Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Male Female differences/ Women Presidents etc

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 706
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't understand why a woman qua woman could not want to be President. Why does a man not find it psychologically repugnant to be the President for the same reasons a woman does? Ayn Rand's reasoning here (or, at least, the bits and pieces of it that I've seen) seem to contradict much of what Objectivism is about. Can someone clear this up?

In what way does it seem a contradition?

I would suggest a full read of the article. If you like I'll scan it and send it to you.

What does woman qua woman imply to you?

Rand implies that woman as human being, or woman as rational being wouldn't necessarily find it so. I don't find that contradictory.

Woman qua woman is woman as a feminine being. Look, I can't validate what she says about the psychology of femininity, because I'm not female. So you will never find me arguing that she is right about this perspective. Ultimately, you as a female, (qua woman, if you like :worry:) will have to introspect about your psychology and see if you concur. But, if you start from her premise, I can see how she arrived at her conclusion, and I don't see a contradition with her philosophy.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why a woman qua woman could not want to be President. Why does a man not find it psychologically repugnant to be the President for the same reasons a woman does? Ayn Rand's reasoning here (or, at least, the bits and pieces of it that I've seen) seem to contradict much of what Objectivism is about. Can someone clear this up?

Ayn Rand is making a statement on psychology in the article on a Woman President so I don't think it can be considered a part of her philosophy Objectivism. You don't have to agree with her. There are many Objectivists who don't.

See also this previous thread - Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something clicked while reading that thread. Attributes. This whole line of reasoning behind the essay is not based on man-made concepts, femininity and masculinity are metaphysical. As such, under her understanding of them, she's correct in her reasoning, and it is the job of pyschology to understand what femininity and masculinity are. Is my thinking correct in this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under her understanding of them, yes, and it appears that it is a psychological question rather than a philosophical one. However, I don't agree with her definition of femininity, no matter how metaphysical femininity itself may be. I especially don't agree that her definition of it is a requirement of a rational woman. I think the best place to continue discussing this is here- but I wouldn't suggest reading all 15 pages, it takes quite a bit of time and there's a lot of repetition. I've specified my own views in a post on that thread.

@KendallJ- I would love to read the full article, if it wouldn't be too much of a bother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something clicked while reading that thread. Attributes. This whole line of reasoning behind the essay is not based on man-made concepts, femininity and masculinity are metaphysical. As such, under her understanding of them, she's correct in her reasoning, and it is the job of pyschology to understand what femininity and masculinity are. Is my thinking correct in this?

Yes!

The fact that men and women are different is metaphysical. So at what conceptual level are those differences relevant.

Biological? Yes, obviously (hopefully we all agree on that)

Psychological? Rand says Yes, but at best you might say that she was not a psychologist and while she may have been generalizing from her own introspection that psychology as such has not developed a strong theory on the differences. I personally think there are probably some psychological differences, but I cannot in any way claim that I have a definitive, other than by my own introspection which is only 1/2 of the puzzle.

Political? No - men and women have the same rights, etc.

Ethical? No - men and women have the same proper virtues.

Epistemogical? No, men and women both have the capacity for rationality

Under her understanding of them, yes, and it appears that it is a psychological question rather than a philosophical one. However, I don't agree with her definition of femininity, no matter how metaphysical femininity itself may be. I especially don't agree that her definition of it is a requirement of a rational woman. I think the best place to continue discussing this is here- but I wouldn't suggest reading all 15 pages, it takes quite a bit of time and there's a lot of repetition. I've specified my own views in a post on that thread.

@KendallJ- I would love to read the full article, if it wouldn't be too much of a bother.

I think questioning Rand's initial premise is fair. But, accepting her premise, I think her logic is sound.

I'll scan the article up when I get home tonight. It's not too many pages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miseleigh,

Note, I don't think its necessary to reappend this thread to the original discussion on this topic. This one is separate and occured amonst different people, at a different time.

You said (in the old thread)

I, for one, feel that I could be President (or even absolute monarch) without losing my femininity. I do not hero-worship my boyfriend, and never have- yet our relationship is fulfilling for me. Likewise, he does not heroine-worship me. It is mutual respect and admiration between two people who are equal intellectually and morally, and love stems from that. However, the fact that he is masculine while I am feminine has very little effect on our relationship outside of the purely physical.

I want to build up exactly what your premise is contrasted to Rand's. If the fact that you and your boyfriend are different genders "has little effect... outide the purely physical", could you please describe the effect it has outside the purely physical? You didn't say it has "no effect outside the physical" so it must have some. Where is that, and what is it's nature? In other words, I'm trying to get you to classify where the concept of feminity is relevant:

Rand

Biological? Yes,

Psychological? Rand says Yes - miseleigh doesn't like her premise about it though

Political? No

Ethical? No

Epistemogical? No

Miseleigh

Biological? Yes - you said that above

Psychological? ?????

Political? No - you said earlier

Ethical? No - you said earlier

Epistemogical? No - you said earlier

So what does feminity imply to you, outside of the purely physical.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I am also not a psychologist, and haven't done very much introspection on that matter, but I will do my best...

First, the definitions of 'feminine' found by Google:

1. associated with women and not with men; "feminine intuition"

2. of grammatical gender

3. womanly: befitting or characteristic of a woman especially a mature woman; "womanly virtues of gentleness and compassion"

4. a gender that refers chiefly (but not exclusively) to females or to objects classified as female

5. the submissive character type; biological femininity refers to the female gender; psychological femininity refers to the submissive character type; also used as a noun to refer to a feminine individual.

6. Having qualities or characteristics that a culture associates with being female.

7. one of several subclasses of nouns and pronouns according to gender. Cf. masculine and neuter.

8. Fine, intricate and delicate.

These aren't all the ones that came up in the search- I omitted any that had to do with music, wine, poetry, etc.

In my own context, it is primarily definition #6 that applies. I have some characteristics that are generally associated with being female, such as listening, curiosity, vanity, and empathy. These have some small effect on my relationships because the first means that he tends to talk a lot more than I do, the second means that he finds me quite a bit more attractive because I question most of what I hear, the third means we have occasional problems with mirror-time because he shares this trait, and the 4th means he gets impatient if I'm empathizing with someone he considers to be irrational.

Ayn Rand's definition appears to be #5- perhaps #1, but that is a very broad statement. With either of these definitions, I do not see how she arrives at the conclusion that being a hero-worshipper is it's essence; I see the 'essence' of femininity, the key component, as having 'female' traits. Not only does she arrive at that conclusion, I also interpret her words to mean that not being feminine (or, not hero-worshipping) would be a loathsome position for any rational woman. Is that an accurate statement?

I agree that Rand's logic follows properly when using her premise. But I think that a woman's idea of femininity, and the parts of it she values, will change depending on the woman and the environment she lives in, and therefore I think that hero-worshipping is not required to retain it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think questioning Rand's initial premise is fair. But, accepting her premise, I think her logic is sound.
I think this is pretty important. If you accept her premise exactly how it is stated, it still leaves room for one to disagree about her conclusions. Whether one is dominant, submissive or cooperative in a romantic relationship involves one's romantic aesthetics. Thus, it involves a realm where two people can disagree and both be right.

I am willing to concede that women tend to take submissive roles in relationships and men tend to take dominant roles. However, when Rand made her statements about a woman in the Oval Office, she implied her conclusions should be true for all women. If every woman ascribed to her romantic (romance, not the type of art) aesthetics, she would have been right.

I, however, disagree with her premise. I believe it would have been more accurate to say that the essence of romance, not femininity, is hero/heroine worship. Femininity/masculinity have never been defined to my satisfaction. I tend to think of them as a society's gender norms, not something that applies to every man or every woman the same way. In other words, masculinity/femininity can only be judged within a given societal context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it would have been more accurate to say that the essence of romance, not femininity, is hero/heroine worship.

What do you mean here? Does this mean that both parties should worship each other, or is it still one-sided the way Miss Rand seems to intend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(comes out of lurking)

I've seen people post about issues of proving feministic premises due to the fact that one can only have a half of the story. (man's or woman's side).

There are even bigger problems. Think how you would go about proving that due to physiological differences between sexes you can get some set of pre-made psychological behaviors and needs that evetually flow into sex roles with concrete values.

Ideally you want to isolate each factor by removing it completely or at least holding it static. Now, this is something really hard to do. One could make a live test by isolating infants from existing social views and values, and see what is the general relationship as they grow up. (good luck getting premissions though :) ) But even then, it's still not clear how rearing and upbringing affects this if at all.

So, you end up juggling with biology and psychology at the same time.

P.S. Has anyone heard of such studies and their approaches? And how did they account for effect of modern day rearing of both sexes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean here? Does this mean that both parties should worship each other, or is it still one-sided the way Miss Rand seems to intend?

It's very simple: Ayn Rand indicated in her essay "About a Woman President" that she believed it would be intolerable for a woman to live in a world where no men were her equals. Not that women have to have men that are superior to them, but that we require men that are our equals, for romantic purposes. When you meet a man that is your equal, you can "look up to" him because he can do something you can't: BE A MAN. Works the other way around for men.

Personally, I disagree with her interpretation because I don't think there's conclusive evidence that being the President would put you in a situation where no one was your equal, all of which has been discussed in other threads at great length.

As for worshipping your partner, sounds good to me, considering that worship is just another way of saying love: it has connotations of the profound, is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean here? Does this mean that both parties should worship each other, or is it still one-sided the way Miss Rand seems to intend?
Each should worship the other. For the record, I don't think the POTUS is surrounded by only inferiors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(comes out of lurking)

I've seen people post about issues of proving feministic premises due to the fact that one can only have a half of the story. (man's or woman's side).

There are even bigger problems. Think how you would go about proving that due to physiological differences between sexes you can get some set of pre-made psychological behaviors and needs that evetually flow into sex roles with concrete values.

Ideally you want to isolate each factor by removing it completely or at least holding it static. Now, this is something really hard to do. One could make a live test by isolating infants from existing social views and values, and see what is the general relationship as they grow up. (good luck getting premissions though :) ) But even then, it's still not clear how rearing and upbringing affects this if at all.

So, you end up juggling with biology and psychology at the same time.

P.S. Has anyone heard of such studies and their approaches? And how did they account for effect of modern day rearing of both sexes?

Exactly the issue, and exactly the complexity. Ultimately this gets worked on by psychologists, and that's the place we should go to see if there is evidence that would support or disprove Ayn Rand's introspective statement. I think her essay makes a generalization about female psychology, that she didn't really have evidence for, other than her own introspection. I'm not sure what other forms of induction she relied on to be so sure about her conclusions, but whatever they are, she didn't really refer to them, which leaves us wondering where she gets the premise from. I can vouch from my own introspection about my personal similarity to her view on masculine psychology, but that doesn't leave me able to generalize either.

I am sure some clever psychologist can come up wiht creative experimental design that starts to look at isolating gender differences in psychology, but we may have to wait for the answer. no doubt difficult to do.

That was a nice observation by the way.

As for worshipping your partner, sounds good to me, considering that worship is just another way of saying love: it has connotations of the profound, is all.

I only like worship because it contrasts the Objectivist view of love with the Christian view of love (which is all to common).

Personally, I disagree with her interpretation because I don't think there's conclusive evidence that being the President would put you in a situation where no one was your equal, all of which has been discussed in other threads at great length.

I know its been discussed before, but for newcomers, it's not always helpful just to read over the old material. It's is not the same as "chewing" on the concept by having to address point and counterpoint in discussion. I'm more than fine in "rehashing" something that others have gone over before.

For the record, mdop, held a debate on this very topic in 1999, 2000 or something. Diana Hseih was very involved in that one then. I should see if I can find some old posts on the topic.... :) No, I shouldn't.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if worship means love, why is it that women should hero-worship, and Miss Rand doesn't say that men should heroine-worship? If it goes both ways, it's not a problem; but the 'essence of femininity' is hero-worship, while the essence of masculinity is heroism- there's a fundamental difference in where the focus is placed in those definitions.

And none of that addresses her reasons for (apparently) thinking that matriarchs are rationally revolting while patriarchs are reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

miseleigh,

I am curious. Do you find yourself attracted to men who are weaker then you? Not just physically, but mentally, psychologically or in any other respect. Because most men do find particular types of weakness in women very attractive. I am refering here, of course, to their being vulnerable, delicate, young, and so forth.

Being delicate is not a moral failure for a woman, it is a fact of reality. Try as she might, nothing short of ingesting testosterone(becoming more male) is going to get her bench pressing 200lbs. Nothing short of daily application of sand paper is going to make her skin as thick or as coarse as a man's is.

Men's strength(the particular types that women cannot posess) is what women should should worship and women's "weaknesses" (the particular types that men ought not posess) is what men cherish. Physiologically and psychologically it is difficult to look up to someone who is shorter then you by 8 inches. :) I believe this issue is much easier to understand if you look at it from the context of your own romantic experiences. If you try to look at it abstractly it is very difficult to leave out all of your ideas of moral strength. Integrity, honesty, and so forth.

Best Regards,

Gordon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I am also not a psychologist, and haven't done very much introspection on that matter, but I will do my best...

First, the definitions of 'feminine' found by Google:

1. associated with women and not with men; "feminine intuition"

2. of grammatical gender

3. womanly: befitting or characteristic of a woman especially a mature woman; "womanly virtues of gentleness and compassion"

4. a gender that refers chiefly (but not exclusively) to females or to objects classified as female

5. the submissive character type; biological femininity refers to the female gender; psychological femininity refers to the submissive character type; also used as a noun to refer to a feminine individual.

6. Having qualities or characteristics that a culture associates with being female.

7. one of several subclasses of nouns and pronouns according to gender. Cf. masculine and neuter.

8. Fine, intricate and delicate.

These aren't all the ones that came up in the search- I omitted any that had to do with music, wine, poetry, etc.

In my own context, it is primarily definition #6 that applies. I have some characteristics that are generally associated with being female, such as listening, curiosity, vanity, and empathy. These have some small effect on my relationships because the first means that he tends to talk a lot more than I do, the second means that he finds me quite a bit more attractive because I question most of what I hear, the third means we have occasional problems with mirror-time because he shares this trait, and the 4th means he gets impatient if I'm empathizing with someone he considers to be irrational.

hmmm. Ok that helps a bit. I think Featherleaf also said the same things. So if I contrast what I think to be the differences in where you and Rand might think gender differences are relevant:

Rand

Biological? Yes,

Psychological? Rand says Yes - miseleigh doesn't like her premise about it though=

Political? No

Ethical? No

Epistemogical? No

miseleigh

Biological? Yes,

Societal? (i.e. cultural norms) YES

Psychological? No

Political? No

Ethical? No

Epistemogical? No

My question for you is do you think that cultural norms are 100% arbitrary, i.e. things that have evolved at random without and relation to any relevant difference (even biological) between the sexes? I think certainly we could all agree that there are various culture norms that are derived from perceived differences which are non-existent, - i.e. arbitrary (her Presidency article lists some of these, so I'm going to assume she would have agreed with the implication that there are cultural norm differences) . Arbitrary cultural norms are certainly ones that both Objective men and women should rebel against.

The way your phrase your statement "characteristics that are generally associated with being female" would seem to imply to me that you feel these are associated with being female entirely by arbitrary, and that you personally don't in any way psychologically respond to them as feminine. Note: this is not a unique perspective for Objectivist women. I located a Diana Hseih article on the topic where her specific argument is that an Objective standard by which to work with ideas of gener is with respect to cultural norms. Here. (It's a fairly old article so please read Diana's cautionary note at the top of this page. She may or may not still hold that position. I am including it only to show that you are not so out of bounds in your contention.)

So the key difference between you and my hypothesis of Rand is on wether or not psychological differences exist that are relevant. Tough question to answer even upon introspection because you need the contrast of the two psychological perspectives to be able to discern.

So maybe a thought experiment. Forget any perceived cultural norms for a minute and focus on your psychology, your emotional response. What traits make you feel "feminine"? tough to draw specific conclusions I know. Sit with it for while. If you say none in particular affect your pschology, then ask yourself if, in any given romantic situation, you can be confident that your boyfriend takes the exact same emotional perspective that you do. Heck, maybe ask him to introspect and try to share his emotional perspective with you. Are there any differences? (hmmm I have an idea for a forum experiment)...

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll scan the article up when I get home tonight. It's not too many pages.

Is this ok to do? I thought that writing the entire article, sending a copy of the text online, etc.. would infringe on copyrites. Am I incorrect? Or does this constitute one of the time when it is ok (education)?

Just curious. I didn't offer to send it b/c of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5. the submissive character type; biological femininity refers to the female gender; psychological femininity refers to the submissive character type; also used as a noun to refer to a feminine individual.

Ayn Rand's definition appears to be #5- perhaps #1, but that is a very broad statement. With either of these definitions, I do not see how she arrives at the conclusion that being a hero-worshipper is it's essence; I see the 'essence' of femininity, the key component, as having 'female' traits. Not only does she arrive at that conclusion, I also interpret her words to mean that not being feminine (or, not hero-worshipping) would be a loathsome position for any rational woman. Is that an accurate statement?

I agree that Rand's logic follows properly when using her premise. But I think that a woman's idea of femininity, and the parts of it she values, will change depending on the woman and the environment she lives in, and therefore I think that hero-worshipping is not required to retain it.

I am not sure that hero worship necessarily implies submission. As I mentioned before a really big conclusion for me was that Objectivist worship, and the Christian notion of worship (which is a dominant influence today) were diametrically opposed. The Christian notion of worship connotes humbling yourself before God, i.e. recognizing your imperfection in contrast to God's "perfection". I think that is where I would reject definition 5 as deriving more from the Christian notion of worship. The Objectivist notion in contrast is egoitistical. It is, in a way, exhalting in your own virtue, by admiring similar virtues in another. That is why you must have significant virtue and self esteem in order to worship another. So an Objectivist must worship another, not by humbly bowing before them, but by standing as tall as they can, and in a sense basking in the glow of (i.e. valuing) shared virtue of another. As I said before, I believe that in the sense of valuing another, love is mutual worship.

The whole "hero worship" vs. "heroine [who reflects his deepest vision of himself] possession" again, only relates to the emotional perspective of this mutual worship. Rand posits that this is a relevant psychological difference. You believe it is entirely contextual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you find yourself attracted to men who are weaker then you? Not just physically, but mentally, psychologically or in any other respect.

I have been, although I'm usually more attracted to men on the same level as myself. Sometimes he'll be weaker than me in one respect and stronger than me in another, so it balances.

(Side note: being young = being weaker? What?)

Being delicate is not a moral failure for a woman, it is a fact of reality. Try as she might, nothing short of ingesting testosterone(becoming more male) is going to get her bench pressing 200lbs.
I would not call a gymnast 'delicate', nor would I call a good softball player 'delicate'. I also did not say it was a moral failure to be delicate- I said that a woman does not have to be 'delicate' to be feminine/female/valued as a woman. Granted, women (in general) are physically weaker than men (in general) but there are plenty of exceptions to that 'rule', and I don't see those women as being somehow immoral or irrational just because they're stronger than most of the men they know. Do you have some sort of proof that a woman would be unable to bench 200 lbs wthout the use of testosterone?

Men's strength(the particular types that women cannot posess) is what women should should worship and women's "weaknesses" (the particular types that men ought not posess) is what men cherish. Physiologically and psychologically it is difficult to look up to someone who is shorter then you by 8 inches. ;) I believe this issue is much easier to understand if you look at it from the context of your own romantic experiences. If you try to look at it abstractly it is very difficult to leave out all of your ideas of moral strength. Integrity, honesty, and so forth.

First, what types of strength can women not possess? Second, how does someone being shorter make it harder to psychologically look up to them? Would you not look up to Dagny Taggart if she was shorter than you? Third, of course I would never leave out my ideas of moral strength, integrity, etc. out of my romantic relationships. Did you really think I said I would try? I'm not sure what you mean by this statement.

My position is not that it is somehow wrong for a woman to look up to the man she's romantically involved with, or wrong for her to be physiologically weaker in any way. I simply do not agree with Miss Rand's idea of hero-worship as the essence of a woman's femininity or her reasoning for claiming that, or that all rational women ought to look up to her lover. I believe that is a choice based on personal preferences, not based on the fact that she's female. The third part of my argument is that Miss Rand's stance here seems to be morally lopsided, yet she advocates moral and intellectual equality throughout her actual philosophy.

@hunterrose: I have no idea how to start defining the 'essences' of femininity and masculinity. The definitions of the words themselves I'm using are "Having qualities or characteristics that a culture associates with being female/male"- which is almost philosophical 'essence' in itself (wikipedia: 'In philosophy, essence is the attribute (or set of attributes) that make an object or substance what it fundamentally is.') I guess I would be much more inclined to say that 'femininity is the essence of womanhood' or something, but that's simply redundant. In any case, if any kind of essences can be properly defined, I don't think there should be a difference between them. Using Ayn Rand's concepts as examples, the pairings would be either the 'essence of femininity/masculinity is heroinism/heroism' or the 'essence of feminity/masculinity is hero-worship/heroine-worship'. Any mixing of those implies an inequality.

@kendallj: That definition of 'worship' makes the whole idea a lot more palatable, but in that case, 'worship' was a poor choice of words. Just using 'love' would have worked much better. However, she did specify that it is a man's 'masculinity' that the woman is supposed to be worshipping. Is a man supposed to worship a woman's femininity too, then?

Your last sentence sums up the issue very neatly :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@kendallj: That definition of 'worship' makes the whole idea a lot more palatable, but in that case, 'worship' was a poor choice of words. Just using 'love' would have worked much better. However, she did specify that it is a man's 'masculinity' that the woman is supposed to be worshipping. Is a man supposed to worship a woman's femininity too, then?

Your last sentence sums up the issue very neatly :)

Well, you know Rand, she was specifically using words that had different common meaning in an attempt to "take them back" from those who she believes co-opted them. (e.g. selfishness, etc...). The net effect is that Objectivism seems to have a slightly different vocabulary, but you know that is true of philosophy in general. You have to know how a particular philospher defined and intended a concept otherwise you risk bringing in an incorrect context or a package deal. Plus, I'm not sure the Christian notion of love doesn't present the same problem.

I'm not sure where Rand said that specifically, but the answer, for me, is yes. A woman's feminity is part of what I worship.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"(Side note: being young = being weaker? What?)"

Younger is in most regards a weakness. Intellectually, financially, physically and otherwise. All strength requires time to develop. Very few people get weaker as they age. By young I mean being 19 as opposed to 40. Obviously at 97 years old you will be physically weaker.

I would not call a gymnast 'delicate', nor would I call a good softball player 'delicate'.

No, not necessarily. But her toughness is not what makes her sttractive to men. My point was only that the physical(not intellectual) attraction men feel is toward a woman's fragility.

I also did not say it was a moral failure to be delicate- I said that a woman does not have to be 'delicate' to be feminine/female/valued as a woman.

I didn't say that you did. I would agree that she doesn't have to be delicate to be valued as a person. But as a woman qua woman, I believe she does.

Granted, women (in general) are physically weaker than men (in general) but there are plenty of exceptions to that 'rule', and I don't see those women as being somehow immoral or irrational just because they're stronger than most of the men they know. Do you have some sort of proof that a woman would be unable to bench 200 lbs wthout the use of testosterone?

No, I just havn't met any that do. Men have on average 3X's the upper body strength of women. Most men can't bench 200 lbs so I thought it was a safe number. The hormones just are not there for women to bulk up to the same extent men can.

"First, what types of strength can women not possess? "

Great physical strength is the obvious one and probably what is most pertinant although I believe generally, greater psychological strength is the result of genetic roots also and is therefore a metaphysically given. As an example, a study recently showed that due to the fact that female infants have a tendency to hold the gaze of people longer do to better facial recognition abilities, they are held by caretakers 3 hours per day as opposed to 1 hour per day with male childern. The result is that from very early on males will tend to be less interested in the people around them and engage in more exploratory activities. This leads to a higher propensity for risk taking behavior and arguably more independence. Women on the other hand develop better linguistic skills and empathetic understanding in relationships with others. This early independence and risk taking behavior tends to create a greater degree of efficaciousness with regard to certain aspects of reality. One of those I think would be psychological strength. Soldiering on during difficult circumstances without emotional breakdown. (And yes, of course there can be exceptions)

"Second, how does someone being shorter make it harder to psychologically look up to them? "

When you think of a hero,abstractly, are they very often short and soft? Is that the understood definition of efficaciousness?

"Would you not look up to Dagny Taggart if she was shorter than you? "

I would look up to her as a person...but not romantically as a woman.

"Third, of course I would never leave out my ideas of moral strength, integrity, etc. out of my romantic relationships. Did you really think I said I would try? I'm not sure what you mean by this statement."

I think that you should try to. Rand is very clear that what a woman ought to look up to in a man is his masculinity, not any particular virtue she lacks. Those are necessarily in gauging a person but are not attached to either masculinity or femininity and as such are not a part of that attraction.

"My position is not that it is somehow wrong for a woman to look up to the man she's romantically involved with, or wrong for her to be physiologically weaker in any way. I simply do not agree with Miss Rand's idea of hero-worship as the essence of a woman's femininity or her reasoning for claiming that, or that all rational women ought to look up to her lover. I believe that is a choice based on personal preferences, not based on the fact that she's female. The third part of my argument is that Miss Rand's stance here seems to be morally lopsided, yet she advocates moral and intellectual equality throughout her actual philosophy.

OK...let me try another way....Ever watch one of those lame movies where the guy essentially sits locked up in the tower waiting for Rambet to come and rescue him. They are horrible not because a woman can't be heroic and a guy can't be weak, but because no one seriously believes that a woman like that would be romantically interested in a man she has to rescue. Women find firefighters and other heroic jobs like that sexy. Men don't(except the scantily clad firewomen in oversized suspenders you might see in a pinup :) ) There is a reason for that.

I don't have any official information to back this up, just my personal experiences, but in every relationship I have been a part of or been close enough to the parties involved to know what was going on, there has been a period of time toward the beginning where guys get "tested" in a way. The woman is usually trying to see on some level what he's made of and how much she can control him. If he gives in then she usually looses interest pretty quick, if not they do pretty well. Like I said, this is my personal subjective understanding of what I see, but it has done a lot to confirm the fact for me that women are generally attracted to men who are stronger then them physically and psychologically in the context of the relationship. Not a lot stronger mind you, just a little bit stronger. For men the opposite is generally true.

No doubt exceptions to this exist, and you may be one of them, but generally it is true. In most relationships men are the "metaphysically dominant" sex. It can be reversed of course, but Ayn Rand would argue and I would agree that in doing so, you are missing out on the most enjoyable aspect of a romantic relationship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aequalsa, please be careful of generalizations. I didn't see where your reply addressed the fundamentals of this discussion - it might have been because of your neglect of the quote function.

I am a 22 year old heterosexual male. I am 5'11 and prefer women to be roughly my height (if not taller than me). I have never been attracted to weakness in any form. I think cops are hot. I hadn't considered firefighters before now, but since you mention it, that idea is hot too. I like a plethora of haircuts on women, one of which is the freshly buzzed head (1/4th inch or so). I prefer aggressive women. The idea of a romantic conquest doesn't do it for me, but the idea of a romantic partnership does. Women have proportionately stronger legs than men, and I think that's hot, too. I'm sure some dudes like weakness in a woman; I'd prefer not to be both her lover and her daddy.

I bring these facts up to show you how my amorous aesthetics differ from the norm. My perfect woman would not be the commonly accepted picture of femininity. However, a fulfilling romantic relationship is possible.

My question is this: Can my type of woman engage in hero worship? If she can, either Rand was wrong in her statement, or common notions about femininity and submission/weakness are bogus. Maybe both.

Link to comment
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...