Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
d180586

About a Woman President

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

whatever, my argument will stay in this forum to all those who wish to think.

my work here is done!

REASON IS NOT AUTOMATIC. THOSE WHO DENY IT CANNOT BE CONQUERED BY IT. DON'T COUNT ON THEM. LEAVE THEM ALONE.

-A. R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The irony of that statement is not lost by some of us."

Stephen, thanks for the laugh.

Oh, you're welcome, John.

You know, you just cannot make up characters such as these. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

p.s. 21 hours without power is a long time. Where is "here?" Midwest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a rural area south of Nacogdoches - in central, east Texas.

Yes, 21 hours is a long time. I'm about 10 miles from the nearest of the nearby towns, so this area is one of the last to get power restored after it goes. There was a severe storm last night that knocked out power to thousands in the region, so it took awhile for the power to be restored. Another storm passed this evening, and I still hear thunder not too distant, but so far the lights have only flickered.

To date, in my two and a half years here, 48 hours has been the longest I've had to go without power, but a couple of times a year the power goes out for several hours. It's a bit different from my many years living in Austin.

I live in Va. Beach on the east coast of VA. After Isabel, we were without power for 8 freakin' days. That really sucked, but we were relatively fortunate. My neighborhood is full of tall trees and we avoided any serious damage unlike several of our neighbors.

The ironic thing is, the power crews that worked in our neighborhood came all the way from Texas!

http://img70.photobucket.com/albums/v212/R...cs/CRW_9737.jpg

8 days without the forums!! Oh yea, without showers too. :D

VES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, it is not an issue of equality nor of superiority and inferiority.  It is an issue of difference.

Men and women are different.  Those differences are important, delightful, unavoidable, and make a romantic sexual relationship possible. I oppose those in today's culture who dislike and distrust the opposite sex and seek to erase those wonderful differences by making the opposite sex more like their own.  That is a BIG mistake.

Forgive me for having skipped over the majority of this thread, and for ignoring everyone else's comments but Betsy's for now.

My main question in response to your above quoted statement is this: How do you know that the differences between men and women are biological, rather than learned or societal?

What conquers me, and most of the women that share my standards, is a man's self-confidence and his ability to deal with reality and master it.
Why can't we say the same thing but replace "women" with "person A" and "man" with "person B"?

Understanding a woman's point of view requires understanding the concept of a woman's sexual surrender

Other than the actual physical fact of being less active in intercourse, what exactly is "the concept of a woman's sexual surrender"?

... as an integral part of personal identity, sexual identity has a delightful way of spilling over into non-romantic contexts. One minute I'm giving orders to someone at work and the next minute he's holding a door open for me.
Well, I agree with the first part, but I don't see how it can be applied to male-female relationships and mentalities in general. What I mean is that when a person is attracted to someone else as an individual, this will undoubtedly spill over into other aspects of their interactions. But how can we generalize to say that this causes a female to regard males in general as a certain way? And moreover, why can't the same be concluded about the way men see women in general?

As for the latter part, the fact of a person holding a door open for you, doesn't have much strength in making a statement about their neurological nature. If we start basing arguments on such things, we could end up making similar conclusions about, for example, what might be the nature of how blacks view whites, or vice versa.

"Also, are men capable of "hero-worship"?"

Not in the same, "I trust you completely, take my body and soul" sense that women are.

Why not?

...a woman's sexual motivation is so different from a man's.
How so? I thought Rand (and objectivists, or at least Randian objectivists) rejected the idea of sexual "instincts".

If someone is the Commander in Chief of the greatest country in the world, who could she look up to?

Why would it prevent her from looking up to the man she looked up to before? Moreover, why does a man in the same position not need someone to look up to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My main question in response to your above quoted statement is this:  How do you know that the differences between men and women are biological, rather than learned or societal?

Some differences are definitely biological (who is the initiator and sustainer, arousal cues and speed, etc.), some are a psychological consequences of biological differences (sexual surrender), and some are cultural (differences in dress, courting behaviors, etc.)

Other than the actual physical fact of being less active in intercourse, what exactly is "the concept of a woman's sexual surrender"?

I've written some essays about that subject (which I mentioned elsewhere in this thread) and I'll be glad to e-mail them to you if you request them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought your work here was done.

It is now.

(What is it with people insulting nearly everyone on the board, leaving in a huff saying that the place is worthless, only to return a week later to bother us some more?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A valuable & much misunderstood topic...

You might be interested in this website for a book I'm writing:

The Romantic Man

To quote from the Thesis & Themes section of the website:

"At the core of the book's thesis is a view of the nature of masculinity and femininity -- a perspective on men, women, and their relationship to each other that has its roots in the Romantic era, and was given explicit identification in the 20th century by Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand.

"This view, particularly Miss Rand's theory of feminine hero-worship, is essential to a full understanding of the nature of romantic love, and unlocks many of the apparent mysteries surrounding women that have confounded men throughout the ages.

"Though she powerfully dramatized this concept in her novels, Miss Rand never gave a full, systematic presentation of her views on romantic love: Discussion of hero-worship and its implications has thus far been confined mostly to brief comments made in essays and question-and-answer periods.

"It's a concept which is too important -- and too potent -- to remain obscure. THE ROMANTIC MAN will define exactly what hero-worship is -- what it means in conceptual and concrete terms -- and will illustrate in precise, practical, real-life examples how a clear grasp of this idea is crucial to a man's long-range romantic success."

Best,

Kevin Delaney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A valuable & much misunderstood topic...

You might be interested in this website for a book I'm writing:

The Romantic Man

The parts I read seemed quite interesting. This certainly has the makings of a fascinating book. If you can present the ideas just half as well as you can present your voice (See "Amazing 1-Minute MP3 Character Voice Demo" at http://www.captain-transistor.com/ ) I think you will have a hit!

I wish you the best with the project, and look forward to the book.

p.s. Is "Petition" the right word you want for your guestbook? Perhaps "support?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the good words.

Regarding the online petition: Initially, it was to be a petition for women to sign, as a kind of publicity stunt. But I decided that this tactic might be misleading, since publishers are really only interested in book sales (and not whether a book is "needed"). So it's now open to anyone who wants to declare that they would buy a book of this kind. It's a "petition" because everyone has a guestbook these days, and I always like to be just a little shocking. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The parts I read seemed quite interesting. This certainly has the makings of a fascinating book ... I wish you the best with the project, and look forward to the book.

While I still wish Kevin Delaney well, I think it only fair to say that, now having read more of his views and perspective, I no longer anticipate the book as I previously expressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really know if this will help but just a suggestion.

Maybe you should pitch your book to ARI. They have an entire book catalog and maybe they'll distribute for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About a woman president, not even Jefferson was passionate about being president, here’s a quote from Pursuit Of Reason by Noble E. Cunningham, Jr. (page 203, HC):

'By the end of December, Jefferson believed that Adams had the votes to win, and he was saying that he had never doubted that outcome. He said that he would not have refused election, but he rejoiced at escaping, being convinced that no man would ever leave the presidency with the reputation that he carried into it. “I have no ambition to govern men; no passion which would lead me to delight to ride the storm,” he mused. “The newspapers will permit me to plant my corn, peas, etc., in hills or drills as I please…while our Eastern friends will be struggling with the storm which is gathering over us; perhaps be shipwrecked in it. This is certainly not a moment to covet the helm.”'

This feeling should be even more pertinent today.

Americo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
About a woman president, not even Jefferson was passionate about being president, here’s a quote from Pursuit Of Reason by Noble E. Cunningham, Jr. (page 203, HC):

Well even Plato said this; that any noble man should be reluctant to rule, and would step up to the task only if the alternative was to be ruled by a worse man than himself. I don't think that this was quite what Rand meant with the said essay however - what Jefferson discussed here would apply to almost anyone asked to govern a country, whereas Rand particularly singled out women rather than humans in general.

I would certainly be suspicious of anyone (male or female) that had a burning desire to enter government, or to rule over others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is one area where I can't agree with Ayn Rand and I don't understand how it can be consistent with the rest of her philosophy.

Edited by Moose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is one area where I can't agree with Ayn Rand and I don't understand how it can be consistent with the rest of her philosophy.

Ayn Rand was simply expecting a woman to behave in accordance with her nature qua woman. Not only is this consistent with Ayn Rand's principles, it follows from the very essence of the Objectivist ethics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is one area where I can't agree with Ayn Rand and I don't understand how it can be consistent with the rest of her philosophy.
If you really wish to explore the topic, read the earlier posts in the thread. You'll realize that it is perfectly ethical for an Objectivist to vote for a woman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you really wish to explore the topic, read the earlier posts in the thread. You'll realize that it is perfectly ethical for an Objectivist to vote for a woman.

Whether or not voting for a woman is ethical, the Objectivist position is unambiguous: a woman should not serve as president. As Ayn Rand put it, for a rational woman, serving as president "would be an unbearable situation. (And if she is not rational, she is unfit for the Presidency or for any important position, anyway.)" ("About A Woman President," The Objectivist, December 1968)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you really wish to explore the topic, read the earlier posts in the thread. You'll realize that it is perfectly ethical for an Objectivist to vote for a woman.
I read through the preceding posts (I can't say that I read them all in depth, since I was was looking for anything that addressed the question of whether it would be ethical for an Objectivist to vote for a woman). I did not identify anything that addressed the ethicality of voting for a woman. The only two reasons I could imagine doing so being consistent with Objectivist ethics would be (1) if the two candidates were both irrational and the man was even more irrational or (2) you determine that Rand's judgment of the nature of women was in error. I don't see any other possibility, nor did I see anyone addressing these points (other than some people who simply reject Objectivism). What is the argument that it is ethical to vote for a woman president?

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...