mrmgraphics

+ Ask myself why romance novels are so popular among women? I think the better question is: Why is that even a relevant question? Since when did popularity a rational argument make? I could just as easily ask why professional wrestling is so popular amongst so many men. Which it is. Does that mean there's some inherent rational "maleness" in professional wrestling that all men should strive to emulate? And yes, when I read "...the male being the primary mover in romance," that implies a certain passivity to me. If there is a primary, that necessitates a secondary by definition of the very terms. That all said, if a woman prefers having the men in her life be the "primary mover" in romance, I've got no problem with that. Free will and such. My problem is with the argument that there is some inherent "rightness" in that equation; some inherent rational reason to think that such is the "correct" way to view gender relations, when I find it insulting to both genders. As a man, the last thing I want is some woman who's waiting to be swept off her feet, a la romance novels (or Dominique in The Fountainhead). Sorry, ain't gonna happen with this guy. I like my women just a bit stronger than that, as I prefer equal footing in all aspects of a relationship. If that makes me less of a man in certain eyes, so be it. Those aren't the eyes I'd want to find myself looking into, anyway.

+ Key phrase: "...what I've had you do." Women in Ayn Rand's fiction like to be taken. This means that men must like taking them. I assume that Ayn Rand felt that the greatest compliment was to be worthy of "being taken" by a John Galt or Hank Reardon, but frankly I'll take the "equal footing" view of sexuality portrayed by Joss Whedon's heroes -- male and female -- any day over the borderline romance-novel-covers that are the sex scenes in Ayn Rand's work.

+ Agreed. (I honestly can't understand how we are supposed to believe that Dagny Taggart ran a transcontinental railroad, yet was submissive in the bedroom.) Oh, and as for this little gem I found in a sig in this thread: It's called "the woman on top." Stationary piston, moving cylinder. And highly recommended.

+ I'd be curious to see the threads. That said, I know I'm not alone in finding Ayn Rand's views on these topics unsettling at best, and completely devoid of reason at worst. She had a very monolithic view of how women view the topic -- and act -- of sex, as shown in scenes with Dominique and Dagny. She also, as any Objectivist should know, referred to her sex scenes as "wishful thinking," meaning that they were depictations of sex the way she personally wanted to experience sex. To me, they show women enjoying sex by following the path of least resistance: Let the man take over, and simply be taken. There is no rational reason for advocating such a position, other than a personal preference on the part of Ayn Rand herself. If women want to act in such a way in sexual relations, that's their busines, and the business of their partners. But to assume that there is some innate "objectively reasoned rightness" in advocating such is to take the first step in reducing Objectivism to mere dogma, a prescription to be followed rather than thought through, a series of instructions rather than a foundation of critical thought.

+ Why can't a man experience that same kind of hero worship when feeling romantic love as well? And what, exactly, is "proper masculinity"? I'm a guy, I'm curious.

+ I agree completely. It's the difference between causation and correlation: Just because a large sampling of women exhibit traits considered undesireable, does not mean that there is a causal connection with those traits, and with being female. It could mean that the sample is "bad," or IMNSHO it could mean that the traits we find undesireable in women are somehow deemed acceptable by society, and therefore easier for women to follow than men. I think the latter bears further examination. Unlike Ayn Rand, I don't hold humans in general (either gender) in quite as lofty and optimistic a regard as she did. In fact, I would say that the vast majority of people on this planet are like water: They follow the path of least resistance. And put simply, our "patriarchal" culture makes it easier for women to take the easy way out. Many do. Some don't. But women have historically had socially acceptable roles available to them that men would have never been allowed to play. Today they have more options than ever. That's why I bang my head against a brick wall every time I hear feminists decrying the number of "positive role models for women." They don't get it. There are plenty of role models. There are plenty of opportunities. But if we accept my premise: People are like water; they follow the path of least resistance Then we can understand why so many women don't take paths we would find positive, and why so many end up "barefoot and pregnant" or in other roles that we don't find admirable. It's not because they are women (female), it's because they are human, and humans -- like water -- too often follow the path of least resistance. And women have more paths of "socially acceptable" least resistance than men, whereas the paths of least resistance for men usually lead to jail. Personally, I wish I knew more strong women. As a straight male, I see that "hero worship" thing going both ways, and I certainly cannot imagine being with any one romantically or sexually that I could not look up to in some way. To paraphrase Francisco, "Sow me who a man sleeps with and I'll show you his character." That in mind, I certainly do hope the genders are equal. 'Cause I refuse to settle for anything less. ("Course, that why I've been single for longer than I care to admit....)

+ This whole concept of "hero worship" and "hero worshippers" has no basis in objective reality, regardless of Ayn Rand's views regarding such. There is no rational, objective reason to assume that any tasks -- other than brute physical tasks -- are better off handled by men than women. For a philosophy that views humans as far more than brute animals, then, there should be no need to differentiate anything on the basis of gender, because the qualities that truly matter are intellectual qualities, and how those qualities are manifested in action. As for the original post of this thread: dadmonson, is your real name Jubal Early? Are you the bounty hunter from Firefly who tries to abduct River Tam from Serenity? You practically quoted him word-for-word: He says this shortly before he is defeated; his defeat, at the hands of the intellect of the genius, River Tam. Who is female. Who defeats him with her brain. You know, all intellectual-like. There's a lesson to be learned there (not the least of which is that you should all check out Firefly on Universal HD in March): If we are going to worship intellectual ability above all else, we must recognize that intellectual ability knows no gender boundaries. And honestly, must I state the obvious? That Objectivism was created by a woman?

+ As one very familiar with both the works of Ayn Rand, and a very recent addition to the Browncoat ranks, I have to add a number of observations and downright corrections to this thread, starting with this post, and two items in particular: Even a casual viewing of Firefly and Serenity proves just the opposite. Yes, Mal is weary. Yes, he is cynical. Yes, he feels "defeated" and runs from the Alliance at all times. Excuse me, almost all times. There is one person on Serenity that makes it impossible for Mal to run; impossible for Mal to be anything but the idealist he truly is. And that person is the psychologically tortured, emotionally-scarred, unpredictable, 17-year old fugitive from the Alliance named River Tam. Mal can't turn his back on her, and in not doing so, the whole storyline of Firefly through the movie Serenity illustrates his finally reclaiming the idealism he lost in the Battle of Serenity Valley. It's subtle -- Joss Whedon is a master of the subtle -- but it is just as unmistakable. You need only to look, and connect the dots. The Tams -- River and her brother Simon -- are a source of tension amongst Mal's Serenity crew. While Simon adeptly assumes the role of ship medic, the unstable and unpredictable (and apparently -- key word apparently -- useless) River is a problem, especially with mercenary crew member Jayne. So when Simon and River go missing, and it is generally agreed that life on Serenity will be better off without then, one would think the "non-idealist" Mal would just let the two fend for themselves while he flies off into the distance. Instead, he and Zoe go back looking for them -- rifles in hand -- where they find River about to be burnt at the stake for witchcraft (after River's psychic abilities are uncovered). These are neither the actions nor the words of a man without principle, without honor, without some sort of idealism. To Mal, the simple phrase "you're on my crew" is all the answer needed as to why he came back for Simon and River; why he came back for two fugitives, one of whom is unstable and apparently nothing more than a liability (River). The pattern continues, later, when mercenary man Jayne tries to sell out the Tams to the Alliance. Mal figures this out as Serenity begins a launch sequence. He knocks Jayne unconscious; Jayne wakes up on the wrong side of the main airlock, an external door open, the vacuum of space mere minutes away. Here, again, the words of Mal, via intercom from inside the safety of the ship. Mal spares Jayne; however, is this a man without principle, without ideals, who merely flies under the Alliance radar? Keeping River Tam on his ship is akin to putting a big red bulls-eye on the back of Serenity, but again, he won't betray the Tams, and he won't turn his back on River. In the movie Serenity, it is Mal who carries River out of the Maidenhead (after she's triggered subliminally and trashes the place). The whole point of River's being triggered was so the Alliance could find her -- "and find her they have" -- yet Mal keeps her on his ship. By now, in the storyline, we know River is unstable, psychic, deadly with a gun, deadly with hand-to-hand combat, and wanted in the worst way by the Alliance. But Mal won't tun his back on her, even while River is holding him at gunpoint. Mal is risking his life, his crew, his ship, and most certainly his flight from the Alliance, to do what he thinks is right. This, via River, leads to the planet Miranda, where the Serenity crew finally uncovers the horrific secrets that have been tearing up River: 30 million people dead, cannibals in their wake, and all because of an Alliance experiment -- an experiment in mass-scale mind control; the antithesis of free will -- gone horribly awry. Secret in hand, back on Serenity, Mal addresses his crew as follows: Mal is ready, once again, to enter the fight, and he's willing to risk everything to make the secret of Miranda known. Just before broadcasting the Miranda tape, he is cornered by a government operative: And that, my friend, is an objective look at Mal, based on all avaiable evidence (the Firefly and Serenity screenplays). Now, onto: How can anyone claiming to be an Objectivist consider this an objective opinion? I just covered Mal; I'll now address the rest of the crew. Jayne: Mercenary man, and apparently the one crew member you based your "assorted lowlife" opinion on, so I'll get him out of the way first. Yes, guilty as charged with Jayne. Moving on: Zoe: Second in command on Serenity, career military, she fought with Mal at the Battle of Serenity Valley. Sense of honor, sense of duty. Absolutelty tough as nails. Married to --> Wash: Serenity's highly skilled pilot. He prefers to stay out of harm's way, keep the crew smiling with his sense of humor, and keep Serenity in the air. He is greatly aided in the latter by --> Kaylee: Ship's mechanic and engineer; extremely competent at her job of keeping Serenity flying, very knowledgeable of all things mechanical, a friend to everyone and peacemaker on the crew. Highly respected by all, and the first crew member to truly befriend River. Likes fresh fruit, pretty dresses, and has a thing for --> Dr. Simon Tam: Top 3% of his graduating class; gifted, a brilliant surgeon. Brother of River Tam, gave up his life's savings, a prominent career in medicine, and a life of privledge to save River from the Alliance. Devotes his life to helping her, to medically understanding what has been done to her. --> River Tam: The subject of Alliance brain experiments and assassin training. Unstable, psychotic, deadly, withdrawn, she has a physically (surgically) stripped amygdala, and thus can't filter emotive responses. She is also a genius. Her combination of all of these traits saved Kaylee's life (episode 10, War Stories -- pinpoint gunmanship), saved Simon's life (Serenity movie -- hand-to-hand combat with swords, axes), and saved her own life and possibly the lives of other crew members (episode 14, Objects in Space -- her intelligence as sole weapon). She can learn anything, including how to fly Serenity (and is shown doing so at the movie's end). Inara: Registered companion; a combination of geisha, pimp, and prostitute. She calls her own shots, picks her own clients, keeps her own money. She's sexual liberation, self-determination, and capitalism all rolled into one. (So good luck arguing aganst her character.) Book: A shepard/"man of God" with a mysterious past, he is just as apt to give secular as religious advice. And that is an Objective look at the crew of Serenity....