Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

miseleigh

Regulars
  • Posts

    212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by miseleigh

  1. I'm not sure how you mean this. Do you mean that looking at relationships, is no place to start? If so, I'm not sure I agree. ...So then, I wonder, how might you begin designing some experiments that would prove or disprove the premise?

    I meant this. Although generalities are a good place to start, they certainly don't prove anything, and it has appeared to me that several people have tried to use generalities this way.

    Kendall, those links you posted were very interesting. The 'Psychology Today' article mentioned a number of psychological differences between the sexes thought to have roots in biology, whereas the 'Psychology Matters' article took the opposite view. What I found most interesting was that I found myself agreeing with each of them in turn as I read them. My own view has generally been that there are some small biological factors that are exacerbated by society. Neither one of them addresses anything to do with relationships between men and women, however, except for that small 'double standard' section in the Psychology Today article, which was quite interesting in itself. I haven't been able to find any psychological experiments or even explanations relative to the 'hero-worship' idea. But even if it is shown in an experiment that women have an innate desire to look up to masculinity, is it irrational for a woman to not feel this?

    Why?

    Because I feel no need to hero-worship in Rand's sense of the term, and according to her, that means I cannot be a rational woman. I do deeply admire people I consider to be heroes- but that includes women, as well- Jackie Kennedy, Ayn Rand herself, and Catherine Zeta-Jones. I also admire Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, but it's not their masculinity that's at the base of that admiration. When I admire somebody, I admire their abilities, not their sex. This is true in my personal relationships as well. When I am involved with somebody, I admire him for his skills, and am physically attracted to him for his gender. The two emotions are separated. Not only that, but I can easily deeply admire somebody and act as a sister, or leader, to him at the same time. Am I irrational because of this? Perhaps I am irrational, but that seems like a rather arbitrary cause of it.

    Edit/Addition: One person's motivations or reasons behind a particular emotion are often different than another person's reasons for the same emotion. Introspective conclusions without pure logic behind them cannot honestly be applied to the rest of humanity because of this.

  2. Actually, my main question is about the premise. Ayn Rand claims that the essence of feminity is hero-worship without giving her reasoning behind it. I believe this premise is incorrect. The question of a female president follows from this premise. If her premise is correct, I do agree with her conclusion. The reasoning for that is simple: a rational woman knows herself, and by knowing herself recognizes her need to hero-worship, implying that she would not want to be president. The opposite of those implications state that if she wants to be President, she does not know herself, and therefore is not rational. So, thank you for the vote Kendall, but it would be irrational for you to vote for me in a normal election by Rand's reasoning :confused:

    Even if, as you posit, the woman does not know that she needs to hero-worship, the very fact of being unable to do so would depress her, and would still mean she is irrational.

    The question that I really want answered is why a rational woman must hero-worship. The quotes I outlined earlier show that Ayn Rand believed this- why? Can somebody who agrees with her explain the reasoning behind it? Nathaniel Branden, at one point, said it had something to do with the fact that men are metaphysically dominant- but I do not believe that hero-worship follows.

    Also, please, don't give arguments about how it is usually this way in relationships- a generality like that is not a basis for a logical argument towards the specific.

  3. What I meant by my answer was that you could worship and admire all of those qualities which she posesses except those parts which are exclusively feminine. For example, Eddie Willers worshipped Dagny, which is 1/2 the reason why he never had a chance. They could be considered equals in many ways. They shared essentially the same basically good philosophy with one pretty forgivable philosophic error, they got along well, enjoyed each others company, in short, would probably make great "companions". But most people want something more then that. Eddie would have great difficulty feeling masculine around Dagny while worshipping her and Dagny would have great difficulty feeling feminine around him while being worshipped. I suggest that this inequality is the something more that most people desire.

    Thank you for explaining your context here- I did indeed think you meant something else, namely that you could not think of Dagny in a romantic manner if she was taller, which just seemed ridiculous to me.

    however, I think Eddie's bigger problem was his lack of intelligence, ability to figure out the answers to problems on his own, and consequently his need to look to Dagny for answers- that's a mother/child relationship. They were in no way intellectual equals, and certainly not equal in ambition. And, again, definition of 'feminine' and 'masculine' in this context, please- Rand's or a dictionary's?

    Also, it may be true that most people desire an inequality like that- but does that general desire make it an innate psychological idea that all rational people must follow? That is the question at hand. I will agree that *most* women probably want to be cherished- although there are plenty who do want to be 'worshipped', although in a different way than Rand's 'worship'- and I will also agree that many men want to protect their women. That does not mean that the exceptions are irrational. You've missed my point here.

  4. I don't think rationality has anything to do with it. What I am saying is that a woman who is strong or stocky or carries herself in a masculine way is not feminine by definition.

    See below for a question about femininity, but first I'm going to addres rationality- it does have something to do with it, but my problem here is that Ayn Rand only says this implicitly, not explicitly, within her 'About a Woman President' essay. These are the key quotes within that essay that lead me to believe she thought this way:

    1. "I do not think that a rational woman can want to be president. Observe that I did not say she would be unable to do the job; I said that she could not want it. It is not a matter of her ability, but of her values."

    2. "The issue is primarily psychological. It involves a woman's fundamental view of life, of herself and of her basic values. For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero worship— the desire to look up to man. ... Intellectually and morally, i.e., as a human being, she has to be his equal; then the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack."

    3. "It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother—or leader. Now consider the meaning of the presidency: in all his professional relationships, within the entire sphere of his work, the president is the highest authority; he is the "chief executive," the "commander-in-chief." Even in a fully free country, with an unbreached constitutional division of powers, a president is the final authority who sets the terms, the goals, the policies of every job in the executive branch of the government. In the performance of his duties, a president does not deal with equals, but only with inferiors (not inferiors as persons, but in respect to the hierarchy of their positions, their work, and their responsibilities)."

    4. "This, for a rational woman, would be an unbearable situation. (And if she is not rational, she is unfit for the presidency or for any important position, anyway.) To act as the superior, the leader, virtually the ruler of all the men she deals with, would be an excruciating psychological torture. It would require a total depersonalization, an utter selflessness, and an incommunicable loneliness; she would have to suppress (or repress) every personal aspect of her own character and attitude; she could not be herself, i.e., a woman; she would have to function only as a mind, not as a person, i.e., as a thinker devoid of personal values—a dangerously artificial dichotomy which no one could sustain for long. By the nature of her duties and daily activities, she would become the most unfeminine, sexless, metaphysically inappropriate, and rationally revolting figure of all: a matriarch."

    Quote 1: A rational woman cannot want to be president- why?

    Quote 2: The problem is psychological- for a rational woman (qua woman) the essence of her femininity is hero-worship.

    Quote 3: A feminine woman does not lead men because of quote 2. A president only has inferiors (in station.)

    Quote 4: If this is a bearable situation for a woman, she is not rational, because she would have no hero to look up to, and would therefore lose all sense of self.

    These statements, when taken together, show that Rand believed a rational woman must be feminine. If this conclusion is not apparent, ask and ye shall recieve- I can certainly explain how I derived it. The rationality/sense of self part of it makes the idea of a woman president a moral question, albeit derived from psychology. Can a woman morally be president in a normal situation? According to Rand, no- because of her psychology. (I specify 'normal' here because Rand thought that a woman leader in an extreme situation was the moral thing to do, although excruciating for the woman forced to take the position.)

    But the attraction I feel towards her is because of her feminity expressly. I have quite a few male objectivist friends who possess all of those traits while doing nothing to inspire any sexual desire or romantic interest. They lack that critical elemat-femininity.

    What is your definition of femininity here? Rand's definition- the only one I've seen from her- is soleley that 'the essence of femininity is hero-worship', which is not a complete definition, says nothing about a woman's physique, and instead implies that the only thing required to be 'feminine' is that she must 'deeply admire' a man's masculinity. In that case, a butch woman could still be feminine. The other possible definition, which would make more sense here, is 'having qualities that a culture associates with being female', which says nothing about looking up to masculinity (definition of this too please?)

    Note: essence means 'essential point, attribute, or set of attributes', and Rand seems to think that hero-worship is the *only* essential point- hence 'the essence' instead of 'an essence'. This is why I think it is the *only* requirement for being feminine according to Rand, although she probably thought being female was a requirement as well :lol:

    I couldn't agree more. What I meant was that that women tend to be attracted to men who challenge them in that way. ... It was a trait that I think is largely masculine whereas women... tend to be more empathetic and perceptive with regard to their relationships. ... Later she was convinced that his method of dealing with them was more effective. She was "dominated" if you wish to use that term but I think it's more accurate to say that she was convinced of his strength.
    Here you're implying an inequivalency. You seem to imply that the man is either the one who's right in these situations, or that the woman is convinced he's right even if he's not. What would a man be convinced of if she challenged him, and later he was convinced that her method of dealing with them was more effective? Is the difference in that the man is right more often, or the woman doesn't know her own mind or can't argue her case well, or that in one case it's viewed as 'strength' to be right and the other it's viewed as a different virtue? What would that virtue be?

    Companionship can be found in any friendship.

    See the clarification post not long after the one you're quoting from- I later specified 'romantic companionship' for this reason. Further clarification- it has since been explained to me by a friend that 'partner' would have been a better word. I meant 'romantic partnership.'

    If your offense is taken at my content, there is likely little I can do except to recommend that you ask yourself why the lack of equality I believe exists is so troubling to you.
    I thank you for your apology. I have since been convinced that equality was the wrong word, and it should have been 'equivalency'- see some of the posts between the one you're quoting from and this one. A lack of equivalency certainly bothers me.

    @Aequalsa- I believe this back-and-forth exchange of ideas is nearly useless until we can prove or disprove Rand's premise, at which point further deductions could be made. If there are any questions I did not answer that you would like me to, please PM me so we can keep to the point on this topic; if you think your question is relevant towards Rand's premise, by all means ask me here. I just think this topic is getting somewhat confusing and going all over the place.

    @Hunterrose- Your conclusion #4 does not apply- Rand did not think any woman could want to be President rationally, and so your 'qualified woman' does not exist.

    Since the question was brought up at some point about whether a man can rationally want to be President according to Rand, here is the answer taken straight from 'About a Woman President'. (Thanks, Kendall.)

    About a year ago, in the issue of January 1968, McCall's published an article-interview with sixteen prominent women (myself included) who had been asked to answer the question: What would I do if I were president of the United States? The first paragraph of my answer read: "I would not want to be president and would not vote for a woman president. A woman cannot reasonably want to be a commander-in-chief. I prefer to answer the question by outlining what a rational man would do if he were president."

    Note: The implication here is that she thinks a rational man can want to be President, yet as we have already seen, a rational woman cannot. Why? I do not think she is correct here, so back to checking her premises...

    Note: Whether or not her ideas on the President's total superiority are right makes no difference to the (in)validity of her premise. Several don't think she was- but her premise still holds.

    Edit: spelling & typos

  5. They are fine having a queen rule them, as there is no men to look up to. A man shows up, now a woman is ruling a majority of the men so she is being irrational at that point by Rand's reasoning.

    That's exactly Ayn Rand's idea. This is why I think she was completely wrong about the 'essence of femininity' and that femininity is always a characteristic of the woman qua woman. If she was wrong about that, the Amazons, and the Queen, would remain rational in any case.

    The only part left in this chain is her basic premise that hero-worship is the essence of femininity, which is a required characteristic of a rational woman.

    So there are two issues here. If the essence of femininity is not hero-worship, it's possible that it could still be a required characteristic of a rational woman. If the essence of feminity is hero-worship, it could not be a required characteristic. Anything else would say that any group like the Amazons were automatically irrational because there were no men around.

    Edit: clarification, added some stuff, yeah...

  6. 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.

    I always thought the most enjoyable aspect was the companionship, not the domination factor

    Companionship can be with anyone. A dog is a companion. Other males/ females are companions. So cannot be the feature that separates a relationship from friendship.

    I said 'the companionship' vs. 'the domination factor', implying as related to the topic at hand. We hadn't been discussing what separates a romantic relationship from a friendship. I could have phrased it as 'the romantic companionship, not the sexual domination factor'. I suppose I thought it was implied. I'll try to be more clear. Contextually speaking though, it should have been clear what I meant.

    Edit: spelling

  7. Some people seem to be unclear on what we are actually discussing, so I'll try to clarify it. There are several related issues with Ayn Rand's views on gender roles.

    "an ideal woman is a man-worshiper, and an ideal man is the highest symbol of mankind."
    <- I have been unable to find the original source for this quote, but it appears in many essays about Ayn Rand.

    "For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship - the desire to look up to man. "To look up" does not mean dependence, obedience, or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of strong character and independent value judgments."(Rand [1968] 1988 267-69)

    The problem with this view is that it contradicts with Rand's idea of individualism- hero-worship requires a person to be worshipped, and requires a person to recieve that worship. These two quotes together imply (to me) that, although the ideal man can exist on his own, the ideal woman cannot.

    "To act as the superior, the leader, virtually the ruler of all the men she deals with, would be an excruciating psychological torture. It would require a total depersonalization, an utter selflessness, and an incommunicable loneliness; she would have to suppress (or repress) every personal aspect of her own character and attitude; she could not be herself, i.e., a woman;... she would become the most unfeminine, sexless, metaphysically inappropriate, and rationally revolting figure of all: a matriarch." (Rand [1968]1988 267-69)

    This quote, as I interpret it, says that a woman cannot be a woman qua woman without being feminine- without being a man-worshipper (admirer), and without having a man to worship.

    The problems, as I see them, are as follows:

    1) The idea of man-worship is at odds with individualism.

    1a) If the ideal man can exist individually while the ideal woman cannot, they are not morally equal.

    2) A woman who is unfeminine (not a man-worshipper) is denying her self (not being selfish) and is therefore irrational.

    Does anyone interpret these quotes differently?

    Edit: Lathanar, I think the answer to your question is what I've stated as problem #2.

  8. 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.

    When I said 'valued as a woman' I meant 'woman qua woman.' As in, a rational, selfish woman. I'm interested in your view here though- as you might have realized, women don't always have control over their specific body type. Are you saying here that a woman who has a stockier build than most cannot be rational, or is your definition of delicate different from mine?

    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... 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)
    Women tend to recover better and sooner then men after the death of a loved one, especially a spouse. That would indicate to me that it is in fact women who are psychologically stronger.

    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.

    They are the biggest parts of that attraction. I would not be attracted to a man without any of those qualities no matter how 'masculine' he is.

    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.
    Yes, there is a reason... perhaps you watched a lot of tv as a child? Or perhaps you were raised in a society which instilled those ideas in you?

    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.

    That says you prefer women who will give in to your judgement. Is that what you meant? It's true that most women I know don't want a man who will just give in to her, but most men I know don't want a women who will just give in to them, either. Any rational woman will not 'just give in' unless they actually agree with what the man is saying. That's completely against Objectivism. I doubt that's what Ayn Rand meant.

    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.
    I always thought the most enjoyable aspect was the companionship, not the domination factor...

    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.

    It was not because of his neglect of the quote function. Aequalsa- by your logic, I would be completely justified in saying that men are a**holes, because men are more often a**holes than women are.

    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.
    Well, Rand said that the 'essence of femininity is hero-worship', not that hero-worship <i>only</i> exists within a feminine woman. She could engage in hero-worship while not proving Rand to be wrong.

    If there are such things as essence of femininity/masculinity, they'd have to be inequal. Otherwise we have nothing but milquetoast definitions as "the essence of femininity is whatever happens to be observed in women" i.e. nothing done by any woman could be considered unfeminine.

    'Whatever happens to be observe in women' is an entirely different statement than 'Having qualities or characteristics that a culture associates with being female.' However, I should have used 'inequivalent' instead of 'inequal'.

    But the reason I ask is that (I believe) everyone has divergent standards of what is masculine and feminine. When most women date, the guy pays, the girl offers to pay. This may be a cultural thing, BUT... it's (generally) an accepted cultural thing.

    Just because it's generally accepted doesn't mean it's necessary for a woman to follow those standards in order to be a woman qua woman. Especially when everyone has different standards. The question at hand is if the hero-worship thing is a cultural or innate psychological difference.

    @aequalsa: Please be more careful with the way you phrase your statements. I found your post somewhat insulting as a woman, as if you fully believe that women are inferior to men, and also mildly insulting personally. I assume it was unintentional, but please desist.

  9. 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 :)

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. Although it's not right to initiate force against a rational human, it sounds as if she is not rational, and she is the initiator of force in this case. I would suggest at the very least having her diagnosed by a professional, and probably getting some form of treatment for her no matter how much she says she doesn't want it. She has no right to rule over your lives this way.

    You may be able to secure her a place in a mental institution without a police report- I don't know, never looked into that, but it sounds like that would be the best place for her.

  13. 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.

  14. @NewYorkRoark: You're right about masculinity and femininity and that they're qualities that apply (in general) to men and women respectively. That's the definitions of those words.

    The most recent argument in this thread is whether or not the essence of femininity (and, therefore, any rational woman) is hero-worship. Ayn Rand stated quite clearly in her 'About a Woman President' essay that she thought it was, but many (including myself) feel that her arguments are less than valid.

    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.

    It is true that many (note: not all) women prefer to be in a relationship where she is more submissive and he is more domineering, where the woman 'surrenders' herself. This, however, IMO, is a preference, not a characteristic of all rational women.

    I have read this entire (15 pages!) thread, and did not understand the arguments put forth to support Rand's views. In addition, I do not understand Ayn Rand's arguments to support her own views. Perhaps someone could review them for me, specifically starting with the reasoning behind the statement "For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship - the desire to look up to man"? This seems to be the basis for all her arguments which follow, and if you accept it as true then the rest of what she says makes sense, but I do not see the truth in it. I would be very grateful for a synopsis of the rational arguments behind this statement.

    P.S. Arguments using the supposed lack of rational basis behind man's need for rational self-interest do not make sense. There is a rational basis- certainly much more of one than there is behind the statement I am asking about. Please do not use that argument. Also, I would not like to just be referred back to Miss Rand's works, since I do not agree with her reasoning.

  15. I know it's been edited, but unfortunately I do not own the Lexicon, and don't have a copy of that article. What was the context? Does it change the meaning of the quotes I did find online?

    Also, are her views on gender roles even part of the Objectivist philosophy? I couldn't find them on ARI, which leads me to believe they're not. If they're not, there's really not much point discussing them because they have no bearing on a person's morality, and it is completely personal choice.

  16. You're both right- we have covered the actual physical and emotional differences between men and women. The repetition was helpful, tho.

    'Fragile' was the particular piece of the description of an 'ideal woman' that I dislike. It is entirely possible to be both slender and physically strong. By the way, 'delicate' and 'tan' are at odds, and today a woman with tanned skin is seen as better looking than one who looks delicate, not to mention either 'delicate' or 'fragile' vs. 'athletic'.

    My issue here is slightly different. If a woman's highest ideal is hero-worship, while a man's is heroism, what does this say about the woman's ability to take pride in herself without requiring another person? Why is it that the man is the one doing the conquering instead of the woman? Miss Rand makes it very clear that it ought to be one way and not the other.

    For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship - the desire to look up to man.
    It meant that she was connected to him, that he got pleasure out of her, and that she got pleasure out of him wanting her.

    Does this mean that she did not get pleasure out of him without the 'wanting her' part? Does he get pleasure out of her wanting him?

    When you are with someone you love, are you posessing them? I think so.
    Fine, but Miss Rand never says that the woman possesses the man as well as the other way around.

    I would like to draw your attention to this sentence in particular:

    To act as the superior, the leader, virtually the ruler of all the man she deals with, would be an excruciating psychological torture.

    This says that for a woman to avoid psychological torture, she must allow men to lead her rather than leading them. This could be construed to mean 'equal', but it sounds a lot more like 'inferior', and is certainly against the idea of a woman in a leadership position such as the presidency. This is hypocritical with her ideas on what types of work are proper for women:

    Playboy: Do you believe that women as well as men should organize their lives around work - and if so, what kind of work?

    Rand: Of course. I believe that women are human beings. What is proper for a man is proper for a woman. The basic principles are the same. I would not attempt to prescribe what kind of work a man should do, and I would not attempt it in regard to women. There is no particular work which is specifically feminine. Women can choose their work according to their own purpose and premises in the same manner as men do.

    I also have trouble reconciling 'What is proper for a man is proper for a woman' and her definitions of 'woman qua woman' and 'man qua man'.

    Do you think the rest of the world actually thinks that? Perhaps the people you grew up around thought this way or told you the world acted this way. I see it rarely.

    Let's see- Muslim women are still forced to wear veils, there is still a discrepency in pay between men and women of equal experience in jobs (it's slight, but it's still statistically significant), Mormonism still exists (even though the practice has been outlawed, the ideas are there), and I get a lot of flak for disagreeing with Miss Rand's view that the ideal woman should look up to her ideal man instead of possibly also the other way around.

  17. There are a couple other topics on this subject:

    Sexual Interactions and Values and Men & Women, Love & Sex. I haven't finished reading either one, but they at least outline several views Miss Rand held, and several that Objectivism appears to hold. I've also included several quotes from Miss Rand's works to show where I got that perspective, and some ideas of hers that they show.

    "t was astonishing to discover that the lines of her shoulder were fragile - and beautiful, and that the diamond band on the wrist of her naked arm gave her the most feminine of all aspects: the look of being chained." -Atlas Shrugged

    Domique wants to be/enjoyed being raped- this is odd, at best.

    Miss Rand's female characters are almost all slender or fragile in build, almost as if she didn't think that a physically strong woman was a good one. In today's society, women do not want to be seen as weak, in any form.

    "[Dagny's] naked shoulder betrayed the fragility of the body under theblack dress, and the pose made her most truly a woman. The proud strength became a challenge to someone's superior strength, and the fragility a reminder that the challenge could be broken." -AS

    "[Dominique] seemed too fragile to exist; and that very fragility spoke of some frightening strength which held her anchored to existence with a body insufficient for reality." -Fountainhead

    Karen Andre in Night of January 16th also has this body type.

    "He will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself, the woman whose surrender permits him to experience - or to fake - a sense of self-esteem. The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer - because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement, not the possession of a brainless slut." (Rand 1957, 489-490)

    This quote shows that Ayn Rand thought that women ought to be conquered and possessed; the thought that it could be otherwise never seems to cross her mind in any of her works.

    "For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship - the desire to look up to man. "To look up" does not mean dependence, obedience, or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of strong character and independent value judgments ... It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother - or leader. ... To act as the superior, the leader, virtually the ruler of all the man she deals with, would be an excruciating psychological torture. It would require a total depersonalization, an utter selflessness, and an incommunicable loneliness; she would have to suppress (or repress) every personal aspect of her own character and attitude; she could not be herself, i.e., a woman;... she would become the most unfeminine, sexless, metaphysically inappropriate, and rationally revolting figure of all: a matriarch." (Rand [1968] 1988 267-69)

    These ideas she expresses are in direct conflict with the idea that men are equal, with equal rights and equal morality. They are also in direct conflict with many of the ideas put forward by the feminist movement. As much as she tries to claim that hero-worship does not imply a superiority/inferiority dichotomy, there's barely any way around it. I have been in leadership positions to men, and have not felt that I have sacrificed my femininity by doing so, nor have I felt any loneliness or depersonalization.

  18. I think the worst thing a parent could possibly do to their child is teach them that it's wrong to think for themselves. Although it's possible that the child will figure out that it's actually the right thing to do, it's very unlikely, and many will not be able to, having never known how to think for themselves or that it's right. The way this would happen would be by the parent using phrases/ideas like 'because I said so' or 'children should be seen and not heard' or 'don't ask questions' or 'that's just fantasy, it's not real, so I won't play imaginary games with you.' Well, that last one would be phrased differently, but you probably get the idea.

    The second worst thing a parent could probably do is instill a belief in their child that he's not worthwhile, or not a good person. This happens with stuff like 'you're doing this wrong' or 'you're being bad' rather than saying 'don't you think this way might work better' or 'that's not a good thing for you to do because ...'; basically, it's much better for the child's self-esteem if you keep the focus on his actions rather than the child. This is especially important when you're frustrated or upset because it's a lot easier to say things you'll regret, and you really can't take those back. Saying 'I didn't mean it when I said you're a loser/idiot/[insert personal insult], I'm sorry' won't bring back the self-esteem the child has lost.

    I am, of course, excluding insanity or physical abuse- I'm talking about rational people who are trying to be good parents and not succeeding.

  19. I 66.67%

    N 52.17%

    T 70.27%

    P 83.87%

    Seems like a fairly common result :)

    I'd be interested to see if female Objectivists also score INTJ. I think they would more than the general female population. Not to sound like a mysogynist, but I've read that women's personalities are generally more inclined to follow emotions and feelings more than men. Objectivist women, though, would most likely score INTJ at the same rate than men - the Dagny type :P

    Well, I can't claim to be a true Objectivist, because I don't agree with Miss Rand's idea that women ought to be chained to their men, but I agree with most of the philosophy. Fairly strong on that P point rather than J tho.

  20. So does this mean that anything posted on forums such as this one is automatically protected by US copyright laws? How many words have to be strung together before it counts? I hereby claim copyright to the phrase 'life sucks' and I want royalties whenever it's used.

    @DavidOdden: Are you a dubious character? I'm not sure I want to discuss things with dubious characters who might quote me without asking.... :)

×
×
  • Create New...