About a Woman President

[hunterrose]

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

I don't believe that's correct. A leader of a troop of ten men in the Vietnamese jungles is a military leader responsible for life-and-death decisions involving her soldiers. Her argument against female presidents was that a woman shouldn't want everyone she deals with to be under her orders. Thus neither a female police chief or troop leader is irrational by Rand.

Incidentally, did Rand speak this "life-or-death decisions" argument, or is this something you've independently come up with?

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

In the same sense that Dagny was Galt's absolute superior when he worked at TT, or Dom when Roark worked at the quarry?

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

There is no basis for that statement.

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

And who impeaches and removes the President when she doesn't enforce SC decisions she doesn't like? "Superior" here means that the prez makes a decision and there were nothing anyone could legally do about it - not simply that he could control things by illegal means.

[Daedalus]

As Ayn Rand makes clear, the case for a woman not serving as president does not extend to non-political careers. Thus Galt could work for Dagny. Ayn Rand did emphasize the tragedy of Joan of Arc, but perhaps she would not have ruled out all military leadership roles for women.

I am certain that when Ayn Rand wrote that a woman president would have "to act as the superior, the leader, virtually the ruler of all the men she deals with," she was referring to an acting president, not an impeached and removed president.

[JMeganSnow]

So, someone's only "superior" to you in authority AFTER they've exercised that authority? Your boss is only your boss AFTER she's fired you?

It is the ABILITY to fire/impeach/remove the president (or block his decisions) that means he is NOT superior to everyone and everything, not the fact that someone's already done it with this PARTICULAR president. The president's ability to reciprocate in given situations means, basically, that the executive branch is on an equal footing with the other government branches, which is the point of that whole checks-and-balances thing.

A total monarch, on the other hand, is authoritatively superior to everyone; he cannot be removed, his decisions cannot be blocked; his whims are absolute. It's not a rational goal for women to want to be a total monarch, but then, it's not a rational goal for men, either.

[Daedalus]

No single person in U.S. government has the power to impeach a president, just as no single voter has the power to turn him out of office. Furthermore, in contrast to the Judicial and Legislative branches, the authority of the Executive is concentrated in the office of a single man. In this sense, the president is the most powerful man in the country. As Ayn Rand wrote, " Even in a fully free country, with an unbreached constitutional division of powers, a President is the final authority who sets the terms, the goals, the policies of every job in the executive branch of the government."

[Kevin]

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

Actually, in this we agree. I also think they are irrelevant. I used them because they are the only differences I found mentioned in this thread, the only attempts to supply some kind of justification for Rand's claim. What I would like to know is, what differences are relevant? Do you agree that in order to back up this assertion, one would need to establish some kind of universal difference between men and women?

I think that it is you who missed the point about the relationship between sex and hero worship. I agree that they are both pleasure-giving interactions requiring interaction with others. But, would you agree that sex, or in fact romance in general, are not essential to Man's surivival qua Man? I believe that Rand would- after all, Roark didn't need Dagny in order to be fulfilled. He made it clear that his work was more important to his survival as a man. And this seems to be as it should be. So, sex and hero worship, given your understanding of hero worship, differ in that one is necessary for rational fulfillment (at least for women), and one is not. Maybe my conception of second-handers is off somewhat, and if so I'd be happy to know what your own definition is, but actually requiring another person, rather than simply desiring one, in order to achieve happiness seems like it qualifies.

[Daedalus]

Do you agree that in order to back up this assertion, one would need to establish some kind of universal difference between men and women?

The way a woman relates to a man sexually and emotionally constitutes a key and universal difference between the sexes.

So, sex and hero worship, given your understanding of hero worship, differ in that one is necessary for rational fulfillment (at least for women), and one is not. Maybe my conception of second-handers is off . . .

A second-hander lives off the productive work of other. A hero-worshipper is no more a second-hander, than an advocate of capitalism is a welfare queen. Romantic love and hero-worship are essential components of a rational woman's life.

[Qwertz]

The way a woman relates to a man sexually and emotionally constitutes a key and universal difference between the sexes.

'Sexually' and 'emotionally' are behavioral terms. Gender (biological gender, that is) is biological. What is the morally inescapable causal connection between the biology (gender) and the behavior (hero-worship)?

Edit: Bad orthography! Bad!

Edited March 27, 2006 by Qwertz

[Daedalus]

'Sexually' and 'emotionally' are behavioral terms. Gender (biological gender, that is) is biological. What is the morally inescapable causal connection between the biology (gender) and the behavior (hero-worship)?

Men and women simply do not possess the same equipment. This inevitably shapes how they view one another and how they approach sexual arousal and fulfillment.

[Qwertz]

Men and women simply do not possess the same equipment. This inevitably shapes how they view one another and how they approach sexual arousal and fulfillment.

How? Explicitly.

-Q

[Kevin]

A second-hander lives off the productive work of other.

That sounds more like a parasite, though perhaps the two terms are synonymous. In any case, isn't a hero-worshipper drawing a life sustaning value from the accomplishments of another person? You can't worship nothing, and in fact Rand says that the object of worship would have to be someone of great virture themselves. In that context, it does seem like living off the productive work of another. And I don't think it matters that the producer in this case doesn't really lose anything in the process. Again, the key factor is the necessity of the worship. Admiring someone for their virtues, or appreciating a beautiful work of art, is also a means of drawing strength or life from another, but it is a compliment to a rational person's life, an added benefit that makes living even more fulfilling. But it should not be the base of that fulfillment, nor should it be a requirement for happiness.

A hypothetical for the group- could a man lead a rationally fulfilling life alone on a deserted island? Really, the island part is unnecessary. How about just without other human contact, assuming he had the means to sustain his life. Could a woman?

[Daedalus]

How? Explicitly.

-Q

This is not the proper forum for an explicit discussion of human sexuality. Ayn Rand addresses it in non-explicit terms in Atlas Shrugged: A man "will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself, the woman whose surrender permits him to experience -- or to fake -- a sense of self-esteem." (p. 455) Sex is a process of sexual surrender and conquest -- in the very best sense of those words. To say that it is the man whose sex organ penetrates the woman's is simply a matter of recognizing the nature of reality. There, sir, is your "causal connection between the biology and the behavior."

If you want to see the direct relationship between femininity and hero-worship, look no further than the novels of Ayn Rand.

[hunterrose]

As Ayn Rand makes clear, the case for a woman not serving as president does not extend to non-political careers. Thus Galt could work for Dagny.

So, it's quite possible for a someone to have a proper relationship with an inferior?

No single person in U.S. government has the power to impeach a president, just as no single voter has the power to turn him out of office. Furthermore, in contrast to the Judicial and Legislative branches, the authority of the Executive is concentrated in the office of a single man. In this sense, the president is the most powerful man in the country.

By that argument, no single customer, supplier, competitor has the power to put Bill Gates out of business. If Congress or the SC, as individuals or a group of people, is not hierarchically inferior to the president, then everyone the president deals with is not under his authority.

And while I suppose the president is the most powerful in many senses, I see no reason why a rational woman would necessarily not want that.

[Daedalus]

In any case, isn't a hero-worshipper drawing a life sustaning value from the accomplishments of another person?

And the problem with that is . . . ? Are you not aware we all draw life-sustaining values from those who have gone before us, such as Aristotle, Thomas Jefferson and Ayn Rand?

You can't worship nothing, and in fact Rand says that the object of worship would have to be someone of great virture themselves. In that context, it does seem like living off the productive work of another.

How is offering value-for-value an act of "living off" someone? Your response makes me wonder if you have read or understood Ayn Rand's essay.

Admiring someone for their virtues . . . is a compliment to a rational person's life, an added benefit that makes living even more fulfilling. But it should not be the base of that fulfillment, nor should it be a requirement for happiness.

Sigh. Admiration does not equal hero-worship.

So, it's quite possible for a someone to have a proper relationship with an inferior?

Ayn Rand (and I) have made it clear that her comments regarding a woman president do not apply to the non-political realm.

By that argument, no single customer, supplier, competitor has the power to put Bill Gates out of business. If Congress or the SC, as individuals or a group of people, is not hierarchically inferior to the president, then everyone the president deals with is not under his authority.

They are under his authority as Commander-in-Chief.

And while I suppose the president is the most powerful in many senses, I see no reason why a rational woman would necessarily not want that.

Read her essay.

[Qwertz]

This is not the proper forum for an explicit discussion of human sexuality. Ayn Rand addresses it in non-explicit terms in Atlas Shrugged: A man "will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself, the woman whose surrender permits him to experience -- or to fake -- a sense of self-esteem." (p. 455) Sex is a process of sexual surrender and conquest -- in the very best sense of those words. To say that it is the man whose sex organ penetrates the woman's is simply a matter of recognizing the nature of reality. There, sir, is your "causal connection between the biology and the behavior."

If you want to see the direct relationship between femininity and hero-worship, look no further than the novels of Ayn Rand.

The mechanics of coitus do not explain why being female necessitates worshipping a hero, or why being male does not.

I don't want to see a 'direct relationship between femininity and hero-worship,' I want to see a direct relationship between being female and hero-worship.

If your genes make you female, and reason makes it immoral to behave in any way other than what is considered 'feminine,' then does it follow that if your genes make you deformed, reason makes it immoral to behave in any way other than what is considered 'disabled?' If not, why not?

-Q

They are under his authority as Commander-in-Chief.

As a point of law, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court are under the jurisdiction of the President by virtue of his role as Commander in Chief. Commander in Chief refers to his role as head of the military, not as head of the government. The President is head of the Executive Branch, and has only limited authority over Congress or the Supreme Court. His authority over Congress is in the form of the veto power, which can be overridden by special procedures, and his authority over the Supreme Court is in the form of his power of nomination (which, as we've all seen recently is subject to Congressional approval). There are many, many things which the President does not have authority to do, such authority being vested in other persons. The fact that this President occasionally usurps the authority of others should not reflect on the office as a whole.

-Q

[Groovenstein]

Here is what I'm reading:

1. Women want heroes.

2. The President as CIC can send lets of people to die.

3. Therefore, women shouldn't want to be President.

Solve for x.

[softwareNerd]

Solve for x.

Also, the latest discussion is all about an ideal case. If one really has to choose between (say) Condi Rice and Pat Robertson, it would be ridiculous to say she's the less rational candidate.

[Kevin]

Are you not aware we all draw life-sustaining values from those who have gone before us, such as Aristotle, Thomas Jefferson and Ayn Rand?

I think I'm not expressing the key point well enough here. The issue is not whether people can or do draw happiness from others, it's whether or not thet must do so. That's why I included the example of admiration (which, incidentally, I never claimed to be the same as hero worship, hence the phrase "also a means"). Yes, I may draw strength from people like Rand and Jefferson, but I don't have to in order to live a fulfilled rational life. But, according to you, women do. They must have someone in their life to give them strength or else it is universally impossible for them to life a fully rational life. This is what follows from making hero worship a primary for them, is it not? I agree with JMeganSnow in that it would probably be pretty lonely to be completely by yourself, but to say that rational fulfillment under those conditions is impossible seems like quite a stretch to me, one that differing sexual organs can hardly justify.

[LaVache]

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

Sex involves trading value for value (pleasure, as well as emotional and psychological interaction...I said action ).

When a woman hero-worships to fulfill herself as a femenine being, what value must she trade?

[Maarten]

I think the value she trades is herself, in this case. It requires a quite profound amount of self-esteem (for one thing) to regard it as natural that someone should want you, because of who you are and what you have achieved. I think what she looks for in a man is best described as the ability to value, and pursue, her succesfully.

[Daedalus]

The mechanics of coitus do not explain why being female necessitates worshipping a hero, or why being male does not.

It is not a matter of necessity but of essence. The issue is what makes a woman distinctively feminine.

I don't want to see a 'direct relationship between femininity and hero-worship,' I want to see a direct relationship between being female and hero-worship.

Experience is the best teacher.

If your genes make you female, and reason makes it immoral to behave in any way other than what is considered 'feminine . . .

This is not a question of ethics. No one has made the claim that it is immoral for a woman to occupy the White House.

As a point of law, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court are under the jurisdiction of the President by virtue of his role as Commander in Chief. Commander in Chief refers to his role as head of the military, not as head of the government.

Understood. Nevertheless, the presidemt is the most powerful man in the country.

I think I'm not expressing the key point well enough here. The issue is not whether people can or do draw happiness from others, it's whether or not thet must do so.

"Must" implies duty, a concept that is foreign to the Objectivist ethics.

Yes, I may draw strength from people like Rand and Jefferson, but I don't have to in order to live a fulfilled rational life. But, according to you, women do.

Acting in a way that contradicts one's own nature would lead to dire psychological consequences. No rational woman would want to endure that.

[hunterrose]

Sigh. Admiration does not equal hero-worship.

Perhaps; but haven't you already agreed that a person can have a proper relationship with a job inferior? Isn't the gist of your argument:

Person A can have a proper relationship with job inferior B - so long as there is some person C whom A is not job superior to.

...Why is it necessary for there to be someone unrelated to the relationship to justify a relationship?? That doesn't even make sense.

Read her essay.

You missed my point. I was saying that if it is shown that the president is not the authority over everyone he deals with, that you can't simply downgrade your argument to "okay, the president isn't the supreme authority, but he is the most powerful" - as Rand didn't say that a woman shouldn't want to be the powerful person in the country as separate from being the hierarchal authority of everyone he deals with.

You are dismissing the fact that congressmen and SC justices are not under his authority? If you wish to continue stating that they are, perhaps you would be willing to state how exactly they are under his authority (and the president not under Congress's/SC's authority.)

[Daedalus]

...Why is it necessary for there to be someone unrelated to the relationship to justify a relationship?? That doesn't even make sense.

A president does not deal with equals, but with hierachical inferiors. This would be intolerable for a rational woman, who, if she is in touch with her femininity, is a man worshipper.

You are dismissing the fact that congressmen and SC justices are not under his authority? If you wish to continue stating that they are, perhaps you would be willing to state how exactly they are under his authority (and the president not under Congress's/SC's authority.)

The authority of the president, while not cancelling out the authority of other officials, exceeds that of any other person in government.

[Qwertz]

This is not a question of ethics. No one has made the claim that it is immoral for a woman to occupy the White House.

"For a woman to seek or desire the presidency is, in fact, so terrible a prospect of spiritual self-immolation that the woman who would seek it is psychologically unworthy of the job."

Bold mine. Is self-immolation not immoral? AR says a rational woman would not want to be president. It follows that a woman who wants to be president is therefore not rational. Being irrational is immoral - it is evasion. Therefore, a woman who wants to be president is immoral. There is a moral prohibition on a woman being president. Allegedly. It is a question of ethics.

Experience is the best teacher.

...

Read her essay.

...

If you want to see the direct relationship between femininity and hero-worship, look no further than the novels of Ayn Rand.

...

Review thread.

...

Acquaintances and relationships with the opposite sex confirm Ayn Rand's insight that woman qua woman is a hero-worshipper and that the object of her worship is masculinity. I will spare the reader any further detail.

You keep doing this. Over and over. It assumes that those of us here who disagree with you haven't read Rand and haven't had meaningful experiences with the opposite sex. We have. But we didn't come to the same conclusion about the material or our experiences. So we need you to present an explicit support for your (and Rand's) position, not just point to how you implicitly arrived at your conclusion that hero-worship is the essence of femininity. Rand does not make such an explicit argument in the article under scrutiny - he merely states that the essence of femininity is hero-worship. She doesn't say why, and I don't think she says why anywhere else, either.

-Q

Edit: for clarity.

Edited March 28, 2006 by Qwertz

[Daedalus]

Bold mine. Is self-immolation not immoral?

Yes. But spiritual self-immolation, which is what Ayn Rand mentioned, is another matter.

AR says a rational woman would not want to be president. It follows that a woman who wants to be president is therefore not rational. Being irrational is immoral - it is evasion. Therefore, a woman who wants to be president is immoral. There is a moral prohibition on a woman being president. Allegedly. It is a question of ethics.

If that is the case, then this prohibition on women serving as president is a tenet of Objectivist ethics and Objectivist philosophy. Accordingly, one would have to be in agreement with this principle to qualify as an Objectivist. "Objectivism is a closed system -- it consists of the philosophical writings of Ayn Rand (which she finished for publication) and those philosophical writings of other people which she specifically approved (for example the articles in the Objectivist Newsletter)." http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.ph..._is_Objectivism

You keep doing this. Over and over. It assumes that those of us here who disagree with you haven't read Rand and haven't had meaningful experiences with the opposite sex. We have. But we didn't come to the same conclusion about the material or our experiences.

Obviously your experiences lead you to conclusions different from Ayn Rand's and mine. It doesn't hurt my feelings that you disagree with Ayn Rand on this matter. On the other hand, I have no intention of overthrowing my own conclusions just because you can't see things my way.

So we need you to present an explicit support for your (and Rand's) position, not just point to how you implicitly arrived at your conclusion that hero-worship is the essence of femininity.

Rand does not make such an explicit argument in the article under scrutiny - he merely states that the essence of femininity is hero-worship. She doesn't say why, and I don't think she says why anywhere else, either.

Ayn Rand identified a woman's essential characteristics the same way she identified those of man, by careful observation of reality. For example, she wrote that "The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness -- which means: the values required for man's survival qua man" (The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 34). Now some collectivist could attack her by saying that she provides no support for such a statement. Where, the adversary might argue, is her explicit support for such a claim? Where are the quantifiers, the stastistical data, the case studies? In the absence of such support, must we reject Ayn Rand's view of man's nature? I think not.

[Kevin]

Ayn Rand identified a woman's essential characteristics the same way she identified those of man, by careful observation of reality. For example, she wrote that "The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness -- which means: the values required for man's survival qua man" (The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 34). Now some collectivist could attack her by saying that she provides no support for such a statement. Where, the adversary might argue, is her explicit support for such a claim? Where are the quantifiers, the stastistical data, the case studies? In the absence of such support, must we reject Ayn Rand's view of man's nature? I think not.

Actually, in establishing rational selfishness, Rand did exactly what we are asking of you. I assume you know the details of her proof regarding the necessity of rational thought for the survival of Man, but at the beginning of her argument is the element you are lacking in this case. She begins with a concrete difference between Man and the rest of the animal kingdom- His rational faculty. This is an innate characeristic of Man that sets him apart from the rest of life that we know of, and it forms the foundation of the assertion that Man must live his life differently than other organisms if he is to flourish. Is there a similar difference between men and women that forms the foundation of this argument? The fact that, in your experience, women have worshipped the men they were with is no more compelling than my observation that some haven't done so. I might as well say that, in my experience, God has shown Himself to be true and omnipotent, and if your observation is different, then that's just too bad for you. Clearly this is not any kind of argument an Objectivist would subscribe to, and yet it is precisely this kind of subjective case you are trying to make. The fact that you and Rand share the same view doesn't change that.