About a Woman President

[Daedalus]

Why do you think that your personal experiences, based as they are on one particular society at one particular point in history, are philosophically relevant when it comes to discussing the nature of men/women? Someone who lived in the 18th century could use "logic and the evidence of his senses" to come to the conclusion that it was in the essence of black people to be servile.

This notion reeks of the Maxist insistence that everyone is a product of his class and position in the Great Unfolding of History. To her credit, Ayn Rand, building on the prior work of Jefferson, Locke, and Aristotle, identified certain universal characteristics of homo sapiens and, tangentially, femina sapiens. Her insights are not diminished by her particular position on mankind's timeline.

[JMeganSnow]

What experience is this? My own real world experience has indicated that hero worship is an idea common to both genders. Certainly I know many males, myself included, who have looked up to people in the past, and continue to do so. What is it about female hero worship that is so fundamentally different? I gave three examples in my previous post of differences I find to be insignificant, so I'm interested to know what real world difference you believe carries some weight.

Hero-worship IS common to both genders. For women, it's the essence of romance and sexuality. From what I've seen, men don't generally worship their ladies as heroes, they treasure them as (sort of) accomplishments.

I could be wrong, of course. Xena, Warrior Princess was rather popular, after all, although even Xena was not an unfeminine woman (not in that leather!), just a ferociously competent one.

[Daedalus]

A few things. First, there's no reason to regard my reasoning as inherently superior.

On this we agree.

I've asked you several times to critique the reasoning in my previous post, and I'd be happy to compare my rational argument with your own, once you supply one.

Done so. Review thread.

Second, you are the one making the positive assertion here, yes? To claim that woman are fundamentally different than men puts the ball in your court, and the onus of proof is on you.

Ayn Rand submitted her judgment. I find it completely convincing. If you disagree, then you are free to pursue an alternate opinion. As far as I can tell, opinions in disagreement with Ayn Rand's are permitted on this board.

You don't have to bow to my superior forces of reason, but you do have to present some reason for your claim.

Actually, my acceptance of an idea does not depend upon my presentation of the idea to you.

Third, I'm not asking for a case by case analysis of your female experience. If you asked me to defend the assertion that gravity operates in a certain way on the planet Earth, I wouldn't need to give you a play by play of every time I dropped an object from height. I could simply state that every time I dropped an object in this context, it fell as suspected. Can you make similar generaliations about the nature of women that stand up to repeated testing and lead you to your assertion?

Sure. Women qua women would not accept abusive treatment or a reversal of their status as women. You are free to call yourself an admirer of Ayn Rand, but it is obvious that you reject certain parts of her philosophy: "For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship -- the desire to look up to man." "To look up to" does not mean dependence, obedience or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and "admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of strong character and independent value-judgments."

As for Rand's assertion of the sanctity of individual rights, maybe someone else can back me up here. Are there not observable connections between the level of individual freedom in a nation and the success of its people? Certainly the gap between the US and say, Cuba is indicative of such a correlation.

Yes. Some people in Cuba benefit personally by violating the individual rights of others. By comparison, some people in the United States benefit personally by violating the individual rights of other U.S. citizens. Obviously, in the country that has fewer rights violations there is a) more individual freedom, and more economic prosperity for the whole of the population. Now what conclusion do you wish to draw?

Edited March 23, 2006 by Daedalus

[Inspector]

...he needs to be as able overall as she is. I'm guessing that men don't generally find themselves drawn to women that are their inferiors, either, so I don't think this is confined solely to women.

I agree; this is critical. How many times have we seen the classic archetype relationship where one party abusively keeps the other down to try and hold what they do not deserve?

It's not the military aspect that made the issue problematic to Ayn Rand, it's that, in theory, the president deals with EVERYONE (not practically everyone, EVERYONE) as their literal inferior. Women deal constantly with men that are their inferiors. It's not having any access whatsoever to ANY men that are your equal that makes you crazy. The others you can dismiss, regardless of how many there are.

That is, as I said, why I took the direction I did: I don't think the presidency would actually put a woman into that situation.

Ah, I see. Yes, I can see that it would at least be possible, but it would require a person of heroic character. It would be, at the least, quite difficult.

For women, [Hero-Worship]'s the essence of romance and sexuality. From what I've seen, men don't generally worship their ladies as heroes, they treasure them as (sort of) accomplishments.

Two points:

One, everyone pay attention to exactly what Jennifer is saying here. It's what I've been trying to emphasize and I hope it can sink in: It's the essence of woman QUA ROMANCE AND SEXUALITY. This is exactly spot on.

Hero-worship IS common to both genders.

Now, I'd just like to add that mostly young boys engage in hero worship. I don't know of too many men who take it to the point of worship. It's more admiration. A man sees a hero and says, "Right on! I like that and want to be like that." I just don't think it's manly to take it any farther than that. It's a salute, not worship.

Anyone else agree/disagree?

Edited March 24, 2006 by Inspector

[Maarten]

It's interesting that practically everyone who disagrees with the idea that the essence of femininity is hero-worship is male. The vast majority of women who I've seen discussing this agree with this idea.

I think that it is extremely difficult for a man to know how it is to be a woman. It's almost like trying to imagine how a blind person would experience the world (in the sense that it's very different from your perspective, and perhaps even unconceivable). If it is a metaphysical aspect of a woman's nature, then how can you introspect this as a man? The only way to experience this is to deal with lots, and lots of women, and then try to draw conclusions on the conceptual level. But needless to say, for a woman it is much more directly knowable.

A good analogy here would be the example of the thinking atoms, who could experience reality on an atomic scale directly. We have to develop an advance science to study these atoms, while for them it is virtually self-evident, and vice-versa. But no matter how advanced their science would be that studied macromolecular objects (like humans and trees and whatnot), it would never contradict those things that are self-evident to us, and which we can easily perceive.

If a male creates a theory about this subject, then it has to reach the same conclusions as the one formed by a woman (based on more directly perceivable data). Contradictions cannot exist.

[Groovenstein]

I disagree that point b. has been dispensed with.

[point b]A president must be superior to all those who serve him/her.

By one interpretation, this statement is so obvious and meaningless. All those who serve a person are by definition inferior in terms of their authority. This is true of a president or the shift manager at Taco Bell.

Another interpretation is one requiring some other knowledge, namely, the idea that a president is superior to everyone within her jurisdiction. Problem is, this is absolutely wrong. In the US government, the president's authority is limited by those authorized by the Constitution to limit it (e.g. the courts, which have the last word on interpreting the Constitution) and by the Constitution itself (e.g. though the president is commander-in-chief, she can not violate the Constitution in performance of that job).

I fail to see any meaningful distinction between the US president and any other position in which a woman would have authority over men, e.g. majority shareholder of an enormous corporation. If anyone cares to offer one, go ahead. Commander-in-chief makes life and death decisions? Great, so does a brain surgeon.

[Kevin]

It's true, your acceptance of an idea does not require convincing me. but I would question why you are here on a dicussion forum if not to impart and suport your views. We have all read Rand's views on the subject, so there is no need to continually quote the same passage. But appealing to an authority, even Ayn Rand, does not substitue for actual thought. You can keep repeating the mantra that hero worship is the essence of woman qua woman, but it's not getting any more convincing. The wuote you included just moves the assertion from your mouth to Rand's, and while I have great respect for her philosophy, it doesn't mean that I accept every word that leaves her mouth without rational scrutiny. Great, hero worship is a virtuous and demanding task. I don't disagree. But nowhere in that quote is there any actual evidence for it being an essential part of womanhood. If you are fully convinced, tell me why. If you disputed my origianl arguments in an earlier post, I confess that I'm unable to find it. Can you, or can someone else, explain what these essential differences are between man and woman, or why the three that I identified and discarded deserve more attention?

[DavidOdden]

I don't know of too many men who take it to the point of worship. It's more admiration. A man sees a hero and says, "Right on! I like that and want to be like that." I just don't think it's manly to take it any farther than that. It's a salute, not worship.

Anyone else agree/disagree?

Yeah, me. I don't think that recognition of fact should be referred to as admiration. It's basic rationality: seeing what something or someone is. I do not admire men of ability -- I recognize them for exactly what they are; and I value them because of what they do for me. I will, of course, express that recognition if it is proper to do so, though never because I have a duty to.

[Daedalus]

I fail to see any meaningful distinction between the US president and any other position in which a woman would have authority over men, e.g. majority shareholder of an enormous corporation. If anyone cares to offer one, go ahead. Commander-in-chief makes life and death decisions? Great, so does a brain surgeon.

As I explained previously, the president as Commander-in-Chief has powers possessed by no other citizen. In his role as supreme military leader he must expect unshakable loyalty from his subordinates and must expect at one point or another to send soldiers to almost certain death. This position would be unbearable for a rational woman.

[Daedalus]

It's true, your acceptance of an idea does not require convincing me. but I would question why you are here on a dicussion forum if not to impart and suport your views.

I'm here to defend Ayn Rand and her views from those who choose to attack her. I've done this elsewhere in the web; there is no reason not to do it on a site dedicated to Objectivism. I don't in every instance succeed in swaying my adversary away from error. But I win often enough to make it worthwhile. You may now disagree with Ayn Rand's position on the essense of womanhood. Perhaps experience will alter your opinion. Good luck.

[hunterrose]

You missed Groovenstein's good points above.

As I explained previously, the president as Commander-in-Chief has powers possessed by no other citizen. In his role as supreme military leader he must expect unshakable loyalty from his subordinates and must expect at one point or another to send soldiers to almost certain death. This position would be unbearable for a rational woman.

By this logic, wouldn't a rational woman not want any certain-death-choosing position in the military, police, fire department, etc? I also think the sending people to their deaths was not one of Rand's arguments.

I've just skimmed this topic, but there are a couple of things about Rand's argument that I believe haven't been addressed.

1) The president's subordinates are inferior in terms of authority, not in anything else. Couldn't a female president thus hero-worship a brilliant speechwriter or diplomat? Neither of these men are necessarily inferior in terms of their job abilities, and the fact that the prez has final say over their actions doesn't preclude hero-worshipping their superior abilities, I'd think.

2) It is required to hero-worship someone on your job? The president can deal with a variety of people who don't work in the executive department: The Presidency isn't a prison sentence to deal only with subordinates. She could worship her judo instructor, or males she otherwise knows socially.

3) If the exception for businesspeople is that they don't only deal with hierarchal inferiors on the job, then the same applies to the president. He meets with foreign dignitaries, lobbyists, congressmen, judges, constituents - people who are not "hierarchal inferiors" to the president.

If the argument isn't objective, I don't see how you can class it as Objectivism.

[Hal]

This notion reeks of the Maxist insistence that everyone is a product of his class and position in the Great Unfolding of History. To her credit, Ayn Rand, building on the prior work of Jefferson, Locke, and Aristotle, identified certain universal characteristics of homo sapiens and, tangentially, femina sapiens. Her insights are not diminished by her particular position on mankind's timeline.

Where is the evidence that Rand's claims about males and females are universal, rather than specific to the culture she grew up in?

Its not 'Marxist' to note that different societies have differing conceptions of femininity and masculinity, its a basic fact which even a cursory excursion into the literature of anthropology will confirm.

Edited March 24, 2006 by Hal

[Daedalus]

By this logic, wouldn't a rational woman not want any certain-death-choosing position in the military, police, fire department, etc? I also think the sending people to their deaths was not one of Rand's arguments.

If the argument isn't objective, I don't see how you can class it as Objectivism.

In her discussion of Joan of Arc, Ayn Rand makes it clear that military leadership is not a role any rational woman would seek.

1) The president's subordinates are inferior in terms of authority, not in anything else. Couldn't a female president thus hero-worship a brilliant speechwriter or diplomat? Neither of these men are necessarily inferior in terms of their job abilities, and the fact that the prez has final say over their actions doesn't preclude hero-worshipping their superior abilities, I'd think.

She would not be dealing with her speechwriters or diplomats as equals. She would be their absolute superior.

2) It is required to hero-worship someone on your job? The president can deal with a variety of people who don't work in the executive department: The Presidency isn't a prison sentence to deal only with subordinates. She could worship her judo instructor, or males she otherwise knows socially.

The President of the United States does not worship a judo instructor.

3) If the exception for businesspeople is that they don't only deal with hierarchal inferiors on the job, then the same applies to the president. He meets with foreign dignitaries, lobbyists, congressmen, judges, constituents - people who are not "hierarchal inferiors" to the president.

Yes they are.

If the argument isn't objective, I don't see how you can class it as Objectivism.

It is objective.

Where is the evidence that Rand's claims about males and females are universal, rather than specific to the culture she grew up in?

You might as well ask, where is the evidence that a creature's life is its standard of value? The fact that some animals and humans sacrifice themselves to others does not undermine the universality of value being based on one's own life.

[Capitalism Forever]

Why do you think that your personal experiences, based as they are on one particular society at one particular point in history, are philosophically relevant when it comes to discussing the nature of men/women?

Perhaps because we are not subjectivists?

[Inspector]

Yeah, me. I don't think that recognition of fact should be referred to as admiration. It's basic rationality: seeing what something or someone is. I do not admire men of ability -- I recognize them for exactly what they are; and I value them because of what they do for me. I will, of course, express that recognition if it is proper to do so, though never because I have a duty to.

Yes, I think you may be right: admiration may be too strong (or imprecise) a term.

Edited March 24, 2006 by Inspector

[Capitalism Forever]

I cannot speak for others, but I have always been a great admirer of men of ability!

How, BTW, does the question of duty enter the picture at all? On an Objectivist forum, it goes without saying that we don't do things out of duty.

...And it is impossible for honest admiration to come out of duty anyway!

[Kevin]

Daedalus, I'd still like to know what part of my initial post (page 9, fifth from the top) you feel to be illogical or incomplete. I understand that you're interest lies in defending Objectivism, and my primary concern is with what part of my reasoning is contrary to Objectivist principle.

A general question about hero worship- if a woman is only rationally complete, or satisfied, when she has a man above her whom she can exalt, is this not a form of second-handedness? It seems like it places the focus, or the foundation of woman's happiness outside of herself. Even if hero worhip requires a woman to be rationally demanding of herself and her object of worship, the fact remains that that necessary focus is something other than herself. If hero worhip is not absolutely necessary for a woman, but simply a common element in women's lives that adds to their fulfillment, then the second-handedness seems less of an issue. But to call it necessary...am I missing something?

[Daedalus]

Daedalus, I'd still like to know what part of my initial post (page 9, fifth from the top) you feel to be illogical or incomplete. I understand that you're interest lies in defending Objectivism, and my primary concern is with what part of my reasoning is contrary to Objectivist principle.

In that post you asked those defending Ayn Rand's position to "establish a concrete, universal difference between men and women, and then explain why that difference is relevant in terms of the duties facing a president." If you had read Ayn Rand's essay and had been paying attention to this thread, you would see that requirement has been satisfied.

A general question about hero worship- if a woman is only rationally complete, or satisfied, when she has a man above her whom she can exalt, is this not a form of second-handedness?

It is no more second-handed than coitus.

[Kevin]

Sigh. In my response, I mentioned all of the differences I observed in dispute in the previous posts, and argued why each one was insufficient for establishing such a claim. Again, at what point was my reasoining faulty? As for coitus, that's an interesting point. Does Rand say that coitus is a necessary aspect of a fulfilled, rational life? I remember a past thread disussing Roark's sex life before he met Dominique. Something about cold, unemotional affairs meant simply to sustain a biological need. But in that case, wouldn't masturbation suffice equally as well? This seems like it might veer off in another direction, so maybe I'll stick to the original question- is sex absolutely necessary for the happiness of a rational being, or is it an optional, if significant interaction, built upon the already sufficient foundation of one's self-centered existence?

[Groovenstein]

By this logic, wouldn't a rational woman not want any certain-death-choosing position in the military, police, fire department, etc? I also think the sending people to their deaths was not one of Rand's arguments.

To which Daedalus responded: "In her discussion of Joan of Arc, Ayn Rand makes it clear that military leadership is not a role any rational woman would seek." In other words, Ayn Rand said so.

"Ayn Rand said so" answers nothing except whether Ayn Rand said something. While this was an acceptable response to hunterrose's statement, it does not address hunterrose's question, nor does it prove whether Rand's conclusion was correct. Hunterrose makes an excellent point by suggesting similar objections that could be made to a woman heading a police department, fire department, and so forth. Earlier I said that a brain surgeon similarly makes potentially life-ending decisions. Unless something new comes to light, I probably will not continue much in this discussion. I have yet to see any of the following refuted:

1. The President does in fact have superiors. Example: the Justices of the Supreme Court, who are the last word on the meaning of the Constitution.

2. Positions all over the place have inferiors. Example: owner of a restaurant.

3. Other positions involve life-or-death decision making. Example: head of a police department.

4. Superiority in politics does not equal inability to admire another's superiority in another field. Example: President admiring the genius head of a large corporation.

[DavidOdden]

Sigh. In my response, I mentioned all of the differences I observed in dispute in the previous posts, and argued why each one was insufficient for establishing such a claim.

I don't believe that the (recently) initial question, about the ethics of voting for a woman and in turn the presumptions made about the nature of females have been properly addressed. No rational defense has been given to the claim of perceptual self-evidence that hero-worshipping is in the nature of females. A fairly simple application of Objectivist epistemology and metaphysics indicates that you will not get an answer to the questions. The problem is not in your question, or your reading skills.

[JMeganSnow]

Where is the evidence that Rand's claims about males and females are universal, rather than specific to the culture she grew up in?

I think this is the fundamental basis for the idea that hero-worship is not necessarily in the nature of women--from a biological standpoint, at least. I can introspect and say, "I prefer men that I can look up to", but it is vastly more difficult to answer the question of *why* I prefer men that I can look up to.

As far as knowing whether other women ALSO prefer this, I'm in the same position as a man; I have to watch their behavior and draw conclusions.

In order to demonstrate a non-cultural or ideological imperative you have to demonstrate some sort of causal connection, not simply observations. Drawing too many conclusions based on what's really a sort of "working assumption" is an example of psychologizing.

As for sending men to their deaths, I would have no problem with this. I enjoy the more romantic ideals of the military, and I also know that war is sometimes absolutely necessary. Heck, I'd be a lot more willing to do it than our current President, because I know that what is RIGHT doesn't depend on what is POPULAR with my support base! If it came down to it, I'd be out there on the front lines shooting a gun, too! (I'd probably get myself killed, but if I judged that the only way for me to defend my rights was to personally wield a weapon, I'd do it.)

Joan of Arc's situation was untenable, according to Ayn Rand, not because she was a military leader, but because there were no men whatsoever that could step in and do the job. None. She became a military leader out of necessity, not because that was her chosen career. Now, to me, that would be horrific; it would be like knowing I was the only one left in the world with any sense at all, and I don't have a high enough opinion of my good sense to enjoy that!

Now: Does it make women second-handed to crave someone to look up to in our lives, to be our romantic partner. No. We can go on without it. It's kind of lonely, but we don't depend on the existence of our preferred romantic partner in order to think, work, and have our own lives. From what I understand, women actually tend to be MORE independant of their partner, able to function without him, go on after his death, etc. Blindly theorizing, I think this is because a romantic relationship doesn't represent as much investment of effort to women as it does to men. We don't have to focus on pursuing a partner as much as a man does; we just let people know we're available and wait to see what happens. If nothing happens, oh well, we move on. I agree that a rational woman wouldn't *want* to be in a situation where there were not even any *possible* romantic partners for her. However, I doubt that any *career* fulfills this position. Some ideological positions (feminism) do.

Keep in mind that this hero-worship thing only really applies as far as our sexuality/romantic nature is concerned, it does NOT mean that we can't stand being the boss. It means we don't want to be the boss of our *romantic partner*.

[Daedalus]

To which Daedalus responded: "In her discussion of Joan of Arc, Ayn Rand makes it clear that military leadership is not a role any rational woman would seek." In other words, Ayn Rand said so.

"Ayn Rand said so" answers nothing except whether Ayn Rand said something. While this was an acceptable response to hunterrose's statement, it does not address hunterrose's question, nor does it prove whether Rand's conclusion was correct.

I did not claim that something was true because Ayn Rand said it was. I merely cited the essay in The Objectivist so that the reader could consult it and benefit from Ayn Rand's discussion in full.

Hunterrose makes an excellent point by suggesting similar objections that could be made to a woman heading a police department, fire department, and so forth.

And, perhaps, for the same reasons Ayn Rand provided, women should not serve in the leadership positions of those departments.

Earlier I said that a brain surgeon similarly makes potentially life-ending decisions. Unless something new comes to light, I probably will not continue much in this discussion.

A brain surgeon cannot order a nurse on a mission that would lead to almost certain death.

1. The President does in fact have superiors. Example: the Justices of the Supreme Court, who are the last word on the meaning of the Constitution.

And who commands the army that enforces the Court's decisions?

2. Positions all over the place have inferiors. Example: owner of a restaurant.

Not relevant to a rational woman serving as president.

3. Other positions involve life-or-death decision making. Example: head of a police department.

Answered above.

4. Superiority in politics does not equal inability to admire another's superiority in another field. Example: President admiring the genius head of a large corporation.

Admiration and hero-worship are not quite the same thing.

Sigh. In my response, I mentioned all of the differences I observed in dispute in the previous posts, and argued why each one was insufficient for establishing such a claim. Again, at what point was my reasoining faulty?

The differences you cited were irrelevant to hero-worship as a component of femininity.

As for coitus, that's an interesting point. Does Rand say that coitus is a necessary aspect of a fulfilled, rational life?

You missed the point. Hero-worship is no more second-handed than deriving sexual pleasure from another human being.

[DavidOdden]

And who commands the army that enforces the Court's decisions?

I think this speaks very clearly about your understanding of the nature of American law, objective law, and Objectivism. Are you seriously suggesting that the function of the army is to enforce legal decisions?

[Daedalus]

I think this speaks very clearly about your understanding of the nature of American law, objective law, and Objectivism. Are you seriously suggesting that the function of the army is to enforce legal decisions?

That is precisely what President Eisenhower did in September, 1957 when he ordered the 101st Airborne Division into Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce a federal court ruling. See http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/dl/Litt...Sept2357pg1.pdf