is undertaken regardless of level differences, (as Rand suggests) than it doesnt really mean anything, it's like admiring or respecting for it's own sake just because it feels good to admire someone.

Why do you continue to assume inferiority? That "edge" which I mentioned is more of a mental strength/mental presence than anything else because a man can be more knowledgable, more successful, physically bigger, heck he can be a genius, and yet if I feel that I am stronger - that 'looking up to' won't happen.

You also continue to asign a wrong meaning to what we are discussing because you focus on the term worship. Think of it as purely a reaction to man's masculinity, and especially his mental strength and NOT to his virtues (which a woman has to match). Admiration is the emotion which 'covers' his virtues (notice that virtues are gender neutral and and so is admiration).

So, "looking up to" is a gender specific psychological reaction (not behavior), a reaction to man's masculinity or his masculine presence. This term only applies to the sphere of femininity v.s masculinity interplay and not his virtues vs. her virtues.

Ultimately I am looking to identify the psychological attitudes to adopt which are most conducive to long term human flourishing

I belive that if both genders would gain a better understanding of this issue it would improve everyone's flourishing.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, "looking up to" is a gender specific psychological reaction (not behavior), a reaction to man's masculinity.

Sophia, that was a wonderfully said reply, I especially liked this quote, but I'd prefer to say "response" instead of "reaction". Your post has gotten me to understand further the role physiology plays in this as well, in its effect on a womans psychology and vice versa.

I belive that if both genders would gain a better understanding of this issue it would improve everyone's flourishing.

Yes! :thumbsup:

That "edge" which I mentioned is more of a mental strength/mental presence than anything else because a man can be more knowledgable, more successful, physically bigger, heck he can be a genius and yet if I feel that I am stronger - that 'looking up to' won't happen.

Exactly! Such as if you are a better writer than he even, I suppose... but you identified the essential in that the "looking up to" part.

You also continue to asign a wrong meaning to what we are discussing because you focus on the term worship.

Dare I say, one might think he'd be able to asign the right meaning to the word "worship" considering his signature... I actually wonder why it doesn't appear... Maybe it'd look like this at the end of his sig: And a Woman to Worship Me. Fitting, actually, because it's using the same sense he is with the rest...(spoken in the same language as the rest is basically)(though i personally don't speak like that) (i've seen someone else say that reason was their god and that they were His messenger. if i were to use that kind of language i'd say - too bad they don't always relay the messages right...)

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you can prove that assertion. Human nature is such that men, by nature, don't prefer anything. They are born blank slate. This isn't about what people prefer by nature - it's about what their nature implies they ought to prefer.

This is utterly completely scientifically inaccurate. I realize this was a conjecture of Rand, and in a way she was correct, but in a very specific way, and absolutely not in the general way you use it, but in fact I believe she was more correct than most people feel in that specific. It's clear to absolutely anyone who studies evolutionary biology that people are NOT born with a 'blank slate' in the sense of absolutely no pre-existing tendency toward one behavior or another, thousands of simple statistical correlations and observations prove this beyond any reasonable doubt. For instance, in identical twins reared apart, if one is gay, the other has a 50% chance of being gay. There is absolutely no way to explain this except by suggesting that a genetic code *influences* behavior. Our personalities and minds are not literally blank slates, they are Figuratively blank slates. They have writing and instructions, but you can change those, or your environment can change them, or your social upringing can change them. Those influences absolutely do not have complete control. In the sense that we ultimately determine our personality by choosing of full volitional awareness to do something, or revert back to genetical or socially habitually inclined behavior is entirely up to us, but not choosing merely reverts to those things, it does not revert to a 'blank slate' like you use it.

Aristotle opined that all human behavior is one of four things 1) chance 2) nature 3) habit 4) choice, an amazingly rational and prescient statement which still rings true today. Our behavior and 'human nature' are ultimately a complex interaction of all of these, where each can override the previous. Our genes, unlike animals, ultimately said your intelligent rational mind does a better job at procreating than all of our pre-programmed behavior, but should you not choose to use that rational mind, we'll take over. Unless you are planning to overthrow the whole of biological genetics, you need to acknowledge the existence of genetic influences in behavior. Simultaneously though, our volitional consciouses can over write that programming with effort, the two are not a zero sum competition and are a false dichotomy anyway.

Interestingly, the debate is commonly between 'nature vs nurture' which surprisingly completely omits choice! What are ridiculous debate, arguing if all your behavior is pre-determined either by nature or environment, and not at all possibly from choice or chance.

Let's try to get this down to something simple. Are you attracted to women who are larger and more muscular than yourself?

No I am not

Do you think this is right? Are women attracted to men who are larger and more muscular then themselves? Do you think that is right?

I am not bothered by it, but I also don't think that's how things 'ought' to be, going from Men are attracted to women smaller than them to Men OUGHT to be attracted to women smaller than them is an example of an is to ought that is not valid, it is not my place to tell another man what would make him happy. I can present reasons why that might not be the most conducive to a long term pyschologically healthy relationship, but they might not even be applicable to him, if he happens to like those kinds of girls, for whatever complex interaction between his genes, environment, and choices ended up making him like that kind of woman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can present reasons why that might not be the most conducive to a long term pyschologically healthy relationship, but they might not even be applicable to him, if he happens to like those kinds of girls, for whatever complex interaction between his genes, environment, and choices ended up making him like that kind of woman.

Don't get me wrong - there are always other factors. I'm not going to just say it as some sort of contextless commandment. But as a principle - as a guideline, it is accurate. Women are smaller than men. All other things being equal, they just are. Which is to say that men are larger than women, all other things being equal.

I think a man being attracted to a smaller (that is - feminine) woman is an acknowledgment of an essential fact about men and women.

The problem is that you seem to take, for the sake of this argument, "rational animal" as the whole of your identity. You seem to refuse to accept that being a man (i.e. male) is also a part of that identity. You seem to be looking, romantically, for someone exactly the same as you, rather than someone who is female - i.e. who is different and complementary to you. Not to get too far into innuendo (although it is applicable), if you are a key then you need to find a lock. If you are a hammer, you need a nail.

Now I say above "for the sake of this argument," because I do detect in your speech a perhaps residual understanding of matters that is fighting against what you've told yourself about romance. (i.e. what I'm saying is incorrect)

Have a look at my answers to your questions, above. (especially, about conquest and why a man seeks an independent woman and not just any worshiper) I think they will help you clear up a bit of your confusion on this matter.

Our personalities and minds are not literally blank slates, they are Figuratively blank slates.

Well, I don't think this is entirely relevant to our discussion (I'm not sure I entirely agree with what you've said but I do think my position on the matter is closer to yours than it may have looked at first), but I will point out the irony of the fact that I'm the one trying to convince you about something in human nature.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dare I say, one might think he'd be able to asign the right meaning to the word "worship" considering his signature...

Matus, allow me to change that to this, so that it does not appear to insult you in any way:

One might think that you'd be able to use the word "worship" by some of it's other definitional meanings considering your signature.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See Tabitha here is where I have an issue. Could you please very clearly show me how exactly you get from what Rand said to your statement that "she put this on the back burner" when she pursued her writing career? What is "this"? How do you get for "hero worship" to "one must put their career on the back burner to do it"? Wehre does she say that a woman shouldn't pursue her own interests before looking up to a man?

If passivity is a hallmark of "femininity" and it is "improper" for a woman to want to run for president, it should follow that she, too, would have been psychologically incompatable with her own 'go-get-'em' career.

That said, she might have argued that writing and the Presidency involve vastly different psychologies; in which case my observation would fall short. (Though this doesn't mean I would necessarily buy the ensuing argument.)

On an tangental note, I find the saying "looking up to a man" problematic when applied to women. Women are not children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, be careful here. Claims of individuality are often veiled forms of subjectivism, so to somehow claim that Rand is committing this fallacy is something to be really careful about.

Could you give an example of this? A couple come to mind, but I can't think of one as it pertains to this particular discussion.

It is the province of psychology to prove whether or not Rand's view of feminity is generalizable.

But isn't psychology, at its core, merely philosophy? (Barring organic mental illnesses, of course.) Individuals with healthy psychologies have rational philsophies, and vice versa. I don't see how the two can be teased apart.

Secondly, feminine traits have been linked with depression in numerous psychologcal studies.

We axiomatically elevate reason above individuality. Is that a form of collectivism too?

No, because you're comparing a concept (reason) with a concept (individuality). That's not the same as evaluating an individual (woman) based on her gender (her group).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, she might have argued that writing and the Presidency involve vastly different psychologies; in which case my observation would fall short. (Though this doesn't mean I would necessarily buy the ensuing argument.)

She did. You really ought to read things before commenting on them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She did. You really ought to read things before commenting on them...

I read her writing on this, and the thread here some time ago. Though, fair enough, I could have reread parts of the Woman President thread. Regardless, I knew I shouldn't have bothered jumping into this discussion. Take care,

Edited by Tabitha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...