Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Feminism

Rate this topic


Nastasya Filippovna

Recommended Posts

You seem to have a rather strange conception of what feminism is. The most common definition used in the academic world is; "Someone who acknowledges that gender is a social construction." Which is exactly what you're doing in your post.

I am very much active in the academic world (granted not in women's studies, but active nonetheless). That is NOT the most common definition used.

I consider myself a feminist but only in the sense that feminism is, as I like to say, "the radical notion that women are people too". And my definition is far, far in the minority.

Feminists as a whole in academia often agree on very little. They may agree that gender is a social construction, but so do many people who are not academic feminists or even feminists at all. And they often differ on what role, if any, biology plays in determining sex and gender expression. One thing academic feminists routinely do is ignore the role and primacy of the individual, and that is where the Objectivist beef with them lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very much active in the academic world (granted not in women's studies, but active nonetheless). That is NOT the most common definition used.

I consider myself a feminist but only in the sense that feminism is, as I like to say, "the radical notion that women are people too". And my definition is far, far in the minority.

Feminists as a whole in academia often agree on very little. They may agree that gender is a social construction, but so do many people who are not academic feminists or even feminists at all. And they often differ on what role, if any, biology plays in determining sex and gender expression. One thing academic feminists routinely do is ignore the role and primacy of the individual, and that is where the Objectivist beef with them lies.

Hey MadKat.. speaking of female academics remember when Camille Paglia set a fox in the henhouse when she declared that if mankinds' fate had been left to women we'd still be living in grass huts?

....oh, that Camille, always good for a laugh....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if mankinds' fate had been left to women we'd still be living in grass huts?
I do think that women as individuals (not as a collective entity) are weaker and less intelligent than men by an enormous margin. So I agree with the above statement. To back it up I quote Miss Rand:

"By the nature of her duties and daily activities," a female president ". . . would become the most unfeminine, sexless, metaphysically inappropriate, and rationally revolting figure of all: a matriarch"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think that women as individuals (not as a collective entity) are weaker and less intelligent than men by an enormous margin.

I challenge you to find me a woman who's less intelligent than you.

To back it up I quote Miss Rand:

Your suggestion that Ayn Rand considered herself a member of a lesser species than the one you belong to is absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you please explain what you mean by women as individuals and not a collective being weaker and stupider than men by a long shot? Also, I'd like you to say based upon what do you believe this. I don't see how the quote you gave would serve as backing up your claim to have any truth since it is just a rather disconnected statement from Rand without giving reasoning or evidence for why this should be so, just that she thinks it is and even then what she thinks is the case says nothing about intelligence levels.

Edited by bluecherry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record... I quoted that because I thought it funny in reference to the feminist academic issue.

I'd rather not be associated with the comments it brought out from DollarDoctrinaire, k? <_<

I think that's understood, Quo. I've certainly never heard anything along those lines out of you.

DollarD, this is like the fifth time I've seen you stick your foot in your mouth on this board...what are you like 13?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very much active in the academic world (granted not in women's studies, but active nonetheless). That is NOT the most common definition used.

Granted I do live and study in Sweden and may therefor have had a radically different set of referance when it comes to gender studies, but I find that the definition used in my previous post is quite frankly the only consistent argument that binds the different schools of feminism together and I do believe it capsulates the essance of all feminism since it abolishes the idea of metaphysical gender roles.

I consider myself a feminist but only in the sense that feminism is, as I like to say, "the radical notion that women are people too". And my definition is far, far in the minority.

What do the people that oppose your position claim that women are?

Feminists as a whole in academia often agree on very little. They may agree that gender is a social construction, but so do many people who are not academic feminists or even feminists at all. And they often differ on what role, if any, biology plays in determining sex and gender expression. One thing academic feminists routinely do is ignore the role and primacy of the individual, and that is where the Objectivist beef with them lies.

You start out by saying that feminist don't agree on much, which is true, and then goes on to generalizing them all as collectivists. Admittedly most feminists are collectivists, but that does not mean a liberal position is incompatible with a feminist point of view. There is a reason for all the prefixes such as marxist feminism, liberal feminism, post-colonial feminism, queer and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your suggestion that Ayn Rand considered herself a member of a lesser species than the one you belong to is absurd.
Your grouping Miss Rand in the "women" collective is even more absurd. Miss Rand was a unique and special individual irrespective of her genital organs over which she had no control of. Also I find a lot of irrational collectivist angst against what I said, which goes to show how some people seem to value the collective (men, women, mobs, whatever) over the individual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think that women as individuals (not as a collective entity) are weaker and less intelligent than men by an enormous margin. So I agree with the above statement. To back it up I quote Miss Rand:

That women are weaker on a statistical basis is clearly true. However, Ayn Rand did not regard women as less intelligent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted I do live and study in Sweden and may therefor have had a radically different set of referance when it comes to gender studies, but I find that the definition used in my previous post is quite frankly the only consistent argument that binds the different schools of feminism together and I do believe it capsulates the essance of all feminism since it abolishes the idea of metaphysical gender roles.

Many here on this forum would argue that there is no consistent way to bind all the different feminisms together and that it is an hence anti-concept. I'm not willing to go down that road just yet but I would point out that the tension between third-wave (postcolonial, etc.) and more traditional feminism shows just how deep the divide really is between various schools.

What do the people that oppose your position claim that women are?

Some kind of "other", a fundamentally different entity from a man on some level. In other words, the way a woman experiences and expresses personhood is completely incommensurate with (and of course inferior to) the way a man does.

You start out by saying that feminist don't agree on much, which is true, and then goes on to generalizing them all as collectivists. Admittedly most feminists are collectivists, but that does not mean a liberal position is incompatible with a feminist point of view. There is a reason for all the prefixes such as marxist feminism, liberal feminism, post-colonial feminism, queer and so on.

You're going to have to clarify what you mean by liberal. Do you mean classical liberal, liberal in the sense of individualism? Or do you mean the modern left? I can't tell. The biggest beef I have with feminists that does seem common to nearly all of them is this idea of universal sisterhood among women. It weirds me out with Christians, ethnic groups, etc. and it weirds me out with women too. How can I have an affinity to or connection with a total stranger other than our shared basic humanity? All women aren't my sisters. I don't even like most women (or men for that matter).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your grouping Miss Rand in the "women" collective is even more absurd. Miss Rand was a unique and special individual irrespective of her genital organs over which she had no control of. Also I find a lot of irrational collectivist angst against what I said, which goes to show how some people seem to value the collective (men, women, mobs, whatever) over the individual.

You're really making it sound like possession of ovaries and a uterus is somehow a liability. What exactly is bad about being female again? Are YOU a unique and special individual in spite of your possession of male anatomy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some kind of "other", a fundamentally different entity from a man on some level. In other words, the way a woman experiences and expresses personhood is completely incommensurate with (and of course inferior to) the way a man does.

Which of course is absurd. But I was under the impression "difference theory"(don't know the english term for it) has been a steadily dying trend since the 90's.

You're going to have to clarify what you mean by liberal. Do you mean classical liberal, liberal in the sense of individualism? Or do you mean the modern left? I can't tell. The biggest beef I have with feminists that does seem common to nearly all of them is this idea of universal sisterhood among women. It weirds me out with Christians, ethnic groups, etc. and it weirds me out with women too. How can I have an affinity to or connection with a total stranger other than our shared basic humanity? All women aren't my sisters. I don't even like most women (or men for that matter).

Classical liberal.

And as for the collective pride of being a women that is obviously irrational, but I would strongly argue it is not a neccessity for someone calling themselves feminists to have somekind of missguided solidarity. I must certainly don't. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your grouping Miss Rand in the "women" collective is even more absurd. Miss Rand was a unique and special individual irrespective of her genital organs over which she had no control of. Also I find a lot of irrational collectivist angst against what I said, which goes to show how some people seem to value the collective (men, women, mobs, whatever) over the individual.

You don't understand what collectivism is. You don't understand what individualism is. And more importantly, you don't have the ability to reach a rational conclusion about groups, or individuals.

The reason why you're getting a strong reaction to your statement is because you are a troll. That's what trolls do, they illicit strong reactions, but have no concern for the arguments of others. If you want me to psychologize back, i would guess that you've given up trying to pay attention to arguments on this board, and have posts that are a reflection of Objectivism rather than your unrelated, idiotic ramblings, because you were unable to understand the first few ones. Instead of persevering, trying to learn, you decided to bring the threads down to your level.

So, even though you're probably not intentionally being disruptive, I think you should be banned, because you don't have anything to contribute, and you're not trying to learn either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feminism is at best a redundancy and at worst just another social gang vying for their share of the unearned.

If it's a political movement seeking individual rights (ie right to life, right to property, right to self-defense...etc), then why only for women? Join the radicals for capitalism and and seek it for everyone.

If it's a social movement that seeks equality through unearned privileges such as employment and wage regulation that would have the government force businesses to give out jobs or change wage rates for women, then it's just another looter gang with gender as the name tag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some kind of "other", a fundamentally different entity from a man on some level. In other words, the way a woman experiences and expresses personhood is completely incommensurate with (and of course inferior to) the way a man does.

As one who does oppose your position, I believe that to be an unfair characterization. A fundamentally different entity that experiences life in an appropriately different way does not in any way imply "incommensurate" or "inferior to."

If one athlete was a track star and another was a gymnast, then they would experience practice in fundamentally different ways without any implication that one was a better athlete then the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I recently heard a quote from Ayn Rand, I forget the name of the show it was on. It was an old episode of an old show (I think) broken up into like, 5 parts, on youtube.

Anyway, Rand was answering a question as to what she'd think about a woman president.

She said something to the effect of "I wouldn't vote for her." Rand said that women have a lot to gain from the leadership of men, and that she could never trust a woman who wanted to rule over all men.

I'm curious about how she came to that conclusion. Perhaps, while she believes in the same rights for everyone, and that everyone is capable of anything they desire, she does acknowledge some difference between men and women. It would be the reality-oriented thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I recently heard a quote from Ayn Rand, I forget the name of the show it was on. It was an old episode of an old show (I think) broken up into like, 5 parts, on youtube.

Anyway, Rand was answering a question as to what she'd think about a woman president.

She said something to the effect of "I wouldn't vote for her." Rand said that women have a lot to gain from the leadership of men, and that she could never trust a woman who wanted to rule over all men.

I'm curious about how she came to that conclusion. Perhaps, while she believes in the same rights for everyone, and that everyone is capable of anything they desire, she does acknowledge some difference between men and women. It would be the reality-oriented thing to do.

Did you purposefully or accidentally leave out the points she made as to why she would not want a woman President? I watched that clip the other day, just type in Ayn Rand on feminism on youtube. It's because she does not want a woman in charge of war, and although she didn't mention this, many countries do not respect women in such high leadership positions, which could cause some foreign policy issues. She said she had no other problem with them having leadership positions in any other part of society, including as senators and so forth and that she promotes it even.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you purposefully or accidentally leave out the points she made as to why she would not want a woman President? I watched that clip the other day, just type in Ayn Rand on feminism on youtube. It's because she does not want a woman in charge of war, and although she didn't mention this, many countries do not respect women in such high leadership positions, which could cause some foreign policy issues. She said she had no other problem with them having leadership positions in any other part of society, including as senators and so forth and that she promotes it even.

I would have to think your estimation of the matter is probably closer to the truth, Jennifer.

Times were quite different and yes, it would have been very difficult to have a female president at a time when women were generally not accorded equal respect.

But you can't tell me that if Rand was alive today and she had to choose between voting for a real world moral/intellectual equivelent of Dagny Taggert and Barrack Obama that she would choose Obama just because he's a man.

Rand's position and statements were rational for the time in which she made them but things change and evolve and so does society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to think your estimation of the matter is probably closer to the truth, Jennifer.

Times were quite different and yes, it would have been very difficult to have a female president at a time when women were generally not accorded equal respect.

But you can't tell me that if Rand was alive today and she had to choose between voting for a real world moral/intellectual equivelent of Dagny Taggert and Barrack Obama that she would choose Obama just because he's a man.

Rand's position and statements were rational for the time in which she made them but things change and evolve and so does society.

I could agree with this. Though, at the same time, if there was a moral/intellectual equivalent to Dagny, she wouldn't likely have to worry about the war problem that was the main point of her issue to begin with. Though yes, I think she was assuming (and rightly so) that the politician choices would be of low quality as they were at that time and are still today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's one answer she gave (she mentions that she wrote an article on it, I haven't read that). I don't agree with what she's saying in the video (maybe the article has a better answer), but here it is:

Is there a possibility someone who has the article could give us some insight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently heard a quote from Ayn Rand, I forget the name of the show it was on. It was an old episode of an old show (I think) broken up into like, 5 parts, on youtube.

Anyway, Rand was answering a question as to what she'd think about a woman president.

She said something to the effect of "I wouldn't vote for her." Rand said that women have a lot to gain from the leadership of men, and that she could never trust a woman who wanted to rule over all men.

I'm curious about how she came to that conclusion. Perhaps, while she believes in the same rights for everyone, and that everyone is capable of anything they desire, she does acknowledge some difference between men and women. It would be the reality-oriented thing to do.

You can read Rand's defense of her statement to the McCall interview in The Voice of Reason--I'm not sure how much was edited because I don't have copies of The Objectivist. She gave this defense in response to the multitude of questions she got from Objectivist students from campus clubs and such throughout the country. I'm glad that the essay is still published, as it brings up interesting questions about philosophy applied to psychology, which was real popular--and sometimes destructive--during the days of Nathanial Branden; however, I disagree with Rand's final opinion on the matter.

Rand based her argument on the application of her ideas concerning hero worship and sex. To her it would be impossible for a woman president to express her femininity if she were president, because she would be unable to look up to another man, specifically his masculinity. This, she proposed, was because the woman President would be the highest authority in the land, and "within the entire sphere of his [her] work." No one would be her equal or better. She then applies her argument the "reigning queen of an absolute monarch"--which is actually a more fitting example. Additionally, she says that her position only applies to a woman President (or monarch) and not to business leaders.

The first problem I have with Rand's argument is that I don't agree with her proposition that career achievement over men--all the way to the Presidency--make it impossible for a woman to respect or admire another man who is below that hierarchy. To me, she also gives too much respect and power to the institution of the Presidency of the United States. A woman, especially an American President, who would be consumed with the idea of superiority or even authority would not be fit to serve as president--the same for a president of the opposite sex. She should be able to see the masculinity of other men around her, and she would even have exposure to the most successful men in the country.

Furthermore, Rand says that it may be necessary, in the future, for a woman to step up and claim the presidency, if no men are in position to do it themselves--I take this as meaning situations regarding the death of a president. Well, if the woman is vice-president, does that leave her only able to admire the President; what about lower offices in the executive office; what is the 'hierarchical' equivalent, out side of public office, to these executive office positions?

Additionally, although Rand says that business leadership positions do not apply, I think they do to a lesser degree. Her opinion can be applied to women and their relation to all of the men in their companies, and the men who own, operate, or are a part of lesser businesses. What if Bill Gates were a woman? She would be lacking in femininity and partners to admire?

Rand begins her essay by urging readers to study the heroines of her novels, specifically Dagny Taggat. I happen to agree with this suggestion. What is Roark to Dominique, specifically when they first meet; Does Galt have authority or power over Dagny?

Edited by RussK
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...