What is the O'ist view on childbirth?

[the tortured one]

one of the interesting things I found about Dagny, was that in the real world she is an impassionate businessman, a symbol of pure masculinity. I found it amusing when Cherryl Approached Dagny and said "Let's get one thing straight, I'm the woman of the house now" and Dangy simply said "that's fine, because I'm the man" (that's paraphrased of course) I think of course, that it was society that made her that way.

Now Cherryl eventually joins Eddie and the Wet Nurse as minor characters that become victims of society, but that's a different topic

However, Dagny also has a huge feminine side as well. When she had sex with Hank, look at how submissive she was. When she entered the Gulch, she could have any job she put her mind to, but she choose to be a subservient housewife to John Galt! This duality of her nature is what makes her such a fascinating character. When it came to business she was the person everyone (even Jim) went to for answers. When she got to the gulch and was in the company of men like Galt and D'Anconia, she acted like Fey Wrey from King Kong.

I think that she would have been a nurturing mother reminiscent of the 1950's ideal. Provided she was still a housewife to Galt. I don't think that the masculine Dagny of the outside world could have found time for children.

[AshRyan]

When she entered the Gulch, she could have any job she put her mind to, but she choose to be a subservient housewife to John Galt!

But that was when she was there as a scab. There wasn't a question of her doing other kinds of work. It is in the context of her relationship with John, not her work (which hasn't just been tossed aside). At the end, when she returns to the valley with the strikers as a striker and they are planning their return to the outside world, they talk about how Dagny will run trains--and take the shirt off Hank's back with the freight rates she'll charge!

[Kyonn]

Hello

I'm new to objectivism and was wondering where does the philosophy stand on

procreation and parenthood. The reason I ask is from what I can discern

objectivist reject the notion of "noble" self-sacrifice and the idea of

putting someone else's well-being above one's own, but these concepts seem

central to most commonly held beliefs about parenthood. Any clear concise

explanations (or links to articles) on objectivism and it thoughts on

parenthood would be greatly appreciated.

[non-contradictor]

Just a quick tip: Ayn Rand's philosophy is spelled with a capital "O," if that is what you mean, please spell it that way. Small o objectivism refers to something different, so using the capital "O" helps with clarity.

On to your question:

I don't think its sacrificing to take care of your child's interests before your own. If you choose to be a parent, then that is your job, and so your childs interests are your interests. Also, remember what Galt said in Atlas Shrugged. He would have rather killed himself than let Dagny be tortured to death, because she was the only value he wanted from the world, and if she was gone there was no point anymore. So if you are a parent and you value your children highly, if anything happened to them, life wouldn't be worth living. So as long as you value your children, your interests and their interests should coincide for the most part.

Just my two cents, for what its worth. Though I'm only fifteen so I certainly don't have any children. The argument of "anti-Objectivists" that Objectivists don't like children or somehow think that children are "bad," really gets to me. So I thought I'd just put my thoughts out there. However, if somebody with some parenting experience wants to elaborate on this I would also be interested to see what they have to say.

EDIT: BTW- Welcome to the forum.

Edited February 26, 2005 by non-contradictor

[JMeganSnow]

The recaptured sense of her own childhood kept coming back to [Dagny] whenever she met the two sons of the young woman who owned the bakery shop.  She often saw them wandering down the trails of the valley--two fearless beings, aged seven and four.  They seemed to face life as she had faced it.  They did not have the look she had seen in the children of the outer world--a look of fear, half-secretive, half-sneering, the look of a child's defense against an adult, the look of being in the process of discovering that he is hearing lies and of learning to feel hatred.  the two boys had the open, joyous, friendly confidence of kittens who do not expect to get hurt, they had an innocently natural, non-boastful sense of their own value and as innocent a trust in any stranger's ability to recognize it, they had the eager curiosity that would venture anywhere with the certainty that life held nothing unworthy of or closed to discovery, and they looked as if, should they encounter malevolence, they would reject it contemptuously, not as dangerous, but as stupid, they would not accept it in bruised resignation as the law of existence.

"They represent my particular career, Miss Taggart," said the young mother in answer to her comment, wrapping a loaf of fresh bread and smiling at her across the counter.  "They're the profession I've chosen to practice, which, in spite of all the guff about motherhood, one can't practice successfully in the outer world."

[softwareNerd]

I stumbled upon this old thread, and thought I (qua dad) would add my 2 cents.

Having a child did not change my principles. Nor did it make me judge other adults differently. However, it did change some of my more automated reactions -- not always and not uniformly, but there was a definite change. What was the nature of the change?

In many situations where someone would say or do something for which my usual first-thought would be "what the heck!", I found myself thinking something like: "what's his context?" A kids context is so different, that dealing with my child sometimes meant understanding an extremely different context. [To take a simple example, a young child might be -- in his context -- "exploring", while in your context he is "destroying" (sob).]

Typically, people will refer to this as: "being a parent made me more patient, tolerant, etc..." Some posters pointed out that one ought not to treat adults like children. I agree. I think of parenting as having given me some practice (inter alia) in sometimes stopping to consider the other person's context. If done appropriately, this is a good thing.