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

Adopting Husband's Name

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

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

I understand that, but I am looking for a conceptual direction, if it is good and proper for a woman to like a man because she can look up to him, what then is the good and proper reason for a man to like a women. I am certainly not attracted to women that I 'look down' to and I don't think that is conducive to any long term healthy relationships, though I am sure that particular arrangement is quite common. But that is essentially the opposite and corrolary to the woman looking up to the man. Answers to this in this thread have seemed to be things like the man then ought to be someone who is "look up to"-able and the woman is special because she recognizes those things in that man which ought to be looked up to. That is too close to a situation where 'I like you merely because you like me' for my comfort though.

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.

But it is something that you admire and look up to, but not necessarily something you want to emulate. I tried to write some concretizations of this but had a hard time coming up with them, but with this comment and my attempt, To me, this seems to emphasize the complimentary beneficial aspects of the different and unique roles of the man and the woman. You can admire and look up to, say, emotional strength in a man, but not necessarily desire to emulate it. Look up to does not seem an appropriate term with it's connotations of inspiration and emulation as opposed to admiration and recognition. I see you emphasized the complimentary next:

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 am definately getting a stronger sense of this here, despite the apparent clinical nature of my part of this discussion. Both partners would seem to experience a stronger sense of their own masculanity or feminity from the influence, behavior, and complimentary nature of the presence of thier significant other. I would feel like a stronger, better man from the reaction I get and the recognition to the woman who admires me and whom I admire. But all of these ideas seem strongly complimentary or mutual, not one sided like 'worship' - So my question ultimately is, If we are talking about the complimentary, then what is the compliment to 'worship' or 'to look up to' even though I understand we are missing a concept between platonic admiration and romantic 'worship'

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.

This is definately not the case, I understand why you might come to the conclusion, but it is only because of the nature of the course this discussion has taken that my emphasis appears to be solely on my existent as a sentient rational identiy, and only as a footnote of my masculanity. This is absolutely not the case with me. Though there are many examples where a figurative blank slate is literal, this is not the case with physiological facts of existence (unkess technology changes that in the future) I can not choose to have a 3rd arm and so can not adopt the pyschological attitude associated with that. Though I feel that I am primarily a sentient rational individual entity, and secondarily a human sentient entity, and then only tertirarily a male one of these, these catagorizations are just catagorizations, and are primarily being made for the sake of this discussion and only to ephasize the point of what we choose to adopt as part of our selves and what priority we adopt them in. Humans, male and female, are genetically inclined to favor small social groups and live in a communal arrangement, because this is how we evolved and survived for some 90,000+ years, this is something I choose not to embrace. I do not see Sentient/Human/Male as mutually exclusive or a zero sum interaction, i.e. I am not 90% rational entity, 5% human and 5% male, I am 100% a rational sentient human male individual (and loving every second of it!)

Further, we are only figuratively blank slates, the entire course of our growth, development, and life have forged what we have adopted and to what extent we have adopted and integrated them, and consequently how difficult it would be to 'overcome' them. I certainly could not psychological become female, (nor have any remote desire to) because being a woman is a physiological state as well, and includes pyschological states formed over, again, a lifetime of experiences, choices, and encounters. (no doubt part of the reason why transexuals have an extremely difficult time integrating) The entirety of this diversion part of this discussion was only to emphasize that point that just because evolution has given us a tendancy to to certain behaviors because of our gender, does not mean we *ought* to automatically embrace them - instead we should rationally examine them and choose to embrace or not embrace them, to what extent we can and to what degree its possible based, again, on that lifetime of development and choices. And this diversion took place only because of the assertions that because women are women and it is part of thier pyschological makeup to look up to a man that they ought to pyschologically worship him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand that, but I am looking for a conceptual direction, if it is good and proper for a woman to like a man because she can look up to him, what then is the good and proper reason for a man to like a women.

Before I respond to the rest I have a question. What are you using here as a standard for saying 'good and proper'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The entirety of this diversion part of this discussion was only to emphasize that point that just because evolution has given us a tendancy to to certain behaviors because of our gender, does not mean we *ought* to automatically embrace them - instead we should rationally examine them and choose to embrace or not embrace them, to what extent we can and to what degree its possible based, again, on that lifetime of development and choices. And this diversion took place only because of the assertions that because women are women and it is part of thier pyschological makeup to look up to a man that they ought to pyschologically worship him.
(bold mine)

Matus, when you speak of "a tendency to certain behaviors because of our gender" that's psychological right? which comes/arises from our biological/physiological gender makeup/identity? Are we psychological blank slates, or does the latter makeup write on it? I'm trying to understand this. So far I think it does.

As for the rest of the bold: "Every 'is' implies an 'ought'." Ayn Rand, VoS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Before I respond to the rest I have a question. What are you using here as a standard for saying 'good and proper'?

Not an easy question, but generally in the context I have been using in this thread, roughly a long term (life long) mutual intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, and physically (sexually as well) stimulating, challenging, invigorating and inspiring passionate relationship full of development, progress, growth and subsequently immense joy - a eudaimonic relationship.

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?

Excellent question Moebius, I'd like to see the ladies answers on this one. Conversely, we ought to answer the same question in regards to femininity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not an easy question, but generally in the context I have been using in this thread, roughly a long term (life long) mutual intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, and physically (sexually as well) stimulating, challenging, invigorating and inspiring passionate relationship full of development, progress, growth and subsequently immense joy - a eudaimonic relationship.

You wrote:

if it is good and proper for a woman to like a man because she can look up to him

Good and proper terms, the way you seem to be defining them, imply a conscious choice (similarly to how she chooses the values she is attracted to) whereas I am explaining to you what just IS and perhaps why it is that way.

I think that preference to be arround male strength (with both mental and physical components but I would say in case of not having it all: mental >>>> physical) - let's call it that since all of the other terms introduce bad connotations - is tied to that - already mentioned by me - sexual volunerability. It is tied to a psychological, sometimes deeply hidden, desire for security and protection (can you gain that feeling of security from someone who is weaker? Think about it.). It is something with which, I think, a male can not identify because reality does not require that for him.

So the preference is not dictated by what is complementary to a man (what would be proper (in your terms) for a relationship with him) but rather what is complementary to me. It is very much selfish. I seek that (have a psychological preference for it) because that is what I require due to how reality is for me.

Edited by ~Sophia~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matus, when you speak of "a tendency to certain behaviors because of our gender" that's psychological right? which comes/arises from our biological/physiological gender makeup/identity? Are we psychological blank slates, or does the latter makeup write on it? I'm trying to understand this. So far I think it does.

I have tried to elaborate on this point as best as I have come to understand it, I'll try again. We are figurative blank slates, in that essentially everything we are inclined to, or the vast majority of it, is possible to overcome and re-write, with the qualifier that the longer you live your life embracing any particular thing the harder it is to over write it later on and the more fundamental to your state of existence something is the harder it is also to overcome. It is clear from behavioral genetics and pyschology that some behavioral charachteristics are included in our genetic make, see identical twin studies, especially where twins are raised apart. It is also clear that certain common environmental conditions tend to create common behavior among people, see the sibling pecking order studies and similiar. It is also clear that humans can choose to embrace certain qualities that no geneticist or behvaral pyschologist would have been able to predict, no matter how much information they had. It is also clear that there are certain behavorial charachteristics associated with the physiological makeup of men and women respectively, and certain ones from our evolution and existence as human beings. Thus we have influences from our genetic makeup, from the way we are raised and the habits we incur, the choices we make, and some just perhaps random. As I mentioned before, I think Aristotle made the best and most prescient statement summarizing this (which modern falsely dichotomous arguments about nature vs nurture still fail to grasp) that all of our behavior comes from the complicated interaction of one of four things, Chance, Nature, Habit, and Choice (actually he had 3 different variations on Habit)

You might imagine, I think, the 'blank slate' as one of a gradient of shades where lighter ones are easier to change and darker ones are harder, older, and more fundamental and reflexive.

As for the rest of the bold: "Every 'is' implies an 'ought'." Ayn Rand, VoS.

Rand was refering to ethics, like man is a rational being, etc, but IS to OUGHT can apply to every single observational statement, do you think this is what she meant? This desk is Red = This desk ought to be red, I am taller than my brother = I ought to be taller than my brother, etc. Similiarly, women (tend to be) are attracted to confident out going men, = women OUGHT to be ... or Men are attracted to passive shy women = Men OUGHT to be attracted to shy passive ....etc

Not every *is* ought to automatically be made into an *ought*. To say Jane IS a human woman = Jane ought to behave as a human woman to survive is what she was referring to. What it means to behave as a human woman is another question, where one can not necessarily derive every observational correlation into a prescriptive statement (e.g. human women this or human women that) as this would invalidate free will and any concept of growth or change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To me, this seems to emphasize the complimentary beneficial aspects of the different and unique roles of the man and the woman.

Uhh, I like this terminology - playing the male role fully and well. That is what that is.

Look up to does not seem an appropriate term with it's connotations of inspiration and emulation as opposed to admiration and recognition.

Yes, those damn wrong connotations.

Both partners would seem to experience a stronger sense of their own masculanity or feminity from the influence, behavior, and complimentary nature of the presence of thier significant other.

Yes and that experience feels the best when they are playing their respective roles well. We are both actors in the same play but we each have a different role to play.

So my question ultimately is, If we are talking about the complimentary, then what is the compliment to 'worship' or 'to look up to' even though I understand we are missing a concept between platonic admiration and romantic 'worship' .

You are again asking me to answer from a male perspective and I can only take a guess when it comes to male psychology. I guess a man would have a desire for something to possess and then protect, guard, cherish or something of that nature? The fact that metaphysically he can offer that security (Rand called it a hero role) would be very psychologically rewarding for him (I would think).

You tell me.

Edited by ~Sophia~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess a man would have a desire for something to possess and then protect, guard, cherish or something of that nature? The fact that metaphysically he can offer that security (Rand called it a hero role) would be very psychologically rewarding for him (I would think).

You tell me.

Correct!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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... and give some concretizations of this worship.

I'm not a woman so I don't have access directly to that kind of information. You'd do better to ask a woman who understands those concepts.

why if a woman can worship the masculine in a man, why can a man not worship the feminie in a woman,

I think you know this already. You've already said how much nonsense it would be if it were somehow able to be mutual. It is definitely an "imbalanced" situation, as you put it, but what you are missing is that it is complementary. Each brings a particular kind of value to the table.

As I have said, the man's role is to be the hero. The protector and possessor of values. The woman's role is to be the value - that which is possessed and protected. The man does value her - but not as someone to be looked up to - rather as someone that is worth attaining and protecting. This is not worship, but it is a form of valuing.

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.

Well I disagree. What you describe as "passive" is one side of the false dichotomy presented by modern feminists. In the same sense that the child and the brute are false claims to the masculine, so too are the wallflower and the ball-buster false to femininity.

I would appreciate it, since I have now several times stated that I disagree with "passive" if you would cease using that word to characterize my position of what the feminine should be.

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.

The trouble, I think, is that you are conflating masculinity with what evolutionary psychologists (read: idiots) say masculinity is. Also, don't get me wrong - you do of course have to understand the concept of your masculinity in terms of your individual context - i.e. your individual traits - as well as in the more general definitional sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are again asking me to answer from a male perspective and I can only take a guess when it comes to male psychology. I guess a man would have a desire for something to possess and then protect, guard, cherish or something of that nature? The fact that metaphysically he can offer that security (Rand called it a hero role) would be very psychologically rewarding for him (I would think).

Would you say then that a large part of our psychology is in fact rooted in our biology? Because the sort of inclination you describe seem pretty typical among other primates (and most social mammals for that matter) as well -- physical protection, shelter, provision of food (which in turn translates into social status). Philosophy aside, these seem to be the very same qualities that virtually all women has historically sought after -in reality- regardless of their respective culture or background.

It seems like such a cliche to restate the whole "evolutionarily speaking females seek stable males who are good providers because it offers them the greatest chance of passing on their genes, while males seek to either possess females exclusively or to inseminate as many females as they can, likewise because it offers them the greatest chance of passing on their genes". But is this really the bottom line that we are talking about? The "nature" of the masculine vs the feminine? Because it certainly seems to fit the (and I am generalizing here) behavioral profile of most sexually mature humans.

Furthermore, does this contradict the Objectivist assertion of tabula rasa? I believe Matus touched upon this in a previous post, and I am interested in your opinion being the most vocal female voice on this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I have said, the man's role is to be the hero. The protector and possessor of values. The woman's role is to be the value - that which is possessed and protected. The man does value her - but not as someone to be looked up to - rather as someone that is worth attaining and protecting. This is not worship, but it is a form of valuing.

I like this idea. I really do. It is romantic and it rings true. But my question is this: If this is in fact "the nature of man" or "the nature of masculinity", is it based on rational choice or biology?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you say then that a large part of our psychology is in fact rooted in our biology?

I am not sure if I would say a large part but definately some part.

Because the sort of inclination you describe seem pretty typical among other primates (and most social mammals for that matter) as well -- physical protection, shelter, provision of food (which in turn translates into social status). Philosophy aside, these seem to be the very same qualities that virtually all women has historically sought after - in reality - regardless of their respective culture or background.

Today women no longer relay on men for their survival or social status but the nature of the sex act remain the same and always will. Women will always require a high level of trust to engage in it.

But is this really the bottom line that we are talking about? The "nature" of the masculine vs the feminine? Because it certainly seems to fit the (and I am generalizing here) behavioral profile of most sexually mature humans.

Reproduction is the behind the scenes reason for sexual attraction. Having a mate is not required for individual survival.

Furthermore, does this contradict the Objectivist assertion of tabula rasa? .

No, I don't think it does. Tabula rasa does not mean no inborn sexual identity. Hormones are shaping us in that way from the time we are conceived. Sure a part of what we consider as properly feminine/masculine is cultural (and thus vary) but there is a significant biological component to it as well.

Edited by ~Sophia~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like this idea. I really do. It is romantic and it rings true. But my question is this: If this is in fact "the nature of man" or "the nature of masculinity", is it based on rational choice or biology?

I'd say both: It's based on the rational choices given certain facts that ultimately boil down to biology. It's about recognizing that you are a rational mind that is living inside a certain kind of body - and asking: "Okay, what does this mean for me? And what am I going to do about it?"

It doesn't pose any threat at all to tabula rasa; you could choose to completely ignore the facts that give rise to this whole thing. But just like ignoring the facts about man's nature that give rise to ethics (man is a living being and must take certain actions to survive, reason is his tool of survival, etc), it's not a very good idea if you want to obtain the values associated with them. (in the latter case - life, in the former case - sex and relationships)

Identity doesn't pose a threat to free will. This is simply another instance.

Some positions of Evolutionary Biologists, on the other hand, do contradict free will. They say "men are wired to do x behavior." This is nonsense, in my opinion. They see a lot of men doing something and assume it must be hardwired. But it means no such thing. If certain facts about biology imply the necessity of certain behaviors, then men who apply reason to the situation will see this and generally act accordingly. More or less, of course, according to how well they have managed to apply reason (or not) to the situation. And this will give rise to cultural trends which further influence the data available to men, and also pretty much decide the matter for those who don't choose to decide independently. This will produce a general trend, statistically, to a behavior. But to draw from this an "instinct" that is "hard wired" is a gigantic leap that is not in the least bit justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a woman so I don't have access directly to that kind of information. You'd do better to ask a woman who understands those concepts.

So let me get this straight, you have no idea what it means for a woman to worship a man, yet you are absolutely 100% sure that she should. If you dont know what means for a woman to worship you, than why are you so sure she is supposed to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So let me get this straight, you have no idea what it means for a woman to worship a man, yet you are absolutely 100% sure that she should. If you dont know what means for a woman to worship you, than why are you so sure she is supposed to?

No, I said you'd do better to ask a woman. Listen, I'm trying to help you understand this. I'm not being paid to take your attitude. If you want my help understanding this, you won't get it if you keep up like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Haha, You're no help.

I have given this some more thought.

I think that women, when it comes to dating, can't be analyzed through the lens of a male psyche and vice-versa (and both genders make a mistake of doing so - I am no exception) and some of women predilections are no more difficult for men to understand than men's are to women.

Any trait taken to extremes becomes unappealing but many things that irritate women about men (and vice-versa) if present in moderation are often very attractive. The differences between the sexes are, in fact, a large source of excitement.

Women find masculine confidence hot even if a man boldly charges in wrongheaded direction. They find it more hot than kindness, attractiveness, often even intelligence. (Shocking?) It is all about what turns her on sexually and most of the time it is not man's sense of humor or how well read he is (although those are values). Also, women like men to be a bit mysterious which means little evasive. A proper masculinity (what the "bad boys" project) involves being aware (conscious awareness at that moment in time) of the power of and being comfortable with the influence of - our physicality and especially his physicality in relation to women. It means walking into the room as a man and not only as a mind (by mind I mean how he identifies himself - maybe by what he does or what he is good at). That is especially crucial on dates because what it does is - it makes the female aware of her own gender, brings to focus her own sexuality and that is very attractive. What I find men often forget, especially if they are focused on the idea that attraction is based on values is the fact that their masculinity is a value to women and in romance a primary. They are busy highlighting all of their non-gender specific qualities (because that is what they think is going to make a girl like them) and neglect the one for which women want to see them in a first place. This 'looking up to' is, I think, woman's reaction to a man projecting masculine sexual superiority.

Edited by ~Sophia~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess a man would have a desire for something to possess and then protect, guard, cherish or something of that nature? The fact that metaphysically he can offer that security (Rand called it a hero role) would be very psychologically rewarding for him (I would think).

As I have said, the man's role is to be the hero. The protector and possessor of values. The woman's role is to be the value - that which is possessed and protected. The man does value her - but not as someone to be looked up to - rather as someone that is worth attaining and protecting. This is not worship, but it is a form of valuing.

I know I am weighing in late here, but yes! Very much so. I was just discussing with a friend earlier today how it is the man's role to protect his woman and how I require it of myself should I enter into a romance. And I love the idea of doing that for her, just as I love the idea of possessing her. In fact I'd go so far as to guess that a part of the woman worshipping the man is based on him protecting her. Sophia, is there any truth to this? It seems based on the fact that she is hero-worshipping that there is. And if there is that explains why it is not proper for a man to worship a woman; because it is the man's role to protect, not the woman's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any trait taken to extremes becomes unappealing but many things that irritate women about men (and vice-versa) if present in moderation are often very attractive. The differences between the sexes are, in fact, a large source of excitement.

Oh, hell yes! I have had no romantic and sexual experience, but I have had experience being around females and looking at them. Even just with that little experience the differences excite me.

Women find masculine confidence hot even if a man boldly charges in wrongheaded direction. They find it more hot than kindness, attractiveness, often even intelligence. (Shocking?) It is all about what turns her on sexually and most of the time it is not man's sense of humor or how well read he is (although those are values).

I am glad to know that since I am a very confident man. It is encouraging to know. :D

Also, women like men to be a bit mysterious which means little evasive.

While I don't know about other mean, but I like them being that way. :D

This 'looking up to' is, I think, woman's reaction to a man projecting masculine sexual superiority.

Such as taking charge during a date?

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...