Adopting Husband's Name

[Matus1976]

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.

No Harm, it is clear from my signature that I find no problem in taking back concepts and their words stolen by religion. I am still not sure if 'worship' is one I feel ought to be taken back though.

[intellectualammo]

No Harm, it is clear from my signature that I find no problem in taking back concepts and their words stolen by religion. I am still not sure if 'worship' is one I feel ought to be taken back though.

Oh, good. Then my point was articulated correctly then. Thank you for replying.

[...]these strong tones were taken only when faced with deregatory attacks as she took a respectful informative tone when discussing with intelligent respectful people, and lastly - she was hell of a lot smarter than any of us and earned a right to her often overbearing confidence.

(bold emphasis mine)(italisized mine too)

I think that was exactly the kind of point Inspector made before in regards to rudeness and abrasiveness.

[Matus1976]

The common thread was that they all seemed to look-up to me and developed a nurturing/sweet role that I find to be feminine and thus not at all sexually attractive.

Hi Stargirl, great comments. I notice that every time you say worship you also corrolate it with a sweet / nurturing role.

where the most nurturing, kind, and women-admiring men are often seen to finish last

...

As much as I may have thought I wanted a man to worship and nurture me, that was simply not the case

If worship is an extension of admiration than it does not necessarily include a concept of nurturing. I have a hard time associating the worship of a theistic person with a 'nurturing' connotation to his god. Similiarly in our humanistic context, I also don't think 'nurturing' is a necessary component of worship. Is worship and nurturing necessarily entwined for you (perhaps that has just been the most common experience) I could certainly understand how an overtly empathatic coddling 'sweet' nurturing 'nice guy' attitude would be a sexual turn off, but conversely no man ought to be an emotionless rock (this is merely a remnant of the mind body dichotomy) the key is to find the Aristotlean golden mean. In that, one might consider this a more masculine aspect, and nurturing a more femine, but niether sex ought to be devoid of the emotional capacity of nurturing

Clearly this 'nice guy' overt nurturing and coddling is pervasive though, I recall one of my college english classes where we read and discussed in a class a story which involved a farmer husband and his wife in the early 1800's. Thier infant child had just died and the father buried it in the back, he came back in and made some a comment about getting back to work. His wife was hurt and shocked, and so were all the women in the class and most of the men, who thought him callous and heartless. I had to counter, annoyed at this out of conext assessment, that if they did not get back to work they would mostly likely die from either not having enough food or not enough firewood.

The fact is, in order for me to sustain a long-term romantic relationship with a man, the perfect balance must be one of our unique identities- including our individual genders- the masculine and the feminine. As much as I may have thought I wanted a man to worship and nurture me, that was simply not the case. I worship the masculine, and am completely worthy (not inferior) to that which I look up to and desire.

How do you reconcile "looking up to" with "not inferior" this makes no logical sense to me. Unless you are using "looking up to" in a similiar way to respect, in which case, it ought to be mutually plausible.

It takes a secure and rational person to realize that psychological gender differences are neither threatening, nor do they necessarily imply superiority of either sex. The genders are quite complimentary, physically as well as psychologically.

This is one of my issues still, you can't use the word 'worship' and assert that it is not at all related to any inferiority / superiority dynamic YET assert that the recipricol is not possible. Either 'worship' is based on a relative imabalance or it is not. In the former case, only one party can worship the other, in the latter case, either pary can worship the other for their respective qualities. What they worship and what it means is important, but the idea that Worship is not related to an inferiority dynamic necessarily implies that it can be mutual. If it is not related to a relative imabalance, than a man ought to be able to worship a woman specifically for her feminity (which does not necessarily imply any overt nurturing / coddling)

Perhaps, you are asserting that if worship is not based on any inferiority / superiority dynamic, than a male is capable of worshipping his female partner, but OUGHT not to? Is that correct?

Edited October 30, 2007 by Matus1976

[Matus1976]

KendallJ:

Matus, while I respect your post and agree with it, this statement commits the same fallacy as does the one you are trying to deal with. Stop generalizing. From my personal experience most of the folks on this board do NOT follow this pattern.

Generally scientists use the term generally in the opposite way that non-scientists do, where generally for the lay person means roughly most cases, generally for the scientist (as in General Relativity) means always and absolutely. When you say I am 'generalizing' in which way do you mean it? I am 'generalizing' in the common sense, but not the scientific sense.

I have found, from anecdotal personal experience, that Objectivists and admirers of Rand are more likely to be arrogant and condescending than informed adherents of other 'ists', 'isms' or 'ians', my personal guess is that it is roughly about an order of magnitude more common. Though, conversely, we similiarly tend to be more informed and intelligent than other groups, but perhaps I am biased

Whatever your feelings are, being argumentative and combative is no way to spread and share ideas which are conducive to living a good life to other intelligent and respectful people. Keep in mind that even people who are equally intelligent, share common values, and are both completely logical and rational can yet still have different opinions because their information sets differ (as evidenced by Dagny contrasted with the other strikers at that dinner table in the Gultch) Objectivists that derive significant value from being intellectually superior and having a sense of knowing more about important things than everyone else are more likely to behave in this combative manner, protecting the 'in club' and their relative superiority (i.e. if everyone was an objectivist, I wouldnt be so cool and unique any longer) Objectivists who seek to live in a more rational world and have a better life pay closer attention to effective means of sharing ideas and communicating with people, while still staying true to their individualism and principles.

[Matus1976]

And why was this? You focus on what they were not doing but what was she not doing? Was she asserting and/or arguing her opinion? Was she telling them that they were wrong and she knew better?

Yes that's true, I did not follow your discussion close enough to ascertain if this was applicable directly to it. Whether or not you think it applicable in this case, or any, is up to you to decide. Take my comments and derive whatever value you wish from them, or disregard them as you see fit.

Of course, that dinner table discussion is not entirely applicable to a discussion form, as Dagny essentially sat down and asked everyone to make their case. That doesnt make for a very interesting discussion in a forum.

Are you claiming that I have said that?

No, but I think that attitude is present in many objectivists mind's (though over all it is a small percentage)

[~Sophia~]

Perhaps, you are asserting that if worship is not based on any inferiority / superiority dynamic, than a male is capable of worshipping his female partner, but OUGHT not to? Is that correct?

This is a question for Stargirl but I would like to give you my answer.

Of course it is possible and today some men do that which often results in women becomming less interested in them. Then they misinterpret what happened and complain that 'nice guys finish last'. It has nothing to do with them being nice as women like being treated well.

[Matus1976]

This is a question for Stargirl but I would like to give you my answer.

Of course it is possible and today some men do that which often results in women becomming less interested in them. Then they misinterpret what happened and complain that 'nice guys finish last'. It has nothing to do with them being nice as women like being treated well.

To me, the context in which 'worship' has been used seems to be further along the following continuum

respect --> admiration --> love --> worship

Would this be a fair assessment to you?

If that is the case, then why would it not be healthy for a man to worship a woman (for her feminine aspects and qualities he admires) if 'worship' is not based on any relative imbalance dynamic.

So I can understand this better, would you (or Stargirl) be interested in supplying some concrete examples of the behavior which you would consider 'worship' which was a turn off to you? I think I am starting to get an idea, perhaps like passivity or submissiveness, an excessive or obsesively concern if you are ok, hurt, insulted, always ready to drop anything and everything for you, even if it is extremely important to them - however, I can think of no examples like these that would not be a turn off for me in a woman.

[intellectualammo]

Of course it is possible and today some men do that which often results in women becomming less interested in them. Then they misinterpret what happened and complain that 'nice guys finish last'. It has nothing to do with them being nice as women like being treated well.

So very right you are, Sophia. Admittedly, I think that this actually has happened to me, a number of times in my past, and it really is because of me. But recently, specifically the replies that Inspector had made in other threads and in this one, has totally got me thinking in the right direction in the last year or so, I think. I can only hope/try to achieve, that someday I am worthy of such worship from a woman. I'm making myself worthy, I would say... more: worthy of the right kind of woman...and my standards are soooo very high, so I must be accordingly... I must be "complimentary" in the way Stargirl had spoken of... Prinzivalle has been my main role model in this for a while now...

Edited October 30, 2007 by intellectualammo

[KendallJ]

Generally scientists use the term generally in the opposite way that non-scientists do, where generally for the lay person means roughly most cases, generally for the scientist (as in General Relativity) means always and absolutely. When you say I am 'generalizing' in which way do you mean it? I am 'generalizing' in the common sense, but not the scientific sense.

I have found, from anecdotal personal experience, that Objectivists and admirers of Rand are more likely to be arrogant and condescending than informed adherents of other 'ists', 'isms' or 'ians', my personal guess is that it is roughly about an order of magnitude more common. Though, conversely, we similiarly tend to be more informed and intelligent than other groups, but perhaps I am biased

Matus, I meant it in the general term. Your observations in your second paragraph do not warrant the conclusion "most cases" as per that meaning. That is relative prevalence is of no importance as you are speaking to absolute prevalence. If the average prevalence of rude people in other isms is 1 in 100, then 10 in 100 by your observations does not make "most Objectivists". It is actually very few Objectivists. Your original statement however was that "Objectivists all to easily...". That is a generalization. It is safe to say that you mean the majority, i.e. more than 1 in 2. Is that what you really meant to say? Because if it is so, it's a wonder you can stand to be around us?

Whatever your feelings are, being argumentative and combative is no way to spread and share ideas which are conducive to living a good life to other intelligent and respectful people. Keep in mind that even people who are equally intelligent, share common values, and are both completely logical and rational can yet still have different opinions because their information sets differ (as evidenced by Dagny contrasted with the other strikers at that dinner table in the Gultch) Objectivists that derive significant value from being intellectually superior and having a sense of knowing more about important things than everyone else are more likely to behave in this combative manner, protecting the 'in club' and their relative superiority (i.e. if everyone was an objectivist, I wouldnt be so cool and unique any longer) Objectivists who seek to live in a more rational world and have a better life pay closer attention to effective means of sharing ideas and communicating with people, while still staying true to their individualism and principles.

For the record, I don't particularly like Inspector's style. It is not one I would choose. He is curt, abrupt, and rarely goes into the pleasantries of any sort of "gentlemen's conversation". That does not make him rude. However often he is misinterpreted to be rude; however, I find that he is not so nearly as often as you or anyone else woudl have us believe.

What I appreciate about him however, is that he is to the point and sticks to the data at hand, and the person with which he is dealing. You on the other hand, in this last para I'm quoting have generalized to the point of irrelevance to the matter at hand. I find this tactic a common one among those who would take a particular person's behavior and use it to throw pot shots at a whole group of people gratuitously. Of course the whole thing is written in general sense in the third person so, relative to the person in question, it can be seen to be polite as hell which seems to be what you're after rather than substance.

So let me parse this down...

Whatever your feelings are, being argumentative and combative is no way to spread and share ideas which are conducive to living a good life to other intelligent and respectful people.

Well, that would be true if it was necessary that everyones purpose in discussions like these was actually to "spread and share". It is neither a prerequisite nor is it necessarily rational if someone only comes to a forum like this for other reasons. This is missionary thinking. I am not a missionary for Objectivism.

Keep in mind that even people who are equally intelligent, share common values, and are both completely logical and rational can yet still have different opinions because their information sets differ (as evidenced by Dagny contrasted with the other strikers at that dinner table in the Gultch)

Are you saying that this is what is being ignored in this case? If not, how is this relevant? Regardless whether information sets differ, the opinions can still be evaluated on their objectivity because everyone's reality is the same. That is, one persons opinion can still be more right than another persons.

Objectivists that derive significant value from being intellectually superior and having a sense of knowing more about important things than everyone else are more likely to behave in this combative manner, protecting the 'in club' and their relative superiority (i.e. if everyone was an objectivist, I wouldnt be so cool and unique any longer)

Again, evidence that this is what's in Inspector's head? If not, then it is an irrelevant point, and in fact, the implication is that you are psychologizing him, obliquely of course, so as to be "polite".

Objectivists who seek to live in a more rational world and have a better life pay closer attention to effective means of sharing ideas and communicating with people, while still staying true to their individualism and principles.

Well, I agree that effectiveness of communication is in one's interest, but in context. Also, the first half of the phrase is simply an argument from intimidation. "Truly rational people behave better..." in essence. Again, how is this relevant to behavior in a public forum, with people one knows not much better than someone he'd meet on the street, approaching him with a question?

[intellectualammo]

For the record, I don't particularly like Inspector's style. It is not one I would choose. He is curt, abrupt, and rarely goes into the pleasantries of any sort of "gentlemen's conversation". That does not make him rude. However often he is misinterpreted to be rude; however, I find that he is not so nearly as often as you or anyone else woudl have us believe.

What I appreciate about him however, is that he is to the point and sticks to the data at hand, and the person with which he is dealing.

(bold mine)

I emphatically agree with you Kendall in this matter, at least in regards to this specific thread, but even more than that, but thank you for commenting on it, recognizing it, and so forth. It's reaffirmation of my points before, and even Inspectors, in most respects, if not in total.

[~Sophia~]

To me, the context in which 'worship' has been used seems to be further along the following continuum

respect --> admiration --> love --> worship

Would this be a fair assessment to you?

I think that that "looking up to" for me is what is necessary to move from platonic admiration to romantic love and then later for that romantic interest to continue.

So I can understand this better, would you (or Stargirl) be interested in supplying some concrete examples of the behavior which you would consider 'worship' which was a turn off to you?

I can give you a list of behaviors which are a turn off but that is not what we are talking about here. It is more subtle than that, an overall attitude and not behavior (but of course it can influence behavior). When it comes to human interactions women are very observant, they pick up on small, subtle things much more easily than men, sometimes even uncounsciously.

[Matus1976]

Matus, I meant it in the general term. Your observations in your second paragraph do not warrant the conclusion "most cases" as per that meaning. That is relative prevalence is of no importance as you are speaking to absolute prevalence. If the average prevalence of rude people in other isms is 1 in 100, then 10 in 100 by your observations does not make "most Objectivists". It is actually very few Objectivists. Your original statement however was that "Objectivists all to easily...". That is a generalization. It is safe to say that you mean the majority, i.e. more than 1 in 2. Is that what you really meant to say? Because if it is so, it's a wonder you can stand to be around us?

I do not believe I said most cases, I doubt it, since I don't feel that way. I said in a later post that it is still a small minority of people that behave in this manner. "Objectivists all too easily" simply means more frequently than is typical, it does not necessarily mean a majority. You inferred what was not implied. The fact that as per my opinion they are roughly 10 times more likely to be arrogant and condescending indicates that they (we) do in fact 'all too easily' adopt this mentality.

For the record, I don't particularly like Inspector's style. It is not one I would choose. He is curt, abrupt, and rarely goes into the pleasantries of any sort of "gentlemen's conversation". That does not make him rude. However often he is misinterpreted to be rude; however, I find that he is not so nearly as often as you or anyone else woudl have us believe.

From the limited interaction I have had with Inspector, I don't think he was particularly 'bad' in the sense I am referring to (some people just adopt that style, I find it to be much less productive) but he is merely more harsh or curt than I would use, but not necessarily condescending. The nature of communication of objectivists came up because of that so I took it as an oppurtunity to express my opinions on the matter, not as a chance to make a subtle dig at Inspector. I know many people that are a thousand times more abrasive in discussions. He's a nice guy

What I appreciate about him however, is that he is to the point and sticks to the data at hand, and the person with which he is dealing. You on the other hand, in this last para I'm quoting have generalized to the point of irrelevance to the matter at hand. I find this tactic a common one among those who would take a particular person's behavior and use it to throw pot shots at a whole group of people gratuitously.

You acted as though I was asserting that every single objectivist was guilty of rude behavior, which is absolutely not the case and not how I feel. So I must clarify and point out how you are using 'generally' since it has two very different meanings. I find the tactic of taking a small bit of a statement or idea and extrapolating it wildly out to circumstances where it is not applicable, i.e. you going from me saying "objectivists too easily adopt this..." to "every single objectivist is a jerk" rather disagreeable.

Again, I find Inspector's interactions are only slightly disagreeable in this context, just as you find mine so and he probably finds mine or someone elses so. Need I point out that you are in fact using an isolated incident of a particular persons behavior to now catagorize a whole group of people (people like me that point out and argue against objectivists being condescending and rude when the topic comes up in dicussion are in fact attacking the one person that spurred that comment?)

Of course the whole thing is written in general sense in the third person so, relative to the person in question, it can be seen to be polite as hell which seems to be what you're after rather than substance.

This was because I was NOT referring to Inspector.

Well, that would be true if it was necessary that everyones purpose in discussions like these was actually to "spread and share". It is neither a prerequisite nor is it necessarily rational if someone only comes to a forum like this for other reasons. This is missionary thinking. I am not a missionary for Objectivism.

I over simplified, lets think of the reasons why you might be partaking in a discussion on this forum

1) to refine and develop your own ideas and understanding

2) to share the insights you have understood with other like minded people

3) to show off your amazing intellect

4) to be a troll

Did I miss any?

If you are not here for 2, then you are here for 1, in which case you would not bother responding to people that you are not learning something from. If you are here for 2, without a subtle inclination to 3, then you ought to be interested in the most useful mechanism to promulgate the ideas you find important and worth spreading. If you are here for 3, under the guise of 2, than you care not and adopt an aggressive condescending tone. I am guessing, for my part, that most of the people engaging in this abrasive behavior are here for 1) but enjoy partaking in 3) under the guise of 2) once in a while. Or, they are partaking in 2, but really don't want to expend much effort and so adopt a mentality that 'well, if they dont listen to me they're stupid anyway' I think MOST people are here for 1 and 2.

Are you saying that this is what is being ignored in this case? If not, how is this relevant? Regardless whether information sets differ, the opinions can still be evaluated on their objectivity because everyone's reality is the same. That is, one persons opinion can still be more right than another persons.

No, I think this is something some people might find value in on this forum, as I did when I understood it. I think too often we (all people) tend to associate a disagreement of opinions with either a lack of intelligence / rationality or different values, when in many cases it may be identical values and logical reasoning but a different information set. This is why I typically try to identify the values we are working from then go to the information which is similiar or dissimiliar. We are not omniscient. Since we are not omniscient, and we can have different opinions even with shared values and rational arguments, it stands that certain opinions MUST be more right than others, but there is no legitimate way for you to know that about another person without understanding their information set, (or having a general sense of how they form opinions) and so you can not automatically assume your opinion is 'more right' than thiers without sufficient evidence to back it up. That is not to say you should abandon your opinion, you stand your opinion on the foundation it is built on, thier's may be better, but until they take you through that evidence and process of reasoning you must stand on your opinion.

Again, evidence that this is what's in Inspector's head? If not, then it is an irrelevant point, and in fact, the implication is that you are psychologizing him, obliquely of course, so as to be "polite".

Now you are trying to get into my head. My statement was general and my opinion, to the extent which I can form one rationally, was about people who engage in a combative and insulting manner of debate. Your's is specific to me and an attempt at pyschologizing me. How would I make a general statement that is spurred by this area of inquiry into this discussion (K-Mac's reaction to Inspectors debating style) without you asserting that I was actually talking about Inspector directly, I all ready told him I was not. Though I find his debating style not to my liking, I dont think he is insulting.

Well, I agree that effectiveness of communication is in one's interest, but in context. Also, the first half of the phrase is simply an argument from intimidation. "Truly rational people behave better..." in essence. Again, how is this relevant to behavior in a public forum, with people one knows not much better than someone he'd meet on the street, approaching him with a question?

I apologize, in my haste I omitted the 'ought to' which should have followed 'a better life' never the less, I dont think your comparison is fair. If you do seek to live in a more ration world, then you damn well ought to concern yourself with the most effective means of communicating ideas. Right? Unless you plan on spreading ideas magically.

[Matus1976]

I can give you a list of behaviors which are a turn off but that is not what we are talking about here. It is more subtle than that, an overall attitude and not behavior (but of course it can influence behavior). When it comes to human interactions women are very observant, they pick up on small, subtle things much more easily than men, sometimes even uncounsciously.

Haha, You're no help.

As someone who, like intellectual ammo, has probably been guilty of this, all I can say is:

[~Sophia~]

Haha, You're no help.

As someone who, like intellectual ammo, has probably been guilty of this, all I can say is:

I know. I have to think about this a bit more in order to be able to articulate it better.

[intellectualammo]

As someone who, like intellectual ammo, has probably been guilty of this, all I can say is:

Matus, I have no idea what you meant by that. Sophia apparently does, but I don't, so I can't comment unless I do...

When it comes to human interactions women are very observant, they pick up on small, subtle things much more easily than men, sometimes even uncounsciously.

Sophia, isn't that a generalization? and I think that it's a heck of a lot more contextual than that... I know I pick up on very small subtle things myself...

[~Sophia~]

Sophia, isn't that a generalization?

Yes it is.

[Matus1976]

Matus, I have no idea what you meant by that. Sophia apparently does, but I don't, so I can't comment unless I do...

In post 183 you said you might have been guilty of the 'too nice guy' syndrome in the past and thanks to this forum and comments in this thread you are more aware of this now. I meant that, not worshiping. I was merely commenting that I think I have done the same in the past.

Yes it is.

As is the idea that a woman must 'look up to' and 'worship' a man to have a psychologically healthy relationship (or shouldn't, unless a man can look up to her and admire her in many ways as well, as is my argument) Are we not to make generalized comments now? Makes discussions kind of difficult (oops, thats another generalization)

[~Sophia~]

As is the idea that a woman must 'look up to' and 'worship' a man to have a psychologically healthy relationship (or shouldn't, unless a man can look up to her and admire her in many ways as well, as is my argument) Are we not to make generalized comments now? Makes discussions kind of difficult (oops, thats another generalization)

I have never said that she must to have a psychologically healthy romantic relationship. What I said was that it's absence makes things less satisfactory (even if she can not name the cause) and the stronger a woman is, the more secure, the healthier her self esteem - the more she will search for the best.

Yes, there will be exceptions to the rule and you are welcome to search for those. However, in majority of cases, this is how things are.

Edited October 31, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[Inspector]

This was because I was NOT referring to Inspector.

But you see, it really seemed like you were. Believe me, I thought that you were just as much as Kendall did. Given that, I showed a great deal of restraint in responding, and happily it paid off. But you have to be more careful with statements like that. It was not an unreasonable interpretation to think that you were making this huge attack on me and it would not have been unjustified to be rather nasty in response. I'm glad I wasn't, but I hope this illustrates just how much restraint I do use in these discussions.

[intellectualammo]

In post 183 you said you might have been guilty of the 'too nice guy' syndrome in the past and thanks to this forum and comments in this thread you are more aware of this now. I meant that, not worshiping. I was merely commenting that I think I have done the same in the past.

Well, I didn't say exactly those words, but I understand what you were saying now. Thank you for the clarification that I needed.

[...]this is how things are.

And that gets a resounding "YES!" from me, Sophia.

Edited October 31, 2007 by intellectualammo

[Matus1976]

That "passive" bit. That's your language; not mine. I believe it represents a misrepresentation of my position. Not a deliberate one, mind you. I believe you genuinely think that's what my position is. But it isn't and once you figure this out then I think most if not all of your objections to it will dry up.

That comment in particular was in reference to whether rational indivual entities ought to adopt every pyschological tendancy they have from their 'nature' which relates to their gender, it was not a charachterization of your position. I believe we have all ready agreed that your position is something along the lines that the two parties must be nearly equal with the woman looking up to the man in more areas than the converse, and especially regarding physical strength and perhaps intellect. I elaborated on this in post 74 and post 55 Most or all of my objections might 'dry up' if you exapanded more on your idea and definition of worship, on what a woman ought to worship in a man, on the difference between admiration and worship, why if a woman can worship the masculine in a man, why can a man not worship the feminie in a woman, and give some concretizations of this worship.

For instance, remember how I answered your question of how the man chooses between women. Remember his goal is to conquer which means that he seeks a challenge. He does not seek a "passive woman." How has he proven his worthiness of worship if it wasn't a challenge? What meaning does the worship have if he hasn't earned it?

The passive comment was in reference to choosing to adopt or not adopt an aspect of human nature, specifically as one thing I would not adopt, conversely, a women looking up to a man is the same evolutionary pyschological tendancies, when women act passive or shy, men rate them as more attractive, conversely when men act confident and outgoing, women rate them as more attractive, see Matt Ridleys "The Red Queen - Sex and the evolution of human behavior" for more examples of these evolutionary pyschological studies. Rand and you adopt the latter in some general sense is a primary of the nature of feminity, while asserting that the former is not necessarily part of a 'looking up to' or 'worshipping' dynamic. It is though. My question is which 'natura' tendancies are we choosing and why, and that when 'worship' is removed from a concept of relative imabalances it is meaningless and arbitrary. In that case, Rand was arguing for going through the motions of worshipping while completely rejecting the cause, a relative difference.

Oh, I know you do enjoy it. So why not seek a woman who does the same for her gender?

I do seek that, the question is whether 'worship' is a psychologically healthy aspect of her gender to adopt, and whether that would be the most conducive and fulfilling for my lover and I to adopt in a long term inspiring relationship. If worship has any meaning, and she can worship me for my masculinity, then I can worship her for her femininity, unless you definie feminity as worshipping the masculine, which forms a recursive loop and makes it meaningless.

Oh, by no means! The popular idea of masculinity is totally dire! Real masculinity was destroyed in the culture long ago. What we are left with are overgrown children, thugs, and the child-brute mixtures in between.

Sadly so true...

It is my definition, but I think you're confused as to its scope and being too literal - not seeing the full implications of what it means. Like what I illustrated above, for example.

I have in the past been accused with justification of being too literal, so that might be the case this time, so feel free to elaborate on your definitions more. Did Rand explicitly identify her definitions of Femininity and Masculinity? To be fair, I have not yet formulated a complete definition myself.

A tall person buys a car with lots of leg-room. A small person eats less calories. A male person seeks to be masculine.

Some facts we try to minimize or overcome - the ones that are unfortunate. I get that. But is it your claim that one's gender and its implications in sexuality and psychology is one of those facts?

Is your maleness a form of disability or inconvenience that you long to throw off? I don't think you think that.

A rational individual entity seeks to be those first, and a male second, and also seeks that of the masculine (inclined by nature) which are most conducive to a eudaemonic relationship with his female partner where neither the feminie nor masculine adopted by either co-opt the rational individualism nor eudaemonic partnership. I have yet to be convinced that a one sided 'worship' which is not an extention of respect -> admiration -> love is a proper inclusion in that.

To elaborate more - my claim is that it is not necessarily proper to adopt EVERY SINGLE sexual and pyschological tendancy in the masculine or the feminie, these evolved to be conducive to rapid procreation, and not necessarily life long eudaemonic relationships. Which aspects within the nature of masculinity and feminity to adopt are what is in question here. You seem to assert that we should adopt all of them, but also think I think we should adopt none - this is not the case. Things like preferring a passive shy demure woman, which is a psychological inclination to males, is not one I will adopt, but in truth, to the degree I have introspected and studied, probably some 90% or so of conventional classical 'masculine' traits (not modern post feminism ones) are in fact very healthy to adopt and the same probably goes for feminine, but just like I quesiton the the masculinity of likeing passive shy women, I question the feminity of adopting an attitude of 'worship' within a relationship in the feminie to masculine dynamic.

Sure. Of course, in the way I mean it the two are entirely compatible.

Agreed, so chalking something up to 'human nature' does not necessarily imply it OUGHT to ALWAYS be adopted and integrated, and that since we are figurative blank slates, we can choose in fact to not adopt these things.

[Matus1976]

I think that that "looking up to" for me is what is necessary to move from platonic admiration to romantic love and then later for that romantic interest to continue.

I think that makes sense, and I understand that, so then my quesiton would be, from a man's perspective, what would move him from platonic admiration to romantic love in this context?

I have never said that she must to have a psychologically healthy romantic relationship. What I said was that it's absence makes things less satisfactory (even if she can not name the cause) and the stronger a woman is, the more secure, the healthier her self esteem - the more she will search for the best.

No, I was speaking more of a (perhaps erroneous) simplification of Inspectors point of view. When you say you 'look up to' something in a man, lets say his strength, what exactly is meant by 'look up to' as opposed to 'admire' Seems nitpicky but I ask because some connotations of 'look up to' include ideas like be inspired by, or strive to equal and integrate into the self. But to be feminine, why would a woman strive to equal a man in his strength? If a woman is to look up to the masculine in a man in the best kind of relationship, but look up to does not mean she strives to equal (which wouldnt make much sense, unless she strives to be masculine) than a man could also 'look up to' the feminine in a woman. If look up to means an extended form of admiration, to be inspired by, or to find a powerful complinentary role in, than either partner can look up to the other, and both should to some degree.

[Matus1976]

But you see, it really seemed like you were. Believe me, I thought that you were just as much as Kendall did. Given that, I showed a great deal of restraint in responding, and happily it paid off. But you have to be more careful with statements like that. It was not an unreasonable interpretation to think that you were making this huge attack on me and it would not have been unjustified to be rather nasty in response. I'm glad I wasn't, but I hope this illustrates just how much restraint I do use in these discussions.

Inspector, don't take my comment as some form of capitulation, I do not like your style in debating and am in my right to express that and you are welcome to disagree with my opinion, and even present contrary evidence suggesting your style is not one of the style I think it is. It is not anywhere near as bad as the ones I often encounter, but the fact that it is still not one I like nor I think is conducive to spreading objectivist memes, remains true. If your style was as bad as the kind I was referring to, I would not have been attacking YOU, but they way you choose to interact on these forums. I know nothing about you. But WHAT exactly would you be attacking in response?? - my PERCEPTION of the way you interact in this forum? or ME?

Anyway, I don't particularly care what you or anyone think of my moral assessment of the way you interact is. If you like the way you interact, than continue to interact in that manner, but if your purpose was 1) or 2) in my list to Kendall, than my comments are constructive criticisms, if it were 3) or 4) than I am calling attention to your motivations. You could feel free to elaborate or add more bullet points, perhaps I have not convered coneptually all the reasons one may partake in discussions of this kind. But what the purpose of a 'nasty response' to me would be on the inferrence that I did not like your style of debating is beyond me. You could only try to argue that my assessment of your style is incorrect, or that your style is justified and I have no business not liking it.

I will say again, I do not like your style, but it's not anything like the kind of extreme offensive condescending tone I was referring to in my comments. But I was not expressing that I wasnt talking about you because I feared disagreeing with you - I stand by my opinions and modify them when I learn they are in error.

[~Sophia~]

I think that makes sense, and I understand that, so then my quesiton would be, from a man's perspective, what would move him from platonic admiration to romantic love in this context?

I don't have the advantage of introspection when it comes to male psychology.

When you say you 'look up to' something in a man, lets say his strength, what exactly is meant by 'look up to' as opposed to 'admire' Seems nitpicky but I ask because some connotations of 'look up to' include ideas like be inspired by, or strive to equal and integrate into the self. But to be feminine, why would a woman strive to equal a man in his strength? If a woman is to look up to the masculine in a man in the best kind of relationship, but look up to does not mean she strives to equal (which wouldnt make much sense, unless she strives to be masculine) than a man could also 'look up to' the feminine in a woman.

This is a very good question because I feel that by answering we are getting closer to identifying this reaction.

It is not something which inspires and there is no desire to match it or strive to integrate it into the self. All of those things are results of admiration and can be experienced in response to a person regardless of their sex or the nature of your relationship with them. Inspiration is gender neutral and very much a good thing in relationships on both sides, the more of it the better. Inspiration is a response to gender neutral traits.

The only desire re: that strong decidedly male presence is to be arround it - to give yourself to that. It is complimentary. It brings to woman's awareness the fact that she is a female at every moment she is arround him; she can not escape the awareness of her female characteristics (even when she is at that moment talking about something so un-romantic as politics). She is no longer just a mind (in the way we are aware of our self) but a female mind and body.

This is what pulls a woman away from thinking platonic to thinking romantic.

I find that throughout your arguments there is this common idea of psychological gender egalitarianism, that we are human first and then male/female second and further from the second identification we can just, through reason, pick what we think is appropriate or not when it comes to psychological preferences.

There is no such eqality or psychological blank slate. The genders are equal when it comes to non-gender specific traits but there is nothing equal about, for example, the way we experience sex. Because a woman is in a more volunerable position - the decision to have sex means psychologically different things to her than to a man. That will never change and in itself is a HUGE source of inequality and thus psychological differences.

Edited November 1, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[Moebius]

I have been following this thread and it really is quite interesting once I got past the term "worship". But I have one question:

When the term "worshiping the masculine" is used -- what qualities are we talking about exactly? Is the nature of these qualities biological or philosophical? It seems absurd to define masculinity purely as muscular strength and physical size, and I do not think we're talking about intellectual capacity either. So what qualities then make a man "masculine" and as such worthy of being worshiped? And are these qualities necessarily universally sough by all (rational) women and capable by all (rational) men?