Male Female differences/ Women Presidents etc

[deviadah]

Which ideas is it not objective to place in 2006?

For instance how she places women in the kitchen and men in the factories.

[Inspector]

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.

I agree with you, but do think it would be somewhat of a strain. If her man was quite a man, I'm sure he'd be up to the task of making her feel feminine when off the job.

[KendallJ]

For instance how she places women in the kitchen and men in the factories.

Last time I checked, Dagny Taggart was running a company.

Which of these other characters did she put in a kitchen, other than Dagny in Galt's Gulch? and where was this topic any part of any main theme in the book?

Edited November 12, 2006 by KendallJ

[Ifat Glassman]

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.

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

Would you (any of you) please describe how exactly she was better? and did you have a working relationship where she was your supervisor, or something similar?

And a bonus question: would you have a problem being in a romantic relationship with a woman who is also your supervisor at work?

I have something to say about differences between men and women in most people. I have noticed, in my 25 years of experience, that women usually tend to be bitches, while guys are nice: not just to women but also to other men.

Women tend to gossip, be jelous of other good looking women (or successful women), while men would be direct ("man! you're looking ugly today") instead of gossiping, they would not be insulted easily (while most women might remember an insult for a long time and plan revenge), men rarely fight and if they do they make up easily, while women would hold grudge for a long time.

I cannot stand most of women's pettiness, jealousy, tendency to gossip instead of telling things to the face (especially this last thing), etc'.

I was wondering if other people here have noticed the same things about men and women? And if so, what do you think is the reason for that?

[KevinD]

I have something to say about differences between men and women in most people. I have noticed, in my 25 years of experience, that women usually tend to be bitches, while guys are nice . . .

You can't make this stuff up.

[KevinD]

I want to retract the statement I made immediately above; I had thought that "Ifat" was a man — I have just learned that she is a woman. I don't care to criticize anyone's opinions of their own sex. Please accept my apologies.

[Ifat Glassman]

Kevin, I don't understand how it follows that if I was making up my observations that I must be a man, but after your apology it seems like the only way I could learn about women being "bitches" is by being a woman (meaning being a bitch)? So in fact the insult only kicked in AFTER the apology Or maybe I just don't understand what it is that you are saying.

So just so I won't feel so "left out": what are you saying?

Edited November 17, 2006 by ifatart

[~Sophia~]

I have something to say about differences between men and women in most people. I have noticed, in my 25 years of experience, that women usually tend to be bitches, while guys are nice: not just to women but also to other men.

Women tend to gossip, be jelous of other good looking women (or successful women), while men would be direct ("man! you're looking ugly today") instead of gossiping, they would not be insulted easily (while most women might remember an insult for a long time and plan revenge), men rarely fight and if they do they make up easily, while women would hold grudge for a long time.

I cannot stand most of women's pettiness, jealousy, tendency to gossip instead of telling things to the face (especially this last thing), etc'.

I can't help but feel sorry for you if this is in fact how you view women.

[KevinD]

So just so I won't feel so "left out": what are you saying?

Just what I said: That I have no interest in criticizing you or anyone else for expressing opinions related to their own gender. Mind you, I might not agree with anyone's particular opinion (in this case I don't), but a woman criticizing women in general is not at all the same thing as a man criticizing women, even if both happen to use exactly the identical wording.

As an aside: Please don't anybody ascribe meanings to my sentences which are not abundantly clearly intended. I'm not nearly as multilayered a writer as my critics give me credit for.

[Ifat Glassman]

I can't help but feel sorry for you if this is in fact how you view women.

You are mispresenting what I said. I did not say that this is how I view all women (Duh!), but only that from my own experience, from comparing the men and the women I've seen, these are my observations.

If there were instances where I met women who were direct, not petty, not jealous and do not gossip (plus some other positive requirements) I became their friend.

In fact one of my best friends is a woman, and both of us enjoy discussing beautiful women.

From what I've seen women in this forum are the type that admires a woman's beauty and success and do not react with jealousy. Of course this is not a big surprise since they are Objectivists.

But on the "outside world" most women are the jealous type. When they look at a beautiful woman they would try to destroy her beauty "Did you see the ass on this one? it's huge". I'd be surprised if you never heard women act like this upon seeing a good looking woman.

Men, on the "outside world" are much more generous and respond to a successful man (successful according to their standard) with admiration.

I take it that in your experience men and women are equally benevolent?

[aequalsa]

But on the "outside world" most women are the jealous type. When they look at a beautiful woman they would try to destroy her beauty "Did you see the ass on this one? it's huge". I'd be surprised if you never heard women act like this upon seeing a good looking woman.

Men, on the "outside world" are much more generous and respond to a successful man (successful according to their standard) with admiration.

I take it that in your experience men and women are equally benevolent?

This is an interesting notion which I have come across fairly frequently. While there are certainly differences in communication styles between men and women, I have serious doubts that women are worse. I submit the possibility that the difference in perception is based on just your perception.

Most men treat women well(with alterior motives, of course). Especially attractive women. I have known more then one guy who was an entirely different person when women were present. Let me emphasize the "entirely". And typically the women acquainted with them have no clue what they are really like.

Without getting into the details too much, my own experiences indicate that men enjoy gossip and minipulation quite a bit. And many are the definition of two facedness. As something to consider, in the future when you see a woman on the side of the road with a broken down car, take note of how often one or more cars parked behind her? Then take note of men in the same position and how often they have some "friendly" guy stopping to give them a hand. Before I made enough money to buy newer cars that didn't break down all the time, I put many a mile on my tennis shoes without a single one of these nice men stopping to help.(to clarify, I didn't expect them to help...just noticed the discrepency in treatment)

edit: I just want to clarify that I am not making the claim that men are worse. Not being a women, I can't really fairly compare the two. I just don't think that most men have the level of integrity they seem to with you.

Edited November 17, 2006 by aequalsa

[Adrian Hester]

Would you (any of you) please describe how exactly she was better?

I assume you mean "my superior" rather than "better." (And better than whom, other girlfriends? Well, we needn't get into gory details there; I'll just grin and let you draw your own conclusions.) Basically that in all cases the woman was from six to twenty-something years older than me, further advanced in her career, and simply more knowledgeable, more experienced, and more worldly than me.

and did you have a working relationship where she was your supervisor, or something similar?

They were academic colleagues.

And a bonus question: would you have a problem being in a romantic relationship with a woman who is also your supervisor at work?

I'd have serious qualms about that, but it wouldn't be an unconditional block.

I have something to say about differences between men and women in most people. I have noticed, in my 25 years of experience, that women usually tend to be bitches, while guys are nice: not just to women but also to other men. (Bold added.)

Well, that explains it right there! Seriously, my impression is that that sort of behavior is more common among women younger than, say, 25-27. I've run into far too many young women (and probably as many young men) who were quite sheltered growing up and hadn't grown up yet; I've even had to work with a few. It's a question of maturity, and it could well be that men in our culture are usually put in positions that force them to mature more readily and a bit earlier than women. However, since I have low tolerance for BS and don't suffer fools (though if need be I'm happy to make a fool suffer), I simply avoid unnecessary dealings with them, and since I'm at an age where most of the people I deal with are real adults I miss out on a lot of nonsense and can easily ignore the rest. Which is to say I don't really know if there's a marked tendency for young women to be manipulative backbiters and young men to be fairly normal, nor do I care.

Added in editing: I just noticed aequalsa's post just before mine, and I agree with him. I remember quite a few men who were just like the two-faced women-trawlers he mentioned who act entirely differently in the presence and the absence of women. Again, that's the sort of behavior that makes me keep my distance from a fellow, but it does seem rather less common among men over 30 years old or thereabouts, though perhaps that's just my selection bias at work.

Edited November 17, 2006 by Adrian Hester

[Inspector]

I was wondering if other people here have noticed the same things about men and women? And if so, what do you think is the reason for that?

I asked my wife about this one, so you're getting two opinions for the price of one.

While there certainly are women out there like you describe, certainly that is not a good description of most women. You are either extemely unlucky in the people you associate with, or are not correctly seeing what is out there.

We also think you are being very over-generous to men. Aequalsa points out a good reason why you might have a distorted view: many men who are rotten will go to great lengths to conceal it around a woman.

[Ifat Glassman]

While there certainly are women out there like you describe, certainly that is not a good description of most women. You are either extremely unlucky in the people you associate with, or are not correctly seeing what is out there.

We also think you are being very over-generous to men. Aequalsa points out a good reason why you might have a distorted view: many men who are rotten will go to great lengths to conceal it around a woman.

Perhaps my view is a result of a very high sensitivity to details. For me, even if a woman does not envy other women's good looks, but she will envy their success, or the fact that they get more attention, I would still consider her as the "jealous type".

When I'm looking at the relationship my brother has with his friends, and the relationships with girls I had (a group of girls), the interactions are very different. Guys will openly laugh at one another, and they would even enjoy doing so. But if a girl laughs at another girl's appearance - oh my! hell breaks loose. You can rest assured that after the get-together is over, she is going to call some other friend and gossip about how ugly/bitching the girl who "dished" her appearance is. That's just how it works with most girls I've met.

Y'all suggested that I am biased since men behave better around women (and vice versa), but my judgement is not only based on interactions with men, but on observations of interaction that happen not in my presence (between man and men).

Anyways, thank you all for your observations, I'll try to re-examine what I know.

[Adrian Hester]

Y'all suggested that I am biased since men behave better around women (and vice versa), but my judgement is not only based on interactions with men, but on observations of interaction that happen not in my presence (between man and men).

If they're interactions that occur when you're not present, how exactly do you observe them? You see, there are quite a few men who act differently towards other men when women are present and when they're absent.

[Franklin]

I completely disagree.

First, what type of woman is dominique? Is she an objectivist? What does she think of herself? Why does she act? Dominique gets off on destruction (She throws the statue out the window). Dominique does not enjoy life. One of her comments is something like. I like to destroy everything that I see is good because I don't want it to exist in this world. That is one of the key reasons she helps Keating and not Roark. Luckily, she changes over the course of the book.

If Rand had said, A large fat bearded woman, would this make any difference? The point is that Dominique, Dagny, etc... are proud of themselves. They are proud of the way they look. They enjoy it and the pleasure others take from it.

Again, we are only talking about physical appearance. Slender, and delicate are attractive to most people. Fat, butch, or muscular (extreme) woman are usually not. Also, if someone is fat, what does it say about them? They don't appreciate their body, they don't have much self-respect. If someone is slender, it means that they care & enjoy their body and want to be healthy. Having a good body and looking good says a lot about your personality and self.

Yes, there are the exceptions - looking good for others and not for the pride you get out of it. But these people usually lack something else.

If you look the actual personalities and traits of these woman, they are all strong. Dagny and Dominque always hold their ground and have very powerful personalities.

Compare this to Catherine. She was ordinary, you could probably think pretty, but she didn't really exist. She gave in to everything and it cost her life.

Rand does not make these characters delicate because they are woman and because they are unfit for anything. She makes them delicate and beautiful because its attractive and shows that they enjoy their bodies.

The fact that Dagny like the feeling of being chained to Hank did not mean that she was week or wanted to be the non-dominante person. It meant that she was connected to him, that he got pleasure out of her, and that she got pleasure out of him wanting her.

Once more you are have come to the conclusion that woman are inferior to men when it was not stated or intended. Why? Do you think women are? Do you think the rest of the world actually thinks that? Perhaps the people you grew up around thought this way or told you the world acted this way. I see it rarely.

for Miseleigh:

Yes, woman and males are different. We covered this already in another thread. Their bodies are physically different, their minds work differently (there are many tests that show this - I think John Stossel did a show on this). Most woman's minds do work more on intuition and feelings. But again, so what?

We are humans, we have this astonishing ability to adapt to our surroundings and change as we desire.

If someone generally acts on their feelings, it does not mean that they are not thinkers. Nor does it mean that they cannot work and play with their minds to make themselves more of a thinker than a feeler.

Note: Being different =/= inferior. So lets not have this argument.

No offense, but there is a hierarchy of values. I think physical appearance and athleticism while still being worthy of praise are below intellectual values. I for one care more about reading and studying than I do about my outward appearance. I walk to work, and I walk to class; but---otherwise---I follow Hutchins example,"If I get the urge to excercise, I lie down until it goes away." Seriously, I think it wrong to judge people primarily on the basis of physical attractiveness (the romantic and aesthetic contexts are obviously different).

The reason Rand's heros are portrayed as being attractive has more to do with her aesthetic philosophy than it does with the moral values implicit in being attractive.

One of the things that troubles me about objectivism is the correlation it draws between relationships and moral values. While a relationship should be determined by one's moral character and virtues intellectual and physical alike, I think it unwise to hold people accountable for not having a relationship on this basis. Mathematically, since there are more male objectivists than female, not ever male objectivist will be able to find a relationship. Also, there are more men seeking fertile women at any given time than there are women seeking men. It is a game of musical chairs and somebody's got to lose.

Why is it that Objectivism is more appealing to men---on average---than women?

[softwareNerd]

One of the things that troubles me about Objectivism is the correlation it draws between relationships and moral values...

It depends what one means by "moral values" here. For instance, someone might be committed to reason, have the self-confidence to take on whatever the world may throw at her, and so on, without being Objectivist. One may even find people like this in churches on Sunday or voting for some slightly-socialist measure, and so on. There is a relationship between the way one "comes at life" and one's explicit philosophy and actions, but the relationship is not always straightforward, and it is that deeper essence that one find charming, charismatic, or lovable in another person.

One falls in love with the embodiment of the values that formed the person's character, which are reflected in his widest goals or smallest gestures, which create the style of his soul... ...It is not a matter of professed convictions (though these are not irrelevant); it is a matter of much more profound, conscious and subconscious harmony.

Why is it that Objectivism is more appealing to men---on average---than women?

I don't have the answer, but this might be part of a wider question. For instance, are more men than women enrolled in other Philosophy programs? (BTW: I think the question has been raised in a previous thread, if you want to try searching).

[LaszloWalrus]

According to Leonard Peikoff in "Love and Sex" men tend to be more interested in philosophy generally.

[JMeganSnow]

Men tend to be more interested in heavy-duty intellectual subjects, period. I think I said elsewhere: you may as well ask why there are more male mathematicians or engineers.

It's my opinion that it's a sociological thing and I don't see that it's necessarily a problem, but it is notable.

[Maarten]

It's my opinion that it's a sociological thing and I don't see that it's necessarily a problem, but it is notable.

Of course it's a problem! We need more female Objectivists, Jenni... You're just selfish and you want to keep all the single guy Objectivists for yourself!

[Alethiometry]

According to Leonard Peikoff in "Love and Sex" men tend to be more interested in philosophy generally.

Does Leonard Peikoff state why he thinks men tend to be more interested in philosophy?

[LaszloWalrus]

I hesitate to quote since it's copywrighted. Basically, he says that men tend to be more intellectual.

He says something along the lines of (I'm quoting from memory, so take it with a grain of salt) "Most intellectual movements are started by men who then bring their girlfriends along."

[Maarten]

I hesitate to quote since it's copywrighted. Basically, he says that men tend to be more intellectual.

He says something along the lines of (I'm quoting from memory, so take it with a grain of salt) "Most intellectual movements are started by men who then bring their girlfriends along."

That's not really an explanation, though... That's just restating the same thing in somewhat different words. It could be just an identification he has made, and it certainly wouldn't be very controversial (I have seen the same thing), but that does not equal explaining why it's true.

[softwareNerd]

Does Leonard Peikoff state why he thinks men tend to be more interested in philosophy?

Dr. Peikoff makes what is perhaps a related observation in his Understanding Objectivism lectures. It's really important to note that he prefaces by saying that this is not a universal truth and that he only makes this observation with tremendous qualifications and reservations. He even jokes that he hesitates almost to the point of being terrified to state his observation (I assume that he means that he worries that some people will treat it as more of a universal truth).

Anyway, with those qualifications, he goes on to say that he has noticed a more pronounced inclination of Objectivist males to go for rationalism and females for empiricism. Reminding his audience that it is not a universal, he adds that he knows rationalist women and empiricist men.

He then goes on to a possible explanation of the reasons. He notes that rationalism is connected to repression, and that there is a culturally different expectation for women and men with regard to emotions. So, that gives one a clue as to the underlying differences. He notes, culturally, women are expected to be emotional, while men are expected to be more detached.

So, the observation that Dr. Peikoff is making is about rationalism versus empiricism. However, I think that the same underlying factors might explain the difference one sees in the interest in ideas between men and women, on the averages.

In summary, cultural expectations might explain some of the difference.

[mrocktor]

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?

Heck yeah! I want a woman who challenges me to better myself.

I want a woman to love my virtues and to have virtues I can love. To steal a phrase from IAmMetaphysical, "worship" is "love" on your knees - and I bow down to no one and expect no one to bow to me. Does that make me non-masculine? Define masculine and we can talk about it.