geoff27

Yes, but that's a situation that seems specifically designed to trick someone into thinking there's no sound. Show someone a speaker (which they are used to being an object that produces sound), have it produce that inaudible-to-humans wave, and of course that person willl say there's no sound. It's like taking a piece of translucent, blue-colored film, laying it over something yellow, and then asking someone else, "Is this object green?" It appears green, but the object is actually blue, you're just fooling them based on what they think you mean. What I mean is, no one in their right mind would return a dog-whistle to the store where they bought it and demand a refund on the grounds that "It doesn't work-- I couldn't hear any sound come out of it!" I should probably bow out of this discussion by just saying what was suggested to me earlier: It's not important to me to make these distinctions.

Aha. With that, I think you got closer to the heart of the matter (for me, anyway). I suppose what I'm disagreeing with is the necessity for a definition of the concept of acoustic waves that can be sensed by human (or animal?) ears. There can certainly be acoustic waves that we can't hear. As far as a sound outside of our range of hearing, I would simply say that "it was a sound, but I couldn't hear it," like if someone blows a dog whistle. It might be convenient to say that a dog whistle is silent, that it makes no sound, but that's technically innaccurate, and I don't mind saying that there are sounds that I'm just incapable, as a human with functional ears, of hearing. In other words, is it just the characteristic of "being outside human hearing range" that makes a sound no longer a "sound?" That's what I would disagree with. I believe that "sounds" are any acoustic waves that are measurable or detectable by any means we have at our disposal, including scientific equipment. Someone might very well be able to prove that definition inaccurate or contradictory to something else I've said that was essential to that definition, but for now I'll stick with that.

The deaf person doesn't hear the sound because of a deficiency in his process/mechanism that would otherwise let him hear it. That doesn't change the fact that the sound was made, though. So yes, when we hear a sound, to us it's a sensation. But objectively, it's still a sound; the air still would've been pushed at a certain frequency even if we weren't there to have the sensation. I know very little about the nature of dreams, so I can't comment much on sensory stimuli within them... other than to say that I'd assume such stimuli is "all in your head." As in, right now I'm thinking of my favorite song, but the song isn't actually being played in my vicinity at the moment. I'm not actually "hearing" the notes, I'm just remembering them. Maybe sounds, sights, etc. in dreams work the same way? You said, "Because hearing is a process not a thing, and soundwaves (= sound in your defintion afaik) exist apart from humans. This leaves us without a term to describe the thing which we actually experience when we hear something." I would disagree. An event (a tree hitting the ground) pushes the air in waves towards our ears at a certain frequency, making a sound. Our ears then hear the sound, and we experience a sensation. It appears to me that there are already enough words to describe and define every step of the process of a human hearing a sound, and that there's no need for confusion over the word "sound" sometimes including a human's perception and sometimes not. Similarly, I don't understand the need for a single term to describe the process of hearing, if the term "heard" is for some reason inadequate. I "ate" some food, I "saw" or even "witnessed" a car accident, and I "heard" a sound. Those are all processes. Edited to add: Perhaps, rather than needing a specific word to describe hearing a sound that wasn't actually made, as in a dream, etc, the context can just be acknowledged instead. Like if you're telling a friend about a dream you had, and you say, "So then I heard a wolf howling in the distance," your friend (it can be assumed) understands that a wolf was not actually howling in the distance, making soundwaves that travelled to your ears while you slept in bed.

My answer to that question, assuming we can work from Dictionary.com's definition of phenomenological as "A philosophy or method of inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness and not of anything independent of human consciousness.", would be that I don't describe phenomenological sound, as such a thing appears to be incompatible with my belief in the primacy of existence. I don't talk about "phenomenological sound" the same way I don't talk about the entire world disappearing every time I go to sleep. By "phenomenological sound," do you mean, "sound that I am hearing?" Why can't such a thing still simply be "sound," and what I'm doing is "hearing it," the same way I see light, and feel heat? In other words, how does my hearing the sound change anything about it? The sound can be made, and I can hear it, and I can even judge it based on my own values and experiences and decide if I like it (like music), or if it signals something important (like a fire alarm), etc., but I still haven't changed the nature of it simply by hearing it. I'll readly admit that it's certainly possible I'm missing some huge, important point here.

I think I agree with this. (Not that consciousness makes sound "sound," but that the answer to the question is often a good indicator of the answerer's epistemology.) I don't understand the point of the word/concept "sound" requiring a human ear hearing the vibrations, when the word/concept "hearing" already covers that nicely. Am I supposed to bow to those who define sound as "a human ear hearing vibrations" simply because there are more of them than people who define "round" as "dark purple?" When I hear a sound, I hear a sound. I don't simply "sound." I don't go to a concert and "sound" the music. Sound is the thing (vibrations in the air) that my sense of hearing experiences. Things can make sounds, and people, animals, etc, can hear the sounds. This is one of the oddest semantic arguments I've ever seen. Maybe I'm looking at it from an overly simplistic point of view, but... I have to admit I'm surprised to see a bunch of Objectivists actually debating the tree-falling question. Like TomL, I've never, ever had a need to define "sound" as requiring an ear to hear it. I love Nxixcxk's answer to the question, though.

When a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does its impact with the ground produce vibrations in the air somewhere in the 20hz-20khz range? Yes; Absolutely everything we know about trees, the ground, and sounds indicates that it would. How is there even any debate over this? Your professor can say that it can be argued all day when people have different definitions for "sound," but then, by that standard, so can anything. Let's debate: Is the Earth round? I say no, because I define "round" as "dark purple." Discussion is then impossible. The only way for the tree-falling question to be debated is if one side of the debate insists that a falling tree's impact with the ground does not produce vibrations in the air with frequencies in the 20hz-20khz range... in which case the burden of proving so would be on that person, and good luck to them. I always thought that the "if a tree falls..." question was usually brought up in a philosophical context, rather than a scientific one, or as a way to deliberately trick/confuse people with semantics, as some of the responses here seem to indicate. By this I mean, when someone asks that question, their intention is usually to inspire a debate between the primacy of consciousness vs. the primacy of existence. As we know, primacy of existence wins.

Why do those comments necessarily constitute "bashing," as opposed to honest criticism? Is it necessarily impossible for a rational human being with enlightened self-interest in mind to criticise a philosopher for what might appear to be a deviation from the philosophy she's created and otherwise practices? Or is it just necessarily impossible to do so on these boards?

Me, neither! I was never aware of any such connection between the two. (I've also gotta agree that that picture is the only redeeming part of the article.)

Heh. The only that disappoints me in this case is when people add fuel to one or more negative Objectivist stereotypes. Right, but the specific instance we're talking about involves certain details (Rand being religious, canonized as a saint, etc.). It's easy to be ludicrous without being funny-- if the piece had described Rand as the seventeenth President of the United States, it would only have been ludicrous, because it's limited to simply being untrue. I admit that the piece is hardly a laugh riot... but it's also not just a collection of random, unrelated statements. The statements it contains are assembled deliberately to give a picture of her life that is utterly contrary to reality, very likely with the intention to amuse anyone familiar with the actual facts. If it said that she was the 17th President, as well as the inventory of the cotton mill, as well as the author of "Travels with Charley," it would simply be ludicrous, with even less potential for humor than it already has.

Given the quasi-dogmatic tone that seems to be creeping into these forums lately, this might get me banned (or at least scolded!), but I'd like to remark upon the strangely grim of the reactions to this piece. I'm with y_feldblum on this. I consider myself pretty sensitive when it comes to attacks on Ayn Rand's philosophy OR on her character, and usually pretty quick to defend either to the best of my knowledge and/or ability, but this piece did not strike the immediate, negative chord with me that it apparently did with many of you. I read it, chuckled to myself, and then dismissed it, confident that it was written by someone with at least a basic understanding of Rand's philosophy who wanted to write something absurd and silly, contrary to reality, the target audience of which would be people with a similar knowledge of Rand and her writing. Most importantly: Do I take ideas seriously? Certainly-- but only the ones that are based in reality! The ones that aren't, such as "elephants can fly, they just choose not to," are baseless, and so I don't pay attention to them unless they are presented in a context that is intended to be humorous (a joke, or satire, or parody). I believe that this piece was intended to be humorous, given the many references to Rand being heavily religious, etc. Things that, as y_feldblum has pointed out, are ludicrous to read if one has any knowledge of Rand at all. It's a far, far cry from something that misrepresents her ideas out of ignorance, or out of maliciousness (things I see much more often than I'd like, and are much more deserving of such indignation), and so I'm somewhat mystified and disappointed by the grave scorn being heaped upon this ultimately harmless (if silly) piece of writing.

I have to admit to being somewhat skeptical that a forced (or quasi-forced) sex act can be looked by any rational person under any circumstance at as an act of self-defense without severely perverting the meaning of the term "self-defense." Comparing it to the U.S. post-9/11 military action in Afghanistan is especially absurd, at least to my understanding.

I should have been clearer in my meaning, I apologize. Don't get me wrong, Tryptonique-- I'm with you 100% on the idea that mass production doesn't automatically equate to low quality. I used the term "mass production" in the same sense that I believed (though I could certainly be wrong) minorsevenflat5 used it, to mean something along the lines of a Britney/Xtina/Backstreet Boys kind of thing. I don't mean that even their music is completely devoid of any quality whatsoever, but my point is that I don't think it's unreasonable to posit that such music is made primarily to be consumed in mass quantities by people with money to spend, as opposed to break new musical ground, introduce new and challenging ideas, build on old ones, or even do much else of anything other then be "dance-able" to and/or to be used as marketing tools to sell products other than music (Pepsi, whatever). Not that I even have a problem with any of that! My only problem is people lumping ALL of the artists in a given genre into the lowest common denominator and making generalizations based on that. I'm not knocking the capitalist system, not at all. I'm knocking the idea that ALL rock/pop music is necessarily of the same quality as Britney, etc. For example, Brian Wilson/the Beach Boys made great, great, great pop music, AND it was mass produced, and I think that's absolutely swell in every way. That Ray Vernagus/Bowzer quote you provided is extremely eloquent, and I agree totally.

At first glance, it would appear you are ascribing an objective value to rock music (simple music for ass-chasing philistines) based on your own personal disinterest in it. Not all pop/rock/hiphop is mass produced. Perhaps the bit that you happen to be exposed to is, but for every empty-headed major-label plantinum-record-selling mega act, there are dozens of bands in bars, basements, and clubs playing rock music primarily because they enjoy doing it. They enjoy writing it, they enjoy working on it, and they enjoy playing it for themselves and for others. I've never had trouble acknowledging the skill, talent, and incredibly hard work that goes into composing classical music. I absolutely do acknowledge all of those things, and yet I am just about as indifferent to listening to classical music as one can be. It's just not my cup of tea. It doesn't stir my emotions the way you claim it stirs yours. Am I to understand that because I identify much more closely with rock music and derive a great deal of happiness from listening to and playing it, I am therefore a simpleminded philistine?

Fair enough, Thoyd Loki. If I came across as overly defensive or hostile, I apologise. I agree: it is certainly difficult to fully grasp a person's character through a few message board posts (not that that's news to anyone, but nevertheless, it's good to keep in mind... occasionally you'll run into people who are presumptuous enough to think they can figure you out from just a few paragraphs!). That said, "Back in Black" is a great record, and 'Hell's Bells' is a fantastic "Side one, track one" album-opener, as they would say in "High Fidelity."

It would seem that the point I failed to make clearly was that I don't use alcohol as a tool to get me through confrontations, or to do anything else for that matter but enjoy myself. That is, I don't purposefully say, "I'm gonna drain this glass, and then I'll be able to debate my wacky Democrat friend." It's simply something I noticed --a rather well-known and obvious effect of alcohol, actually-- that I tend to handle confrontations more easily when drinking. "Well, duh" would be a perfectly appropriate reply to that statement. In this particular case, I value maintaining a friendship (with someone who shares tons of my interests, political views being the exception) over confronting him and letting myself get angry or upset. I don't think that's terrible, or immoral, or worthy of psychological examination. I understand perfectly what you're saying about problems building up over time, etc. I just don't think this situation falls into that category. To put it bluntly... I've got my sh*t together, thanks in large part to Objectivism and the mental work I do in trying to integrate it into my life. That having been said, I agree with GoodOrigamiMan when he says that alcohol is "a healthy and enjoyable thing when done in moderation." As an aside, I'll mention that I also listen to quite a lot of loud rock and punk music, and enjoy watching violent horror movies... hobbies and interests that unfortunately confound many Objectivists. What can I say? Do such things automatically and axiomatically reflect in every instance a negative or disturbed sense of life? To some, the answer is unequivocally "yes." As far as I'm concerned, though, that's such a superficial application of Objectivist principles as to render worthless to me the opinions of those who denounce such hobbies on those grounds. Listening to classical music and watching science documentaries aren't prerequisites for having a healthy sense of life, and neither is abstaining completely from alcohol on the grounds that anything that impairs to any degree a person's otherwise lightning-quick mental processes is to be avoided at all costs. I'll quote GoodOrigamiMan again: "It's the life that makes the alcohol good - not the other way around." Beautifully said. (OK, so that was more of a tangent than an aside. I said it all as someone who in the past was very easily turned off by other students of Objectivism when they'd preach to others about what one can and can't enjoy if one wants to lead a rational life. I apologise for diverging somewhat from the topic.)

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that I am generally hesitant to confront someone face to face with my political views when they've told me theirs and I find myself disagreeing-- except when I've had a few drinks. I thought that was pretty clear. Do you mean to tell me that the desire to avoid potentially uncomfortable confrontations is so uncommon as to warrant psychological help? I'm curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion based on what was said in my post. Lacking integrity isn't part of anything I said. I don't lack integrity, nor would I search for it in a bottle. My post was about generally not wanting to get into arguments with people who are my friends, and simply being more inclined to do so with alcohol in me. I'm having trouble understanding how my post could be so grossly misinterpreted, and admittedly rather suprised at the quick-to-judge nature of some of the responses. I don't pour drinks down my neck with the mindful purpose of confronting people, nor do I cower in fear of opposing viewpoints while sober. I'm saying that I have observed in myself the following pattern: I am more likely to correct, confront, and/or argue with someone with whom I disagree when I've been drinking, than when I haven't. For all intents and purposes, you can pretend my entire post was just that previous sentence. I was just offering my two cents on the subject of "vices." I don't mind being judged, but I'd prefer if it's done based on information that is actually provided, not on ill-conceived conclusions. I always know when my thoughts and opinions are grounded in reality. I don't always want to argue with people about them. Simple enough? And stuff like: Is that really necessary? I mean, I could play the same card and ask you how you're certain that she never in her entire life spoke aloud to anyone any words regarding the dangers of smoking, but I won't, because that's ridiculously petty. Feel free to correct me on this irrelevant-to-my-point bit, but I was of the understanding that Rand smoked cigarettes while knowing that they were unhealthy. I would be utterly stunned to learn that she (or anyone who lived during her lifetime) was under the impression that cigarettes were totally harmless.

Rather than looking at social drinking as "purposefully dulling my senses," I think of it as an enjoyable way to lessen the inhibitions I otherwise have when it comes to accurately and honestly presenting some of my views. Example: A friend of mine (actually a friend of a friend, but we get along fine) is a pretty staunch Democrat, but not for any principled ideological reasons. He's a member of the Bush-Hatin' club, and seems quick to buy into many of the shadowy conspiracies surrounding the eeeevil Bush administration. He'll be voting for Kerry on the grounds that Kerry isn't Bush. Now, I've had talks with him while we're both stone-cold sober, and I almost always find myself backing down when he goes on the bizarro conspiracy-theory attack. I always, always feel bad about this afterward-- I feel like I've betrayed myself by not standing up for what I know is true, and for just timidly conceding whatever argument we'd been having. To quote George McFly: I just don't like confrontations. However, when I've got a half-pint of Southern Comfort in me, I am much quicker on the responses, and much quicker to cut his nutty arguments down to their wacko, self-contradictory essentials and expose them for the nonsense they are. I challenge his statements because I feel like I have to, and I often feel pretty exhilarated doing it. In these cases I *enjoy* the confrontation, because I know that my statements are firmly rooted in reality and that I can back up anything I say. So, is this immoral of me? Do I "use alcohol as a crutch" to make up for my inability to confidently stand by my views in the face of someone who I believe to be totally and utterly wrong (not about everything, but about politics)? I have to admit I don't fully understand many Objectivists' aversion to any- and every substance that may in some way affect their mind. I hope it doesn't come from "Because Rand said not to." She knew perfectly well that cigarettes were detrimental to her health, yet she smoked anyway. For her, is that considered a "vice?" So, coffee is great because it sharpens up the ol' brain, but alcohol is awful because it turns you into a slobbering caveman? In my case, I'm not talking about getting falling-down, lampshade-on-head drunk. But I am talking about drinking, and liking it. I tend to agree with those who call booze a "social lubricant." And, in a certain sense, drinking reminds me of simply standing on your head. Have you ever looked at a familiar place, like a room in your house, while upside-down? It's (literally, heh) a whole different perspective-- you'll notice things that you hadn't before, and see sides of things that you hadn't previously considered. Since I'm sober more often than inebriated, substances that affect my mind can provide a rare, interesting, alternate perspective, and (this is the important part) without serving as a replacement for, or escape from, reality.

That's the main problem I've got with "Donnie Darko"-- that the consensus seems to be that one can't get the movie without reading the website and the 'Philosophy of Time Travel' text on the DVD, etc. To me, this says that the movie does not stand on its own. I really wish it did, because I agree with those above who are praising it for the cinematography, the acting, the soundtrack, and other aspects. However, if the writers of the movie couldn't manage to include all story-necessary details and explanations in the movie, and so instead rely on external texts and such, then I think it's a poor excuse for a story. The movie can't stand on its own, by itself, as a film. To illustrate: The "Star Wars" universe is full of incredibly detailed and rich characters, places, etc. However, it's not necessary to know every one of these details in order to enjoy the films for what they are, or to understand the elements that move the plot forward. On the other hand, in order for the plot of "Donnie Darko" to make any sense, the viewer is absolutely required to track down information that is not presented in the movie. I think that's kinda... cheap. At least, from a filmmaking point of view.

"Kill Bill" is a remarkable piece of cinema, if for no other reason than the fact that it's a fine example of a filmmaker indulging himself (and those who have seen the films from which "Kill Bill" borrows/steals) and his own tastes to the absolute fullest. We get to see what a man who’s been in love with B-movie grindhouse cinema his whole life can do with a budget hundreds of times larger than any B-movie in history. We get to watch him pull out all his favorite toys from his toybox, and put them together into something new— a sort of homage to (and parody of) a specific period in film history. It could be said (in fact, I've said it) that "Kill Bill" is, in many ways, immune from ‘traditional’ criticism, because basically, it’s not a traditional movie. Dialogue was stilted? So was the dialogue in QT's favorite movies. Bloody gore was over the top and unrealistic? So was the violence in QT's favorites. Etc. It’s pretty clear to me that much of it was done that way on purpose. Many of those who are quick to put the film down on artistic bases X, Y, and Z are likely missing the point, and are holding “Kill Bill” to a set of standards better suited a different kind of movie. The same way that one could say, “this trashy romance novel is nothing compared to War and Peace,” one could also say, “this particular romance novel accomplishes exactly what a romance novel should accomplish and does so with a keen style and was obviously written with a genuine love for the genre.” In other words, it’s perfectly okay if you don’t like it, but that doesn’t make it objectively bad. Objectively, “Kill Bill” is an absolutely piss-poor World War II documentary, a terrible father-and-son reconciliation story, and a god-awful “coming-of-age during the Great Depression” film. It didn’t even come close to achieving any of the things that would be necessary to any of those types of films. However, it’s a superb 1970’s-style kung-fu/samurai/western/revenge flick. Tarantino’s talent enabled him to observe and identify the characteristics (in short: the essence) of what makes those types of films what they are, and spit it all back out, staying true to the tone of the originals, in the form of “Kill Bill.” It works. It does what it sets out to do. A sort of sidenote: Another, albeit less important part of my enjoyment of "Kill Bill" comes from being able to identify the bits of other films that are copied, mocked, embellished, and otherwise taken, to make up the whole of the film. Even little, inconsequential details add a certain amount of spice to my overall enjoyment of it. (Example, from the Vernita Green scene in Vol. 1: "This Pasadena homemaker's name is Jeanne Bell..." Jeanne Bell was a Playboy Playmate and actress who played the title character in the 1975 blaxploitation flick, "TNT Jackson.") I believe I even read somewhere that “Pai Mei” loosely translates to “white eyebrow.” Parody? Homage? Both, I like to think.

Heh, if only. Thank you, though, for explaining it in further detail. I'm not yet sure how to wrap my brain around the imbalance there, but I'm still holding out hope and trying my best... I'd only like to ask one more thing (for now): Capitalism Forever, you said-- "To be a hero is to be successful in life as a man: to create wealth, to overcome evil, and to have a beautiful and lovely woman as a partner in life." I take this to mean that I can't be a hero ("be masculine") without having a woman as my partner in life, unless we apply the same logic to this as we applied to "being feminine," that is, the characteristics we're naming and defining are only relevant to a man's relationship to a woman... in which case, it seems kind of redundant to say, "In order for me to be a hero-- the characteristics of which include having a woman-- I must be in a relationship with a woman." ...or are we all agreeing that "femininity" applies only to her relationships and "masculinity" applies to everything in his life? If that's the case, I should be able to be a masculine hero even if I'm single and don't have a beautiful and lovely woman as a partner in life. Right? (I've got to apologize for the constant "what? huh? duh? what do you mean?" that I'm pulling here... it's just that I'm trying to attack this thing from every angle to convince myself it's airtight. When I first read "About A Woman President" a few years ago, it was (and still is) the ONLY piece of Rand's writing that I found myself actively disagreeing with.)

Oops-- It looks like Carla nailed the point of my long, rambling post right here: That's more or less what I was trying to say. I would only add that if there is indeed a lopsidedness, then why is it acceptable?

Rand's definition of femininity being what it is, I'd like to ask what is wrong with the following two-part statement: A. In order for a woman to be feminine, she needs to look up to a man, and... B. It is not necessary for a man to have a woman in order for him to be masculine. No matter how many qualifiers are tacked onto Objectivist definitions of sex/gender roles ("the woman looks up to the man but not from an inferior position," etc.), there would still seem to be an imbalance between the two sexes. Am I incorrect if I say that "being feminine" is "acting in accordance with ones nature as a human female," or that "being masculine" is "acting in accordance with ones nature as a human male?" If my definitions hold up, then how can the nature of one sex depend on the worship of an individual of the opposite sex while the other sex's nature require no such dependence, without it being plainly stated that the two sexes are not, for lack of a better word, "equal?" If A requires B but B does not require A, then how can they be on the same level? I'm a little ashamed to be asking these same kinds of questions again, especially given the helpful and insightful comments from Ms. Speicher and others on another related thread here.I'd just really like to know whether or not my hesitance to embrace the Objectivist outlook on sex roles is simply a manifestation of the last shred of my public-school indoctrination stubbornly refusing to exit my brain. Or failing that, I'd like to be confident that I do in fact understand the Objectivist outlook on sex roles-- because as it is, everything I read seems to say, "Mens' nature is to be heroic, womens' nature is to look up to men." If that's the case, then I can't possibly imagine what it's like to be a woman and to be told that in order for me to act in accordance with my nature I must find a heroic man and look up to him-- the whole "every individual is an end in his/herself" thing would seem to fly in the face of that. Not long ago, Betsy explained here that Rand's definition of femininity applied ONLY to a woman's relationship to a man, and not to her individual identity. The problem I'm having is that other Objectivists don't consistently make that distinction, and more importantly, that the accepted definition of masculinity seems to apply not only to a man's relationship to a woman, but to everything about his life. The equation would look like "Masculinity > Femininity." Unequal. So, are men ends in themselves all the time, while women are ends in themselves except in their relationships with men?

Allow me to clarify my meaning with my use of "archaic..." I in no way intended to play the "eww, that's the way people USED to do things" card. For the record, I loathe radical feminist ways as much as any rational, truth-seeking person should. When I wrote "archaic," I was still under the impression that it was the belief of some that what makes a woman womanly to the WORLD was her worship of a man. At this point, I'd like to think I'm beginning to understand Rand's meaning, that is, if she meant that a woman's femininity as it pertains to her relationship to the man that she loves is to look up to him, to worship him as a hero. This is a view that I find much, much more palatable, and more importantly, more compatible with my (admittedly somewhat limited) knowledge of Objectivsm. Anyhoo, I'm enjoying this discussion very much, as it's helping to clear up several misconceptions I'd had about what Rand meant by some of her statements, especially the ones that seemed to conflict with what she had to say about other things. Thanks, all.

To follow up on my post above: I discovered a series of essays online this afternoon, at least one of which attempts to address, in part, some of the questions I had about this whole "essence of femininity" thing. An excerpt: (bold emphasis mine) Perhaps I'd been thinking of the terms "masculine" and "feminine" in much broader contexts than they deserve. If so, that would definitely clear up some of the confusion I've been dealing with on this subject. In any case, here's a link to the essay I quoted above: Link. From what I could briefly gather, the author is not specifically a self-described Objectivist, nor is the site the home of explicitly official Objectivist ideas, though Rand is quoted often, and the main page of the site has links to Objectivist resources. Interesting reading.

Skywalker- It appears I'm in the same boat as you-- I've read the article in question several times at this point, and the same questions keep bugging me. If Rand said that the "essence of femininity is hero worship," then I don't understand what she could have meant, other than... looking up to men is that which makes women womanly, which I don't buy for a number of reasons, *least* of which is that it sounds appallingly archaic. In other words, assuming women are not inferior to men, there's got to be something more to being a woman than just admiring your man, and whatever that something is, it's got to be primary, coming before the looking-up-to-men thing. The way I see it now, to suggest anything less is to imply, if not state absolutely, inequality of gender/character. To further confuse matters, many of the words being used to describe these gender roles (words like "conqueror") have clear and precise definitions that don't seem to leave much room for equality. "Conquerer," for example, has to involve defeating, overcoming, subduing, etc. I can't possibly imagine how women being on the receiving end of all that can possibly make them "equal." By their definitions, an inferior is not equal to a superior, and unless somehow I'm wrong, inferiors don't go around defeating (conquering, overcoming) their superiors too often (else the terms would have to be switched). At one point, I thought my misunderstandings on this issue were all a matter of semantics, but the more I read, the less sure of this I become.