Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Men & Women, Love & Sex

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Furthermore, if femininity is to worship masculinity, what is a man's relationship to a woman? That is, does he, as a man, worship her femininity? That clearly doesn't make any sense, for to do so would, by Rand's definition, mean that he worships her worship of him. Why doesn't Rand talk about heroine-worship? Frankly, I don't think she believed such an attribute could exist.

The essence of femininity is hero-worship; the essence of masculinity is heroism.

To be a hero is to be successful in life as a man: to create wealth, to overcome evil, and to have a beautiful and lovely woman as a partner in life.

Thus, the things that a man looks for in a woman is beauty (including sexual attractiveness), loveliness, and partnership in his efforts to create wealth and overcome evil. The better a woman is at these things, the greater her chances of winning the heart of a heroic man. A woman who excels at these qualities is a heroine, and her man will, perhaps not worship, but certainly adore and admire her for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The essence of femininity is hero-worship; the essence of masculinity is heroism.

CapFor, I think what you're saying may be the most accurate interpretation of Rand's point of view (that I've heard), but I'm finding it extremely uneven.

From this line alone, the essence of masculinity--heroism--is "to be a hero"; that is, to live as a hero. Fine. But that femininity is to worship such a hero seems to mean that the man acts and the woman worships. Now, I'm even reminding myself of feminists here, but that's not what I'm trying to get at. What I mean is: The definition of masculinity seems to cover everything in a man's life; while the definition of femininity could (I think) only refer to part of a woman's life--her romantic life. Perhaps this lopsidedness is acceptable, but something seems very out of order about it to me.

To be a hero is to be successful in life as a man: to create wealth, to overcome evil, and to have a beautiful and lovely woman as a partner in life.
This is exactly what a woman should want, too (changing "beautiful and lovely woman" to "handsome and strong man").

Thus, the things that a man looks for in a woman is beauty (including sexual attractiveness), loveliness, and partnership in his efforts to create wealth and overcome evil. The better a woman is at these things, the greater her chances of winning the heart of a heroic man. A woman who excels at these qualities is a heroine, and her man will, perhaps not worship, but certainly adore and admire her for it.

Placing the woman in the position of "partner" here seems to imply that the woman is a secondary supporter to her lover's primary goals, is this what you are saying?

As a woman--rather, as a human--I strive to be productive, to create wealth, to gain knowledge, and to overcome evil. I do not wish to be a partner to a man who is doing this, I wish to do it myself. Of course, if I find that being a partner--in a different sense--to anyone, man or woman, will further my goals, I will engage in such a partnership for that reason alone.

I may be misinterpreting your words, but it seems to me that your definitions place the woman in the place of "assistant"--she may be indispensable to the man, but still, she is not the primary mover in the goals she is working towards.

At this time, unfortunately, I have not formulated a full definition of my own, but in my view, a relationship between a man and a woman is one essentially of equals. Each has his or her own goals, and perhaps they work together, but only for the sake of furthering goals they both believe in, not because one is a man and one is a woman. I am not implying, of course, that the man and the woman are of equal physical strength or necessary equal in other ways, but that they treat one another equally, with neither playing any sort of "assistant" role.

I had to write this post rather quickly, so please do ask me to clarify if there's anything I've left amiss, and do let me know if /how I've misintepreted your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand's definition of femininity being what it is, I'd like to ask what is wrong with the following two-part statement:

A. In order for a woman to be feminine, she needs to look up to a man, and...

B. It is not necessary for a man to have a woman in order for him to be masculine.

No matter how many qualifiers are tacked onto Objectivist definitions of sex/gender roles ("the woman looks up to the man but not from an inferior position," etc.), there would still seem to be an imbalance between the two sexes.

Am I incorrect if I say that "being feminine" is "acting in accordance with ones nature as a human female," or that "being masculine" is "acting in accordance with ones nature as a human male?" If my definitions hold up, then how can the nature of one sex depend on the worship of an individual of the opposite sex while the other sex's nature require no such dependence, without it being plainly stated that the two sexes are not, for lack of a better word, "equal?" If A requires B but B does not require A, then how can they be on the same level?

I'm a little ashamed to be asking these same kinds of questions again, especially given the helpful and insightful comments from Ms. Speicher and others on another related thread here.I'd just really like to know whether or not my hesitance to embrace the Objectivist outlook on sex roles is simply a manifestation of the last shred of my public-school indoctrination stubbornly refusing to exit my brain. :lol:

Or failing that, I'd like to be confident that I do in fact understand the Objectivist outlook on sex roles-- because as it is, everything I read seems to say, "Mens' nature is to be heroic, womens' nature is to look up to men." If that's the case, then I can't possibly imagine what it's like to be a woman and to be told that in order for me to act in accordance with my nature I must find a heroic man and look up to him-- the whole "every individual is an end in his/herself" thing would seem to fly in the face of that.

Not long ago, Betsy explained here that Rand's definition of femininity applied ONLY to a woman's relationship to a man, and not to her individual identity. The problem I'm having is that other Objectivists don't consistently make that distinction, and more importantly, that the accepted definition of masculinity seems to apply not only to a man's relationship to a woman, but to everything about his life. The equation would look like "Masculinity > Femininity." Unequal. So, are men ends in themselves all the time, while women are ends in themselves except in their relationships with men?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops-- It looks like Carla nailed the point of my long, rambling post right here:

What I mean is: The definition of masculinity seems to cover everything in a man's life; while the definition of femininity could (I think) only refer to part of a woman's life--her romantic life. Perhaps this lopsidedness is acceptable, but something seems very out of order about it to me.

That's more or less what I was trying to say. I would only add that if there is indeed a lopsidedness, then why is it acceptable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I'm even reminding myself of feminists here, but that's not what I'm trying to get at. What I mean is: The definition of masculinity seems to cover everything in a man's life; while the definition of femininity could (I think) only refer to part of a woman's life--her romantic life. Perhaps this lopsidedness is acceptable, but something seems very out of order about it to me.

I think you have to very clear on the context here. Miss Rand is referring to feminity as a basic psychological state, how a woman sees herself in relationship to man. Ayn Rand makes clear that in every important respect the woman should be the intellectual and moral equal to her man. Her feminity is the recognition of a metaphysical distinction, one which embodies all the value she places on man and which she primarily reserves for the particular man she loves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand's definition of femininity being what it is, I'd like to ask what is wrong with the following two-part statement:

A. In order for a woman to be feminine, she needs to look up to a man, and...

B. It is not necessary for a man to have a woman in order for him to be masculine.

No matter how many qualifiers are tacked onto Objectivist definitions of sex/gender roles ("the woman looks up to the man but not from an inferior position," etc.), there would still seem to be an imbalance between the two sexes.

There is, but it is not a matter of superiority and inferiority. It is a matter of difference. Men and women have different sexual natures.

Am I incorrect if I say that "being feminine" is "acting in accordance with ones nature as a human female," or that "being masculine" is "acting in accordance with ones nature as a human male?"  If my definitions hold up, then how can the nature of one sex depend on the worship of an individual of the opposite sex while the other sex's nature require no such dependence, without it being plainly stated that the two sexes are not, for lack of a better word, "equal?"  If A requires B but B does not require A, then how can they be on the same level?
Maybe making an analogy will explain it. Let's say Joe sells Mike some milk for $1. Which was worth more, the money or the milk? Who got the short end of the deal? The fact is, they BOTH got more than they put into the deal and they both benefitted because they each wanted different things. Joe wanted the money more and Mike wanted the milk more.

Likewise in romance, men and women want different things. The man wants to possess the woman and the woman wants to be possessed.

I'd just really like to know whether or not my hesitance to embrace the Objectivist outlook on sex roles is simply a manifestation of the last shred of my public-school indoctrination stubbornly refusing to exit my brain.  :)

I doubt it. I suspect it's because feminine psychology is something that's so different it's hard for a guy to identify with. I just got an e-mail from a fellow I discussed this with over ten years ago. At the time he was dubious about what I had to say. Since then he has had a lot more experience with women and he thanked me for helping him make sense of it all.

Not long ago, Betsy explained here that Rand's definition of femininity applied ONLY to a woman's relationship to a man, and not to her individual identity.  The problem I'm having is that other Objectivists don't consistently make that distinction, and more importantly, that the accepted definition of masculinity seems to apply not only to a man's relationship to a woman, but to everything about his life. 
It DOES. That's the main difference between men and women.

As MAN -- i.e., as a human being -- both men and women are value pursuers. Men are value pursuers ALL the time. Women are value pursuers in everything EXCEPT their romantic lives. In love, they are the value PURSUED.

The equation would look like "Masculinity > Femininity."  Unequal.  So, are men ends in themselves all the time, while women are ends in themselves except in their relationships with men?

You learn fast. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Objectivist outlook on sex roles

I don't have too much to add at this moment, but I wanted to respond to this one tiny point in Geoff's post. I've heard before--and I believe, have seen discussed on this board before--that Rand's discussion of masculinity and femininity are properly in the realm of pschology, not philosophy. Moreover, her explicit statements regarding the subject (in "About a Woman President) were basically side commentary. Given these two points, Rand's views on the subject are just that--her opinions--and not an essential point of her philosophy. Therefore, while many Objectivists may agree with her, her writings on this subject do not represent the Objectivist viewpoint.

In other words, we can call ourselves Objectivists, or students of Objectivism, and yet disagree with Rand on this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Betsy and Stephen have pretty much done my replying--and better than I would have--so let me just add one point:

When I say "partnership," I do mean partnership: The man and the woman both have the same goal--the creation of wealth--and their relationship is a trade which allows them to work towards that goal more efficiently. The particular skills they bring into the partnership will depend on the individual man and woman, but from what we know about the nature of men and women in general, we can say that the man's contribution is likely to include his physical strength and that "confidence" Bearster has mentioned on the Woman President thread, while the woman's contribution will likely include (but not be limited to!) her beauty and pleasantness, her capacity to bear children, and similar things.

So the leading partner is likely to be the man--that doesn't make the woman any less heroic than he is, for the same reason that a star programmer isn't any less heroic than his project manager: What she does is essential, and she does it extremely well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A. In order for a woman to be feminine, she needs to look up to a man, and...

B. It is not necessary for a man to have a woman in order for him to be masculine.

To be a hero is to be successful in life as a man: to create wealth, to overcome evil, and to have a beautiful and lovely woman as a partner in life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You learn fast.

Heh, if only. :) Thank you, though, for explaining it in further detail. I'm not yet sure how to wrap my brain around the imbalance there, but I'm still holding out hope and trying my best...

I'd only like to ask one more thing (for now): Capitalism Forever, you said-- "To be a hero is to be successful in life as a man: to create wealth, to overcome evil, and to have a beautiful and lovely woman as a partner in life."

I take this to mean that I can't be a hero ("be masculine") without having a woman as my partner in life, unless we apply the same logic to this as we applied to "being feminine," that is, the characteristics we're naming and defining are only relevant to a man's relationship to a woman... in which case, it seems kind of redundant to say, "In order for me to be a hero-- the characteristics of which include having a woman-- I must be in a relationship with a woman."

...or are we all agreeing that "femininity" applies only to her relationships and "masculinity" applies to everything in his life? If that's the case, I should be able to be a masculine hero even if I'm single and don't have a beautiful and lovely woman as a partner in life.

Right?

(I've got to apologize for the constant "what? huh? duh? what do you mean?" that I'm pulling here... it's just that I'm trying to attack this thing from every angle to convince myself it's airtight. When I first read "About A Woman President" a few years ago, it was (and still is) the ONLY piece of Rand's writing that I found myself actively disagreeing with.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
As MAN -- i.e., as a human being -- both men and women are value pursuers.  Men are value pursuers ALL the time.  Women are value pursuers in everything EXCEPT their romantic lives.  In love, they are the value PURSUED.

If I may, I would like to continue this topic. I too find myself put off by the seeming imbalance on the ideas of romance but have been desperately striving to understand them since my first encounter. (I'm very interested in Objectivism and happen to be dating an Objectivist) I see value in many of the viewpoints expressed, but I don't know how to interpret statements like the above. Am I lacking in femininity just because I had the courage to "pursue" my current boyfriend? (In essence, I had to let him know that I was actually available. I will explain further, if necessary.) Does this diminish his masculinity in some way?

Additionally, does my continual work to improve myself, and my continual interest in him, (my pursuit of him) diminish the worth of the relationship? I have no interest in men that do not know what they want, but I have no problem with letting a man know what I want either. If I take action to pursue a man, am I just acting like some unattractive feminist, or am I showing strength of character? (Or something else entirely) Yes, I want to be pursued, but I'm not content with just sitting back being wooed. I want to show him how much I desire him as well.

Is it incorrect to say that he is a value to me? Does suggesting this idea degrade him in some way? Would it be incorrect, or in some way lessen the meaning, to replace "worshipper" with "one who adores"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't sorted through my thoughts on the matter yet, but I do have a little preliminary idea I wanted to throw out there. Nothing, but nothing, will turn me off of a man worse than realizing he finds me intimidating or embarrassing.

I'll PUSH him, too, I'll be MEAN about it. It reminds me specifically of the tennis match between Dagny and Francisco in Atlas Shrugged.

I wouldn't really know how to go about pursuing a man; all my ideas on the subject revolve around making myself more desirable and holding up an "available" sign. I know men don't generally do this . . . if they tried the response they'd get from me would be along the lines of "and?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As MAN -- i.e., as a human being -- both men and women are value pursuers.  Men are value pursuers ALL the time.  Women are value pursuers in everything EXCEPT their romantic lives.  In love, they are the value PURSUED.

You seem to be saying that a man is a value to a woman, so long as she isn't pursuing that value. As soon as it becomes necessary for her to pursue him (because he isn't pursuing her), he no longer is a value to her. I'm not arguing with this, but what necessitates such a principle in a woman? That is, if it is a principle...?

Edited for punctuation and spelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am reminded of the story of Ayn Rand tripping her husband-to-be, to get his attention.

This sounds like something I would do. I don't think of it so much in terms of pursuit as in terms of a flat-out demand for attention. If a man did that to ME I'd be furious and probably give him a lecture if I didn't just kick him back. Even a woman wouldn't do that to a total stranger as he'd be likely to misinterpret it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But attention is a value that you are pursuing, right?  :D

I think we need a definition of pursuit here. Generally I agree with Betsy's remarks as they gel with my own observations, but I'm having a difficult time finding the right words to describe my observations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As MAN -- i.e., as a human being -- both men and women are value pursuers.  Men are value pursuers ALL the time.  Women are value pursuers in everything EXCEPT their romantic lives.  In love, they are the value PURSUED.

[. . .] I don't know how to interpret statements like the above. Am I lacking in femininity just because I had the courage to "pursue" my current boyfriend? (In essence, I had to let him know that I was actually available. I will explain further, if necessary.) Does this diminish his masculinity in some way?

Deedlebee, I sympathize with your confusion. I've read that statement a number of times on this forum, and I'm not sure I understand it either.

Or perhaps I should say that I think I get the general sentiment behind it — which I more or less agree with — only it's expressed in so strange and misleading a way as to be rendered nearly invalid.

I'm not at all sure that it's right to speak of "pursuing" anyone in the romantic/sexual realm. We can speak in a general way about pursuing values and goals, and we can to an extent talk about of pursuing a relationship with someone. But to pursue a person? I would at least want to know, concretely and specifically, what is meant by "pursuit" in this particular context.

In a previous thread, I asked Betsy to explain what she meant by a man "pursuing" a woman. Though it took a bit before I could get her to nail down specifics, when she did, she named things such as a man going to where a woman is, listening to her, looking his best, talking about his work, and communicating that he values her.

In that same thread, I said that I was concerned that men and women would hold vastly different ideas about what "pursuit" consists of, yet each would consider the issue to be virtually self-evident. Sure enough, while I didn't at all dislike the things Betsy named, I would have never even remotely considered any of them to be "pursuit."

Interestingly, Deedlebee, you mentioned having "had the courage to pursue [your] current boyfriend," and now you express concern that your actions may have in some way hurt his masculinity. Yet for you, "pursuit" meant merely letting him know you were available. (I cannot possibly be the only guy on this forum who would say that, in my mind, this is approximately akin to referring to an elephant as a transistor radio.)

I don't think of anyone as the "pursuer" in a romantic relationship: I say that the man is the initiator and prime mover — meaning that it's primarily the man's responsibility to set the overall tone and general direction of the relationship; that it's up to him to get the relationship off the ground, and to keep it maintained and sustained across time.

A huge part of the man's responsibility in this respect is to be aware of and sensitive to the woman's feelings — especially her feelings for him. Far too many men will meet a woman they like, become overwhelmed by their attraction — and, knowing nothing about how a romantic relationship begins, proceed to expend a great deal of energy and ingenuity in their "pursuit" of her, all the while oblivious or indifferent to the fact that she feels no such attraction to him; that he represents no important romantic value, potential or actual, to her.

Consequently, a lot men waste a lot of time, and go through a lot of agony when the object of their desire finally utters those dreaded words about what a great guy he is, and how badly she wants to be his friend.

I much prefer to think of romantic love, not as a pursuit, but as a dance. A dance is something artful and elegant — it's esthetic and expressive — a mutual experience requiring the full and enthusiastic participation of both partners, yet one in which the man is unquestionably (and entirely appropriately) the lead.

To the extent that a man is a skillful dancer, he is a skillful lead. Not a dictator or a dishrag, but a lead; one who understands, accepts and enjoys his uniquely masculine role and relationship to his female partner. A man who is insecure or unsure of himself makes a lousy lead — which makes for a lousy partner — which makes for a lousy dance and a very unpleasant time for everyone involved.

Who asks whom to dance? Usually the man asks the woman, but it could happen the other way. That's not what's really important: So long as both want it and know what they're doing, by the time they're up on the dance floor everything will fall into place.

(I mention this to indicate that there's nothing at all wrong with a woman starting a conversation or doing something to get the attention of a man she may otherwise never see again, such as Ayn Rand tripping Frank O'Connor. Any two people can talk and get acquainted: the "dance" only officially begins when the man takes the romantic lead by asking the woman for her phone number, and later calling her and asking her out on a date.)

I have a great deal more to say about all of this, and soon will. Suffice it to say, I consider this to be one of the critical issues of our age: this dance, this process of love — what it is, what it means; how it begins and how it is sustained — and, most crucially, what is a man's role in this process.

Additionally, does my continual work to improve myself, and my continual interest in him, (my pursuit of him) diminish the worth of the relationship? . . . I want to be pursued, but I'm not content with just sitting back being wooed. I want to show him how much I desire him as well.

Is it incorrect to say that he is a value to me? Does suggesting this idea degrade him in some way?

I hope that what I've written here will shed some light on your concerns. But speaking personally, and exclusively as a man for a moment, I want to say that what you're talking about is not only not a problem — that there's not only nothing wrong with expressing, in words and in action, how much you value, love and desire your boyfriend or husband — and that to do so is not unattractive, not unfeminine, and does not degrade or diminish or hurt or humiliate him in any way, shape, form, or manner whatsoever — I would say you have no idea, that you cannot even begin fathom what the expression of this kind of admiration means to a man.

To be the hero in a genuine hero-worshipper's eyes . . . I'm usually pretty good with words, but I suddenly find myself at a loss.

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...