Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Male Female differences/ Women Presidents etc

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

All right. What did Rand mean by "a rational woman". OK, well, we know that raionality in any sense does not mean omniscience, but in this context, I do not think it can simply mean someone who has chosen reason, and is earnestly working to improve their level of integration (i.e. holding of non-contratictory premises), regardless of their level of integration in the issues relevant to this decision. So, in this context, "rational woman" must imply a woman who has certain level of strong integration with repect to the issues relevant to make this decision. It does not have to be complete (omniscient), but it certainly is a matter of degree (to what degree Rand does not say, and does not need to). We can certainly debate what that list of relevant issues is, but in my mind it includes career priorities, psychology and its effect on other areas of life, and yes that includes gender psychology. Rand is just saying then that when your level of integration gets to a certain point, the context changes and the moral implications are different. So is miseleigh "irrational" in wanting to be President? If you accept Rand's premise, then miseleigh is holding a contradiction which she has yet to resolve, and is hence not at the same level of integration, and so yes, maybe a bit... :lol:

Now, how can a woman who is not to that level of integration still be moral in wanting to be president? Easy. Being moral does not require omniscience. It requires that you make choices that are rational given your best level of integration at the time. I liken this to the choice of career path. Many people change careers for valid reasons at differnet points in their life as they learn more about themselves and the context of the career choices they made. Does that make the early choice immoral? no. Does it make the choice to stay in a career once you know that you can and would prefer another immoral? yes if there are no other factors that weigh on the decision as well.

So for me as a voter there are 3 possible outcomes if I think miseleigh is qualified to be president and decide to vote for her:

1. Miseleigh during her term in office never reaches the level of integration necessary to even see the problem

2. Miseleigh reaches the level of integration during her term, but it does not impact her performance (just her desire, and maybe regret at having taken the job)

3. Miseleigh reaches the level of integration during her term, and it DOES impact her performance!

I as a voter care only about her performance. Her personal ethics decisions are no concern of mine unless they affect her ability. (They certainly affect her though, which is why I emphasized htis was a personal ethical decision). The only outcome I have to worry about is 3 then. So, if I think 1 and 2 are probable and three is not, using my best knowledge at the time, (remember I don't have to be omniscient to be moral either) then I would be perfectly moral in voting for Miseleigh.

Yeah! Miseleigh for President!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 706
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So, presidency is in question? :lol:

Why not tackle the real problem here? [The premise of the need for the woman of hero worship]

Presidency is simply an example here, isn't it? If the premise is true or false, then there is no argument in Presidency either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, presidency is in question? :lol:

Why not tackle the real problem here? [The premise of the need for the woman of hero worship]

Presidency is simply an example here, isn't it? If the premise is true or false, then there is no argument in Presidency either way.

Because that is not where miseleigh is tangled up. She already recognizes the issue of having to accept that premise. She is trying to integrate the reasoning, given teh premise.

Also, I've already said, the fundamental premise isn't something that more reasoning will determine, but rather looking to reality (experimentation, etc...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe her answer would be: "it depends" (i.e. it's contextual).

Yes. What if, for example, she were already married? Perhaps that would provide a sufficient outlet for her femininity. Without knowing a lot of the details involved, who knows what her conclusion would be? Context, context, context!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, my main question is about the premise. Ayn Rand claims that the essence of feminity is hero-worship without giving her reasoning behind it. I believe this premise is incorrect. The question of a female president follows from this premise. If her premise is correct, I do agree with her conclusion. The reasoning for that is simple: a rational woman knows herself, and by knowing herself recognizes her need to hero-worship, implying that she would not want to be president. The opposite of those implications state that if she wants to be President, she does not know herself, and therefore is not rational. So, thank you for the vote Kendall, but it would be irrational for you to vote for me in a normal election by Rand's reasoning :confused:

Even if, as you posit, the woman does not know that she needs to hero-worship, the very fact of being unable to do so would depress her, and would still mean she is irrational.

The question that I really want answered is why a rational woman must hero-worship. The quotes I outlined earlier show that Ayn Rand believed this- why? Can somebody who agrees with her explain the reasoning behind it? Nathaniel Branden, at one point, said it had something to do with the fact that men are metaphysically dominant- but I do not believe that hero-worship follows.

Also, please, don't give arguments about how it is usually this way in relationships- a generality like that is not a basis for a logical argument towards the specific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Well, miseleigh, I apologize. It seems I led us off in an incorrect direction. If the premise is your true concern then I'll go back to my original statement on teh Amazon experiment. If you mean why as in why did Rand come to this conclusion, I don't know the answer. She probably checked her own psychology, and then drew conclusions from others she observed. She never claimed to be a professional psychologist. I know that some of her epistemology was developed by introspection on her own mental processes. If the why is "Why must it be so" then that is to be found (if it is true) in reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, please, don't give arguments about how it is usually this way in relationships- a generality like that is not a basis for a logical argument towards the specific.

I'm not sure how you mean this. Do you mean that looking at relationships, is no place to start? If so, I'm not sure I agree. If a majority of relationships have commonality, it is certainly not a place from which to generalize, but it is certainly a place to start asking, why is it like this, and then to hypothesize and design experimentation to start to draw cause and effect. Looking at reality is hte place to begin the inductive work to prove or disprove the premise.This is why I suggested going to the psychological literature to see what has been done in the field.

If Rand's premise is true, then cultural norms won't explain everything, and I think ultimately the why will be biochemical. Again, I'm not arguing it is true simply the how one might go about investigating it. So then, I wonder, how might you begin designing some experiments that would prove or disprove the premise?

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a quick google found articles like this.

It's a long way from such things as predisposition to eye contact to "male-worship", and certainly biochemical explanations will inherently lead to a spread of possible feminine types, but some of the answers will be found there. Maybe not in our lifetimes (which means we'll have to settle on the fact that we are both - as was Rand - hypothesizing), but someday.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls...ces&btnG=Search

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-2832.html

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/med...on_sex_diff.pdf

http://www.psychologymatters.org/nodifference.html

Popped over to 4AynRandFans to see if there were any threads over there that might have people asking the same questions. Haven't read through all of this, but the same "why must it be so?" came up at some point.

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=2496&st=0

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listened to Betsy Speicher's interview on Prodos. She had many good points for people who think of men and women conventionally, but for me her advice was poor. If it is proved to me that femininity/masculinity are valid concepts, and that they do not mean what I think they mean, then they are concepts that are useless to me.

Listening to her interview further supported my suspicion that amorous aesthetics are in their infancy. I think her ideas are tremendously helpful for most people, but they do little for heterosexual women and men like me who are not attracted to common notions of masculinity/femininity, or for homosexuals (which is another 1,000+ post thread all on its own).

edit: clarity

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how you mean this. Do you mean that looking at relationships, is no place to start? If so, I'm not sure I agree. ...So then, I wonder, how might you begin designing some experiments that would prove or disprove the premise?

I meant this. Although generalities are a good place to start, they certainly don't prove anything, and it has appeared to me that several people have tried to use generalities this way.

Kendall, those links you posted were very interesting. The 'Psychology Today' article mentioned a number of psychological differences between the sexes thought to have roots in biology, whereas the 'Psychology Matters' article took the opposite view. What I found most interesting was that I found myself agreeing with each of them in turn as I read them. My own view has generally been that there are some small biological factors that are exacerbated by society. Neither one of them addresses anything to do with relationships between men and women, however, except for that small 'double standard' section in the Psychology Today article, which was quite interesting in itself. I haven't been able to find any psychological experiments or even explanations relative to the 'hero-worship' idea. But even if it is shown in an experiment that women have an innate desire to look up to masculinity, is it irrational for a woman to not feel this?

Why?

Because I feel no need to hero-worship in Rand's sense of the term, and according to her, that means I cannot be a rational woman. I do deeply admire people I consider to be heroes- but that includes women, as well- Jackie Kennedy, Ayn Rand herself, and Catherine Zeta-Jones. I also admire Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, but it's not their masculinity that's at the base of that admiration. When I admire somebody, I admire their abilities, not their sex. This is true in my personal relationships as well. When I am involved with somebody, I admire him for his skills, and am physically attracted to him for his gender. The two emotions are separated. Not only that, but I can easily deeply admire somebody and act as a sister, or leader, to him at the same time. Am I irrational because of this? Perhaps I am irrational, but that seems like a rather arbitrary cause of it.

Edit/Addition: One person's motivations or reasons behind a particular emotion are often different than another person's reasons for the same emotion. Introspective conclusions without pure logic behind them cannot honestly be applied to the rest of humanity because of this.

Edited by miseleigh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I read those two quotes from Ayn Rand:

"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."
and

"It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother—or leader."

I fully agree in terms of romantic relationships. I do have a desire to look up to my romantic partner; to admire both his ability and his masculinity; I do not want to be his pal, his sister, his mother, or a leader. I want to be conquered and in order to submit I have to admire him.

When it comes to my male platonic friends, male co-workers, a mailman, I am not aware (in myself) of a need for hero worship. I of course prefer to be surrounded by people I can look up to and admire but that is true for both sexes.

The hero worship becomes visible when I am starting to be interested in a man – romantically It is one of the requirements for progression from the platonic to the romantic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully agree in terms of romantic relationships. I do have a desire to look up to my romantic partner; to admire both his ability and his masculinity; I do not want to be his pal, his sister, his mother, or a leader. I want to be conquered and in order to submit I have to admire him.

...

The hero worship becomes visible when I am starting to be interested in a man – romantically It is one of the requirements for progression from the platonic to the romantic.

This is the argument that I keep hearing, and it proves very little. Sophia, it is a requirement for you- Ayn Rand claims it is a requirement for all women in order to be rational. I do not feel this need. For me, the progression from platonic to romantic needs all the things I look for in a very close friend, plus a physical, sexual attraction. It is this last that might be considered hero-worship, except that I don't want to be conquered, I don't want someone to protect me, and I don't think I deeply admire his masculinity- which Rand never defined as far as I've seen. All of this tells me that either her logic is flawed or I cannot possibly aspire to be rational. If all men are moral and intellectual equals, they should all -including me- be able to be rational. If her logic is not flawed, I would like to know what it actually is; if it is based primarily on her own introspection and generalities, it cannot logically be applied as a requirement for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I feel no need to hero-worship in Rand's sense of the term, and according to her, that means I cannot be a rational woman.
That seems kinda dicey to me. As far as I can recall (could be wrong,) the only concrete example in which Rand implied acting "unfeminine" is irrational for a woman is the president thing. But there's considerable disagreement on that (president) issue, even before this thread revived these type of questions. Excluding this one (highly questionable) example, and there's not a lot to Objectively peg down as being "unfeminine" anyway. Particularly with that in mind, it might be a considerable leap to say that Rand considered it irrational for a woman to do any (or even most) unfeminine actions.

When I admire somebody, I admire their abilities, not their sex. This is true in my personal relationships as well. When I am involved with somebody, I admire him for his skills, and am physically attracted to him for his gender. The two emotions are separated.
For me, the progression from platonic to romantic needs all the things I look for in a very close friend, plus a physical, sexual attraction.
Really? All romance requires is a person admirable in a platonic sense and physical attraction? Everything else being equal, do you prefer a man who
  • asks you out, remembers anniversaries and Valentines, who pays when you two go out on the town, or
  • goes out when asked, doesn't consider "gift days" all that important, asks you if you wish to pay half of the ticket everytime you two go out?

The difference between the two doesn't particularly lie in skills or physical attraction (right?) I think there has to be a third option for any such preferences, and, for anyone with a preference in these regards, that such would be a person's agreement with a differentiation of masculinity/femininity.

All of this tells me that either her logic is flawed or I cannot possibly aspire to be rational.
You may not totally agree with Rand's ideas of masculinity/femininity, but do you have some preferences that might indicate your own accepted views of masculinity/femininity? The first question about such an important issue as femininity/masculinity is whether this is about disagreement with Rand's particular definitions, or whether you disagree with all definitions. If you disagree with all, the subject need not be limited to Rand's definitions. If you yourself however hold some definitions of masculinity/femininity, then the question becomes whether any of them are objectively correct or have moral status.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That seems kinda dicey to me. As far as I can recall (could be wrong,) the only concrete example in which Rand implied acting "unfeminine" is irrational for a woman is the president thing. But there's considerable disagreement on that (president) issue, even before this thread revived these type of questions. Excluding this one (highly questionable) example, and there's not a lot to Objectively peg down as being "unfeminine" anyway. Particularly with that in mind, it might be a considerable leap to say that Rand considered it irrational for a woman to do any (or even most) unfeminine actions.

You're right, it would be a big leap- but I haven't said it. She considered it irrational for a woman to not hero-worship, whether by choice or by circumstance. The 'president' thing is probably the only circumstance where being 'feminine' (hero-worshipping) is not possible. She shows that she thought a non-hero-worshipping woman was irrational in this essay fairly clearly - I have explained my reasoning here, if you'd like to read it.

Really? All romance requires is a person admirable in a platonic sense and physical attraction? Everything else being equal, do you prefer a man who
  • asks you out, remembers anniversaries and Valentines, who pays when you two go out on the town, or
  • goes out when asked, doesn't consider "gift days" all that important, asks you if you wish to pay half of the ticket everytime you two go out?

The difference between the two doesn't particularly lie in skills or physical attraction (right?) I think there has to be a third option for any such preferences, and, for anyone with a preference in these regards, that such would be a person's agreement with a differentiation of masculinity/femininity.

How about a man who does both? The last thing I want is a man who puts no effort into the relationship, but I also don't want him to sulk because I asked him out on a date, nor do I want him to say no. And I actually do prefer to pay for myself, so I'll try to offer before he asks- he can accept or decline as he pleases. Sometimes (gasp!) I even prefer to pay for him- especially if I've asked him out.

The first question about such an important issue as femininity/masculinity is whether this is about disagreement with Rand's particular definitions, or whether you disagree with all definitions. If you disagree with all, the subject need not be limited to Rand's definitions. If you yourself however hold some definitions of masculinity/femininity, then the question becomes whether any of them are objectively correct or have moral status.

I disagree with Rand's definition of femininity. My definition of feminine is 'having qualities or characteristics that a culture associates with being female' - things such as having a slim figure, being demure, soft-spoken, etc. I do not consider myself feminine in this sense, but that is my definition for it. My definition of masculine would be the counterpart of my definition for feminine- including things like a strong body, proficiency at grilling, etc. With these definitions, one particular woman is not necessarily going to be feminine, one particular man is not necessarily going to be masculine, and two feminine women could have completely different sets of traits to earn them that adjective. Rand's definition of femininity says nothing about the woman's characteristics- it merely says that she 'hero-worships'.

Am I wrong in thinking that Rand implied all rational women must be feminine (hero-worshippers)? There haven't been many arguments trying to support this view, and this is my main question. If nobody actually agrees with her here, then I will go on my merry way and let it lie, but if somebody does, and can give me a reason for it, I would be very appreciative if her logic behind her definition of femininity could be outlined, and why it must apply to all rational women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this tells me that either her logic is flawed or I cannot possibly aspire to be rational. If all men are moral and intellectual equals, they should all -including me- be able to be rational. If her logic is not flawed, I would like to know what it actually is; if it is based primarily on her own introspection and generalities, it cannot logically be applied as a requirement for all.

Hello again, Miseleigh. Sorry for the delay in my response...been a little busy.

I get the impression that you are looking for a deductive process derived from known principles which would show hero worship to be a rational requirment for all women. Kind of an... a is a, the universe exists,...therefore all rational women must be hero worshippers. But that is not how you can get an answer to most ethical problems with objectivism.

Induction is the necessary process that I think you are missing with regard to this which is evidenced by your opposition to 'generalities'. In induction, you extract general principles from few examples. I alluded to this issue in an earlier post where I used humans having arms as an example, but I will attempt to be more explicit. If we take peikoffs example that a ball rolls when you push it, we percieve very quickly(1 or 2 examples) that the shape of the ball allows this behavior. We do not need any other knowledge about balls in general. Nor do we need to understand the principles of physics to proove that the spherical shape creates the least amount of friction possible which allows the rolling motion. It is inductively derived from direct sensory experiences.

We can gather these same general principles regarding femininity in the same inductive manner, but they are always going to be generalities to some extent. Women are less efficacious with regard to a large number of physical activities, kinestheically they are at a great disadvantage, they have bodies designed essentially for childbirth and lack speed and strength, have worse vision except with regard to color discernment, perform worse on spatial tests, are better at noticing detail, especially regarding facial recognition, are more empathetically aware of the feelings of others, have better verbal skills, more refined senses of taste and smell, are more emotionally reactive, other more obvious physical differences, etc.

To define femininity for you in a rational way, it is important to first dispense with the notion that these differences are all cultuarally derived. That is a leftover notion from 1970's era feminism that modern science wholly rejects. Men and women are differnt physically and mentally virtually from the moment they exist. It is also necessary to defime female since it is relational too it.

In short I would define femininty as a group of physical and mental traits possessed by females. Female I would define as being in the genus human and is differentiated from male by the traits I list above in addition to any more that didn't occur to me off the top of my head which are predominantly possessed by them-otherwise called feminine traits. So, more fluidly I would define femininity as a description of all of those traits which differentiate women from men. The essential difference that I see as the most obvious is that men are by far, more physically efficacious by design, whereas women are more emotionally empathetic and socially aware. So I have to partially at least, reject your notion that these differences are cultuarlly derived. These differences are becomming more and more documented everyday as having physiological roots. That being said, we have freewill and can alter our behavior and to some extent, our capabilities. In the same way that a 5'1" guy can try really hard to get good at basketball but never make it to the nba, a man can learn to behave in a feminine way and a woman can learn to behave in a masculine way but it will never be as natural or easy to them.

The exceptions one can find to these general rules are no more useful then finding a hermaphrodite and then deciding that since things in between men and women exist, there is no logical point in calling men and women different things. Some men are paralyzed and are not physically efficacious. Some women lift weights and work in construction. These exceptions do not change the validity of the inductively derived definition of femininity any more then finding a ball that did not roll because it was superglued to the floor would change the principle that balls roll. The charactaristics, capabilities, and limitations of both exist regardless of how pronounced they appear in any particular example.

Femininity and masculinity are very simbiotic and to the extent you are feminine you will desire masculinity in your life and to the extent that you are masculine you will desire femininity. A rational women, fully aware of here capabilities and weaknesses will want a hero in her life. Someone to protect her and make her feel secure. Heroism can be stretched to be a lot of things but hero's are almost always physically capable in some way. Superheroes, even more so. Heroism requires action on some level and men(especially masculine men) are better at action. Women, especially feminine women are very very aware of others. In the context of a romantic relationship between a man and a woman, the only place where this comes up, the man acts and the woman notices him acting and responds to that. So I agree with Miss Rand to this extent, that if you honestly assess your capabilities and shortcomings, it is rational to desire someone who posesses stengths that you lack. And if you choose to not pursue a value that completes you to the extent that a balanced proper relationship does, whether by not acknowledging those traits in yourself, or dismissing them as unimportant, then you will miss out on a very valuable and enjoyable experience in life. And that would not be rational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with Rand's definition of femininity. My definition of feminine is 'having qualities or characteristics that a culture associates with being female'

But there's a big problem with that definition: it is non-objective. It doesn't in fact identify any objective traits or behaviors as "feminine." So what you mean is that you don't have a definition for femininity. (and that you're looking for one, obviously)

- things such as having a slim figure, being demure, soft-spoken, etc. I do not consider myself feminine in this sense, but that is my definition for it.
These, on the other hand, are actual, objective, attributes. Now you have to decide if they are, in fact, feminine: i.e. attributable to the woman qua woman. (as opposed to qua human i.e. qua rational animal... as distinct from man qua male) There is a thread going on that right now.

Rand's definition of femininity says nothing about the woman's characteristics- it merely says that she 'hero-worships'.

Actually, Ayn Rand said that hero-worship was the essence of femininity, not the definition. That is, perhaps, a large source of your confusion. She was saying that hero-worship was the essential and defining characteristic, under which all the other traits are subsumed. It could very well include (or perhaps disinclude) any number of the societal ideas of femininity. Who knows?

Am I wrong in thinking that Rand implied all rational women must be feminine (hero-worshippers)?

I don't think you can safely draw that conclusion. As she does not say anything about what conditions must be met for this to apply, the only thing that can be assumed from the context given is that she thought that it would apply to at least many women. We simply don't have enough information to say more than that. Remember that this article was written for a womens fasion magazine, not a philosophical text, so she did not outline a full philosophical view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Ayn Rand said that hero-worship was the essence of femininity, not the definition. That is, perhaps, a large source of your confusion. She was saying that hero-worship was the essential and defining characteristic, under which all the other traits are subsumed. It could very well include (or perhaps disinclude) any number of the societal ideas of femininity. Who knows?

I think you contradict yourself there, Inspector. In the first sentence you say that hero-worship is not the definition of femininity. In the next sentece you say that hero-worship is the defining characteristic of femininity. Is there a subtle distinction I'm missing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think so. What I mean is that hero-worship is not the total definition of femininity; it is the essence of femininity. It is the most important or crucial element; rather than being the sole element.
Would that make hero-worship the differentia of a proper definition of femininity? If so, can I get a genus?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think so. What I mean is that hero-worship is not the total definition of femininity; it is the essence of femininity. It is the most important or crucial element; rather than being the sole element.

The 'essence' of something is also it's essential element- in other words, without it's essence, the thing would not be what it is. With that in mind, although 'hero-worship' may not be the only part of Rand's definition, a woman without it cannot be feminine.

I don't think you can safely draw that conclusion. As she does not say anything about what conditions must be met for this to apply, the only thing that can be assumed from the context given is that she thought that it would apply to at least many women. We simply don't have enough information to say more than that. Remember that this article was written for a womens fasion magazine, not a philosophical text, so she did not outline a full philosophical view.

I drew that conclusion from several statements she made in that article. Even though it does not outline a full philosophical view, she should still have written what she meant, and meant what she wrote. I have posted those statements already, and my conclusions from them, but I will try to make my conclusions clearer here.

"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."

This says that Rand thinks any woman who wants to be president is irrational.

"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."
Here, she explains that the reasons behind the irrationality are psychological, and have to do with hero-worship.

"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)."

A rational woman's sense of hero-worship prevents her from wanting to lead men - any rational men. Note that Rand does not specify whether the man is the woman's romantic interest or not. Hero-worship appears to have little to do with the man's actual relationship to the woman, as long as they are (as said above) moral and intellectual equals.

"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."

Leading men who are otherwise her moral and intellectual equals would be unbearable for the rational woman because it denies her sense of self as a rational woman - because she would be unable to hero-worship. Note again it says 'all the men she deals with' - this essay is not intended to deal with romantic situations only.

In other words, this essay says that a rational woman cannot lead all the men around her because she would be unable to hero-worship, and would lose her rationality as a woman due to it. The other side of this says that a rational woman who does not hero-worship is, in fact, not rational. I found this fairly clear- if I've missed anything, or someone does not agree with it, please let me know, but it appears to me that Rand thought rationality in women qua women required hero-worship, whether this essay was meant as a complete philosophical thought or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it appears to me that Rand thought rationality in women qua women required hero-worship, whether this essay was meant as a complete philosophical thought or not.

I'm not saying that Rand didn't think that "rationality in women qua women required hero-worship;" I'm saying that since the article is incomplete, you don't know why this is so... and therefore you also don't know when it would be not so, if ever.

It would not be right to assume that she meant all women in all cases and all contexts. One example I gave was if a woman already had a romantic relationship with someone who was not subordinate to the president. Would that make it okay? I would think so. But who knows!

Without knowing the scope or context of her statements, you'll have to be careful about what you attribute to her.

Note again it says 'all the men she deals with' - this essay is not intended to deal with romantic situations only.

That's not how I interpret it. By "all the men she deals with," I think she means that this is a problem not because she must hero-worship all men she deals with, but that since all men she deals with were subordinates, then she would be unable to find a romantic partner, since she cannot engage in a romance with a subordinate. (or indeed, anyone to relate to romantically on any level)

As I said, presumably, if she already had a romantic partner, that was not a part of the chain of command, then I can't see what would stop her from wanting to be president.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine, fine.

I do not think a rational woman can want to be president.
This says that Rand thinks any woman who wants to be president is irrational.
These are not equivalent statements, any more than the following are:
  • I don't think it's raining in California right now.
  • I think any place where it's raining right now is not in California.

Do you see the difference?

Any discussion about the female president issue would have to acknowledge that it's highly questionable as to whether being a female President conflicts with hero-worship in the first place. A clear enough definition of hero worship that it could be determined whether specific acts could prevent the expression of hero worship is needed. Which would require determining whether there are objective standards (beyond rationality, non-initiation of force, etc) of how a female should act.

If the fundamental disagreement is whether there are separate objective standards of how females should act, shouldn't that be the focus instead of female president derivatives? Rand's Razor, or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any discussion about the female president issue would have to acknowledge that it's highly questionable as to whether being a female President conflicts with hero-worship in the first place.

That is exactly my view on this issue. I do not think there is a conflict. The fact that you are at the top of one field (in this case being politics) does not mean that there is no one left 'to look up to'. What about the people at the top of other fields? What about inventors, briliant scientists, artists?

I think it would be much harder, in terms of hero worship (finding a person to whom she could look up to intelectually), for a woman who was a genius phylosopher, harder but I still don't think impossible.

Edited by ~Sophia~
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...