Male Female differences/ Women Presidents etc

[Lathanar]

While I don't particularly agree with her statements against female presidents, this is not quite indicative of Rand's reasoning. As I understand it, Rand's point was that, in an Amazonia, women would (rationally) choose to become queen ("unlimited" government position) only when the queenship was necessary for government and other capable people (**male or female**) are unwilling. She wasn't saying that a previously rational action suddenly becomes irrational when Hercules pops up.

She was rational at the time for taking the crown, but continuing to rule over a man she would become irrational, solely on the grounds that masculinity has reared it's head. That is why I said 'at that point'. The essence of what I was getting at is it's fine for a woman to rule all women, but not fine for a woman to rule all women and a man when that man shows up. She would only be a proper woman if she abdicated and handed it over to the man due to femininity.

Forget Hercules, he's too 'heroic', say Barny Fife shows up.

eidt. Oh and she does not say that "only when the queenship was necessary for government and other capable people (**male or female**) are unwilling." The males rule that out, she can for a short period of time as in emergency, but not hold it for a decent length.

Edited June 22, 2006 by Lathanar

[LaszloWalrus]

Forget Hercules, he's too 'heroic', say Barny Fife shows up.

Why not Gomer Pyle? Then there'd be a leader who could run the military.

[Lathanar]

Why not Gomer Pyle? Then there'd be a leader who could run the military.

Heck, have em both show up.

[Inspector]

First. Inspector. I need you to clarify your definition of inequalty. In what senses do you mean.

I mean it only in the sense that they are not exactly the same. Mathematically. In the sense that Man qua male is "A" and Woman qua female is "B."

The the case of physical strength, man is stronger. That is one example. I'm not expert enough in biology, anatomy, or brain science to say much else than that. I think it's important that we all acknowledge that much of this topic is scientifically unknown and we are going by broad trends, making only the most general of conclusions.

Glad you agree with me on that one. Rand doesn't... sigh. Our almighty philosopher is fallible.

You're wrong. Rand does not disagree on this point. She was speaking in the context of there actually being men around. You two have switched the context to one of an Amazon society, where there are no men at all.

Be careful: you switch the context, and you get different results.

If there is no man around who is masculine enough to look up to, then they should have no problem ruling them.

Bingo. It's not enough to merely have "a man" show up. He has to be a worthy man to monkeywrench the ordeal.

[Inspector]

Show us how a woman cherishing - not worshiping - her man is unfeminine or afeminine, and do the same for men and worship.

I think Megan's example in the other thread is best, where she says that there's nothing worse to a girl's femininity than becoming the man's mother. (apologies if I butchered that)

The attributes of femininity are less strong than those of masculinity. This is not a problem for me, to have my wife be less strong than me in certain ways (specifically, only feminine ways). It is a good thing. Emotionally, I feel drawn to cherish her for this; to protect her.

It works the opposite way on her end. She feels drawn to my strengths qua masculinity. She wants to be cherished, to be protected.

I know for a fact that this doesn't work in reverse. Looking up to a woman destroys masculinity, as does looking down on one's man. The only word I've seen for both of those scenarios is "pathetic."

I don't have a lot of explanation here. I don't have a scientific proof. I only have induction. This is the way I've seen things. Every time.

Listen, I know as a strong individualist, it's hard to accept being the "weaker sex." But that is a metaphysical truth. I don't personally understand how one embraces this, not being a woman, but I do know that accepting and embracing one's nature is the road to happiness.

I guess I could ask my wife any questions needed. She's very much the "girly girl" type (which I love!).

as you might have realized, women don't always have control over their specific body type. Are you saying here that a woman who has a stockier build than most cannot be rational, or is your definition of delicate different from mine?

What it means is that a muscular woman must find a more muscular man. She can't be feminine to a man who is weaker than she, nor can he be masculine. Now, obviously this can get a lot more complicated, with contexts overriding in some cases, but that's the basics.

[aequalsa]

"Cherish."

That's it! That's the word I've been looking for! Gordon, I am in your debt.

Excellent....you now owe me one new excellent word....I'll be waiting....at 10% interest, after 7 years you will owe me two words...muwahaha....

[aequalsa]

Aequalsa, please be careful of generalizations. I didn't see where your reply addressed the fundamentals of this discussion - it might have been because of your neglect of the quote function.

Sorry about the quote function negelctionn issue. Still getting used to everything.

Regarding generalizations, I am quite aware that they are dangerous. The problem is that when discussing things like masculinity and femininity that is pretty much all you have.

Compare the male/female ratio in an upper level college math course. Or for economics majors, compare finance majors to human resources. The differences exist but they are certainly generalizations. You can be a woman and be good at math and be a man and be horrible at it.

You can be a very masculine man or not. A feminine woman or not. The fact that you can be a feminine man or a masculine woman does not alter these characteristics. It just so happens that masculine traits are most often found in men and feminine traits are most often found in women. The question of why is more a question of science then philosophy. From the philosophic perspective, it is enough to know that something exists in order to assess it as either beneficial or detrimental to your life. Some people are born with no arms. That doesn't mean that it is incorrect to say that humans have two arms. It also doesn't mean that people who happen to not possess two arms are not human. It is a properly generalized metaphysical fact.

Regarding the science part, I have read some interesting literature recently regarding the learning styles of boys vs girls and there is actually a great deal of neuroscience being done which does seem to suggest that the physical differences between men and women do not stop at the brain. If anyone is interested in the subject let me know and I will offer suggestions for reading.

Very intersting comments FeatherFall.

In regard to aequalsa's post. He is quoting comments from Miseleigh. I will put the appropriate comments in quotes.

Thanks for cleaning up my mess...again, my apologies.

[KendallJ]

Um, guys, I think that the Amazon senario isn't going to get anywhere. It feels rationalistic to me, a lot like where the orgy thread was headed.

Look, you guys have chewed the logic a few times. Megan, I know you've internalized it well. There are 2 possible objections that seem rational to me:

a. you disagree with Ayn Rand's psychological characterization of the essence of feminity.

b. you agree with the psychology, but disagree that a woman President couldn't find a way to express her feminity within the confines of her life as President.

Ok, fine. What's the next step? It is certainly not asking what some mythical Amazonian women would do if they were President. And it is not casting about for someone to give you better logic than you've already got.

The answer: look to reality! Integrate with what the concrete world tells you. Olex brought this up already! If it is proposition A, go look to see if there si any scientific literature develoepd that validates the position. If B, then find examples of women who live with large majority males in subordinate positions. See what their psychology is like. Doesn't have to be President, but you ought to see some sort of affect of having a large numbers of men in subordinate positions. All the while trying to make sure you've considered cultural norm influence. But Amazons? please...

[Lathanar]

But Amazons? please...

hahaha, come on, the thought of a bunch of Amazons and Gomer Pyle and Barney Fife shows up? What's not to like about that one. It's a good thought exercise though, coming up with all female societies is tough.

[hunterrose]

The essence of what I was getting at is it's fine for a woman to rule all women, but not fine for a woman to rule all women and a man when that man shows up. She would only be a proper woman if she abdicated and handed it over to the man due to femininity.

Negatory. I suppose we could reference these things directly with quotes, but two things I interpreted from Rand's woman president article

• Since a rational woman would only want to rule in emergency-esque situations, the rational woman would abdicate for a capable man willing to do the job or a capable woman willing to do the job.
  
• She never directly said that a rational woman would prefer to be under a man's governing control than be under a woman's governing control. I wouldn't necessarily assume otherwise.
  

Oh and she does not say that "only when the queenship was necessary for government and other capable people (**male or female**) are unwilling."

Would you elaborate? Which part of that didn't mesh with her arguments?

Find examples of women who live with large majority males in subordinate positions.

You ought to see some sort of affect of having a large numbers of men in subordinate positions. All the while trying to make sure you've considered cultural norm influence.

But what would that prove?

But Amazons? please...

Dont underestimate it. If nothing else, analyzing it prevented(?) Rand's position from being considered blatantly contradictory, something no amount of psychologizing could do.

[KendallJ]

But what would that prove?

It's part of an inductive argument, tied to reality, and not some fantasy world.

In the same way that the aging process is part of an inductive proof of mortality. If you can a) show degrees of psychological difference that appear to be induced by increasing level of male subordination, and look at how the woman deals with that pressure you may get some clues as to wether or not this is a real issue.

It's only a portion of the proof, but the Amazonian thought experiment contributes ZERO. It provides not one inch of useful advance. Does it parry a potential assailant??? Yeah, but real advance crushes it. What are you wasting your time for?

Edited June 23, 2006 by KendallJ

[Lathanar]

[*]She never directly said that a rational woman would prefer to be under a man's governing control than be under a woman's governing control. I wouldn't necessarily assume otherwise.

It's not a question of who she would rather have lead her, male or female, it's a question of whether she could lead all men. That is the issue. Her statements did not leave an opening as far as I could see that would say if a woman was a more skilled at leading, the woman would seek office. It had nothing to do with ability, it had to do with wanting to lead.

It's only a portion of the proof, but the Amazonian thought experiment contributes ZERO. It provides not one inch of useful advance. Does it parry a potential assailant??? Yeah, but real advance crushes it. What are you wasting your time for?

I disagree. What is on the plate right now is that women would not want to be ruler of all men by simple fact of femininity, and a good portion of what it means to be feminine and masculine has been presented. Looking for contradiction in the premises that lead to that does contribute, maybe not for you, but for me. Feel free to ignore the thread if you wish. I would still like to see someone explain miseleigh's contradiction she pointed out, how feminism seems to go against individuality while masculinity does not.

[Inspector]

Um, guys, I think that the Amazon senario isn't going to get anywhere. It feels rationalistic to me, a lot like where the orgy thread was headed.

Very much agreed. Also, kudos on the inductive approach. That's how I got to my conclusions, and I think it's the best approach. Better than making up crazy fantasies about planet Amazonia.

[KendallJ]

I disagree. What is on the plate right now is that women would not want to be ruler of all men by simple fact of femininity, and a good portion of what it means to be feminine and masculine has been presented. Looking for contradiction in the premises that lead to that does contribute, maybe not for you, but for me. Feel free to ignore the thread if you wish. I would still like to see someone explain miseleigh's contradiction she pointed out, how feminism seems to go against individuality while masculinity does not.

Not what I meant. If you feel you find it helpful continue it by all means. Looking for contradiction to the premises is certainly what one would want to do, but it contributes if it is using the approprate method. I merely posted my contention to suggest that there maybe significantly better methods. You would not purport to study optics by sitting in a dark room and closing your eyes, the way the early Kantian scientists did, would you. I'm just saying I believe that the Amazonian experiment may be entirely invalid in that same way.

miseleigh is mixing ethical and psychological concepts. If you keep feminism in the psychological realm and realize that Miss Rand's arguments are purely from a psychological perspective, individuality is not contradicted.

[Inspector]

I would still like to see someone explain miseleigh's contradiction she pointed out, how feminism seems to go against individuality while masculinity does not.

By that logic, wouldn't romance itself go against individuality? I think that miseleigh's conclusion is seriously flawed. I also think Jennifer already answered it in the other thread.

I'm just saying I believe that the Amazonian experiment may be entirely invalid in that same way.

Exactly... and furthermore, it's a big switch of context, as I said before. I mean, what are Amazons, anyway? Do they have the same physiology as us? The same psychology? Wouldn't a society with only one man necessarily have to work differently than one with a normal male/female balance? Who the hell knows how things would work way out on planet Fharbot?!? And more importantly, who the hell cares!

Instead, how about asking how things work here.

On planet Earth.

[Lathanar]

Not what I meant. If you feel you find it helpful continue it by all means. Looking for contradiction to the premises is certainly what one would want to do, but it contributes if it is using the approprate method. I merely posted my contention to suggest that there maybe significantly better methods. You would not purport to study optics by sitting in a dark room and closing your eyes, the way the early Kantian scientists did, would you. I'm just saying I believe that the Amazonian experiment may be entirely invalid in that same way.

If you know where a gynecocracy is, show me where to go, or how to set one up to test. I have a feeling I'll find an island of Amazons about the same time a woman is elected President. What I've read of Thatcher's biographies and documentaries I've seen haven't shown anything about her feeling she suffered loss of femininity, and for it to be a psychological torture, one would think it would come up. What about the queens of England and France and such? Is there historical evidence to show they were hurt by leading men or have been better suited to let men lead?

[hunterrose]

It's part of an inductive argument, tied to reality, and not some fantasy world.

...You may get some clues as to whether or not this is a real issue.

You may, and you may not. As a fantasy world example, suppose I perform psychological tests and find out that, given two choices, 92% of my male subjects prefer a woman with an exceptional physique and an average mind an 8% prefer a woman with an exceptional mind and average physique. How many inches of useful advance would this contribute?

Looking for contradiction in the premises that lead to that does contribute.

I would still like to see someone explain miseleigh's contradiction she pointed out, how feminism seems to go against individuality while masculinity does not.

I don't think there is a blatant contradiction. To apply the Fharbotian Amazons to Rand's premises, she'd say that

1. A rational woman does not desire to rule in general circumstances
   
2. An absense of qualified people willing to do a necessary "ruling" job is not a general circumstance
   
3. The rational woman who decides to rule will not do so when a qualified man is willing to do so
   
4. The rational woman who decides to rule will not do so when a qualified woman is willing to do so
   

Does this eliminate the contradiction, or is there something that should not be attributed to Rand's ideas?

What I've read of Thatcher's biographies and documentaries I've seen haven't shown anything about her feeling she suffered loss of femininity, and for it to be a psychological torture, one would think it would come up. What about the queens of England and France and such? Is there historical evidence to show they were hurt by leading men or have been better suited to let men lead?

Nice

[aequalsa]

When I said 'valued as a woman' I meant 'woman qua woman.' As in, a rational, selfish woman.

I apologize...I meant to write woman qua female. In other words, a woman seperated from any gender nuetral traits.

I'm interested in your view here though- as you might have realized, women don't always have control over their specific body type. Are you saying here that a woman who has a stockier build than most cannot be rational, or is your definition of delicate different from mine?

I don't think rationality has anything to do with it. What I am saying is that a woman who is strong or stocky or carries herself in a masculine way is not feminine by definition.

Women tend to recover better and sooner then men after the death of a loved one, especially a spouse. That would indicate to me that it is in fact women who are psychologically stronger.

I don't doubt that. The particular type of strength I am referring to is the fairly well documented idea that men have a higher tolerance for risk and everything that would deductively follow from that fact.

They are the biggest parts of that attraction. I would not be attracted to a man without any of those qualities no matter how 'masculine' he is.

They should be. But they are simply the initial criteria. When I am interested in a woman, it is a given that she has to be inteligent, rational, and virtuous in every other regard just to warrant consideration. Those are traits I require to like anybody. But the attraction I feel towards her is because of her feminity expressly. I have quite a few male objectivist friends who possess all of those traits while doing nothing to inspire any sexual desire or romantic interest. They lack that critical elemat-femininity.

Yes, there is a reason... perhaps you watched a lot of tv as a child? Or perhaps you were raised in a society which instilled those ideas in you?

Actually I watched very little TV as a child and have hardly ever watched it as an adult.(I made an exception for firefly) Without getting to far into the nature/nurture debate, I believe that there is a complex and very intertwined relationship between genetic and environmental forces as well as freewill which allow for quite a bit of variation in personality traits. That being said, similiarities in the genetic and other metaphysically given aspects will have a tendency to yield similiar results.

That says you prefer women who will give in to your judgement. Is that what you meant? It's true that most women I know don't want a man who will just give in to her, but most men I know don't want a women who will just give in to them, either.

Hmmm...really not the case at all. I'm sorry that that's what I communicated.

Any rational woman will not 'just give in' unless they actually agree with what the man is saying. That's completely against Objectivism. I doubt that's what Ayn Rand meant.

I couldn't agree more. What I meant was that that women tend to be attracted to men who challenge them in that way. That when they don't initially agree, like Dominique with Roark, but are later convinced and overcome by him, they are then more attracted then they were initially. In the context of the fountainhead, Dominique was annoyed and intrigued by Roarks seeming to be unaware and unaffected by the people around him when she couldn't ignore them. It was a trait that I think is largely masculine whereas women-Dominique included- tend to be more empathetic and perceptive with regard to their relationships. This is something which seems to have roots not explicitly cultural. Later she was convinced that his method of dealing with them was more effective. She was "dominated" if you wish to use that term but I think it's more accurate to say that she was convinced of his strength.

I always thought the most enjoyable aspect was the companionship, not the domination factor...

I don't buy that. Companionship can be found in any friendship. It's cheap and easy to come by. A romantic relationship requires things much more profound. You need to be inspired and elevated. This misconception reminds me of when someone gets into a relationship with someone who is an objectivist as if that were enough. Sharing those basic values is probably less important in most regards then the ability to share someones sense of life. And that is all secondary to feeling attraction to the masculinity or femininity of the person in question. If you don't feel that, as in the case of 2 same sex friends with everything in common(assuming heterosexuality) then a relationship is simply not realistic and if attempted guranteed to end in a platonic mediocrity.

Aequalsa- by your logic, I would be completely justified in saying that men are a**holes, because men are more often a**holes than women are.

You would be justified in your deduction if being an a**hole was the general behavior of most men, for certain. If you view men as simply being more often an a**hole then women, then there probably is some aspect of being an a**hole that is connected to masculinity. However, the term a**hole is a little too abstract for me to be certain. If you would care to break down and concretize the components of an a**hole, perhaps I could give you a more definite answer as to whether I agree or disagree that men are more often a**holes and whether a**holish behavior is connected to masculinity as such.

Well, Rand said that the 'essence of femininity is hero-worship', not that hero-worship <i>only</i> exists within a feminine woman. She could engage in hero-worship while not proving Rand to be wrong.

'Whatever happens to be observe in women' is an entirely different statement than 'Having qualities or characteristics that a culture associates with being female.' However, I should have used 'inequivalent' instead of 'inequal'.

Just because it's generally accepted doesn't mean it's necessary for a woman to follow those standards in order to be a woman qua woman. Especially when everyone has different standards. The question at hand is if the hero-worship thing is a cultural or innate psychological difference.

If that is the question at hand, then I started to answer it above. It would probably be a combination of those things working simbiotically, not entirely unlike masculinity and femininity.

@aequalsa: Please be more careful with the way you phrase your statements. I found your post somewhat insulting as a woman, as if you fully believe that women are inferior to men, and also mildly insulting personally. I assume it was unintentional, but please desist.

I do apologize if I suggested in some way that women were inferior to men in a general sense. Truth be told, I love women. I think they are truly great creatures. But I dont believe in any way that we are equal and I will not apologize for that because we simply, are not. Egalitarianism is a fiction in any sphere but the political one;and this fiction is especially true of the romantic sphere. When weighing the value of an individual you do just that, you weigh them as an individual. But when discussing feminity and masculinity you are making a social commentary and must do so based on generalties. My perception of those generalites are that men are stonger in some respects and women are stronger in others for a number of reasons. These particular strengths lead properly to relationships where the feeling of hero worship or intense admiration are evoked in the woman and protectiveness and possessivness in the man.

As a caveat to my apology, I ask only that you consider whether you are upset only by the way I phrased things or by my actual content. If it was my phrasing then I would appreciate the opportunity to clarify my meaning. If you could send me the particular phrases that were troubling to you on this thread or privately, I will do my best to convince you that I hold the highest regard for your gender and, in point of fact, think that these alleged weaknesses I point to are actually strengths in many ways.

If your offense is taken at my content, there is likely little I can do except to recommend that you ask yourself why the lack of equality I believe exists is so troubling to you.

My very best regards,

Gordon

Damn it! I can't seem to get the quote boxes to work. Any people with greater computer "strengths" then I have any suggestions?

Regarding the presidency thing, I undertood Miss Rand to mean that a woman ought not want to be president, not that she would be incapable of the task. That never seemed to be a big issue to me since it is a quick derivation from her beliefs about the nature of a romantic relationship. To sort out the first issue is to sort out the second, whichever way you decide.

Edited January 27, 2007 by JMeganSnow

[aequalsa]

"Would you not look up to Dagny Taggart if she was shorter than you? "

I would look up to her as a person...but not romantically as a woman.

I was just rereading our first few exchanges to attempt to see what was insulting to you personally or to women in general and I really don't see it. This leads me to the conclusion that I must have have a context in mind that I am keeping which you are not. I, and I assume most people, have a tendency to fill in gaps in their written arguments automatically. Perhaps something like that is going on.

The above is one such circumstance where we may be thinking of different things.

What I meant by my answer was that you could worship and admire all of those qualities which she posesses except those parts which are exclusively feminine. For example, Eddie Willers wroshiped Dagny, which is 1/2 the reason why he never had a chance. They could be considered equals in many ways. They shared essentially the same basically good philosophy with one pretty forgivable philosophic error, they got along well, enjoyed each others company, in short, would probably make great "companions". But most people want something more then that. Eddie would have great difficulty feeling masculine around Dagny while worshipping her and Dagny would have great difficulty feeling feminine around him while being worshipped. I suggest that this inequality is the something more that most people desire.

[miseleigh]

I don't think rationality has anything to do with it. What I am saying is that a woman who is strong or stocky or carries herself in a masculine way is not feminine by definition.

See below for a question about femininity, but first I'm going to addres rationality- it does have something to do with it, but my problem here is that Ayn Rand only says this implicitly, not explicitly, within her 'About a Woman President' essay. These are the key quotes within that essay that lead me to believe she thought this way:

1. "I do not think that a rational woman can want to be president. Observe that I did not say she would be unable to do the job; I said that she could not want it. It is not a matter of her ability, but of her values."

2. "The issue is primarily psychological. It involves a woman's fundamental view of life, of herself and of her basic values. For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero worship— the desire to look up to man. ... Intellectually and morally, i.e., as a human being, she has to be his equal; then the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack."

3. "It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother—or leader. Now consider the meaning of the presidency: in all his professional relationships, within the entire sphere of his work, the president is the highest authority; he is the "chief executive," the "commander-in-chief." 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. In the performance of his duties, a president does not deal with equals, but only with inferiors (not inferiors as persons, but in respect to the hierarchy of their positions, their work, and their responsibilities)."

4. "This, for a rational woman, would be an unbearable situation. (And if she is not rational, she is unfit for the presidency or for any important position, anyway.) To act as the superior, the leader, virtually the ruler of all the men she deals with, would be an excruciating psychological torture. It would require a total depersonalization, an utter selflessness, and an incommunicable loneliness; she would have to suppress (or repress) every personal aspect of her own character and attitude; she could not be herself, i.e., a woman; she would have to function only as a mind, not as a person, i.e., as a thinker devoid of personal values—a dangerously artificial dichotomy which no one could sustain for long. By the nature of her duties and daily activities, she would become the most unfeminine, sexless, metaphysically inappropriate, and rationally revolting figure of all: a matriarch."

Quote 1: A rational woman cannot want to be president- why?

Quote 2: The problem is psychological- for a rational woman (qua woman) the essence of her femininity is hero-worship.

Quote 3: A feminine woman does not lead men because of quote 2. A president only has inferiors (in station.)

Quote 4: If this is a bearable situation for a woman, she is not rational, because she would have no hero to look up to, and would therefore lose all sense of self.

These statements, when taken together, show that Rand believed a rational woman must be feminine. If this conclusion is not apparent, ask and ye shall recieve- I can certainly explain how I derived it. The rationality/sense of self part of it makes the idea of a woman president a moral question, albeit derived from psychology. Can a woman morally be president in a normal situation? According to Rand, no- because of her psychology. (I specify 'normal' here because Rand thought that a woman leader in an extreme situation was the moral thing to do, although excruciating for the woman forced to take the position.)

But the attraction I feel towards her is because of her feminity expressly. I have quite a few male objectivist friends who possess all of those traits while doing nothing to inspire any sexual desire or romantic interest. They lack that critical elemat-femininity.

What is your definition of femininity here? Rand's definition- the only one I've seen from her- is soleley that 'the essence of femininity is hero-worship', which is not a complete definition, says nothing about a woman's physique, and instead implies that the only thing required to be 'feminine' is that she must 'deeply admire' a man's masculinity. In that case, a butch woman could still be feminine. The other possible definition, which would make more sense here, is 'having qualities that a culture associates with being female', which says nothing about looking up to masculinity (definition of this too please?)

Note: essence means 'essential point, attribute, or set of attributes', and Rand seems to think that hero-worship is the *only* essential point- hence 'the essence' instead of 'an essence'. This is why I think it is the *only* requirement for being feminine according to Rand, although she probably thought being female was a requirement as well

I couldn't agree more. What I meant was that that women tend to be attracted to men who challenge them in that way. ... It was a trait that I think is largely masculine whereas women... tend to be more empathetic and perceptive with regard to their relationships. ... Later she was convinced that his method of dealing with them was more effective. She was "dominated" if you wish to use that term but I think it's more accurate to say that she was convinced of his strength.

Here you're implying an inequivalency. You seem to imply that the man is either the one who's right in these situations, or that the woman is convinced he's right even if he's not. What would a man be convinced of if she challenged him, and later he was convinced that her method of dealing with them was more effective? Is the difference in that the man is right more often, or the woman doesn't know her own mind or can't argue her case well, or that in one case it's viewed as 'strength' to be right and the other it's viewed as a different virtue? What would that virtue be?

Companionship can be found in any friendship.

See the clarification post not long after the one you're quoting from- I later specified 'romantic companionship' for this reason. Further clarification- it has since been explained to me by a friend that 'partner' would have been a better word. I meant 'romantic partnership.'

If your offense is taken at my content, there is likely little I can do except to recommend that you ask yourself why the lack of equality I believe exists is so troubling to you.

I thank you for your apology. I have since been convinced that equality was the wrong word, and it should have been 'equivalency'- see some of the posts between the one you're quoting from and this one. A lack of equivalency certainly bothers me.

@Aequalsa- I believe this back-and-forth exchange of ideas is nearly useless until we can prove or disprove Rand's premise, at which point further deductions could be made. If there are any questions I did not answer that you would like me to, please PM me so we can keep to the point on this topic; if you think your question is relevant towards Rand's premise, by all means ask me here. I just think this topic is getting somewhat confusing and going all over the place.

@Hunterrose- Your conclusion #4 does not apply- Rand did not think any woman could want to be President rationally, and so your 'qualified woman' does not exist.

Since the question was brought up at some point about whether a man can rationally want to be President according to Rand, here is the answer taken straight from 'About a Woman President'. (Thanks, Kendall.)

About a year ago, in the issue of January 1968, McCall's published an article-interview with sixteen prominent women (myself included) who had been asked to answer the question: What would I do if I were president of the United States? The first paragraph of my answer read: "I would not want to be president and would not vote for a woman president. A woman cannot reasonably want to be a commander-in-chief. I prefer to answer the question by outlining what a rational man would do if he were president."

Note: The implication here is that she thinks a rational man can want to be President, yet as we have already seen, a rational woman cannot. Why? I do not think she is correct here, so back to checking her premises...

Note: Whether or not her ideas on the President's total superiority are right makes no difference to the (in)validity of her premise. Several don't think she was- but her premise still holds.

Edit: spelling & typos

Edited June 23, 2006 by miseleigh

[miseleigh]

What I meant by my answer was that you could worship and admire all of those qualities which she posesses except those parts which are exclusively feminine. For example, Eddie Willers worshipped Dagny, which is 1/2 the reason why he never had a chance. They could be considered equals in many ways. They shared essentially the same basically good philosophy with one pretty forgivable philosophic error, they got along well, enjoyed each others company, in short, would probably make great "companions". But most people want something more then that. Eddie would have great difficulty feeling masculine around Dagny while worshipping her and Dagny would have great difficulty feeling feminine around him while being worshipped. I suggest that this inequality is the something more that most people desire.

Thank you for explaining your context here- I did indeed think you meant something else, namely that you could not think of Dagny in a romantic manner if she was taller, which just seemed ridiculous to me.

however, I think Eddie's bigger problem was his lack of intelligence, ability to figure out the answers to problems on his own, and consequently his need to look to Dagny for answers- that's a mother/child relationship. They were in no way intellectual equals, and certainly not equal in ambition. And, again, definition of 'feminine' and 'masculine' in this context, please- Rand's or a dictionary's?

Also, it may be true that most people desire an inequality like that- but does that general desire make it an innate psychological idea that all rational people must follow? That is the question at hand. I will agree that *most* women probably want to be cherished- although there are plenty who do want to be 'worshipped', although in a different way than Rand's 'worship'- and I will also agree that many men want to protect their women. That does not mean that the exceptions are irrational. You've missed my point here.

[Lathanar]

:)I don't think there is a blatant contradiction. To apply the Fharbotian Amazons to Rand's premises, she'd say that

1. A rational woman does not desire to rule in general circumstances
   
2. An absense of qualified people willing to do a necessary "ruling" job is not a general circumstance
   
3. The rational woman who decides to rule will not do so when a qualified man is willing to do so
   
4. The rational woman who decides to rule will not do so when a qualified woman is willing to do so
   

Does this eliminate the contradiction, or is there something that should not be attributed to Rand's ideas?

#3 and #4. A rational woman would not decide to lead in the presence of men. She does not say a woman would not want to be president if no other men were qualified or wanted it, she said a woman would only take over duties as a president in emergency situations and for the short term duration. I equate this to Dagny starting John Galt line to get it going then handing it back over when she was done even though she was much more qualified to continue leading it.

[KendallJ]

Quote 1: A rational woman cannot want to be president- why?

Quote 2: The problem is psychological- for a rational woman (qua woman) the essence of her femininity is hero-worship.

Quote 3: A feminine woman does not lead men because of quote 2. A president only has inferiors (in station.)

Quote 4: If this is a bearable situation for a woman, she is not rational, because she would have no hero to look up to, and would therefore lose all sense of self.

These statements, when taken together, show that Rand believed a rational woman must be feminine. If this conclusion is not apparent, ask and ye shall recieve- I can certainly explain how I derived it. The rationality/sense of self part of it makes the idea of a woman president a moral question, albeit derived from psychology. Can a woman morally be president in a normal situation? According to Rand, no- because of her psychology.

No! I think I see what you are trying to do, and thanks by the way for the very thorough analysis. I should be careful in sending you articles, I see... . Now, this is a subtle point, and not explicit in Rand's argument, but I do not believe the conclusion you can come to is that Rand would answer no to your moral question. I believe her answer would be: "it depends" (i.e. it's contextual). I think in your approach, your analysis hinges on a) What does Rand mean by a "rational woman" in the context of this discussion and b ) an omission you made in your statement above. Let's accept Rand's premise on the essence of feminity, since that is an issue that psychologists will ultimately determine. It's not germaine to your analysis here anyway. If it's true, you still have a problem, and if it's not true, well then Rand was wrong about it and we all can go home.

I think you are correct in being able to say that it can be considered a moral question since Rand says it is an issue of a woman's values. It is a question of personal ethics as it really is an issue of wether or not the woman should want to be president, rather than if we should want her to - i.e. should we select her because she's competent for the job (I, unlike Rand, would vote for a woman President - Condoleeza Rice in fact - but that is another thread).

Given that, Rand's argument leads to: Can a rational woman morally be president in a normal situation? Rand's answer here is clearly NO, for personal ethical reasons. But this does NOT generalize to your statement. I think a woman can morally be president in a normal situation, and that the public could be moral in voting for a woman President. (Rand herself said she would not, but never addressed the issue of wether WE should not) All of this NOT contradicting Rand's statements above.

I believe the answer turns on what Rand meant by "a rational woman" in the context of this discussion, and my analysis to that will have to wait until after lunch. Hold on...

[Olex]

Hold on...

While you keep us all excited about your coming ideas and reasoning ...

But this does NOT generalize to your statement.

... mind clarifying what specific idea you are pointing at?

EDIT: spelling

Edited June 23, 2006 by Olex

[KendallJ]

While you keep us all excited about your coming ideas and reasoning ...

... mind clarifying what specific idea you are pointing at?

EDIT: spelling

Sorry, I'm thinking and writing during lunch hour. Not much time to go back and edit... - the one from miseleigh's quote in bold.