Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Wow, inspector! Did you just say that?
Indeed. I too thought it was pretty polarizing, though likely for better and not necessarily incorrect. This seems as good as any for a (starting) basis for the definition of "worship."

So we've got denotations for masculinity, femininity, and worship. I presume "hero" would similarly have something to do with being superior/strong?

I contend in my previous post that if one is to be heroic, one must engage in hero-worship. I use the rejection of the mind-body dichotomy to justify rejecting any split between heroism and hero-worship.
I largely agree with that, though if it can be shown that superiority and the worship of it are gender-specific roles (at least to a significant extent,) and Inspector's usage of "worship" is correct, there may not be a false dichotomy.

[being heroic] does not involve adoration or devotion to anyone or anything... that is not a [heroics]-enhancing activity. In fact, if he takes it too far, it is a [heroics]-removing activity.
I took some liberties with the quote, particularly exchanging "masculinity" for "being heroic." If this makes it unsuitable, let me know.

A hero is capable of adoring/worshipping, but this would not improve one's status as a hero, and if taken too far, would be detrimental.

Does this relation apply to hero-worshippers as well (capable of heroics, but too much heroism is detrimental to one qua hero-worshipper?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Inspector. You have lead me to the conclusion that my earlier definition can be clarified. A new definition should make the fact that one is valuing more explicit, instead of implicit in the word "esteem". worship: To value to the degree of extravagant respect, adoration or devotion.

You need to immediately stop conflating "value" and "worship." Worship is a devotion to something superior to oneself. That isn't masculine.
I wasn't conflating the two. Worship says nothing about superiority; it might if it was used in a religious sense. This is what appeared in my post:

The concept of heroism is so grand that I submit it cannot be valued short of extravagant respect or devotion.
This means that I believe heroism is an idea that deserves devotion and extravagant respect from any rational man. It is a matter of degree, and I contend that rational men necessarily value heroism to a high degree - in fact, they worship it. It was more apparent at the end of my post, when I typed this:
[Rational lovers]will have high esteem for man. So high, in fact, that it is considered extravagant respect or adoration -- worship.

Take this statement, for instance, "I'd really like to be a hero, and heroes are strong. I work out once a month to be more heroic, and I'd do it more if it wasn't so hard." This shows that the speaker values heroism, but not nearly highly enough for it to be considered worship. Start applying more concrete situations and it will become more clear how ridiculous it is to value heroism while not worshiping it.

No, when one is striving to be a hero, this is not an act of "hero-worship." Masculinity does not involve adoration or devotion to anyone or anything.
Actually, it does show devotion to and respect for an idea: heroism. Unless one isn't very masculine. Do you believe one cannot worship an idea, but only concretes?

A man in a romantic relationship could and often should adore and be devoted to his woman... but that is not a masculinity-enhancing activity. In fact, if he takes it too far, it is a masculinity-removing activity. (and all of his male friends will make fun of him for it)
This is a depraved idea, and will lead to hollow relationships. Any real friends (male and female) would respect devotion and adoration, so long as the friend is deserving.

This thread would benefit from a definition of heroism, or hero. I looked through a few relevant definitions from Merriam-webster, none of which I think were very good. They were Heroism, Heroic (adjective and noun), Hero and Hero-worship. Would pose something like this:

Hero: a person of extreme competence and virtue.

Heroism: Conduct that exemplifies extreme competence or virtue.

I would like to know if these definitions are satisfying to others in this thread before we explore how they relate to our arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Men are inherently better than women?
I said that men enjoyed a particular advantage - that they can emphasize their masculinity through behavior that is already necessary for their life. To take that statement and get from it your statement is a major leap. I said nothing of the sort.

That would be like my saying that men enjoy the advantage of being able to pee standing up... and having you respond with the same.

;)

Worship is a devotion to something superior to oneself. That isn't masculine.

So, men are superior to women now?

At the very least all of the women in heterosexual relationships would have to be inferrior to their partner, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CF, blackdiamond, would you agree that the essence of masculinity is to be heroic, and femininity is hero-worship (or at least that they're good starting points?)

I would say they are good starting points, but only if you know which concrete traits are subsumed under "heroism" and "hero-worship." Essentialization can only achieve its purpose to the extent you clearly understand the meaning of the attributes selected as the essence. This is one of the reasons why I prefer my formulation of a couple years ago:

If I were to sum up the difference in a nutshell, I would say that the primary difference is that masculinity means strength, while femininity means beauty.

The body of a woman is delicate; its attraction is its beauty; it requires protection and care; it invites decoration--therefore, a woman will long for a man to protect her, to appreciate her beauty, to buy her clothes and jewels...and so on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said that men enjoyed a particular advantage - that they can emphasize their masculinity through behavior that is already necessary for their life. To take that statement and get from it your statement is a major leap. I said nothing of the sort.

:P

Wait a second....

But men enjoy the additional bonus that in striving to be heroic, they are not only being good humans, but they are being men.

Worship is a devotion to something superior to oneself

So if the essence of feminitity is hero worship, and and worship is a devotion to something SUPERIOR, how, exactly are you NOT saying that men are better than women? You're making conflicting statements.

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

superior

When you say "superior," you have to say in what respect. There is no intrinsic ranking of people; I can be superior in height to my wife while she is my superior in hair length; I can be a superior computer programmer while she is a superior singer; I can be her superior in the office while she is my superior in chess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were to sum up the difference in a nutshell, I would say that the primary difference is that masculinity means strength, while femininity means beauty.
So there's the strength/beauty essentialization, and the strength/worship essentialization, noting that the two aren't necessarily dissimilar in the end.

Is it possible for these essentializations to make statements along the lines of:

For a person whose essential characteristic is _____, that person ought to romantically prefer a person whose essential characteristic is _____, because _____.

For a person whose essential characteristic is _____, that person ought not to romantically prefer a person of the same essential characteristic, because _____.

Leaving off for a moment whether these essences are accurate: if they are, then why should a person whose essence is strength desire person whose essence is beauty/worshipping strength?

I actually like parts of these essentializations, but I don't see how the 'because' clause can be filled in.

The body of a woman is delicate; its attraction is its beauty; it requires protection and care; it invites decoration--therefore, a woman will long for a man to protect her, to appreciate her beauty, to buy her clothes and jewels...and so on.
Okay, I can understand that a beautiful person will want to be glammed up. But if person A whose essence is beauty is able/strong enough to provide her own protection and apparel, is another beautiful-essence person B unable to appreciate A's beauty - or is there some other reason why B is inappropriate for A?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say "superior," you have to say in what respect. There is no intrinsic ranking of people; I can be superior in height to my wife while she is my superior in hair length; I can be a superior computer programmer while she is a superior singer; I can be her superior in the office while she is my superior in chess.

Since the defining factor of man qua man is his rationality, could being a superior human being imply a superior rational faculty?

Or could a general claim of superiority mean either "superior in every respect" or "superior based on an average of all measurable factors."

The way you used superior with regard to height and length seemed to imply that more is always better, was this just a symptom of oversimplified examples? (I would guess the latter).

If Inspector could clarify how he would apply his definition of worship to male/female relationships (wrt superiority when applied to people, and wrt anything else he means), that would be super.

Edited by LaVache
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a second....

So if the essence of feminitity is hero worship, and and worship is a devotion to something SUPERIOR, how, exactly are you NOT saying that men are better than women? You're making conflicting statements.

:dough:

No I'm not. You said "superior" as in universally superior. I said it in terms of a specific aspect: masculinity, physical strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Inspector. You have lead me to the conclusion that my earlier definition can be clarified. A new definition should make the fact that one is valuing more explicit, instead of implicit in the word "esteem". worship: To value to the degree of extravagant respect, adoration or devotion.

That is not the definition used by Ayn Rand when she spoke of "Hero-worship" as the essence of femininity. I don't think it is at all an appropriate definition to use here.

"Value" and "worship" are not the same thing. "Worship" is not a value of masculinity. Men may engage in it, but it is not specifically masculine. Masculinity, as I said, is strength; i.e. being heroic.

The act of seeking to have or attain a quality is not the same as worshipping it. In fact, worshipping almost implies that said quality is unattainable in the self; else, why would one sit around worshipping it instead of going out there and doing it.

Your formulation of what it is to worship is completely wrong, and as a result so is your conclusion about masculinity.

This is a depraved idea, and will lead to hollow relationships. Any real friends (male and female) would respect devotion and adoration, so long as the friend is deserving.

No, it is not.

1) I said a man could be devoted and adore, but it wasn't a specifically masculine act.

2) You are using your definition of worship, not mine. It is the worship in the sense I use it (the correct sense) that fits that statement.

3) No matter how much love is involved, it is not the role of the man to throw himself at the feet of the woman in worship. Of course he can love her more than the earth, the moon, and the stars, but he must still be a man; and his role is not that of the worshipper, but of the worshipped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[After hearing some bullet shots fired at CF and Inspector - for a bomb detonated by Inspector - Blackdiamond decides to "cover" them! :dough: ]:

As follows:

In a few weeks' time, Styles (and his wife) will have a baby.

Styles will be filled with great joy upon beholding this beautiful, lovely, innocent creature. He will adore the baby, and then the child. He will even be devoted to it.

But this is not worship. Rand beautifully qualified worship by saying it is also "to look up to."

Styles will not look up to this child. His focus on 'adoring' his child is not its greatness, in other words.

The child, on the other hand, will adore and worship daddy Styles - and this will make him feel really great! It will specifically worship only its own daddy, but its worship of daddy should "color its attitude" to all other adults.

There is mutual love between daddy and child, but not mutual worship. And there is no loser for it. The child meets a certain psychological need in the father and the father meets a certain psychological need in the child (it desires 'to look up to' someone).

[by the way, is the father superior to the child? In a sense, yes (i.e. qua child). That's obvious, isn't it?]

Edited by blackdiamond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As follows:

That's a good example of the point I'm trying to make. Of course, I can already see someone misinterpreting it and thinking that you're construing that you mean a romantic relationship as a parent/child superior/inferior way. Remember people: it's only qua masculinity/femininity.

I also agree that worship must mean "look up to."

Here's the relevant quote:

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.

(emphasis mine)

And that bolded part is specifically why I used the " :lol: " icon in reference to styles' post about superiority.

As my final proof that masculinity is not and CANNOT be "heroine worship," I submit the following: if a woman's role qua femininity is to look up to a man, then it would be a total contradiction for the man to be looking up to her.

The role of the man, as I have said, it to be something worthy of being looked up to. That is masculinity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since it is clear that inferiority is not implied in the whole "look up to" thing, what exactly does it mean to look up to someone that is not necessarily your superior?

If the "looking up to" would only be aimed at the male's masculinity then it wouldn't imply any sort of superior/inferior judgement wrt the man and woman in a relationship. (I'm talking to myself ><)

I think I remember Miss Rand saying something about a mutual looking up to, but I can't even remember what book that was in (if it was in fact in her writings at all). If anyone remembers this, any help pointing me in the right direction would be appreciated.

Edited by LaVache
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parent/child relationships have no bearing on this thread.

As my final proof that masculinity is not and CANNOT be "heroine worship," I submit the following: if a woman's role qua femininity is to look up to a man, then it would be a total contradiction for the man to be looking up to her.

The role of the man, as I have said, it to be something worthy of being looked up to. That is masculinity.

"To look up to" is not an exclusive act. People can look up to each other. Based on the context of the rest of Ayn Rand's quote, I conclude that she understood this. It follows that a man should look up to his partner in kind. This interpretation is further validated by the fact that Objectivism rejects a soul-body dichotomy. A hero worshiper will strive to be heroic. In other words, someone who strives to be heroic is necessarily a hero-worshiper themselves.

edit: removed duplicate word

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, someone who strives to be heroic is necessarily a hero-worshiper themselves.

That is not worship. Even if your use of the term was a valid one, you're using it once to mean one thing (in the case of the woman, to her man), and once to mean another thing (in the case of the man, to the heroes he strives to be like).

That's definition switching.

Once again: it is not masculine to hero-worship. Masculinity is strength, independence. It is feminine to hero-worship. How can something feminine be masculine? Isn't it common knowledge that the two are mutually exclusive? Seriously, I feel like I am arguing that the sky is blue here.

And why precisely is Blackdiamond's example invalid?

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why precisely is Blackdiamond's example invalid?
His example may be valid in showing how a child should view its parents, but this thread is about sexual orientation. The proper relationship between a child and its parent is not a romantic one. Hence, no bearing on this thread.

That is not worship. Even if your use of the term was a valid one, you're using it once to mean one thing (in the case of the woman, to her man), and once to mean another thing (in the case of the man, to the heroes he strives to be like).

That's definition switching.

No, it's not. In one case, it is to worship the idea -- to devote one's self to becoming heroic. In another, it is to recognize the embodiment of that idea in another person -- to recognize that they have also devoted themselves to becoming heroic. Before they meet someone who shares their hero-worship, they worship only an abstraction. It is the difference between an abstraction and a concrete.

You split the mental from the corporeal; your argument boils down to this: Women primarily practice hero-worship of concretes, and any worship of the abstraction must be secondary. Men primarily practice hero worship of abstraction, and hero-worship of concretes must be secondary.

It is now up to you to demonstrate two things: 1) That the idea you present is not an example of the fallacy of the soul-body dichotomy that it seems to be. 2) That the distinction you draw between how men and women practice romance is a necessary one.

Once again: it is not masculine to hero-worship. Masculinity is strength, independence. It is feminine to hero-worship. How can something feminine be masculine? Isn't it common knowledge that the two are mutually exclusive? Seriously, I feel like I am arguing that the sky is blue here.
A few weeks ago, I was also inclined to think that they were mutually exclusive. But, as I have said before, there are instances in the English language where one concept takes on two gender forms, like waiter or waitress. After examining this issue I can only conclude that, in this case, "common knowledge" is common misconception.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You split the mental from the corporeal; your argument boils down to this: Women primarily practice hero-worship of concretes, and any worship of the abstraction must be secondary. Men primarily practice hero worship of abstraction, and hero-worship of concretes must be secondary.

No, that is not my argument at all. As such, I do not need to answer your claim of mind-body split.

My argument is that the "striving to be heroic" that men do is not a form of worship. That the word "worship" is not the same as "value" or "admire;" that it means something more. "Worship" is a term that applies to concepts, qualities, or entities which one is incapable of being or being like. It is the devotion to something superior to oneself that one cannot attain.

I'm not saying that a man cannot or necessarily should not hero-worship. I am saying that it is not an aspect of masculinity to do so. It is the role of the man to be the worshipped, and not the worshipper.

I have also said that the masculine is that which makes one specifically male and the feminine is that which makes a female specifically female; they differentiating traits and are mutually exclusive. A given act or behavior is either masculine, feminine, or not a part of either. But it is never more than one of the three.

At this point, I am simply repeating myself. If you have no further argument, besides "seeking to be a hero makes you a hero-worshipper," then please end this. I do not and will not agree with that premise, and I am tired of arguing to you that the sky is blue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My argument is that the "striving to be heroic" that men do is not a form of worship. That the word "worship" is not the same as "value" or "admire;" that it means something more. "Worship" is a term that applies to concepts, qualities, or entities which one is incapable of being or being like. It is the devotion to something superior to oneself that one cannot attain.

I'm not saying that a man cannot or necessarily should not hero-worship. I am saying that it is not an aspect of masculinity to do so. It is the role of the man to be the worshipped, and not the worshipper.

So there is a psychological need in females for hero-worship (brought on by their physiology, possible roots being that they are physically more fragile than males, are more sexually vulnerable than males, have different hormones than males, may have some slight brain differences [mentioned about 20 pages ago by Steven S., something to do with an H part of the brain...hipocampus maybe...it's totally back there if anyone wants to look between pages 15-20 I'm 95% sure]), and this need is totally unrelated to any deficiency in ability on their part.

I'm neither female, nor a psychologist, but there is nothing in what I have just said that is at odds with my personal observations.

Any further clarification on the possible causes of the feminine need for hero-worship would be appreciated.

EDIT:

I would also like to note that when Inspector said "Worship" is a term that applies to concepts, qualities, or entities which one is incapable of being or being like." he is not implying that the female who engages in hero-worship is of inferior ability to the male, but that, being female, cannot in some very fundamental ways be like the object of her worship.

A possible corollary here is that if a man is to engage in hero-worship of another man the object must be of such extraordinary ability that the worshipper has no hope of ever attaining what the worshipee is capable of, but that he could possibly hero-worship a woman of similar ability to his own. In either case, the hero-worship would not be a masculine expression, but neither would it necessarily make the worshipper less masculine...although I would find the worship of someone who is unworthy to be a masulinity draining activity (even though it would be potentially anti-masculine, I mean in no way to imply that it would be feminine, but would fall into that third category).

Could a man live a healthy and rational life without engaging in any feminine activity? I would guess that he could, but could a woman live a healthy and rational life without engaging in any masculine activity? Not that it would be better for a man to be devoid of femininity or a woman to be devoid of masculity, but I am curious about the possibilities.

Edited by LaVache
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspector,

You have not addressed my replies that explain why I am not equivocating. You fail to see how your position is in conflict with Ayn Rand's ideas as presented in the quotes you referenced. You have also stated that you will give no further scrutiny to the arguments I presented, or attempt to show why I am wrong. As a result, you continue to draw an unessential distinction between the masculine and the feminine, and place your personal values as the standard for all romantic relationships.

Yes, I think we are done here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His example may be valid in showing how a child should view its parents, but this thread is about sexual orientation. The proper relationship between a child and its parent is not a romantic one. Hence, no bearing on this thread.

1. Featherfall, the point of my example, which you have either missed or deliberately ignored, is that you hero-worship someone because of their metaphysical 'greater-ness' or 'superiority' (with respect to yourself). Do you believe the father worships the child in my example? If you agree that what the father is doing is not worship, although it is "devotion, etc", then you agree that "devotion, etc" is not sufficient for something to be called worship. Since this is the definition of worship you are working with, then you have to reject that definition, no matter where you got it from. As Ayn Rand observed, worship should necessarily involve an aspect of "looking UP to". The example does not have to be about a romantic relationship to be valid because it still functions to test the validity of your understanding of the concept 'worship'. Your criticism would be valid if the concept 'worship' changes from situation to situation and from type of relationship to type of relationship, in which case you should not have tried to use a general definition yourself but should have instead used one that is only applicable to a romantic relationship, a task that would require some massive circular thinking.

2. Given the above, it should be clear even to you that the idea of "worshipping an idea" is nonsensical and meaningless. You can not just worship anything just because you are devoted to it. For example, by your reasoning, one can even worship -not just his child, but also - his dog, his job, his car, his future, etc. and you can even go further and say if you do not worship your job, for example, you are immoral. Obviously, this is not how widely or loosely we - or Rand - are using that concept here, which is why (Inspector is saying) you should first check your premises before continuing this discussion.

So. Your statement on men "hero-worshipping" abstractions (or "abstraction") and women hero-worshipping concretes (and so on), is also nonsensical. For God's sake, Featherfall, how can an abstraction even be a hero? :lol: You mean you can "hero-worship" heroism? Then this means you can even "hero-worship" hero worship - since it is a practice you can "devote yourself to"!

Reductio ad absurdum.

Edited by Capitalism Forever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't worry too much over the definitions, FF, LaVache. While I more or less agree with you, it's not necessary to bicker over the definitions. If the hero/worshipper system (as they define it) doesn't/can't show why one type of relationship is improper, and another type improper, then it doesn't matter whether or not it applies to males/females, because regardless it still wouldn't lead to any conclusions :lol:

Can a person who is a worshipper also be a hero, or vice versa? Nothing's said one can't.

Should a person who is a hero not be a worshipper (and vice versa?) It hasn't been shown to be a part of the hero/worshipper model.

If a person were a dual hero/worshipper, would it be improper for the person to be the hero in some relationships, and the worshipper in others? Meh, why not?

To the extent that there are metaphysical superiority differences between heros (i.e. some heroes are significantly and unalterably more heroic than others,) wouldn't it be logical that the lesser heroes worship the greater heroes? Who's to say?

Is it impossible for a worshipper to be more heroic than a hero, and if so, should that hero worship the worshipper? ... ...

Heck, why would a hero want a worshipper anyway (I thought only gods, ego trippers, and megalomaniacs want to be worshipped?) ...???...

If you look back, has anything about heros/worshippers, as they define it, been said that would make a hero-hero relationship or worshipper-worshipper relationship improper? If no, then smile :) and don't stress whether or not males are heros and females are worshippers.

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...