Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What Does Rand Mean By This?

Rate this topic


DragonMaci

Recommended Posts

There was something from Atlas Shrugged that i do not understand. Here it is:

"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. He does not seek to … What's the matter?" he asked, seeing the look on Rearden's face, a look of intensity much beyond mere interest in an abstract discussion.

"Go on," said Rearden tensely.

"He does not seek to gain his value, he seeks to express it. There is no conflict between the standards of his mind and the desires of his body. But the man who is convinced of his own worthlessness will be drawn to a woman he despises—because she will reflect his own secret self, she will release him from that objective reality in which he is a fraud, she will give him a momentary illusion of his own value and a momentary escape from the moral code that damns him. Observe the ugly mess which most men make of their sex lives—and observe the mess of contradictions which they hold as their moral philosophy. One proceeds from the other. Love is our response to our highest values—and can be nothing else. Let a man corrupt his values and his view of existence, let him profess that love is not self-enjoyment but self-denial, that virtue consists, not of pride, but of pity or pain or weakness or sacrifice, that the noblest love is born, not of admiration, but of charity, not in response to values, but in response to flaws—and he will have cut himself in two. His body will not obey him, it will not respond, it will make him impotent toward the woman he professes to love and draw him to the lowest type of whore he can find."

What did she mean by "conquer"? Did she mean it in a sexual/otherwise physical sense? A physchological sense? Or both? Can anyone help me with this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"conquer..."

People often talk of women "playing hard to get"...the term "conquer" can be understood in that context.

A proud man will look for a woman with high standards. So, even if she's "playing" in some other sense, the fact is that she is hard to get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, I agree with softwareNerd on that.

For now, when I say him, let us assume I am talking about Fransisco.

To conquer a women of pride (like Dagny) is to to show her through values, strength of character etc, etc that are are worthy o her. Someone that meets his highest standards, but is enough in his leagues to be able to get to submit to him despite her high standards, and how much she might ''play hard to get''.

A women that any/most other men could never have as a lover, never make submit to him. But a women HE can, though it should never too easy, and in fact difficult enough to warrant the word conquest;because the women he would seek would never submit to being his lover easily. Indeed he must wage a struggle of sorts to prove his right to possess her.

Now I know you dont agree with the idea of mean possessing a women, in any sense, but I do not wish to debate that here.

Edit reason: Grammer and typing error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To conquer a women of pride (like Dagny) is to to show her through values, strength of character etc, etc that are are worthy o her. Someone that meets his highest standards, but is enough in his leagues to be able to get to submit to him despite her high standards, and how much she might ''play hard to get''.

Yeah, I tend to agree that this is the basic meaning. If you think of Rand's stated view of masculinity and feminity, and overlay that upon this idea of earning a woman's admiration, then conquer seems like a good choice.

I think "earn through the force of his character"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if you look at the verb 'conquer', the noun from which it springs is 'conquest', meaning the subject of which you seek to acquire. It is, in a sense, a corrolary of the concept 'value', where value means 'that which one seeks to acquire or keep'. A 'conquest' is that very thing which you are seeking to attain, i.e. a value you wish to attain.

Conquest, like selfish, is just another word that has been used with political terms, to make any attempt at to gain something sound like brutish, forceful activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think "earn through the force of his character"...

I think force of character is an even better way of putting it than strength of character. Thanks Kendall

A 'conquest' is that very thing which you are seeking to attain, i.e. a value you wish to attain.

Excellently put Tenure.

I also agree with Tenure in that a lot of people associate negative things with conquest, because that is what altruists etc what them to think, that only a crude barbarian seeks conquest of ANY sort. Of course this is plainly not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"conquer..."

People often talk of women "playing hard to get"...the term "conquer" can be understood in that context.

A proud man will look for a woman with high standards. So, even if she's "playing" in some other sense, the fact is that she is hard to get.

What does "playing hard to get" mean? I have always wondered about that. And what does "playing in some other sense" mean?

A women that any/most other men could never have as a lover, never make submit to him. But a women HE can, though it should never too easy, and in fact difficult enough to warrant the word conquest;because the women he would seek would never submit to being his lover easily. Indeed he must wage a struggle of sorts to prove his right to possess her.

But how do you know whether or not she submitted too easily?

I think "earn through the force of his character"...

What does "force of character" mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But how do you know whether or not she submitted too easily?

That is highly contextual I would say. I think she would have to have enough time, good reason and ample proof that you meet her standards before she submitted to being conquered. A man of pride seriously seeking a romantic relationship with a women should know the values, mind etc of his subject of desire well enough to know that she has considered her submission properly and made a rational decision for the right reasons in this regard. Also the women would make it pretty clear in various ways I would hope that she has put up a proper "struggle'' or whatever you want to call it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is highly contextual I would say. I think she would have to have enough time, good reason and ample proof that you meet her standards before she submitted to being conquered. A man of pride seriously seeking a romantic relationship with a women should know the values, mind etc of his subject of desire well enough to know that she has considered her submission properly and made a rational decision for the right reasons in this regard. Also the women would make it pretty clear in various ways I would hope that she has put up a proper "struggle'' or whatever you want to call it.

But Dominque spent hardly any time with Roark before she let him conquer her.

What do you mean by "a proper struggle?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Dominque spent hardly any time with Roark before she let him conquer her.

What do you mean by "a proper struggle?"

If I recall correctly, she tried to brain him with a lamp or something like that. That would have discouraged a lesser soul (like me).

The only thing she didn't do was call for help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly, she tried to brain him with a lamp or something like that. That would have discouraged a lesser soul (like me).

The only thing she didn't do was call for help.

I think the lamp thing was going way to far.

Personally, I don't see why a woman should have to struggle the first time for it to be a proper romantic-sexual encounter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the lamp thing was going way to far.

Personally, I don't see why a woman should have to struggle the first time for it to be a proper romantic-sexual encounter.

Usually the struggle is not so literal - it's more of a strict evaluation and testing on character. But that was an exceptional circumstance so they made do with what was available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Dominque spent hardly any time with Roark before she let him conquer her.

Start reading at Part Two of "The Fountainhead" again. Read the first two chapters. It was enough.

There are so many things that happen in that span that is amazing writing. Their meeting, their short, pointed conversations, her pursing him while trying to "not give in to it", her breaking the marble of the fireplace and asking him to fix it. Then, him really breaking it for her (foreshadowing deluxe!), then the talk about "fine marbles" and "Pressure that leads to consequences that can't be controlled after a certain point" (not verbatim, just from memory). Then, Roark sending Pasquale instead of going himself to replace it. ;)

Man, those two chapters are filled with sexual metaphors and tension. Most importantly, Dominique was not yet a "happy, integrated" person. That is the primary reason for her actions on their first sexual encounter. To a degree, both of them were operating on "unstated, unnamed premises", but premises they possessed nevertheless already; their "sense of life".

If I recall correctly, she tried to brain him with a lamp or something like that...

I think the lamp thing was going way to far.

She reached for a lamp. Roark knocked it out of her hands and it crashed on the floor. I think it was crystal; another good metaphor. Think of the statue Dominique destroyed. Like she will try to spend much of the rest of the novel destroying Roark, but isn't able to as she did the statue. Nice touch of symmetry there!

Personally, I don't see why a woman should have to struggle the first time for it to be a proper romantic-sexual encounter.

Any particular woman does not have to physically stuggle like Dominique. But, consider if a woman did not "stuggle" at all, in any way, even if only to wait until a man has proven to her he is worthy of her affections. Just passive, sex with any random stranger that passes her on the street and says, "Wanna have sex?" And then she uncritically replies, "Whatever." And then has sex with him.

So, the "struggle" doesn't necessarily have to be physical, it could also or solely be mental (conceptual, emotional).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris,

That is a great summary!

You know what I'd be interested to see. Is some females to weigh in on this topic, since all of us guys are really speculating at what "conquering" means psychologically. It sure would be nice to have a female perspective.

Any takers???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking as a woman, one of the most important characteristics that determines whether it's worth hitching your life to a particular man is his ambition. Oh, sure, there are a lot of *other* important qualities. This may be a cultural thing (I don't claim that my every desire is somehow genetic and evolutionary), but it *is* a fact. How many husbands ditch their career to follow their wives around? It's a simple fact that, as a woman, romance means giving over a great deal into someone else's hands.

You'd have to be some kind of fool to give that to someone that didn't deserve it (and many women are). That's the reason, in a nutshell, why women make it tough to conquer them (play hard to get), and why we want men that *can* conquer us.

There's a good line in Atlas Shrugged just after Dagny goes to her first society ball. Her mother asks her, roughly, "Didn't you enjoy meeting all the men?" and Dagny responds: "What men? There wasn't a man there that I couldn't squash ten of."

For a woman, this is the most miserable sensation you will ever encounter. It means that the relationship you crave is impossible: either you give yourself up to some lesser man that will stifle you like a room full of carbon monoxide, or you resign yourself to *no* relationship and turn yourself into a machine.

There are a lot of qualities that make up the kind of man most women wish they knew, so many that it's difficult to explain. It's something women pick up gradually over time and automatize very deeply. I kind of understand the problems Kevin Delaney has with trying to teach men to be romantic: it's an uphill battle because they don't even have the habit of noticing the kind of traits women talk about, that and when you explain they proceed to denounce your desires as horseshit.

You dislike the idea of conquering? Well, then get used to being alone. I'm of the opinion that a man who gets hung up on what *he* thinks the connotations of a word are isn't worth the effort to instruct. It's actually quite easy to convince women that you *aren't* manly. Some of my favorites include:

"I'd never give blood; I'm scared of needles." (wuss)

"Don't tell me about cutting up dead people! I'll get sick!" (wuss . . . I'm a girl and I actually did it, if you have testicles you ought to at least be able to HEAR about it.)

"You tell the hostes how many people we have." (no initiative)

"I don't know, where do *you* want to eat." (indecisive)

"I didn't think we needed reservations." (no foresight)

I think I've probably said all this elsewhere. There's a second thing that makes conquest a necessary part of a romantic relationship for women: You Don't Boss Men. A man that you have to boss is a child, a dependent, not your lover. It's all right for you to make arrangements and decisions on my behalf as long as you have learned an adroit method for doing so and know when it's actually necessary to ask my opinion. (You learn this by observing a woman closely over a period of time.) I have no desire at all to make decisions for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Start reading at Part Two of "The Fountainhead" again. Read the first two chapters. It was enough.

I never said it wasn't enough. I said it didn't seem to fit with Prometheus98876's statement (post number 8).

There are so many things that happen in that span that is amazing writing. Their meeting, their short, pointed conversations, her pursing him while trying to "not give in to it", her breaking the marble of the fireplace and asking him to fix it. Then, him really breaking it for her (foreshadowing deluxe!), then the talk about "fine marbles" and "Pressure that leads to consequences that can't be controlled after a certain point" (not verbatim, just from memory). Then, Roark sending Pasquale instead of going himself to replace it. :lol:

Man, those two chapters are filled with sexual metaphors and tension.

I seemed to of missed that they were metaphors.

She reached for a lamp. Roark knocked it out of her hands and it crashed on the floor. I think it was crystal; another good metaphor. Think of the statue Dominique destroyed. Like she will try to spend much of the rest of the novel destroying Roark, but isn't able to as she did the statue. Nice touch of symmetry there!

Irrelevant. The issue is that that action is going to far for me in the context of it being me in the situation.

Any particular woman does not have to physically stuggle like Dominique. But, consider if a woman did not "stuggle" at all, in any way, even if only to wait until a man has proven to her he is worthy of her affections. Just passive, sex with any random stranger that passes her on the street and says, "Wanna have sex?" And then she uncritically replies, "Whatever." And then has sex with him.

My issue wasn't over whether or not she struggled, but how she struggled. ALso, how long should she wait when she sees a man she thinks meets her high standards? Less than a week? A week? A month? Is love at first sight and acting on it immediately valid according to what you said? (Note: I meant any action, not sex in particular.)

For a woman, this is the most miserable sensation you will ever encounter. It means that the relationship you crave is impossible: either you give yourself up to some lesser man that will stifle you like a room full of carbon monoxide, or you resign yourself to *no* relationship and turn yourself into a machine.

Humans can live a happy life without romance. I know that from experience. And I have done it without turning myself into a machine.

Mind you only twice have I found a woman that I considered lived up to my high standards. The first girl was when I was in high school. I got too shy and never told her and then lost contact with her five years later (five years ago now). The second turned out to be married. I will tell you, that for me, finding out the pain I got from each of those situations are worse feelings than going years seeing woman well below my standards.

There are a lot of qualities that make up the kind of man most women wish they knew, so many that it's difficult to explain. It's something women pick up gradually over time and automatize very deeply. I kind of understand the problems Kevin Delaney has with trying to teach men to be romantic: it's an uphill battle because they don't even have the habit of noticing the kind of traits women talk about, that and when you explain they proceed to denounce your desires as horseshit.

I like doing romantic things. And without any training. :D

You dislike the idea of conquering? Well, then get used to being alone. I'm of the opinion that a man who gets hung up on what *he* thinks the connotations of a word are isn't worth the effort to instruct. It's actually quite easy to convince women that you *aren't* manly. Some of my favorites include:

Who said i don't like conquering? I didn't. All that i have said are questions aimed at undertanding what Rand meant by conquering because I did not understand. I cannot dislike what i do not know and I won't even try to.

"I'd never give blood; I'm scared of needles." (wuss)

"Don't tell me about cutting up dead people! I'll get sick!" (wuss . . . I'm a girl and I actually did it, if you have testicles you ought to at least be able to HEAR about it.)

What if they have had extremely negative experiences involving these things?

I think I've probably said all this elsewhere. There's a second thing that makes conquest a necessary part of a romantic relationship for women: You Don't Boss Men. A man that you have to boss is a child, a dependent, not your lover.

Tell that to my mother. She bosses her boyfriend around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irrelevant. The issue is that that action is going to far for me in the context of it being me in the situation.

You're not Roark, so I fail to see how it's relevant that you don't feel that YOU'D want to be in that situation.

Humans can live a happy life without romance. I know that from experience. And I have done it without turning myself into a machine.

You're not a woman. Also, there's a difference between living without romance because you have different concerns and living without it because you're surrounded by idiots.

Who said i don't like conquering? I didn't.

You said that you found the *concept of* conquering offensive. I take that to mean that you find conquering offensive also.

What if they have had extremely negative experiences involving these things?

And they let their negative experiences govern their actions? Then they're a wuss, they need to re-think, grow up, and get over it. I don't care how negative your experience was, that's no reason to be afraid of a little pin prick or the sight of some blood.

Tell that to my mother. She bosses her boyfriend around.

Yeah, so does my mom. No rational woman refers to her husband/lover as "my other child". That's just disgusting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bravo Jenni! Well put indeed! I am glad you took posted this, I found it one of the better female perspectives on this that I have read.

It also reminds me of I point I forgot to make before: One thing about having to ''conquer'' women is to show them that you ARE a man, capable of taking on a difficult task, and handling it. Which Jenni seems to agree is a very desirable quality in a man! It seems to me most females would agree...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not a woman. Also, there's a difference between living without romance because you have different concerns and living without it because you're surrounded by idiots.

Actually, it is not because of having different concerns. It is because only two females met my standards, while the other woman were well below them, and in those two cases one is married and I was too shy too tell the other how I felt, though I realise now that girl was never interested in me in that manner.

You said that you found the *concept of* conquering offensive. I take that to mean that you find conquering offensive also.

No, I didn't. I said, in a different thread, that I find the idea of possession offensive. And if you go back and read a later post of mine on that thread, I agreed with one or two of the definitions Kendall gave, so clearly I have changed my mind on that issue. On the other hand, I have had no issue with conquering since I didn't know what it meant. And now that i do know what it means, I am fully in support of it. I quite like it. In fact I even like the idea of "possessing" now that I know what it means. :lol:

And they let their negative experiences govern their actions? Then they're a wuss, they need to re-think, grow up, and get over it. I don't care how negative your experience was, that's no reason to be afraid of a little pin prick or the sight of some blood.

I am not like that. I have no problems with such things. I simply wanted to know what you thought of such people, and know I do.

Yeah, so does my mom. No rational woman refers to her husband/lover as "my other child". That's just disgusting.

My mother does that use that term. She just bosses him around, so in effect she says that through implication. She does sometimes tell him to stop being a baby or to act less childish. I know that any woman that does that to me will quickly be getting a break-up/divorce, depending on if we are married at the time. I don't like being treated like I am a child. That is why I react very negatively towards anything I percieve to be patronisation.

I really think he is beneath her level, which I think isn't high anyway. She is worth some of my time anyway (she says interesting things sometimes and gets some things right). Unlike my father. He deserves none of my time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bravo Jenni! Well put indeed! I am glad you took posted this, I found it one of the better female perspectives on this that I have read.

It also reminds me of I point I forgot to make before: One thing about having to ''conquer'' women is to show them that you ARE a man, capable of taking on a difficult task, and handling it. Which Jenni seems to agree is a very desirable quality in a man! It seems to me most females would agree...

I'll second that "Bravo;" it is rare to see a woman explain in that great a length, and to that detail, and most importantly, with that amount of CLARITY, what it is they are looking for and WHY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I've said most of this stuff elsewhere on the forum, but it's been a while. Pretty much all you have to do, as a woman, is introspect. I also usually write romance into my literary work, so I have a lot of practical experience with that sort of introspection, anyway.

The difficulty is that the explanation gets taken the wrong way a lot; this is because of another factor I call "If I have to explain, it's not fun any more." Explaining to a man what you'd like him to do is very similar to TELLING him what to do. It's a romance-killer.

If you want to look at some Manly Men (by my standards) in literature, check out the following:

Sherlock Holmes (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)

The Virginian (Owen Wister--this book is excellent in general, btw, it's the Original Western)

All of Ayn Rand's books (probably read those already)

Really pay attention to how the men act *towards women*. Some common traits:

Unfailingly courteous

Self-control

Strong emotions, passion, dedication (yes, even Sherlock Holmes, Watson knows it even if Holmes doesn't)

Masterful (Doyle uses this term many times to describe Holmes, it's a great word)

Ask specific questions and I'll make my best try at giving answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difficulty is that the explanation gets taken the wrong way a lot; this is because of another factor I call "If I have to explain, it's not fun any more." Explaining to a man what you'd like him to do is very similar to TELLING him what to do. It's a romance-killer.

No one asked you to do that. The only question was about what Ayn Rand meant in Atlas Shrugged, and that has been answered.

Unfailingly courteous

Self-control

Strong emotions, passion, dedication (yes, even Sherlock Holmes, Watson knows it even if Holmes doesn't)

Masterful (Doyle uses this term many times to describe Holmes, it's a great word)

I would say all but the last are things I am/would do in a romantic situation, except the last and that is only an exception because I am not sure what you mean. "Masterful" has at least two meanings that could apply: "in control" and "skilled." Which do you mean? Or do you mean some other one? The former is something I would do, but right now I have few skills, though I am doing a computer course to change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...