Male Female differences/ Women Presidents etc

[Lathanar]

I'm to the point now where I'm going to define masculinity/femininity as being male/female and the things that make one attracitive to the other. I'm thinking it's going to be a failed process to try and actually define what should be feminine/masculine other than a generality. It appears from all the discussion and evidence I can find that it's really up to the culture what those specific traits are.

[hunterrose]

Would that make hero-worship the differentia of a proper definition of femininity? If so, can I get a genus?

*ponders*

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.

That's cool. For my part, whether she 'knew' this stuff about females and Presidencies/hero worship or just suspected it, I have serious doubts about its validity. I just didn't want to make a heavy case that Rand held this to the (foolish) extent that naysayers had to be irrational.

Practically speaking, if you don't want to be a feminine woman, you won't be as attractive to a masculine man. No idea if that's a factor for you or not.

Practically speaking, assertions about masculinity and femininity hold no weight until the terms are defined.

Well, practically speaking if femininity was defined as that which makes a woman attractive (to a man), then your statement would (seem to) be true, Inspector (in terms of being unfeminine instead of not wanting to be feminine.)

On the other hand, other definitions of femininity/masculinity don't make attractiveness directly in correlation to femininity.

*considers the whole defining thing some more*

[JASKN]

I'm to the point now where I'm going to define masculinity/femininity as being male/female and the things that make one attracitive to the other. I'm thinking it's going to be a failed process to try and actually define what should be feminine/masculine other than a generality. It appears from all the discussion and evidence I can find that it's really up to the culture what those specific traits are.

That's not going to work, either, since I know there are masculine men who are attracted feminine men, and there certainly must be every other combination out there, such as feminine men who are attracted to feminine women. Attraction doesn't necessarily play in.

Aren't we part of the culture? So shouldn't we at least be able to define it right now within the context of our culture?

[FeatherFall]

The statement you criticize is true on its face, however. Are you denything that?

No. If I tried to deny it I wouldn't have any ground to stand on. The statement is arbitrary until the definitions are known.

In the same respect, I don't think we can make statements like these:

That's not going to work, either, since I know there are masculine men who are attracted feminine men, and there certainly must be every other combination out there, such as feminine men who are attracted to feminine women. Attraction doesn't necessarily play in.

Aren't we part of the culture? So shouldn't we at least be able to define it right now within the context of our culture?

We would be able to do that if we find that masculinity/femininity are dependent on cultural context. But, again, we won't know that until we have a definition.

What we do have right now is a vague understanding of the popular uses of the words as they are used to refer to floating abstractions. Those popular notions or other statements made in this thread may prove to be on target. We may even find that femininity and masculinity do not complete the puzzle, and that there is a need for more concepts - potentially making this effort more intellectually rewarding.

[Lathanar]

That's not going to work, either, since I know there are masculine men who are attracted feminine men, and there certainly must be every other combination out there, such as feminine men who are attracted to feminine women. Attraction doesn't necessarily play in.

Exhibiting feminine/mascuine characteristics, i.e. an effeminite man/masculine women, does not make that man feminine or woman masculine. I could paint my body different colors and pretend to be a different race, but that doesn't change what I really am. Homosexuality would be an entirely different thread on why people rebel against their biology.

Aren't we part of the culture? So shouldn't we at least be able to define it right now within the context of our culture?

Bringing it down to the level of defining exactly what traits we see as feminine/masculine will simply be the same as the mannerism thread. What is masculine/feminine will change with the context of each person who is discussing it, and we'll end up telling each other we're wrong when we're not. It would be like me saying I find big boobs to be feminine and someone saying, no it's the hips.

I've gotten out of this thread what I wanted to find out, hero-worship is not a requirement for being feminine so a woman need have no fear being president.

[FeatherFall]

I've gotten out of this thread what I wanted to find out, hero-worship is not a requirement for being feminine so a woman need have no fear being president.

Care to offer a definition of femininity so we can tell whether or not you are right? How many claims about a term can we have before someone offers a solid definition?

If femininity is a valid concept, hero worship might be involved. That still doesn't mean that a female president would have no objects of hero worship.

[Inspector]

On the other hand, other definitions of femininity/masculinity don't make attractiveness directly in correlation to femininity.

I only mean it in the sense that a man who values masculinity in himself; a man who will therefore achieve it; a masculine man... will value a feminine woman. The values are tied that way. Now, some kind of misintegration of the concept might lead to some other kind of attraction. But normally a masculine man will want a feminine woman, and vice versa.

That's all I meant.

That's not going to work, either, since I know there are masculine men who are attracted feminine men.

Interesting. I had never heard of such a thing. What do you mean by "masculine men" who are attracted to feminine men? Masculine in a totally integrated way, or just having some or primarily masculine traits/behaviors?

edit: okay, I can already see the answer, by definition, must be the latter. Since masculinity was designed for heterosexual men, a complete form of masculinity would preclude homosexuality by definition.

Okay, so then it is possible to find a man who has accepted a non-integrated form of masculinity who therefore is not interested in feminine women. But I think my point still stands.

I've gotten out of this thread what I wanted to find out, hero-worship is not a requirement for being feminine so a woman need have no fear being president.

Where did you get that from this thread? I don't think anyone here has concluded that, not even Misleigh.

Edited July 1, 2006 by Inspector

[FeatherFall]

Inspector, nobody can fully integrate any concept without a definition. In fact, we can't even tell if a concept is valid without one.

Somebody please PM me if you feel like trying to define the word. I'll leave those who want to argue floating abstractions to do so in peace and butt out of this thread for a while.

[JASKN]

Inspector, nobody can fully integrate any concept without a definition. In fact, we can't even tell if a concept is valid without one.

Somebody please PM me if you feel like trying to define the word. I'll leave those who want to argue floating abstractions to do so in peace and butt out of this thread for a while.

Do you have any ideas? Because I would really like to know as well.

If masculinity cannot be fully realized without finding women attractive, then what good is the concept to homosexual men? And if every other aspect of the concept can be realized by a homosexual, who cares about the small differentiation of which sex he is attracted to?

[Inspector]

Inspector, nobody can fully integrate any concept without a definition. In fact, we can't even tell if a concept is valid without one.

Well, yes they could integrate it by knowing it subconsciously. But we can't tell consciously whether it is valid or not without a definition.

I am providing data from what integration of the concept I have as it comes up. I think that the only way we’ll come to a formal definition is to collect enough of this data to be able to connect the dots and find the essentials.

Obviously you are totally uninterested in anything I have to say until I have a full and formal definition, which is your prerogative.

If masculinity cannot be fully realized without finding women attractive, then what good is the concept to homosexual men? And if every other aspect of the concept can be realized by a homosexual, who cares about the small differentiation of which sex he is attracted to?

I would say that it isn't much good to homosexual men. The entire idea of masculinity and femininity is to psychologically integrate and embrace the biological/physiological differences between men and women and act on them. The entire focus and purpose of masculinity is inseperable from what a man is in relation to what a woman is.

To a homosexual, the whole thing would be completely useless. They would need an entirely different setup because they are not the same, psychologically and perhaps phisiologically.

[miseleigh]

Honestly, I see very little point in trying to define masculinity and femininity- at least, little point pertaining to my own goal in this thread, which was to determine Rand's views on these and whether or not her views were right. But since that seems to be at a standstill anyway, here goes:

Feminine: having traits a culture associates with being female

Masculine: having traits a culture associates with being male

Before anybody jumps on me for these definitions (especially for the lack of objectivity), think about them. Dresses can be termed 'feminine', and often are. Grilling is often said to be a masculine thing to do. These definitions (as far as I can tell) are the only ones that take the common uses of both words fully into account.

Examples of feminine characteristics would include being slender, enjoying pretty things (jewelry or flowers), pale skin, vulnerability (both physical and emotional), a wish to protected by a man, small feet, long eyelashes, a soft voice, etc. Masuline characteristics could include things like physical strength, the ability to grunt (watch Home Improvement if confused), liking physical sports, liking fast cars, wanting to protect a woman, bold, confident, strong, encouraging, supportive, helpful, etc. (Some of those were from a male friend of mine; hopefully nobody gets upset over anything I've listed here.)

No, they're not objective definitions. However, a woman whom one person says is feminine may not consider herself so, and may not be considered so by others- makes finding an objective definition somewhat difficult. Not only that, but not all feminine characteristics are required for a woman to be considered feminine.

Of course, if we don't want to try to use the popular definitions of the words, I have no problem going with 'hero-worship' as the definition of femininity, as long as I don't have to be feminine.

I've gotten out of this thread what I wanted to find out, hero-worship is not a requirement for being feminine so a woman need have no fear being president.

Where did you get that from this thread? I don't think anyone here has concluded that, not even Misleigh.

That's almost what I was hoping we would conclude- either that hero-worship is not a requirement for femininity, or femininity is not a requirement for a rational woman qua woman (that's not an exclusive or ). If we didn't actually reach one or both of those conclusions, we got pretty close, and either one would invalidate Rand's arguments against a female President. Unless somebody still wants to argue for Rand's viewpoints here (without simply rehashing them, please!) then I have also gotten what I was hoping to get- not necessarily that Rand was conclusively wrong, but that she wasn't conclusively right without some serious experimentation to validate her premises.

[Lathanar]

Where did you get that from this thread? I don't think anyone here has concluded that, not even Misleigh.

I concluded that, simply by the fact that this thread, all the other threads I've been reading on this, all the essays, talks, radio interviews I've been listening to, no one has been able to bring forth a reason why hero-worship is needed to be feminine, only what that brings about in relationships. Yes, some women consider it to be part of their femininity. Fine, but that does not mean it must be so for all women, just as dresses work for some and pants for others. Miseleigh's definition work fine enough for me, but I would still add the thing that makes people atrractive to each other just as Rand had put in her essay.

[aequalsa]

Honestly, I see very little point in trying to define masculinity and femininity- at least, little point pertaining to my own goal in this thread, which was to determine Rand's views on these and whether or not her views were right. But since that seems to be at a standstill anyway, here goes:

Feminine: having traits a culture associates with being female

Masculine: having traits a culture associates with being male

Before anybody jumps on me for these definitions (especially for the lack of objectivity), think about them. Dresses can be termed 'feminine', and often are. Grilling is often said to be a masculine thing to do. These definitions (as far as I can tell) are the only ones that take the common uses of both words fully into account.

Examples of feminine characteristics would include being slender, enjoying pretty things (jewelry or flowers), pale skin, vulnerability (both physical and emotional), a wish to protected by a man, small feet, long eyelashes, a soft voice, etc. Masuline characteristics could include things like physical strength, the ability to grunt (watch Home Improvement if confused), liking physical sports, liking fast cars, wanting to protect a woman, bold, confident, strong, encouraging, supportive, helpful, etc. (Some of those were from a male friend of mine; hopefully nobody gets upset over anything I've listed here.)

No, they're not objective definitions. However, a woman whom one person says is feminine may not consider herself so, and may not be considered so by others- makes finding an objective definition somewhat difficult. Not only that, but not all feminine characteristics are required for a woman to be considered feminine.

Of course, if we don't want to try to use the popular definitions of the words, I have no problem going with 'hero-worship' as the definition of femininity, as long as I don't have to be feminine.

That's almost what I was hoping we would conclude- either that hero-worship is not a requirement for femininity, or femininity is not a requirement for a rational woman qua woman (that's not an exclusive or ). If we didn't actually reach one or both of those conclusions, we got pretty close, and either one would invalidate Rand's arguments against a female President. Unless somebody still wants to argue for Rand's viewpoints here (without simply rehashing them, please!) then I have also gotten what I was hoping to get- not necessarily that Rand was conclusively wrong, but that she wasn't conclusively right without some serious experimentation to validate her premises.

I would like to take another crack at an explanation to justify the rationality of choice without getting into specifics or definitions. This also might help to explain the stongly held differences of oppinion on the issue.

For a given I will call the conglomeration of traits which masculinity represents, Y and the conglomeration of traits that femininity represents, X.

So now, picture these traits on a number line, Y being to the left of zero and X being to the right of zero such that as the sum of these traits becomes less of X it becomes more like Y and vice versa. So to be more masculine is to be less feminine whatever those traits might turn out to be.

If a person were to the far left of that scale, it would be rational to desire someone to the far right in order to make up, in a way, for things which they lack. If, on the other hand, someone were more toward the center, the more stongly expressed traits of a very feminine woman or very masculine man might be something of an annoyance rather then a turn on.

When people were more extreme in their expressed traits, the balance that their opposite brings to the table would lead more to the "you complete me" feeling in a relationship rather then the," I am an independent spirit and like your values and like having you around but it probably wouldn't crush me if you left" type of relationship. I would guess that Miss Rand preferred the first type of relationship rather then the latter. Whether or not it is rational or not is probably situationally dependent. From my own experiences, I prefer the first as well. It felt more committed and more meaningful. More of a gain to me and to her then in relationships where we were more or less equal in expectations and requirements. But again, that is me personally.

If someone is more toward the middle, in terms of masculine and feminine traits, it would seem irrational to get into a relationship where strong differences were expressed. The relationship would not balance. I feel a little uncomfortable saying that someone ought to change and become more feminine or more masculine in order to experience a more fulfilling relationship, but that being said, I do think that sort of relationship to be more enjoyable. Let me know if I am on to something.

[Inspector]

I concluded that, simply by the fact that this thread, all the other threads I've been reading on this, all the essays, talks, radio interviews I've been listening to, no one has been able to bring forth a reason why hero-worship is needed to be feminine, only what that brings about in relationships.

That's a bit different than what you implied. You made it sound like there was anyone here who had asserted "hero-worship is not a requirement for being feminine," whereas nobody here concluded that. A few concluded that the presidency wouldn't de-feminize a woman in all cases, but that is very different than saying what you said.

[hunterrose]

I can think of three rough bases for definitions of masculinity/femininity:

1. How a (wo)man ought to act as a member of their sex
   
2. the ideal for a wo(man) as a member of their sex
   
3. statistical enumeration of the unique characteristics women/men (predominantly) possess
   

The first would be an ethical definition, where a person would be wrong/irrational for not being masculine/feminine. I imagine this type of definition would have to be validated by philosophical (as opposed to scientific) means.

The second isn't necessarily ethical; it may be ideal on a case-by-case basis (as opposed to universal ethical principle). If it is objective, I believe this too would require at least some philosophical validation.

The third doesn't carry ethical or even preferential standards, but is meant to reflect the predominance of certain characteristics in men/women. It's ... hard to make any objective (let alone ethical) determinations on this alone.

Honestly, I see very little point in trying to define masculinity and femininity- at least, little point pertaining to my own goal in this thread, which was to determine Rand's views on these and whether or not her views were right.

But without determining whether femininity is something that has rational/ethical status, you can't evaluate Rand's rational/ethical claims on femininity. You can show that certain femininity claims aren't conclusively right, but without the definitions, you can't determine whether those claims are actually right or wrong.

So now, picture these traits on a number line, Y being to the left of zero and X being to the right of zero such that as the sum of these traits becomes less of X it becomes more like Y and vice versa.

This assumes a 'polar opposite' concept of masculinity/femininity. It might be otherwise.

If a person were to the far left of that scale, it would be rational to desire someone to the far right in order to make up, in a way, for things which they lack.

A similar argument was given in the Homosexuality thread. It didn't get far, among other reasons because it was hard to evidence that desiring a very similar person wasn't equally rational or that contrasting people are better able to have stronger relationships that similar people.

[Inspector]

This assumes a 'polar opposite' concept of masculinity/femininity. It might be otherwise.

I don't know how your definition of "polar opposite" meshes with what I said earlier about how I think they are mutually exclusive.

Could you provide an example of a behavior or trait that, in a man would make him more masculine and in a woman would make her more feminine? I think there's no such thing.

If you could provide such an example, I'd lend some credence to your repeated claims that we shouldn't think they're opposite.

[aequalsa]

This assumes a 'polar opposite' concept of masculinity/femininity. It might be otherwise.

A similar argument was given in the Homosexuality thread. It didn't get far, among other reasons because it was hard to evidence that desiring a very similar person wasn't equally rational or that contrasting people are better able to have stronger relationships that similar people.

I don't understand how they could not be opposites. Whatever masculinity is, it has to be whatever femininity is not, otherwise there would be no purpose for the differentiation. Something which applies to both sexes equally would not qualify to be under either title. Even traits which both possess...say height...would be opposites. The particular aspect of height pertinent to m/f differences would not be that they have some height but that men typically have more then women which means women typically have less then men. That is where the opposite aspect exists, in the particular being differentiated.

I will try and read over the 75 million pages of the homosexuality thread when I have a few weeks to spare but based on your assessment, I would suggest that evidencing isn't the proper way to look at it since you can find so many examples of each type of relationship where all parties involved seem happy. There is no way to quantify the happiness of either group. It seems to me, that induction might work better. For example, if someone were to possess organizational skills, something which I might not possess in great degree, then in a partnership of any kind with them, I would be benefited by that trait as they would be benefitted in some other equitable way. In short, specialization of labor works better then everyone being tolerably good at everything. Being really, really good at what you do tends to make you more irriplacable. People like to feel special and specialization allows that more readily.

[hunterrose]

I don't know how your definition of "polar opposite" meshes with what I said earlier about how I think they are mutually exclusive.

I agree with what you said earlier, that something can't be both masculine and feminine. Things that should apply to both sexes (e.g. rationality) wouldn't be a part of the differentiating nature of masculinity/femininity (neither masculine nor unmasculine).

I don't understand how they could not be opposites. Whatever masculinity is, it has to be whatever femininity is not, otherwise there would be no purpose for the differentiation. Something which applies to both sexes equally would not qualify to be under either title. Even traits which both possess...say height...would be opposites.

Okay, suppose being tall was masculine. And that being short was unmasculine, and being somewhere in between was of neutral masculinity.

Now, however it was concluded that height is related to masculinity, it doesn't necessarily follow that height is 100% conversely related to femininity. Being tall couldn't be feminine, sure. And being short (presumably?) couldn't similarly be unfeminine. BUT this doesn't say that

• being tall is unfeminine (it could be neither feminine nor unfeminine)
  
• being short is feminine (it could be neither feminine nor unfeminine)
  

If X is masculine and non-X is unmasculine, femininity must be such that it can't have the same relation, but it doesn't have to have the opposite relation... unless they're polar opposites.

[Inspector]

Okay, suppose being tall was masculine. And that being short was unmasculine, and being somewhere in between was of neutral masculinity.

Now, however it was concluded that height is related to masculinity, it doesn't necessarily follow that height is 100% conversely related to femininity. Being tall couldn't be feminine, sure. And being short (presumably?) couldn't similarly be unfeminine. BUT this doesn't say that

• being tall is unfeminine (it could be neither feminine nor unfeminine)
  
• being short is feminine (it could be neither feminine nor unfeminine)
  

If X is masculine and non-X is unmasculine, femininity must be such that it can't have the same relation, but it doesn't have to have the opposite relation... unless they're polar opposites.

Supposing that being tall is masculine (I think so, but we'll leave it to "supposing" here).

This means that:

1) Being short can't be masculine.

2) Being tall can't be feminine.

Is does not necessarily mean that:

1) Someone short can't be otherwise masculine

2) Someone tall can't be otherwise feminine.

3) A tall woman can't be feminine next to an even taller man.

4) Being short is necessarily feminine

But I do think that being tall would interfere with being feminine in many cases. It could therefore be called an un-feminine trait.

So some things there are opposite, while others aren't.

[aequalsa]

I agree with what you said earlier, that something can't be both masculine and feminine. Things that should apply to both sexes (e.g. rationality) wouldn't be a part of the differentiating nature of masculinity/femininity (neither masculine nor unmasculine).

Okay, suppose being tall was masculine. And that being short was unmasculine, and being somewhere in between was of neutral masculinity.

Now, however it was concluded that height is related to masculinity, it doesn't necessarily follow that height is 100% conversely related to femininity. Being tall couldn't be feminine, sure. And being short (presumably?) couldn't similarly be unfeminine. BUT this doesn't say that

• being tall is unfeminine (it could be neither feminine nor unfeminine)
  
• being short is feminine (it could be neither feminine nor unfeminine)
  

If X is masculine and non-X is unmasculine, femininity must be such that it can't have the same relation, but it doesn't have to have the opposite relation... unless they're polar opposites.

This demonstrates why I don't think you can't remove generalities from a definition of masculinity or femininity. They are groups of traits possessed by groups of people. If I were to say that muslims believe that they get 70 virgins after being killed in battle, it would be an accurate statement even if some believed otherwise. The exceptions do not disqualify the accuracy or usefulness of generalized knowledge.

If I say that tallness is a masculine trait because men tend to be taller then women, it is an accurate assessment even if exceptions exist. If I were to state that men and women were the same height, you would look out at the world, see that most men are taller then women, and realize that my statement was only occasionally true. Some women are as tall or taller then some men, but the trend is obviously the other way around. It would not help you in any way to believe it. It would not be a good predictor of reality.

So if the average height of humans is 5'6", tallness means more then average and shortness means less then average. So saying that tallness is a masculine trait means that men tend to possess that as opposed to women who usually possess a trait of shortness relative to the average line.

So to answer your last line, it does possess an opposed relation when you limit it to its proper context of variation off of the average.

Edited July 5, 2006 by aequalsa

[FeatherFall]

Well, yes they could integrate it by knowing it subconsciously.

I don't currently have access to any of my reference materials, including the Ayn Rand Lexicon or OPAR, but I don't think this flies. Fully integrated concepts demand definitions, anything else is probably misintigrated.

If I recall correctly, the subconscious consists of automatized actions and value judgments. This means that whatever actions or value judgments you have repeatedly made will, eventually, surface at the speed of thought, in the form of reflexes or emotions when you are exposed to like situations. Any subconscious reaction that is not based on a fully integrated concept (complete with a definition) is a subconscious reaction programed with a floating abstraction. This cannot be considered knowledge.

If I'm wrong, how are you employing the word, 'subconsciously'?

[Inspector]

If I'm wrong, how are you employing the word, 'subconsciously'?

You may be right, I'll have to look it up. I know that things can be integrated subconsciously but what their status is would be the point I'm not so sure about.

[FeatherFall]

Wow, fast reply. I was just reading your post number 22 in the Free Will and Psychology thread. I am interested to find out if it relates at all to what I have just brought up.

For the record, I believe there is a lot of good to be had by identifying why you find certain things to be feminine - especially if you think of the feminine as your romantic ideal. I just think that a lot more good can be had by defining femininity.

I think you'll find that a lot of what you consider to be your romantic ideal does not stem directly from femininity, but is still completely compatible with it. To be consistent, I must qualify that what I have said in the last sentence is only conjecture until I know the definition of femininity. In other words, I could be wrong.

[Inspector]

Wow, fast reply. I was just reading your post number 22 in the Free Will and Psychology thread. I am interested to find out if it relates at all to what I have just brought up.

Aye, it well might. I know that something can be integrated inductively, but can it be done to the point where it is considered knowledge? A good question.

Skinner's stuff seems to "work," within a narrow context... but it is false, even within that context, because we know that it does not explain what is happening in reality. And it can't be explained away by not knowing the context, because the human mind was known to exist when Skinner wrote.

[edit: whoops, forgot to finish that thought: Is the skinner example the same category of epistemological issue as concerns us here? I think it isn't. He was defying a clear fact in making his theories. We don't have all the facts, but for all we know, we're right on track. If we keep at it, we might find the knowledge we seek.]

For the record, I believe there is a lot of good to be had by identifying why you find certain things to be feminine - especially if you think of the feminine as your romantic ideal. I just think that a lot more good can be had by defining femininity.

Would that I could sir. I have given tentative definitions already; that which distinguishes woman qua female from man qua male. It includes everything that does so: biological features, psychology, or anything else. Thus you would have biological features which are feminine, and also behaviors and choices which are feminine.

I think you'll find that a lot of what you consider to be your romantic ideal does not stem directly from femininity, but is still completely compatible with it.

Actually, I was going to tell you that very same thing. Weird.

But I don't advocate that every trait that a person seeks in their partner should have to come from femininity/masculinity. Just so long as the traits one seeks aren't in gross opposition to them. One doesn't have to posess every last masculine trait and behavior to be masculine, nor everything feminine to be feminine. Nor must one choose the most masculine/feminine course of action in every context. But these things are values. Ones I happen to really like. Ayn Rand seemed to think they were essential traits of rational people. I don't know if that's true or not, but it seems right to my understanding of things.

Edited July 5, 2006 by Inspector

[Inspector]

I know this thread is inactive, but I've just listened to Dr. Peikoff's lecture on Love, Sex, and Romance and would like to provide a quote:

I know definitely her view on this because I have heard her state it many times.

The essence of masculinity is strength; the essence of femininity in her view is the worship of strength. The essence of Masculinity is being a hero, the essence of femininity is hero-worship.

Which is exactly, 100% what I had said before.

He went on in more detail and that detail also supports my statements on this.

Now Dr. Peikoff stressed that this was Miss Rand's personal view and was not a part of the philosophy of Objectivism. And even if it were, anyone is free to disagree. But I can now clarify my earlier "This is my view and I think this was Miss Rand's view" with "This is my view and I know that this is precisely Miss Rand's view."