About a Woman President

[FeatherFall]

A president must be superior to all those who serve him/her.

Even if we assume that this is true, it doesn't follow that all men serve the president. Thus, a woman could entertain a romantic relationship with a business leader, an intellectual, a sports star or, perhaps scandalously, the head of another state.

[DavidOdden]

Ayn Rand identified hero-worship as a characteristic of woman qua woman -- and thereby of rational women as well.

Her argument, in brief, is:

a) The essence of woman qua woman is hero-worship, the desire to look up to man.

On the one hand, I don't want to distract you from granting Matt's request to speak your own opinion. On the other hand, I am morally compelled to point out that you are evading the question. Your point b. has been dispensed with w.r.t. the POTUS job, by Matt and Jennifer. You still have not given evidence that a. is true, and in particular that it is a philosophical truth. That is what I requested you to show.

If you look at the structure of what you claimed -- 'Rand identified hero-worship as a characteristic of woman; her argument is thus: the essence of woman is hero-worship...', then you must conclude either you are begging the question if you are trying to argue that hero-worship is a characteristic of woman, or you are ignoring the question. What is your philosophical proof that hero-worship is a characteristic of woman? I understand that you feel that way. All I am asking for is the proof that hero-worship is in the nature of woman, just as rationality is in the nature of man or mutual repulsion is in the nature of electrons. The latter, btw, a scientific truth, not a philosophical truth. I don't care if you conduct a statistical survey (since it would be useless to do so); I want you to show me the philosophical proof.

[Inspector]

I agree with this much, however I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion that being the POTUS will force a woman into this untenable situation. Unlike an absolute monarch, (and like a CEO) the POTUS deals daily with people that aren't under his orders.

That sounds at least plausible. But the buck does stop there at least in many senses.

Women don't require someone to "look up to" in the sense of someone who has greater or more worthwhile achievements than we do. What we DO require is an equal; being masculine means you get that extra little kick that turns you into the object of hero-worship when you equal us on every other level.

Here's how I see it:

The level on which a feminine woman "looks up to" a man is qua his masculinity. Miss Rand said:

the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack.

I presume this also means any non-masculinity-influencing human virtue that he might lack, or any such virtue either of them might posess, is not a factor in the equation. He doesn't have to be better than the woman at everything, he just has to be a man (not just a male!).

I'm not sure if that's exactly what you meant or not, Jennifer. (it sounds like it is)

It's dealing constantly with inferior men that makes us crazy. Why? Because we turn into their mother; we can't help it. There's nothing to make you feel gray, boring, and sexless like relating to grown men as though they were children.

Very insightful; that's the key to the objection, I think: that the President deals with practically everyone he meets as their military superior (i.e. everyone in the executive branch).

It would stand to reason that "military officer" is also not a career that is too well suited to someone who seeks to be feminine.

[hunterrose]

Presuming being superior to everyone in any other field is not unfeminine, why is being militarily superior different from being superior in any other field? (By militarily superior you mean being the top, though not unchecked, military officer?)

[Kevin]

In order to assert that the presidency is not a suitable profession for women, you would need to establish a concrete, universal difference between men and women, and then explain why that difference is relevant in terms of the duties facing a president. Identifying concrete differences is not such a problem- smaller stature, hormonal diffferences, the maternal instinct. None of these are absolute, obviously, but they are pretty clear general trends. I fail to see, however, how any of these differences presents a strong foundation for the assertion Rand makes.

Stature is hardly a reasonable basis. This idea of "looking up to men" certainly can't be based on mere size. Maybe looking up at men, but there have been many rulers, male and female, of many shapes and sizes who have commanded respect and loyalty. I doubt that Napolean felt he was looking up to his men from anything but a physical standpoint.

This also applies to the military issue. What makes a women unsuited for dealing with political adversaries on a military basis? It's not as though she's going to challenge them to individual combat. The president's military power is symbolic, backed by the actual troops underneath him/her. Why would a woman be less apt to wield that power than a man? Because of her emotional differences? The hormonal cycles that separate men from women may create different general emotional patterns, but at most that seems to indicate that a woman president would simply have to be on the emotionally stable side of her gender. I would arue that that is true for a male president as well. No one wants an emotional rollercoaster in office, male or female, but to say that all women are bound to be plagued by this kind of emotional imbalance because of the stresses of the presidency seems hasty at best. We've already mentioned examples of woman leaders who performed beutifully under this kind of pressure.

As for the idea that a woman will inevitably turn into a mother when faced with a bunch of men who are her moral or intellectual inferiors, thereby undercutting her ability for rational fullfillment, I would reiterate the idea that the presidency is demanding of anyone. Do you think male presidents enjoy being badgered and pleaded with and denounced by people who are obviously inferior to them? I'm sure that it wears on them, too. Look at Atlas Shrugged- did Rearden do a better job of dealing with the parasites that Dagny did? Both of them were torn apart by the competition between their love of ability and their loating for the parasites who demanded it. It's not as though Dagny's maternal instincts kicked in towards James, and while yes, it was hard for her to be in that position of authority, it was no less trying for Hank.

It just seems like the assertion that women are, by their very nature, universally unfit for an office like the presidency would require a lot of solid evidence, and Rand's appeal to the idea of hero worship or femininity just doesn't justify it.

[Edited to break up into paragraphs. Matt]

Edited March 23, 2006 by Groovenstein

[Daedalus]

I have reviewed your posts in thread, and you have provided numerous citations to Rand and Peikoff. I am curious, what do you think of her argument?

I agree with it. But then I have yet to discover a work of Ayn Rand's that I disagree with.

Even if we assume that this is true, it doesn't follow that all men serve the president. Thus, a woman could entertain a romantic relationship with a business leader, an intellectual, a sports star or, perhaps scandalously, the head of another state.

True. But the president qua president would necessarily be superior to all who officially served him/her. As Ayn Rand explained, this would be an untenable situation for a rational woman.

[Daedalus]

On the one hand, I don't want to distract you from granting Matt's request to speak your own opinion. On the other hand, I am morally compelled to point out that you are evading the question. Your point b. has been dispensed with w.r.t. the POTUS job, by Matt and Jennifer. You still have not given evidence that a. is true, and in particular that it is a philosophical truth. That is what I requested you to show.

I disagree that point b. has been dispensed with. Point a. can be confirmed by logic and the evidence of our senses, just as every line of "The Objectivist Ethics" can be so confirmed.

If you look at the structure of what you claimed -- 'Rand identified hero-worship as a characteristic of woman; her argument is thus: the essence of woman is hero-worship...', then you must conclude either you are begging the question if you are trying to argue that hero-worship is a characteristic of woman, or you are ignoring the question.

False dilemma. Ayn Rand's observation that "For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship" does not beg the question any more than her statement that "Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival qua man—i.e., qua rational being" does. Both statements express essential characteristics of the members of our species. These essentials can be confirmed by real world experience.

[DavidOdden]

Point a. can be confirmed by logic and the evidence of our senses, just as every line of "The Objectivist Ethics" can be so confirmed.

Do you consider "woman" to be a synonym for "adult human female"?

[Kevin]

I disagree that point b. has been dispensed with. Point a. can be confirmed by logic and the evidence of our senses, just as every line of "The Objectivist Ethics" can be so confirmed.

These essentials can be confirmed by real world experience.

What experience is this? My own real world experience has indicated that hero worship is an idea common to both genders. Certainly I know many males, myself included, who have looked up to people in the past, and continue to do so. What is it about female hero worship that is so fundamentally different? I gave three examples in my previous post of differences I find to be insignificant, so I'm interested to know what real world difference you believe carries some weight.

[Daedalus]

Do you consider "woman" to be a synonym for "adult human female"?

Yes.

What experience is this? My own real world experience has indicated that hero worship is an idea common to both genders.

This is a non-issue. When Ayn Rand wrote, "the essence of femininity is hero-worship," she did not rule out the possibility of hero-worship among men.

[softwareNerd]

While hero-worship might be of essence to a woman qua woman, it isn't of essence to a woman qua man. The essence of a woman qua woman is not so important to me when I choose a president; I look at the essence of the woman qua politician.

[Capitalism Forever]

The essence of a woman qua woman is not so important to me when I choose a president; I look at the essence of the woman qua politician.

The argument is not that a man shouldn't vote for a woman President; it is that a rational woman wouldn't want to be President.

[DavidOdden]

While hero-worship might be of essence to a woman qua woman, it isn't of essence to a woman qua man. The essence of a woman qua woman is not so important to me when I choose a president; I look at the essence of the woman qua politician.

Once you grant that it is in the nature of females (and not in the nature of males) to worship some hero -- and that is not a point that I concede as perceptually self-evident -- then "a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother—or leader". Note one important fact about using the word "men" here -- it could mean "all men" or "any men". It would be ridiculous to think that Rand is saying a properly feminine man does not treat any men as if she were their pal, sister or mother, and any woman who is a sister or mother of some man will tell you how ludicrous it would be to think that. What this then proves is that Rand meant that a properly feminine female should treat some man specially, as an object of hero worship.

In contrast, the president (or should I say, ideal president -- we've had lots of non-ideal presidents in my lifetime) is the supreme commander of the miitary who is superior to all and led by none, and has the last say in all matters of the executive branch. Period.

Putting the pieces together, even if we have a female president who is properly feminine as Rand defines it, there is no unbearable situation if her object of worship is not a subordinate in the military or the executive branch. No rational person would want to hold a position of superiority over others if they did not confidently know that they are superior to those others. Hence the first female president should not marry her vice-president.

[Daedalus]

While hero-worship might be of essence to a woman qua woman, it isn't of essence to a woman qua man. The essence of a woman qua woman is not so important to me when I choose a president; I look at the essence of the woman qua politician.

The rationality of the president is of utmost importance. And it is this criterion that Ayn Rand discusses in her essay. Capitalism Forever goes to the crux of the matter: "The argument is not that a man shouldn't vote for a woman President; it is that a rational woman wouldn't want to be President."

[softwareNerd]

Yes, I understand the point. However, even if I grant that a rational woman may not want the job qua woman (which I do not grant), I'm willing to assume that a rational woman may want the job qua man. I would have to know about the particular woman.

[Daedalus]

Yes, I understand the point. However, even if I grant that a rational woman may not want the job qua woman (which I do not grant), I'm willing to assume that a rational woman may want the job qua man. I would have to know about the particular woman.

As Ayn Rand explains in her essay, the rationality of any woman who sought the presidency would be doubt.

[Kevin]

As Ayn Rand explains in her essay, the rationality of any woman who sought the presidency would be doubt.

I still don't see what sensory data leads one to the conclusion that women are inherently more hero-worshipping than men, that it is part of their essence, but not part of man's. What evidence do you see for this, Daedalus?

[Daedalus]

I still don't see what sensory data leads one to the conclusion that women are inherently more hero-worshipping than men, that it is part of their essence, but not part of man's. What evidence do you see for this, Daedalus?

My experiences among the opposite sex. Ayn Rand came to the same conclusion -- from a woman's point of view.

[Kevin]

My experiences among the opposite sex. Ayn Rand came to the same conclusion -- from a woman's point of view.

I don't suppose you could be a little more specific? What experiences?

[Hal]

My experiences among the opposite sex. Ayn Rand came to the same conclusion -- from a woman's point of view.

Why do you think that your personal experiences, based as they are on one particular society at one particular point in history, are philosophically relevant when it comes to discussing the nature of men/women? Someone who lived in the 18th century could use "logic and the evidence of his senses" to come to the conclusion that it was in the essence of black people to be servile. And this would be flawed for precisely the same reasons as your argument - you cannot make meaningful extrapolations from such a small sample.

The fact that until recently women have generally been servile in modern society is interesting, but this tells us very little about the 'objective nature of feminity', and quite a lot about the structure and history of our culture.

Edited March 23, 2006 by Hal

[Daedalus]

I don't suppose you could be a little more specific? What experiences?

Acquaintances and relationships with the opposite sex confirm Ayn Rand's insight that woman qua woman is a hero-worshipper and that the object of her worship is masculinity. I will spare the reader any further detail.

[Kevin]

Acquaintances and relationships with the opposite sex confirm Ayn Rand's insight that woman qua woman is a hero-worshipper and that the object of her worship is masculinity. I will spare the reader any further detail.

Can't you see why this is not a convincing argument? I've presented an argument regarding why the differences that I can identify between men and women are insufficient in supporting Rand's assertion. You've simply repeated that she made the assertion, and that you've found it to be true. If, by detail, you mean actual facts rather than vague references, then I would ask not to be spared. I can only see two options- either your observations in this matter aren't sufficient to support the claims you've made, or there are observations you feel are relevant and compelling, but you've chosen not to submit them. Am I missing something? Consider, as well, that the existence of some women in your experience that have exhibited hero worship is not confirmation of a universal trend. Hal is exactly right to say that this sort of observational conclusion could easily and mistakenly be applied to a whole host of situations. What is needed is objective, consistent data regarding the nature of females that would lead one to draw your conclusisons.

[Daedalus]

Can't you see why this is not a convincing argument? I've presented an argument regarding why the differences that I can identify between men and women are insufficient in supporting Rand's assertion.

But why should I or Ayn Rand or anyone who agrees with Ayn Rand on this topic regard your observations and identifications as superior to own own? As John Galt said, "Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it -- that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life."

You've simply repeated that she made the assertion, and that you've found it to be true. If, by detail, you mean actual facts rather than vague references, then I would ask not to be spared. I can only see two options- either your observations in this matter aren't sufficient to support the claims you've made, or there are observations you feel are relevant and compelling, but you've chosen not to submit them. Am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing the fact that a lifetime of experiences with women cannot be itemized on an internet message board.

Consider, as well, that the existence of some women in your experience that have exhibited hero worship is not confirmation of a universal trend. Hal is exactly right to say that this sort of observational conclusion could easily and mistakenly be applied to a whole host of situations. What is needed is objective, consistent data regarding the nature of females that would lead one to draw your conclusisons.

Why not demand that Ayn Rand or another Objectivist submit "consistent data" that proves that man's nature for his proper survival qua man is observing the individual rights of others? I don't know of any statistics available to suppot "The Objectivist Ethics," but I do not see that as a reason not to embrace the truth of Ayn Rand's ethical system.

Edited March 23, 2006 by Daedalus

[JMeganSnow]

I presume this also means any non-masculinity-influencing human virtue that he might lack, or any such virtue either of them might posess, is not a factor in the equation. He doesn't have to be better than the woman at everything, he just has to be a man (not just a male!).

Yes, precisely, although he does need to be at least equal to her in other respects. That's not to say he has to do everything just as well as she does (that doesn't make any sense to me, a good relationship involves some division-of-labor as far as I'm concerned), it's that he needs to be as able overall as she is. I'm guessing that men don't generally find themselves drawn to women that are their inferiors, either, so I don't think this is confined solely to women.

Very insightful; that's the key to the objection, I think: that the President deals with practically everyone he meets as their military superior (i.e. everyone in the executive branch).

It would stand to reason that "military officer" is also not a career that is too well suited to someone who seeks to be feminine.

It's not the military aspect that made the issue problematic to Ayn Rand, it's that, in theory, the president deals with EVERYONE (not practically everyone, EVERYONE) as their literal inferior. Women deal constantly with men that are their inferiors. It's not having any access whatsoever to ANY men that are your equal that makes you crazy. The others you can dismiss, regardless of how many there are.

That is, as I said, why I took the direction I did: I don't think the presidency would actually put a woman into that situation. Purely from my own experiences as a woman, I agree with Ayn Rand that I have a seriously powerful romantic drive and I really, really crave the company of a man I can deal with on my own level. I've seen it with my mother, who "mothers" my father, (which makes her miserable), and, really, with any woman whose husband calls her at work to ask whether it's okay for him to get the water heater repaired or discipline their children. I, at least, would like to think that a real man would be able to exercise his own judgment and deal with the situation. The phone call I would like to get would be: "Honey, the water heater broke, but I called the repair guy and it was even under warranty, so we're all good. I've just got to mop up this water."

[Kevin]

A few things. First, there's no reason to regard my reasoning as inherently superior. I've asked you several times to critique the reasoning in my previous post, and I'd be happy to compare my rational argument with your own, once you supply one. Second, you are the one making the positive assertion here, yes? To claim that woman are fundamentally different than men puts the ball in your court, and the onus of proof is on you. You don't have to bow to my superior forces of reason, but you do have to present some reason for your claim. Third, I'm not asking for a ase by case analysis of your female experience. If you asked me to defend the assertion that gravity operates in a certain way on the planet Earth, I wouldn't need to give you a play by play of every time I dropped an object from height. I could simply state that every time I dropped an object in this context, it fell as suspected. Can you make similar generaliations about the nature of women that stand up to repeated testing and lead you to your assertion? As for Rand's assertion of the sanctity of individual rights, maybe someone else can back me up here. Are there not observable connections between the level of individual freedom in a nation and the success of its people? Certainly the gap between the US and say, Cuba is indicative of such a correlation. I'm not asking for charts and graphs here. In fact, I already gave you some examples to start with. Women are smaller than men, they have different hormonal compositions, and they tend towards a natural maternal instinct. Granted, I find none of these universal or sufficient to support a claim that they are unfit for the presidency, but it is this sort of difference that one would need to identify in order to generate support. Do you disagree?