Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What Can Women Do Better Than Men?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

+

I have to disagree on this score too. I believe there is no metaphysically necessary difference in the nature of "man" vs. "woman". I deny that there is man and woman, only individual men and women. If someone wants to behave according to a more traditional gender role that's fine, that's their choice to make. If someone rejects their traditional gender role that's also their choice. I believe that people will act according to their individual personalities and that so long as people behave rationally and in their own best interests, gender is really irrelevant to the discussion. I doubt Ms. Rand would agree but that is my position.

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:

"Man is not the dominant sex because he is stronger. He is dominant because of the anatomical structure of man. He is the piston. A piston goes in and out of a cylinder, you don't move a cylinder around the piston” -- athena glaukopis

It's called "the woman on top." Stationary piston, moving cylinder.

And highly recommended. :D

Edited by mrmgraphics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

I honestly can't understand how we are supposed to believe that Dagny Taggart ran a transcontinental railroad, yet was submissive in the bedroom.

You are making here another unnecessary assumption. Let me quote what Hank said to Dagny the next morning:

"I thought you were above a desire of this kind. You're not. You're as vile an animal as I am. I should loathe my discovering it. I don't. Yesterday, I would have killed anyone who'd tell me that you were capable of doing what I've had you do. Today, I would give my life not to let it be otherwise, not to have you be anything but the bitch you are. All the greatness that I saw in you - I would not take it in exchange for the obscenity of your talent at an animal's sensation of pleasure."

Is that a description of sexual passivity?

I believe there is no metaphysically necessary difference in the nature of "man" vs. "woman". I deny that there is man and woman, only individual men and women.

Again this has already been discussed. Please use the search function.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

+

You are making here another unnecessary assumption. Let me quote what Hank said to Dagny the next morning:

"I thought you were above a desire of this kind. You're not. You're as vile an animal as I am. I should loathe my discovering it. I don't. Yesterday, I would have killed anyone who'd tell me that you were capable of doing what I've had you do. Today, I would give my life not to let it be otherwise, not to have you be anything but the bitch you are. All the greatness that I saw in you - I would not take it in exchange for the obscenity of your talent at an animal's sensation of pleasure."

Is that a description of sexual passivity?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

any day over the borderline romance-novel-covers that are the sex scenes in Ayn Rand's work.

Ask yourself why those romance novels, with pretty much the same mode of male vs. female interaction in all (with the male being the primary mover in romance), are so popular among women.

And I will repeat again this does not imply sexual passivity.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

+

Ask yourself why those romance novels, with pretty much the same mode of male vs. female interaction in all (with the male being the primary mover in romance), are so popular among women.

And I will repeat again this does not imply sexual passivity.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when did popularity a rational argument make?

An argument has been made for this position many times over on this board. I was simply pointing to the fact that, such preference, is widespread. I do think that this is something most women would prefer and thus find it more satisfying.

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.

Actually, it did not even cross my mind that you may take this personally. I did not mean it that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer equal relationship as well but generally if a woman is really aggressive I am turned off. I prefer to be the one in pursuit for various reasons. I think there are natural biological reasons for this, but I also look for stability.

I guess that makes me a "prime mover" but I don't think that makes us unequal, there's lots of variables in dating & relationships.

A woman may be waiting to meet the right guy, but that doesn't mean she is desperate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Also Dominique wasn't waiting to be swept off her feet if I remember right. She wanted to avoid perfection for fears of it being destroyed. She actually tried hard to avoid falling in love with anything, that's why she destroyed beautiful art, thats why she tried to destroy Roark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never found it strange that I prefer a more dominant girl: it's probably because I'm so sick of girls who are the walking embodiment of, 'Yeah, sure, whatever'. It strikes me as them being confident and sexually adventurous if they're more dominant - it's the quickest way of telling whether they are, anyway.

Maybe it's because I know it's gonna be fun for me whatever, whereas the girl is more complicated, so I prefer her to have the lead role. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since my convictions about sex got lost in here, let me restate them. It is specifically a HUMAN quality, that is, a quality in homo-sapiens, that the particular differences between the sexes, physically and psychologically, are manifested. The homonid part, NOT the sapiens part, is what makes this possible.

I suppose I will start a new thread about masculinity and femininity in specific so as to spare those here from thread derailment, but the point still remains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am of the firm conviction that sex itself is a kink. Not in the standard sense of the term, IE it's kinky, but in the sense that if we had evolved differently, like an alien species which only posesses one gender which is, to us, a mixture of the most important male and female traits, it wouldn't be important to us because we'd reproduce asexually. It's only important to us now because we're human. Futhermore, it is completely arbitrary that in our species the males are the heroes and the females are the hero worshippers, assuming that you accept Rand's view. For instance, if we were evolved anthropoid hyenas, the females would be the heroes and the males would be the hero worshippers. It's just something that we have to accept and make a part of our lives.

A good book to read on this topic is The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley. He explains how it makes sense that we have evolved the way we did. Why, for example, there are two genders/sexual reproduction instead of one gender/asexual one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good book to read on this topic is The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley. He explains how it makes sense that we have evolved the way we did. Why, for example, there are two genders/sexual reproduction instead of one gender/asexual one.

I'm not so sure about that. I read several parts of that book, both for class and out of interest, and as an evolutionary biologist I find severe flaws with it. For example, he often relies on studies that had sample sizes which were way too small or had unreliable methodologies. Other times he takes a legitimate study but draws a conclusion way beyond what is justified by the evidence. So I would use The Red Queen as an example of what has gone wrong in the field of evolutionary psychology, not as a reliable scholarly work.

I still disagree that there are any necessary personality differences between man AS SUCH and woman AS SUCH. And again I posit that we have men and women, not Man and Woman. I will certainly grant that there are certain personality traits or behaviors, or even aggregates of traits/behaviors, that are more typically found either in men or more typically found in women. But in my opinion the jury is still out on what causes or influences these behaviors, whether it is biological or social/cultural (or most likely, an interplay of both). More importantly, the jury is still out over whether these stereotypically masculine or feminine behaviors, to the degree that they are reflected in reality, are actually healthy or life-affirming at all.

Sophia, I think I have a fairly good idea of your opinions on this matter from reading your other posts, and so I believe we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. This is just one of those things where we're placing emphasis on different facets of the same reality and thus are going to draw different conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with everything in Ridley's book (and he himself said that many of his ideas will probably be proven wrong) but I found many of his arguments insighful.

I still disagree that there are any necessary personality differences between man AS SUCH and woman AS SUCH.

Are you saying that there aren't any or that none of existing ones are necessary?

The denial of all is unsupported given the observed hormonal variations between the sexes (and their known influence on the brain) alone not to mention differences in the brain structure (differences in size of some of the brain parts or connectivity between them).

But in my opinion the jury is still out on what causes or influences these behaviors, whether it is biological or social/cultural (or most likely, an interplay of both).

If you agree with me that it is both then you acknowledge the biological component as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with everything in Ridley's book (and he himself said that many of his ideas will probably be proven wrong) but I found many of his arguments insighful.

Are you saying that there aren't any or that none of existing ones are necessary?

The denial of all is unsupported given the observed hormonal variations between the sexes (and their known influence on the brain) alone not to mention differences in the brain structure (differences in size of some of the brain parts or connectivity between them).

If you agree with me that it is both then you acknowledge the biological component as well.

I do acknowledge the biological component, however, the body's biological response is in an ongoing feedback loop with its environment beginning at conception. In other words, it is not "set": your biology will quite literally be different depending on your physical experiences over the course of your lifetime. I also want to maintain the importance of keeping context, comparing the differences between men and women as respective groups with the differences among men and among women. Given the tremendous room for variance there, I think it greatly diminishes the significance of whatever differences are found between average values for whatever trait you choose between the sexes. This is essentially the crux of my argument.

I also wonder why it hasn't been brought up before now that it is not necessarily the case that romance occurs between a man and a woman. Human sexuality is more fluid than that. There are limits to this fluidity (I could not "turn off" my attraction to men, nor do I have any desire to as men are tasty), but even if you keep attraction to just one gender it is still more complicated. For example I suspect that you and I would not be attracted to the same kinds of men, would not be interested in them for the same reasons, etc, but we are both straight females.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do acknowledge the biological component, however, the body's biological response is in an ongoing feedback loop with its environment beginning at conception. In other words, it is not "set": your biology will quite literally be different depending on your physical experiences over the course of your lifetime.

I also want to maintain the importance of keeping context, comparing the differences between men and women as respective groups with the differences among men and among women. Given the tremendous room for variance there, I think it greatly diminishes the significance of whatever differences are found between average values for whatever trait you choose between the sexes. This is essentially the crux of my argument.

Yes there is a variance between members of the same gender, when it comes to hormonal levels, for example. However, that variation never reaches the point in which the line between genders becomes blurred. At any given moment a woman's body will be significantly different from ANY male out there and closely like EVERY female (assuming normal and natural development). I don't think you would dispute that.

It is helpful to give consideration to the observed trends even if variations exist especially if those variations are not very frequent or wide (which is my experience from talking to many other women of various backgrounds and age). I find that many men these days are confused when it comes to romance (thanks to the feminist movement) and most women wish for the strong masculinity to make its come back. Blurring the line between genders, by pointing to within-gender variations, is not helpful as it prevents us from gaining an understanding of each which further leads to many failed (or unsatisfactory - as many people settle) attempts at romance.

I also wonder why it hasn't been brought up before now that it is not necessarily the case that romance occurs between a man and a woman.

Right but that is not the context of this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women are much more perceptive (on average) than men, but that's based on the evolution of man. Men are better map readers (on average) as well.

Women did the gathering and men did the hunting. It's interesting.

Do you think they are more perceptive in all things? Or are you trying to say they're more emotionally intuitive? If you do in fact think they are more perceptive in all areas, I'd be curious to hear your reasons why. Brain scans do tend to reveal that women have more activity in the limbic area(s) of the brain; these are the brain structures where "emotion" is thought to exist. All incoming sensory input must pass through these structures first before going up to the higher structures of the brain (except olfactory stimuli). When we look at brain scans that examine brain activity levels, women do regularly have more activity here, suggesting that emotion plays a greater role in their memory. Now, the question cognitive psychology and neuroscience must answer is which comes first: are women more emotionally perceptive because of this higher level of activity in this part of the brain, or does the higher level of activity in this part of the brain result from the way women are raised; ie, the habits they are taught to abide by?

Gender studies of neurological brain differences are really starting to take off, and I, for one, love reading all the new discoveries out there (always being careful to read the details of how each study was conducted, though).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a generalization, women are better at interpersonal communication...which may have some drawbacks in the business world. Consider this article by Deborah Tannen:

You Just Don't Understand

by Deborah Tannen, Ph.D.

William Morrow and Company, 1990

Reviewed by Laura Bryannan

That men and women are on different wavelengths when it comes to communicating is probably not news to you. However, "Can We Talk?" the cover story of the December issue of New Age Journal, provides some excellent new perspectives on this age-old problem. The author, Peggy Taylor, interviewed sociolinguist Deborah Tannen, who has written a book called You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. Tannen's research shows that the differences between the communication styles of men and women go far beyond mere socialization, and appear to be inherent in the basic make up of each sex.

Tannen first noticed these differences when studying videotapes another researcher had made of best friends asked to have a conversation together. In contrast to the girls, boys were extremely uncomfortable with this request. Girls in all age groups would face each other and immediately began to talk, eventually ending up discussing the problems of one girl. Boys, on the other hand, sat parallel to each other and would jump from topic to topic--centered around a time when they would do something together.

Tannen observed that,

"For males, conversation is the way you negotiate your status in the group and keep people from pushing you around; you use talk to preserve your independence. Females, on the other hand, use conversation to negotiate closeness and intimacy; talk is the essence of intimacy, so being best friends means sitting and talking. For boys, activities, doing things together, are central. Just sitting and talking is not an essential part of friendship. They're friends with the boys they do things with."

For more: http://homestar.org/bryannan/tannen.html

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...