Adopting Husband's Name

[Stargirl]

I have dated a number of men whom were all extremely intelligent, rational, and respectable people. However, within the first few weeks or months of dating, I always withdrew and found that the initial desire I had harbored for them would dissipate. I would become bored and frustrated in the relationship despite there being nothing apparently wrong.

For a long time I thought that I was just not fit for a long-term relationship, and that I would always grow bored and distant with the other person. Now that I am with and fiercely passionate about my current partner, (and have been for almost a year) It has become clear to me what it was that turned me off so much about all those other 'great-catches'. The common thread was that they all seemed to look-up to me and developed a nurturing/sweet role that I find to be feminine and thus not at all sexually attractive. It occurs to me that this femininity plays a huge role in the 'nice-guy syndrome' where the most nurturing, kind, and women-admiring men are often seen to finish last in relationships with the women they desire.

Ayn Rand's view of feminine psychology fits completely with my own understanding of myself, and hers are the only ideas I have read of the sort that seem entirely rational.

The fact is, in order for me to sustain a long-term romantic relationship with a man, the perfect balance must be one of our unique identities- including our individual genders- the masculine and the feminine. As much as I may have thought I wanted a man to worship and nurture me, that was simply not the case. I worship the masculine, and am completely worthy (not inferior) to that which I look up to and desire.

It takes a secure and rational person to realize that psychological gender differences are neither threatening, nor do they necessarily imply superiority of either sex. The genders are quite complimentary, physically as well as psychologically.

[intellectualammo]

Ayn Rand's view of feminine psychology fits completely with my own understanding of myself, and hers are the only ideas I have read of the sort that seem entirely rational.

The fact is, in order for me to sustain a long-term romantic relationship with a man, the perfect balance must be one of our unique identities- including our individual genders- the masculine and the feminine. As much as I may have thought I wanted a man to worship and nurture me, that was simply not the case. I worship the masculine, and am completely worthy (not inferior) to that which I look up to and desire.

It takes a secure and rational person to realize that psychological gender differences are neither threatening, nor do they necessarily imply superiority of either sex. The genders are quite complimentary, physically as well as psychologically.

Wow, perfectly said. Nice contribution to the thread with your personal experience in this matter.

Inspector, Sophia, Kendall, and you have further broadened my understanding in this, even more than before.

[KendallJ]

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.

Hi Tabitha, I realize you've already decided to leave the conversation, but I thought I'd at least see if i could entice you back by commenting on your comment to me. What I wanted you to do is make a very clear specific linkage from Rands actual words to your interpretation of them. If you can't do that, then you are simply putting words in Rands mouth, by interpreting what she said in a way that she never said it.

Your first statement above is an example of that. Can you show me where she said that passivity is a hallmark of feminity? Also can you take the principle by which she said she wouldn't want to be president, and apply it to any other capacity? You can't because she specifically addressed this in the essay.

So far I've seen claims that you've read the essay, but every reference to Rand's position on your part would belie the fact that you understood it. I am trying to see if you actually did.

[K-Mac]

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,

Tabitha, please do not let insulting, curt posters, such as Inspector, keep you from posting and/or presenting your ideas and opinions. Some of us are interested in reading them. Even when someone admits to an error in their thinking, I like seeing the posts (as long as kept friendly, like between you and KendallJ) go back and forth so we can all think through the ideas.

It takes a secure and rational person to realize that psychological gender differences are neither threatening, nor do they necessarily imply superiority of either sex. The genders are quite complimentary, physically as well as psychologically.

Nice post! And I agree with this completely.

[Thales]

For a long time I thought that I was just not fit for a long-term relationship, and that I would always grow bored and distant with the other person. Now that I am with and fiercely passionate about my current partner, (and have been for almost a year) It has become clear to me what it was that turned me off so much about all those other 'great-catches'. The common thread was that they all seemed to look-up to me and developed a nurturing/sweet role that I find to be feminine and thus not at all sexually attractive. It occurs to me that this femininity plays a huge role in the 'nice-guy syndrome' where the most nurturing, kind, and women-admiring men are often seen to finish last in relationships with the women they desire.

You're entirely right, but...

when I use the word "worship" regarding a woman I never think of it as looking up to. I see it, rather, as desiring something greatly, she's the highest object of my desire. I can desire a Lamborghini Contache and not look up to it. Or, when I think goddess, I think wow, she's so desirable, but I’m not looking up to her. Looking up to a woman would ruin the entire male/female relationship. To be blunt, a woman is something you take and enjoy, and perhaps "worship" is a bad word to use here, because it does bring in the confusion you mention.

It takes a secure and rational person to realize that psychological gender differences are neither threatening, nor do they necessarily imply superiority of either sex.

A man is superior physically, as a rule, and a woman often wants the man she chooses to be superior intellectually and in other ways, because she wants someone she can look up to.

The genders are quite complimentary, physically as well as psychologically.

That's right, but that's because of the asymmetrical nature of their relationship, where the man holds the superior position.

[Inspector]

To be blunt, a woman is something you take and enjoy, and perhaps "worship" is a bad word to use here, because it does bring in the confusion you mention.

That's a bit of an understatement, right there. Are you starting to see what I mean?

[Inspector]

Tabitha, please do not let insulting, curt posters, such as Inspector

Blunt, certainly. Curt? Perhaps. Insulting? I think you don't realize how what I say is a direct consequence of what you've claimed here. And I don't think you fully understand what I'm saying, so it seems insulting. I suppose I have to hope that you'll revisit my comments in the future and perhaps forgive me, as intellectualammo has.

In any case, I welcome Tabitha and Kendall's exchange. I know the point he is making, and it is a very key one which should be made.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Inspector

[K-Mac]

Blunt, certainly. Curt? Perhaps. Insulting?

It's not just this post and it's not just with me or Tabitha.

[Thales]

That's a bit of an understatement, right there. Are you starting to see what I mean?

Look at the definition I referenced earlier from Google, type in "define:worship"

You'll find:

a feeling of profound love and admiration

This is the sense in which I mean worship.

And for "admiration " I get:

a feeling of delighted approval and liking.

This is the sense in which I meant the term. So, it's not like I'm making this meaning up.

The bottom line is we agree, it's just that I'm using the word in a different sense.

[Inspector]

The bottom line is we agree, it's just that I'm using the word in a different sense.

Not really a good one, for this context, though. "Something you take and enjoy" is not in the least compatible with any definition of "worship." I think you're getting that now, though.

It's not just this post and it's not just with me or Tabitha.

Oh, what I said in the post you're replying to there doesn't just apply to just this thread or just to you and Tabitha.

[K-Mac]

Oh, what I said in the post you're replying to there doesn't just apply to just this thread or just to you and Tabitha.

Perhaps this should be split into another thread, but I simply do not understand why people like you, and a few others on this forum, must put down others and be rude to get your sometimes valid points across. Is this forum not a friendly place where people can come to learn and enjoy themselves? Even if people disagree, they can be civil to each other. You're like a wire brush being rubbed up the spine of one's back. Not a characteristic very worthy of "hero worship" if you ask me.

[intellectualammo]

I suppose I have to hope that you'll revisit my comments in the future and perhaps forgive me, as intellectualammo has.

Just to clarify, as far as I know, I have not disagreed with you in this thread and in any others that I can remember. The way you worded it it sounds like I forgave you for something, but I never had to, since as I said I've agreed with you.

Perhaps this should be split into another thread, but I simply do not understand why people like you, and a few others on this forum, must put down others and be rude to get your sometimes valid points across. Is this forum not a friendly place where people can come to learn and enjoy themselves? Even if people disagree, they can be civil to each other. You're like a wire brush being rubbed up the spine of one's back. Not a characteristic very worthy of "hero worship" if you ask me.

Perhaps this should be split from the thread as you said...and...put into the trash bin. I disagree with you Kelly. I have learned from Inspectors posts in this thread and in others, he does not come off as rude, but this comment of yours, well...I think it clearly falls into that...(IMO)

[K-Mac]

Perhaps this should be split from the thread as you said...and...put into the trash bin. I disagree with you Kelly. I have learned from Inspectors posts in this thread and in others, he does not come off as rude, but this comment of yours, well...I think it clearly falls into that...(IMO)

I, too, have found value in some of Inspector's posts, but that's really not at issue here. (Hence my suggestion to move this to another thread.) My question is, why do people have to be rude, abrasive and/or condescending to get their points across? It's something I've wondered since my first day visiting this forum. Now sarcasm and humor are one thing, but to be ugly and/or mean spirited is another. If you don't find Inspector to be that way, that's fine and that's your opinion. I respect that. For me and some others, we find it abrasive and rude. I suggested a new thread to answer that question...why are some people nice and others not nice when trying to explain things to others?

It's a good thing Rand didn't talk to people the way some people talk to others on this forum or her philosophy would have never gotten off the ground. It makes me wonder how many more Objectivists there would be in the world if the high-and-mighty-type, negative, Objectivists weren't out there being ugly to everyone who simply disagrees with them and/or doesn't understand what they're saying. I certainly understand the frustration with irrationality, but you have to control that frustration if you want others to be receptive to what you're saying.

And frankly, I cannot find where my comments were rude?? I am trying to give Inspector some constructive criticism. Perhaps if he understands how the tone of some of his posts are coming across to others, his can adjust his methods and his future posts can be even more effective.

[intellectualammo]

And frankly, I cannot find where my comments were rude?? I am trying to give Inspector some constructive criticism. Perhaps if he understands how the tone of some of his posts are coming across to others, his can adjust his methods and his future posts can be even more effective.

Kelly, I'll point it out to you in what I was specifically referring to:

Perhaps this should be split into another thread, but I simply do not understand why people like you, and a few others on this forum, must put down others and be rude to get your sometimes valid points across. Is this forum not a friendly place where people can come to learn and enjoy themselves? Even if people disagree, they can be civil to each other. You're like a wire brush being rubbed up the spine of one's back. Not a characteristic very worthy of "hero worship" if you ask me.

(bold emphasis mine)

I think your last two sentences and the first part I have highlighted in bold, may not exactly be in my opinion "civil", and there's no real "constructive criticism" as far as I can see, in most of the bold. That is where I think it may come of as being a bit rude. Note: This is my opinion, as we both have ours on the matter and mine do not necessarily reflect the forum or administrations, nor am I the one they were directed at. But you mentioned splitting it into another thread, so I felt free to comment upon it.

Now sarcasm and humor are one thing, but to be ugly and/or mean spirited is another. If you don't find Inspector to be that way, that's fine and that's your opinion. I respect that. For me and some others, we find it abrasive and rude.

Perhaps you (and perhaps the said others) could have tried PMing him about it, before making such statement, public. Or reporting what you think is "rude and abrasive" in his or others posts to the mods here. (like i just did with a different matter)

Edited October 29, 2007 by intellectualammo

[Inspector]

I, too, have found value in some of Inspector's posts, but that's really not at issue here. (Hence my suggestion to move this to another thread.) My question is, why do people have to be rude, abrasive and/or condescending to get their points across?

I think the question you ought to ask is: what might you have done to trigger it?

It's a good thing Rand didn't talk to people the way some people talk to others on this forum or her philosophy would have never gotten off the ground.

Oh, my.

I take it you haven't read or seen too many interviews of her? She was in fact famously "abrasive." Of course, it was always in response to very rude questioners who acted like they had done nothing to deserve it. I guess they weren't used to dealing with someone who could see so clearly how they were being disrespectful and who would call them on it. I suppose they were used to dealing with people who simply tolerated such disrespect.

Actually, that's a very ironic comment on your part, given the circumstances.

[RationalBiker]

This would be a good time to cut down on any curt or sarcastic comments since this thread appears to be heating up. There is a historical tendency for this to happen when certain topics are discussed and I venture that issues of gender are closely enough related to sex that this is one of those topics. If anyone has a complaint on a specific comment or a specific poster, it would be better to make use the report feature rather than trying to address it by sidetracking the thread. Another method may be to engage a person by PM about the behavior if one would rather not start by reporting them.

Alternatively, it should be remembered that no user has any obligation to respond to any other user on the forum if they don't appreciate their mode of conversation. Some folks are nicer than others and I'm not sure the moderators can do anything to make everyone play nice all the time. The moderators don't necessarily address the "niceness" of users, merely whether or not their contributions violate forum policy. Certainly some levels of not being nice do violate policy and we try to address those issues. When folks are perpetually "not nice", they eventually find that fewer and fewer people are willing to interact with them or take them seriously.

Edited October 30, 2007 by RationalBiker

[K-Mac]

Duly noted, RB.

Intellectualammo and Inspector, although I have several issues with your most recent posts, as I am sure you can imagine, I am done with this thread. I have said my part and if you disagree, as I've said before, that's fine with me.

[intellectualammo]

She was in fact famously "abrasive." Of course, it was always in response to very rude questioners who acted like they had done nothing to deserve it. I guess they weren't used to dealing with someone who could see so clearly how they were being disrespectful and who would call them on it. I suppose they were used to dealing with people who simply tolerated such disrespect.

Well put. That's why I viewed nothing of yours as far I can recall in this thread as being rude. I like the extra emphasis with the word famously too.

If anyone has a complaint on a specific comment or a specific poster, it would be better to make use the report feature [...]

...as I did in regards to this thread. Thank you for having looked at it.

Edited October 30, 2007 by intellectualammo

[aequalsa]

Secondly, feminine traits have been linked with depression in numerous psychologcal studies.

By way of clarification...women are diagnosed with depression approximately 4 times as often as men. Coincidentally, men are diagnosed with substance abuse issues 4 times as often as women. So obviously, there is some thought now, that women are not more often depressed, just less likely to "self-medicate."

Was this what you were talking about or were there other studies directly related to feminine traits that you are referring to? If you can point me toward any, I would appreciate it as the subject is an interest of mine.

[Matus1976]

Well put. That's why I viewed nothing of yours as far I can recall in this thread as being rude. I like the extra emphasis with the word famously too.

...as I did in regards to this thread. Thank you for having looked at it.

She was in fact clearly abrasive in many cases, that being more oft reported than the respectful tone she had with other intelligent individuals, and not those set out to attack her. This behavior is evidenced by the conretization of the most critical logical decision of her philosophy as demonstrated in Atlas Shrugged where the strikers of Galt, Francisco, Wyatt, Narraganset, etc, sat with Dagny at a dinner table in the Gultch as she was deciding to leave or stay.

They did NOT tell her WHAT to think, they explained thier reasoning for the opinions they had, in fact they explicitly forbid her from takeing their word, in essence, abdicating her thought and rational judgement to theirs. Objectivists should take note, they did not charge her with evasion, berate her, even take an abusive tone. They did not say "you havent read enough" or "go think on this some more" They were not lecturing an ignorant fool who needed educating, or showboating the depth of their knowledge. They were trying to share critical insigths into living a good life with a fellow intelligent passionate rational being.

Objectivists all too easily fall into an abusive berative tone, displaying just the effect a strong confidence in a subject matter without the cause - a legitimate confidence through lifelong study. This "Ayn Rand was often mean so I can be too" attitude is absurd, these strong tones were taken only when faced with deregatory attacks as she took a respectful informative tone when discussing with intelligent respectful people, and lastly - she was hell of a lot smarter than any of us and earned a right to her often overbearing confidence.

[K-Mac]

Thank you for articulating that so well, Matus1976.

[KendallJ]

Objectivists all too easily fall into an abusive berative tone,

Matus, while I respect your post and agree with it, this statement commits the same fallacy as does the one you are trying to deal with. Stop generalizing. From my personal experience most of the folks on this board do NOT follow this pattern.

[Matus1976]

Don't get me wrong - there are always other factors. I'm not going to just say it as some sort of contextless commandment. But as a principle - as a guideline, it is accurate. Women are smaller than men. All other things being equal, they just are. Which is to say that men are larger than women, all other things being equal.

I think a man being attracted to a smaller (that is - feminine) woman is an acknowledgment of an essential fact about men and women.

I agree that in most cases it is probably more pyschologically healthy for a man to like a woman who is smaller than he is, but that is only because in those particular men the complex background and choices they have made result in that, that is certainly not to say, by principle, that ALL MEN -OUGHT- to like women smaller than they are. Here you are turning an observation into a moral prescription. You are taking one IS (that men are larger than women) and turning into an OUGHT (Men Ought to be larger than Women)

Similiarly, Women are psychologically inclined to look up to a Man, and conversely men psychologically inclined to prefer passive women. Rand has adopted the former pyschological inclination and asserted that it is necessary and proper in a pyschologically healthy relationship, but has abandoned the latter. Both are observations made into declarations, just as your comment about men being larger than women is.

The problem is that you seem to take, for the sake of this argument, "rational animal" as the whole of your identity. You seem to refuse to accept that being a man (i.e. male) is also a part of that identity. You seem to be looking, romantically, for someone exactly the same as you, rather than someone who is female - i.e. who is different and complementary to you. Not to get too far into innuendo (although it is applicable), if you are a key then you need to find a lock. If you are a hammer, you need a nail.

A rational entity is the primacy of my identity, but you are mistaken to assume that I 'refuse' to accept being a man as part of that, actually, I quite enjoy it Currently, this is not something subject to a matter of choice in humans, but technological advances will probably eventually make that optional (along with height, weight, skin color, etc) in which case you will need to have a different pyschological justification than just being born that way. I am talking here about an over-arching philosophical and pyschological framework based on rational entities as the primary, where other attributes are voluntary, because eventually that will be the case. Even so, as a rational entity who exists as a man, I choose to embrace and integrate all the great things about being a human male, like sex and strength and intelligence and confidence, and I choose to abandon those things which I do not deem pyschologically healthy (eudaemonic) to me, like preferring a woman who is pyschologically my inferior (from the genetic inclination for men to prefer passive women) This might be conducive to a short term fun relationship, but not conducive to a long term lifelong stimulating relationship. Being a man is absolutely part of my identity, but that does not mean I ought to automatically do all things associated with males.

I am certainly not looking for someone 'like me' in anyway except in their passion for living and growing. I dont think I could fall in love with a woman who did not have a similiar challenging attitude as I do on matters of philosophy and psychology. I wouldnt find 'worship' proper in a relationship unless I could use it for my woman, even if it is the feminine in her that I worship, and her the masculine in me. (I think this is more what Thales means) If it's one sided, and 'not based on relative differences' then it's devoid of meaning. If she is worshiping the masculine in me, then why can I not worship the femine in her? Of course, Rand has argued that the feminie is to worship, the masculine, to be worthy of worship If that is our definition, than I don't think it's proper in a pyschologically healthy long lasting relationship.

Well, I don't think this is entirely relevant to our discussion (I'm not sure I entirely agree with what you've said but I do think my position on the matter is closer to yours than it may have looked at first), but I will point out the irony of the fact that I'm the one trying to convince you about something in human nature.

We have all ready established the difference between what is natural, and what is human nature. Having a human nature is not anti-thetical to a 'blank slate' as I have elaborated on here. This is very relavent to this discussion because the essence of the 'pro worship' argument is that it is a necessity to a pyschologically healthy male female relationship, and it is a necessity because it is part of human nature. Can I point out the irony to you that you are arguing something is necessary because of human nature, yet are arguing also that we are blank slates?

We are figuratively blank slates in the sense that we can choose to overcome our human nature, but what we choose to overcome and why is entirely up to us.

[Inspector]

They were not lecturing an ignorant fool who needed educating...

And why was this? You focus on what they were not doing but what was she not doing? Was she asserting and/or arguing her opinion? Was she telling them that they were wrong and she knew better?

This "Ayn Rand was often mean so I can be too" attitude is absurd

Are you claiming that I have said that?

[Inspector]

Similiarly, Women are psychologically inclined to look up to a Man, and conversely men psychologically inclined to prefer passive women.

That "passive" bit. That's your language; not mine. I believe it represents a misrepresentation of my position. Not a deliberate one, mind you. I believe you genuinely think that's what my position is. But it isn't and once you figure this out then I think most if not all of your objections to it will dry up.

For instance, remember how I answered your question of how the man chooses between women. Remember his goal is to conquer which means that he seeks a challenge. He does not seek a "passive woman." How has he proven his worthiness of worship if it wasn't a challenge? What meaning does the worship have if he hasn't earned it?

A rational entity is the primacy of my identity, but you are mistaken to assume that I 'refuse' to accept being a man as part of that, actually, I quite enjoy it

Oh, I know you do enjoy it. So why not seek a woman who does the same for her gender?

Being a man is absolutely part of my identity, but that does not mean I ought to automatically do all things associated with males.

Oh, by no means! The popular idea of masculinity is totally dire! Real masculinity was destroyed in the culture long ago. What we are left with are overgrown children, thugs, and the child-brute mixtures in between.

Of course, Rand has argued that the feminie is to worship, the masculine, to be worthy of worship If that is our definition, than I don't think it's proper in a pyschologically healthy long lasting relationship.

It is my definition, but I think you're confused as to its scope and being too literal - not seeing the full implications of what it means. Like what I illustrated above, for example.

it is a necessity because it is part of human nature.

A tall person buys a car with lots of leg-room. A small person eats less calories. A male person seeks to be masculine.

Some facts we try to minimize or overcome - the ones that are unfortunate. I get that. But is it your claim that one's gender and its implications in sexuality and psychology is one of those facts? Is your maleness a form of disability or inconvenience that you long to throw off? I don't think you think that.

But your argument against me rests on the premise that it is.

Can I point out the irony to you that you are arguing something is necessary because of human nature, yet are arguing also that we are blank slates?

Sure. Of course, in the way I mean it the two are entirely compatible.

what we choose to overcome and why is entirely up to us.

Indeed.