Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Male Female differences/ Women Presidents etc

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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.

That's an interesting idea. I wonder, at the risk of psychologizing a bit, if Rand's statements about not thinking a rational woman would want to be president stem from her personal difficulty in finding someone to look up to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 706
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's an interesting idea. I wonder, at the risk of psychologizing a bit, if Rand's statements about not thinking a rational woman would want to be president stem from her personal difficulty in finding someone to look up to.

Apparently she found two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently she found two.

I dont know about that. It seemed that the second only happened because she didn't look up to the first(I would feel great disrespect were I in his shoes-I mean, cuckoldry is pretty much anti-herowroship by definition) and later she believed the second to be a mistaken judgement of character at the very least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know about that.

I think she knew about that. If she felt one of the basis of a romantic relationship was being feminine and hero-worship which has been argued over and over here, then even if she thought she was wrong later, she thought she found a hero at some point in time. Did she ever write anything or put in any speeches, somewhere that I haven't seen yet that she felt lack of femininity because she could find no heros to worship or felt unfeminine?

She stated quite clearly that the conflict with femininity would only happen in politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did she ever write anything or put in any speeches, somewhere that I haven't seen yet that she felt lack of femininity because she could find no heros to worship or felt unfeminine?

Not that I am aware of. Like I mentioned before, this is unabashed psychologizing on my part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd feel better dealing with the issue if she had said that it could happen to any woman at the top of her field, I'd be inclined to agree with that. The fact that she kept it specifically to the field of politics, that in the actual ruling of people a woman could not be top dog, is where I have the problem, that ruling a man goes against femininity to the degree that ruling all men kills it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

If we do not know why it is so, then how do we know that it is so? I keep hearing on this forum that people agree with Rand, and yet I still don't know why. The 'why' has been my most important question, mostly because I don't agree with her conclusions.

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.

Neither can I! However...

"Her worship is an abstract emotion for the metaphysical concept of masculinity as such—which she experiences fully and concretely only for the man she loves, but which colors her attitude toward all men. This does not mean that there is a romantic or sexual intention in her attitude toward all men; quite the contrary: the higher her view of masculinity, the more severely demanding her standards. It means that she never loses the awareness of her owl sexual identity and theirs. It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother—or leader. "

This does refer to all men, not just her romantic partner. Even if she feels hero-worship much more strongly for her partner, Rand makes it clear that she thinks hero-worship does indeed affect a woman's view of all men, and therefore she should not want to lead all the men around her, lovers or not. "he does not treat men as if...", not 'she does not treat her lover as if...'.

Fine, fine.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?

Set 'a rational woman' = X, and 'want to be President' = Y. So, (Rand thinks) X -> ~Y. The inverse of that would be (Rand thinks) Y -> ~X. (It's called modus tollens, if you want to look up the rule.) That says Rand thought wanting to be President implies the woman is irrational.

By the way, if you take the first of your example statements to be true, the other does actually follow. If you don't think it's raining in California, you should also think that any place it is raining is not in California.

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.

There is a fundamental disagreement on what rational women should be (not how they should act)- hero-worshippers, or not necessarily?

To everybody here: All I would like to know, from the people who agree with Rand's view that all rational women should hero-worship, is the logic behind this view. Rand does not give any. It seems to me that we've agreed the Presidency is not at stake, because Rand had an idealistic view of the President's power, and there may be mitigating circumstances. Since most of the quotes from Rand used here are from her essay about the Presidency, it will probably continue to be mentioned, but I don't think it should be the focus.

Edited for clarity

Edited by miseleigh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To everybody here: All I would like to know, from the people who agree with Rand's view that all rational women should hero-worship, is the logic behind this view. Rand does not give any. It seems to me that we've agreed the Presidency is not at stake, because Rand had an idealistic view of the President's power, and there may be mitigating circumstances. Since most of the quotes from Rand used here are from her essay about the Presidency, it will probably continue to be mentioned, but I don't think it should be the focus.

Actually I think it's key to the issue. That idea of hero-worship in femininity is tied to political power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they are each the basis for the other, we have a circular argument that cannot be resolved, and instead must be taken on faith. I doubt Rand would have used such an argument, and it is clear that woman's nature (femininity=hero-worship) was the basis of her arguments against a female President. Therefore, her reasoning behind hero-worship probably has nothing to do with political power, and that is the question I have been asking.

Edit: We could, theoretically, come to a decision about the validity of the hero-worship idea by deciding that it is rational for a woman to want to be President, but that would only be true if Rand's logic in her essay was acceptable, and many here seem to think it is not.

Edited by miseleigh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they are each the basis for the other, we have a circular argument that cannot be resolved, and instead must be taken on faith. I doubt Rand would have used such an argument, and it is clear that woman's nature (femininity=hero-worship) was the basis of her arguments against a female President. Therefore, her reasoning behind hero-worship probably has nothing to do with political power, and that is the question I have been asking.

Edit: We could, theoretically, come to a decision about the validity of the hero-worship idea by deciding that it is rational for a woman to want to be President, but that would only be true if Rand's logic in her essay was acceptable, and many here seem to think it is not.

I think you are missing my point. Her reasoning behind hero-worship denies a woman to be top of political power, but not other fields. I don't consider this to be basing one off the other or circular. Some attribute of femininity denies women that political power. I read the essay to be Rand saying that hero-worship is that attribute of femininity that denies it. So when trying to figure out what hero-worship is, Rand's idea of it must put men ultimately over women politically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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. "To look up" does not mean dependence, obedience, or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of strong character and independent value judgments. A "clinging vine" type of woman is not an admirer, but an exploiter of men. Hero worship is a demanding virtue: a woman has to be worthy of it and of the hero she worships. 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 states that she believes the essence of femininity is hero-worship, without using political power to figure that out. In fact, she says nothing about how she decided this is so. I would like to know her reasoning. She also explains what hero-worship is - an intense kind of admiration for masculinity in men she respects. She doesn't explain masculinity in this essay, but we do know that it is a property that men have and women don't- specifying it further will make little difference to the definition of hero-worship, nor will it make a difference to her view that all rational women feel hero-worship.

The only times she mentions the presidency or political power before the above paragraph in the essay are single sentences, seperate from other points.

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.

...

But when it comes to the post of president, do not look at the issue primarily from a somewhat altruistic or social viewpoint— i.e., do not ask: "Could she do the job and would it be good for the country?" Conceivably, she could and it would—but what would it do to her?

Lathanar, are you still unclear about hero-worship? Rand's idea of it does not put men over women politically- it does so psychologically, and has no dependence upon the Presidency question. Her premise is that the essence of femininity is hero-worship, and she uses that to explain why a rational woman cannot want to be President. The essay is trying to explain Rand's view that a rational woman cannot want to be President; she is not trying to use that to define femininity. She defines femininity and hero-worship first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Set 'a rational woman' = X, and '[can] want to be President' = Y. So, (Rand thinks) X -> ~Y.
This is the beginning of your error. I'm not up to snuff on my latin logicy words, but Rand was speaking of a case where she didn't think two potentially indepently determined sets intersected. You, on the other hand, are interpolating a case where a set (irrationality) can be entirely subsumed within (and determined by) another one (wanting to be President.) Rand isn't saying that
  • as a direct fact that A is a rational woman, then it is, without further information, known that A can't want to be president

Note: if she did say that, then your presidential ambitions=irrational grrl statement would be correct.

She's saying that

  • she doesn't think there are women who are both rational and can want to be President

Taking the second statement, if Rand knew that Mrs. X wanted to be President, she would then determine whether X was (ir)rational, by whatever standard (ir)rationality was determined by and possibly independent of the presidential ambitions. If the aspiring President was determined to be rational, she'd say, "oh, so I was incorrect. I'm glad I didn't make an even more erroneous leap to say that X was irrational because she aspired for the Presidency" :dough:

You could equally take the hypothetical statement from Rand: I don't think a human can run a 3 minute mile. Would this mean that she thought if some humanoid did a sub-three, the supposed girl wasn't human? Of course not, such a statement is based on who/what Rand saw at the time of the article, and is not necessarily a causal relation.

This same error (that an otherwise rational woman is irrational solely on the basis of being THE governmental authority) sprouted the Amazon example, and continues in saying that a non hero-worshipping female is, regardless of anything else, irrational. I agree with you that lack of hero-worshipping is an insufficient basis for calling a female irrational, but you can't in good faith attribute such an (seemingly) erroneous viewpoint to Rand.

By the way, if you take the first of your example statements to be true, the other does actually follow. If you don't think it's raining in California, you should also think that any place it is raining is not in California.
The weatherman says there's not a cloud over the Golden State. You're subsequently called by your friend in San Diego who complains about the deluge there. One statement is evidenced to be wrong, the other leads to the illogical conclusion that San Diego is not in California.

Edit: nice avatar BTW

Edited by hunterrose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here she states that she believes the essence of femininity is hero-worship, without using political power to figure that out. In fact, she says nothing about how she decided this is so. I would like to know her reasoning. She also explains what hero-worship is - an intense kind of admiration for masculinity in men she respects. She doesn't explain masculinity in this essay, but we do know that it is a property that men have and women don't- specifying it further will make little difference to the definition of hero-worship, nor will it make a difference to her view that all rational women feel hero-worship.

Lathanar, are you still unclear about hero-worship? Rand's idea of it does not put men over women politically- it does so psychologically, and has no dependence upon the Presidency question. Her premise is that the essence of femininity is hero-worship, and she uses that to explain why a rational woman cannot want to be President. The essay is trying to explain Rand's view that a rational woman cannot want to be President; she is not trying to use that to define femininity. She defines femininity and hero-worship first.

I don't think we're ever going to figure out where she got her ideas of what hero-worship is. I'm not too worried about that, because without her input, we can only draw up a picture of what that definition is, not how it was arrived at. What I am not satisfied in is the defintions that she laid out and how some of the defenses of those definitions have come about such as a man must conquer a woman as a basis for a romantic relationship. I think femininity simply means your a woman, not that you need to hero-worship. When I get home and can look at the essay again, I'm pretty sure Rand clearly states that her pyschological problem only occurs in political situations. I'll get into that more when I get my hands on the text again.

This seems to be degenerating into rationalism and psychologizing a bit. Why don't we try to work from the ground up? Why not try to induce, starting with perceptual data, what gives rise to hero-worship? That may be more fruiful.

The more I think about this whole subject, the more I think hero-worship is a load of crock. And I see no reason at all for it to be the essence of femininity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems to be degenerating into rationalism and psychologizing a bit. Why don't we try to work from the ground up? Why not try to induce, starting with perceptual data, what gives rise to hero-worship? That may be more fruiful.

Yeah. That thread is over here. :)

To everybody here: All I would like to know, from the people who agree with Rand's view that all rational women should hero-worship, is the logic behind this view. Rand does not give any. It seems to me that we've agreed the Presidency is not at stake, because Rand had an idealistic view of the President's power, and there may be mitigating circumstances. Since most of the quotes from Rand used here are from her essay about the Presidency, it will probably continue to be mentioned, but I don't think it should be the focus.

Miseleigh, first you have my admiration for sticking to your guns. I think your reasoning is sound (to the extent of my qualifications in my last few posts - which were a while ago... whew).

I thought I remembered one of the Q&A's in my taped lectures having raised just this question. I went back through all of them tonight and .... nada.... zip.... zilch.... I don't have any reference direct from Rand where she discussed it. If someone else out there does, sure love to hear it.

Beyond that, building the inductive argument from psychology is the best you're left with....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we do not know why it is so, then how do we know that it is so?

That is most understandable. Even though I agree with her, I'd be just as excited to learn the exact reasoning behind it.

I keep hearing on this forum that people agree with Rand, and yet I still don't know why.
I'm afraid I don't have much to offer you. I came to my view of it from a lifetime of induction. I know my view isn't merely a "popular" one, because I go against a lot of what the majority of the post-feminist world thinks on this. But I'm all too aware of the dangers of a value not known fully and consciously. The best approach, I think, is the one Kendall is taking in the other thread.

"Her worship is an abstract emotion for the metaphysical concept of masculinity as such—which she experiences fully and concretely only for the man she loves, but which colors her attitude toward all men.

Ah, right. I remember that now. I agree with it, but again the context is missing. That's a general rule. Does that mean it must apply to literally all men in all situations? Obviously, a woman can treat her brothers as "their sister," or her children as "their mother..." Unfortunately, we don't know the full extent. We know that treating all men as mother/sister/pal would be bad. But what about some of them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking the second statement, if Rand knew that Mrs. X wanted to be President, she would then determine whether X was (ir)rational, by whatever standard (ir)rationality was determined by and possibly independent of the presidential ambitions.

I think you're mistaken. Misleigh's latest quotes clearly show that Rand's argument structure is:

1) A president can't be feminine

2) All rational women want to be feminine

3) Therefore, no rational woman would want to be president

It isn't a matter of determining rationality apart from presidentail ambitions. Rand was clearly asserting that presidential ambitions were not rational for a woman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we have quite a disagreement then :)

However, if you are right, then miseleigh's point is even more valid. How could wanting to be President (or any other supposed violation of hero-worship) possibly make one irrational? Unfemininity is a vice, but only for females?? Femininity is necessary for survival??

I think Rand saw some evidence that made 2) possible... but not enough to be certain that all rational women want to hero-worship (beyond any sense that men ought to hero-worship as well.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Rand saw some evidence that made 2) possible... but not enough to be certain that all rational women want to hero-worship (beyond any sense that men ought to hero-worship as well.)

That's kinda my point. We have no idea how universal she meant #2 to be. Without the "why," we can't really know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Rand's statements in her essay partially stem from her (apparent) thought that it was rational to both know and follow one's innate nature, and irrational to do otherwise. I'll agree that it's rational to know your nature, but since we do have volition, I don't see why you are automatically irrational for not following it, especially when you understand it.

I still don't think hero-worship is innate for women, but if it is, could it be an evolutionary trait? Women who sought out men who could protect them may have been better able to care for children, since that would leave physical protection to the metaphysically dominant male while the female could focus on the child, and men who preferred to protect women would have had that same advantage. However, if it is an evolutionary trait, I think it's a vestigial one, like the tailbone and pinky toe and wisdom teeth are believed to be. Our society has very little physical danger that men would need to protect against, or physical labor that men would need to do instead of women, and perhaps the 'hero-worship' trait is no longer useful. If that's the case, accepting it as part of my nature would be no more required for my rationality than wisdom teeth.

I do see 'hero-worship' in more women than not, and I also see the 'protection' thing in more men than not- but then, I also see more (natural) brunettes than others, and that doesn't tell me that being brunette is an innate trait of human beings. What is the difference between mere correlation and an inductive conclusion? Unfortunately, the forum experiment thread Kendall set up has been crashing my browser (I thought Firefox always worked!) and so I have been unable to add my own ideas to the actual artwork part, and since I haven't done so I feel somewhat odd discussing the results.

I agree that Rand was not certain about her conclusions, hence her use of 'I think' in various places rather than 'I know', much like I'm doing now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Practically speaking, assertions about masculinity and femininity hold no weight until the terms are defined.
Agreed. Does anyone have a thread, or anything, off-hand which clearly presents definitions for both? I only have vague working definitions, actually mostly just vague feelings of definitions, and I would like a better understanding of masculinity and femininity, in order to judge their importance, etc.
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...