Haemp Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 Now I’d have to admit, I’m a new bird in the Objectivist nest. But in my search for rational, self-admiring people, I have noticed that it seems to be considerably easier to hint the essence of Galt in a man than in a woman. I want to dismiss this as a dumb generality, so I’m wondering if you could help me? What is your view of the male-female ratio? Could this be a cultural thing, or is it just, as I said, just generalities? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 But in my search for rational, self-admiring people, I have noticed that it seems to be considerably easier to hint the essence of Galt in a man than in a woman.You know, there can be only one John Galt. Are you saying that the John Galts outnumber the Dagny Taggarts? It's certain that Rand would not have portrayed men and women as interchangeable, if that's what you're pointing to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haemp Posted March 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 Are you saying that the John Galts outnumber the Dagny Taggarts? That would be a better way to say it, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regis Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 Just because more of the characters Rand mentions in Galt's Gulch are male does not mean that there is not a significant (or even equal) number of women there. It just so happens that the people Dagny knows (and therefore the characters we have been introduced to) in the valley are male because she worked with them and at that time more men were industrialists than women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.