Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Tabitha

Regulars
  • Posts

    118
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tabitha

  1. The problem I have with the transgender movement - which partly crosses with the feminist movement - is that it operates on contradictory premises. Activists cry that "gender is a social construct." But if that's true, then why the need to change yourself... to fit a construct? Take a man who has always "felt feminine." Rather than question the "construct" of femininity, which transgender activists claim to do, they would encourage the man to change himself to fit said "construct." Wouldn't it be more "radical" to keep your body the way it is and live /act as you are, rather than change it to fit the constructs you so despise?
  2. I read her writing on this, and the thread here some time ago. Though, fair enough, I could have reread parts of the Woman President thread. Regardless, I knew I shouldn't have bothered jumping into this discussion. Take care,
  3. Could you give an example of this? A couple come to mind, but I can't think of one as it pertains to this particular discussion. But isn't psychology, at its core, merely philosophy? (Barring organic mental illnesses, of course.) Individuals with healthy psychologies have rational philsophies, and vice versa. I don't see how the two can be teased apart. Secondly, feminine traits have been linked with depression in numerous psychologcal studies. No, because you're comparing a concept (reason) with a concept (individuality). That's not the same as evaluating an individual (woman) based on her gender (her group).
  4. If passivity is a hallmark of "femininity" and it is "improper" for a woman to want to run for president, it should follow that she, too, would have been psychologically incompatable with her own 'go-get-'em' career. That said, she might have argued that writing and the Presidency involve vastly different psychologies; in which case my observation would fall short. (Though this doesn't mean I would necessarily buy the ensuing argument.) On an tangental note, I find the saying "looking up to a man" problematic when applied to women. Women are not children.
  5. From "About a Woman President" [emphasis mine] That's all well and good, but she apparently put this on her own back burner when she was aggressively pursuing her passion (of being a highly successful writer). That doesn't exactly smack of femininity. And she should have done exactly that. Any woman of self-esteem looks up to herself (pursues her own interests) before she "looks up to a man." At the same time, she clearly loved him in a way that was whole. I don't have any answers. I'm just along for the journey of hashing out my own thoughts on the matter.
  6. This is an astute observation. Well said. I would like to think that I'm a person first, woman second. Sure, teasing the two apart is inconceivable; I'll grant you that. But when a person (woman) is expected to make decisions based on her sex, rather than based on her own reason, that's where I draw the line. It is shameful to argue otherwise, for a philsophy that prides itself on upholding reason of the individual -- outside of race, sex, or any other external characteristic. I'm not suggesting Rand or anyone here has done this. I say this more out of fear of potential obfuscation of Objectivism as a movement. Though I find the term "hero-worshiping" a bit silly, I agree with its underlying argument. Agreed. I would never put words in Rand's (or anyone's) mouth. I am speaking from my personal reading / thinking experiences only.
  7. Bingo. I have read every piece of Objectivist literature on the nature of men and women, backwards and forwards, and I still cannot reconcile Rand's philosophy of femininity with my own. I would say she has me sold about 95%. She has me up through the "hero-worship" concept, but when it comes to placing my femininity before my individuality... no thanks, I'm all set on that. And, quite frankly, it is this (and only this) that makes me wonder if people who argue that Objectivism is simply code for "Conservativsim" really aren't that far off the field. (ETA: I responded to K-Mac's quote as it stands outside the context of the particulars of her separate discussions on this thread.)
  8. The chances of disabled people suffering in an Objectivist world would be slim. Many people have disabled friends and family members, who value and would thus care for them. Disabled individuals who lack such familial support could be assisted by the many charity programs (ie: voluntary) that are out there.
  9. You all know that he's not going to win, right?
  10. I would be disappointed to see Jolie cast in this movie. She claims to be an admirer of Rand, but her politics are about as anti-Objectivist as they come. I would much rather see the role played by a non-Objectivist who knows she doesn't understand Objectivism, than by Jolie or anyone else who who claims to personally embody these priniciples but really has no clue.
  11. Good point. And the same could be said for his refusal to fund same-sex adoption. I understand not wanting to fund adoption (ie: using tax dollars). But if this were honestly his focus, he would be against funding all adoptions, period -- regardless of sexual orientation. Hell, I'm not even a Libertarian but this guy almost makes me feel embarassed for the Libertarians.
  12. I disagree with your implication that a president's philosophy is a non-issue. It's the principle of being anti-choice that's the problem, regardless of whether or not he could or would change any policy. His anti-gay stance is even more revealing of his philosophy. (How very "Libertarian" of him! ) No, I won't vote for a bigot, thanks. As for 2), I agree and this is one of the reasons I won't be voting for him, either.
  13. I find Ron Paul's anti-abortion stance especially problematic, because it cuts to the deepest level of property rights and the denial thereof. Anyone who doesn't think individuals should make decisions about their own bodies really has no place considering himself an advocate for property rights. ETA: I just read on that link that he opposed adoption by gays. How on earth is this guy even getting by on a "Libertarian" card?
  14. Well, I hope soliciting children for sex would qualify for more than "annoying" (!) Though I agree your post, I still think there's something to be said about one's degree of choice in regards to the use of venues. One can easily avoid a sketchy bar (straight or gay) where people meet for sex, but the same cannot be said for a restroom. When "you gotta go, you gotta go" and people (again, children, the mentally handicapped and others incapable of reason) should have the right to use a bathroom without being accosted or exposed to flagrant sexuality (regardless of the sexual orientation involved). Granted, as you pointed out, Craig's situation was much different and pretty innocuous overall. And don't get me wrong; I'm certainly not advocating for making anything illegal. I just think people need to be respectful of the fact that certain places have certain purposes; not that this can or even should be enforced. I'm just venting about what I consider to be extreme idiocy. This probably opens up a can of worms about the public vs. private domain....
  15. My only issue with this whole thing is that many times, it is necessary for children to use pulic restrooms unattended. I'm thinking of mothers out with their sons that are too old to use the women's room and too young to use the men's room alone -- but they have too. Regardless of whether or not these kids are solicited themselves, children should not have to risk potentially witnessing anything sexual -- period. This is why sex in public restrooms is completely selfish (not the good kind of selfish ) and irresponsible.
  16. How much freedom do bikers have when the weather turns for the worse right in the middle of their rides? Also, IMO, the people I know that don't have cars are anything but free when it comes to situations such as emergencies... and grocery shopping. And as a car person, I find it draining at times to be expected to do all the catering. For instance, when a car-less friend and I get together it's always me that has to go to her. That can get old fast!
  17. I don't see how "slut" is any different from "fag" or the "n" word. Each of these terms categorically dismisses (and demeans) individuals in terms of their race, gender... or some other unchosen collective. As such, none of these words are appropriate in any context.
  18. In class today, the professor had us write our own definitions of various words. In one of my definitions I had written something about "improving the psyche of an individual." I should have seen this coming from a mile away, but when she was talking about what we'd written, she said about mine something to the effect of, "It's interesting that you said 'individual psyche,' as opposed to 'individual and collective.'" I wanted so badly to question this, but kept quiet because the conversation quickly diverted elsewhere and class was about to end. A lesser fear is that I didn't want to come off as arrogant for essentially calling Jungian psychology BS (the "collective unconscious" was Jung's M.O.). Has anyone else ever encountered this? I sometimes struggle with coming up with quips to these and other comments without getting into the main tenets of Objectivism. I suppose this makes sense, given that as an integrated philosophy one concept really can't be grasped without other related ones. However, I know this issue of the "collective psyche" is bound to arise again in this class. Next time I want to say something to the effect of, "Consciousness lies in thought, thought lies in the mind, and the mind lies in the body. Therefore, there can't be any 'group thoughts' or 'group consciousness.'" Can anyone think of any other short, simple questions or comments that could be said in response? Also, for those familiar with psychology, are there any merits of this concept as Jung or any of the other major psychologists define it? (In other words, am I interpreting this incorrectly or too literally?) The wikipedia definition of "collective unconsciousness" is pretty sparce, which should be telling enough as is....
  19. I have always been skeptical of the term "political correctness." This is because I seldom see or hear it used outside the context of some jerk trying to excuse his own racism or other prejudiced behavior. ("I know I'm not being politically correct here, but Jews are _____." Or, "I know I'm not being politically correct here, but gays are _____.") It's almost as if people adopt the "politically incorrect" label when they want to weasle out of taking responsibility for judging others on their individual merit. Note that I'm making a distinction between race (unchosen) and philosophy (chosen). While I don't believe one should categorically dismiss another based on his/her race -- which I'm sure we're all in agreement with -- I see no problem with critiquing religions and cultures. For example, I (and many others here) sometimes offer critiques of Islam; which is something considered "politically incorrect." Even so, because of the racial and prejudiced baggage that comes with "political correctness," I find myself steering clear of the term.
  20. Well, I would argue that it isn't natural. For the well-integrated person, thoughts -- sexual or otherwise -- lead to behavior. And children, the recipients of pedophillic behavior, are not consenting adults. When a homosexual 'makes a move' on another adult, the recipient has the capacity to accept or reject it. This is not true in the case of children. This is why pedophilia is not on the same moral plain as homosexuality. It is irrational to be sexually attracted to someone (or thing), a child in this case, whose cognitive capacity to return these feelings to you is either underdeveloped or non-existent.
  21. A more obvious problem is that because pedophilia is the drive to have sex with children, and this nation would be childless, these people wouldn't stay there.
  22. I've had experiences similar to what you're describing. I consider myself "spiritual" inasmuch as the word dennotes a psychological well-being. The feeling of peace is within myself, which in turn comes from mental integration and the ways in which I interpret the world around me. I find this feeling becomes heightened when I'm reading a really good piece of Objectivist literature or have other 'realizations.' Mental feats, even smaller ones, create a "high." So, I consider my spirituality a psychological reaction to myself and various events. However, I have mixed feelings about the word "spiritual" itself. While I don't believe in "spirits," I use the word because it's the only one I know that pinpoints this feeling of well-being. (Does anyone else use a different word for this? Also, is this an example of "Sense Of Life?")
  23. Woodstock was the Dionysian example given by Rand. Her critisism was that the goal of it was to numb the mind, as it was flagrantly pro-drug and little much of anything else. Rand was all for enjoyment. The thing is that true enjoyment comes only from the pursuit and attainment of values. (It's difficult to value anything when your faculties aren't intact, as in the case of Woodstock, but that's besides the point.)
  24. Sorry for my short response. (This is exactly why I shouldn't check these boards in the morning when I'm rushed for work. I always get compelled to respond, even if my response comes out so much more half-assed than it would have if I'd forced myself to wait until I had more time to think and write...!)
  25. Right; as already discussed, I was (inaccurately) mixing "puritan" and "Appolonian."
×
×
  • Create New...