Male Female differences/ Women Presidents etc

[IAmMetaphysical]

Why are you so obsessed with having your view coincide with Ayn Rand's?? Does that make it any more right? It seems as though you are proud of that fact, as if you wouldn't be proud of your thinking if it wasn't "vindicated" by someone else?

When someone else agrees with me, I am not any more proud of myself, it makes me admire them more.

[Inspector]

Why are you so obsessed with having your view coincide with Ayn Rand's?? Does that make it any more right? It seems as though you are proud of that fact, as if you wouldn't be proud of your thinking if it wasn't "vindicated" by someone else?

When someone else agrees with me, I am not any more proud of myself, it makes me admire them more.

Your concern is touching but unnecessary.

[miseleigh]

I thought we had already established Miss Rand's view anyways.

At least, towards the end of this thread I had been more interested in why she thought this (still no answer here), not whether or not she had...

I, too, can clarify my earlier "I think this was Miss Rand's view, but I disagree" with "I know that this is precisely Miss Rand's view, and I definitely disagree."

IAmMetaphysical: 'admire' them more, as in 'worship'?

[IAmMetaphysical]

Admiration to me, is slightly different than worship. In my experience worship is admiration while prostrate. I don't prostrate myself for anyone.

EDIT: But i do appreciate the humor...

Edited November 8, 2006 by IAmMetaphysical

[hunterrose]

"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.

Dr. Peikoff stressed that this was Miss Rand's personal view and was not a part of the philosophy of Objectivism.

That sounds okay.

The only things I'd say are that "strength" and "worship of strength" aren't opposites - a person could both be strong and worship strength.

And if worshipping strength was the essence of femininity, then the essence of unfemininity would be not worshipping strength.

Being strong/heroic wouldn't itself be unfeminine... unless it was argued that being strong/heroic necessarily reduced one's capacity to worship strength. I don't see how/why it would.

[Inspector]

The only things I'd say are that "strength" and "worship of strength" aren't opposites - a person could both be strong and worship strength.

As I said before, it's not a question of being precise opposites; but they are mutually exclusive to a point.

The key is in understanding what it means to worship strength. Again, I earlier said that in this context it refers to a reverence for something outside of the self - that one does not possess, or does not possess in anywhere near the quantity of the object of worship. Don’t confuse worship with admiration. If you’re glancing at a competing bodybuilder and think to yourself “that’s impressive, I’d sure like to achieve that level of musculature,” this is a very different thought than a woman who goes “Wow, what a hunk! I like… <drool>” If a man looks at another man that way, I would certainly say that is unmasculine.

And, on the other side, if a woman is ripping with muscles, that is unfeminine.

So there you have both the principles at work in my formulation, and an example of reality that demonstrates they do work that way.

[miseleigh]

If you’re glancing at a competing bodybuilder and think to yourself “that’s impressive, I’d sure like to achieve that level of musculature,” this is a very different thought than a woman who goes “Wow, what a hunk! I like… <drool>” If a man looks at another man that way, I would certainly say that is unmasculine.

So what happens when a woman looks at the competing bodybuilder and thinks "That guy is disgustingly overbuilt?"

[hunterrose]

The key is in understanding what it means to worship strength.

Don’t confuse worship with admiration.

So "admire" is in terms of things we can aspire to, and "worship" is in terms of things we can't aspire to? That'd sound fine.

But how would you make the argument that a exceptionally weak man (as strong as the average woman) is not supposed to worship?

So what happens when a woman looks at the competing bodybuilder and thinks "That guy is disgustingly overbuilt?"

She obviously has no clue as to the amount of feminine awe such a sight should bring, obviously

[Inspector]

So what happens when a woman looks at the competing bodybuilder and thinks "That guy is disgustingly overbuilt?"

I think she'd be in the majority of women! Certainly every woman I've ever talked to on the matter is of that opinion.

But how would you make the argument that a exceptionally weak man (as strong as the average woman) is not supposed to worship?

I'd say he would still try to be as strong as he can. Which is still trying to be strong, not worshipping it as an external value.

But I think he'd be playing to his other strengths. After all, I think there are many other kinds of strength.

Excuse me, it's time for my workout...

(no, seriously, it is!)

[IAmMetaphysical]

After all, I think there are many other kinds of strength.

And women don't possess any of these?

[Inspector]

And women don't possess any of these?

Not as essential to their sexuality. Honestly, I've addressed this before.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Inspector

[IAmMetaphysical]

I bet you have. Can you explain how someone who is relatively physically weaker than someone else has to take that fact into account of everything she does? Why must a woman define her entire view of herself and how she deals with existence based on the fact that the male of her species posesses a slightly more able physicality?

Man's basic tool of survival is his mind, and so is a woman's. Man's body is utterly incapable of providing him with survival without it. His nails are not strong enough to catch prey, his legs aren't fast enough to run an animal down. He is weaker, slower, has less endurance than a lot of other animals. Must he define his nature by those facts, or by the fact that it is HIS MIND that is the most powerful force in the known universe. Why do you expect a female man to define her existence thus? Do you expect her to disregard her mind, and to "worship" the brute next to her? Males aren't expected to worship physical strength because they can realize it??? Men shouldn't worship strength qua physical strength on its own anyway, but in the context of it serving his mind. THAT is the difference between a brute, and an athlete. Big muscles are useless without the brain that controls them, and they gain their significance only as an impliment of those minds. In the same respect, a mind without an expression is equally insignificant, but for man, there is no more needed to express her mind than the tips of her fingers, the lips of her mouth, or the relatively "weak" muscles of her arms. A woman can design a crane to lift a 100 ton load 40 stories into the air, is she still without strength? Why then so much significance on the nature of her genitals, her hips, her lack of facial hair, etc? Woman can most definately BE heroes. A hero/ine is only so because of his/her mind, not because physical strength may "represent", aesthetically, an ability to deal with reality. It may have been that way in a hunter gatherer society, but not in a society of the mind.

NOTE: The above questions were rhetorical at essence, so I don't expect a (direct)response. I expect you to pick a few lines out and yell "That's not my position!" So I will preempt that by stating that I don't mean to imply that it is. The above is my argument for the (relative) insignificance of gender in the lives of men. I don't know exactly what your position is, and its unimportant (to me). So if we are going to debate/discuss from here, let's do so an the basis of putting forth new arguments, and not what I assume your position is (from my memory of havign read this thread awhile ago, although I may have mixed you up with someone else).

[Inspector]

Can you explain how someone who is relatively physically weaker than someone else has to take that fact into account of everything she does?

That is not my position. As I said in the post above, it is essential only to one's sexual identity. One's sexual identity is defined by the differences between man and woman, and the result of these differences on their sexual roles.

I addressed this thoroughly before, and Ayn Rand did as well. I find it tedious that such a tired straw man would still come up.

[Ifat Glassman]

Question: Do any of you men, think they can be turned on by a woman who is intellectually and professionally superior to them? Would you want to have a romantic relationship with such woman?

[Inspector]

professionally superior

Could you define what that means? Does it mean the woman makes more money? Has a more prestigious profession? Or something else?

[IAmMetaphysical]

That is not my position.

Hmmmm... Proof that you don't read my postst fully.

[Inspector]

Hmmmm... Proof that you don't read my postst fully.

It's proof that I did read your post fully. I even used the exact words you called for. The fact is that whether you meant that post as a straw-man argument or not, that's frankly what it is. So my response was quite necessary and addresses your confusion about what I am saying is and is not to be derived from man/woman differences.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Inspector

[Ifat Glassman]

Could you define what that [professionally superior] means? Does it mean the woman makes more money? Has a more prestigious profession? Or something else?

It means that the woman has the same profession as you and she is better at it.

Now there is the question of "how much better?": In my question I mean that the woman is slightly better, both professionally and intellectually: which means that you still challenge her and bring her intellectual and professional value when you two are talking, but in almost every single task she is better.

For example: if you were a physicist, this woman would be better in the sense that she would be able to integrate knowledge better and reach conclusions that slipped your sight, she would be able to make calculations faster, she would be able to solve problems faster and more efficiently than you on most times, and find the more "elegant" way to do it.

You would still be able to ask her good questions, and you would give her an intellectual value, but she is the one coming up with the answers usually.

to make it easier for you to answer, just apply this example to your own career.

[DavidV]

Question: Do any of you men, think they can be turned on by a woman who is intellectually and professionally superior to them? Would you want to have a romantic relationship with such woman?

I've been on both sides of the scale, and neither side was inherently better. Most people are not that cosmopolitan however, including the friends and parents of the "senior" woman.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Ok Inspector: so clear this up with the topic of the thread and Ayn Rand's essay on a woman president.

That is not my position. As I said in the post above, it is essential only to one's sexual identity. One's sexual identity is defined by the differences between man and woman, and the result of these differences on their sexual roles.

What does sexual roles have to do with being president? Being president has nothing to so with sex (unless your Clinton).

Edited November 10, 2006 by IAmMetaphysical

[Inspector]

Ok Inspector: so clear this up with the topic of the thread and Ayn Rand's essay on a woman president.

What does sexual roles have to do with being president? Being president has nothing to so with sex (unless your Clinton).

She thought that the job would necessitate a woman not having the opportunity to exercise her role as a sexual being. Most people involved in that thread concluded that this wouldn't necessarily be the case. Given the original intent and scope of that article (for a woman's magazine), it's possible it wasn't meant to apply universally. But that is speculation.

Aside from the apparantly universal application of it, can you see her point? I certainly can.

[IAmMetaphysical]

I do see her point, to an extent. I not only disagree with is universalibility, but I don't see how it is so important for a woman (or a man), to be able to excersize their sexuality on the job that is what a private life is about, and president's do have those. A woman would not be without a private sexual life, her partner when with her would not be with her qua president, but as a woman.

[Adrian Hester]

Question: Do any of you men, think they can be turned on by a woman who is intellectually and professionally superior to them? Would you want to have a romantic relationship with such woman?

Yes, I've had such romantic relationships more than once.

[deviadah]

One problem with Ayn Rands ideas is that people tend to forget she wrote most of it pre-1960! It's not very objective to place all those ideals in 2006... What I mean is that if she wrote Atlas Shrugged now then the issue of women, and their portrayal, would be very different. Also the pro-capitalism she has been accused of, by leftist groups, is - in my opinion - not the capitalism of today. In the same manner that Communism has never been performed in the manner the theories have suggested neither has Capitalism (in the manner Rand portrays it). Or so I think...

Edited November 11, 2006 by deviadah

[KendallJ]

One problem with Ayn Rands ideas is that people tend to forget she wrote most of it pre-1960! It's not very objective to place all those ideals in 2006... What I mean is that if she wrote Atlas Shrugged now then the issue of women, and their portrayal, would be very different.

You think? How are Rand's ideas about women and their portrayal so subjective, and how would they be portrayed differently?

For someone who wrote objectively and attempted to address fundamental ideas that don't change, (i.e. "truth") I would be shocked if she would change a word.

Which ideas is it not objective to place in 2006?