Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

[Capitalism Forever]

Hehe, I KNEW he would fall into the Harley trap!

I was fully aware of the possibility of a woman being very feminine and riding a big motorcycle at the same time, as I had seen such a woman on a Hungarian TV talk show a couple of weeks before! She was one of the most attractively feminine women I had ever seen, but she happened to be a bigtime Harley lover. The host brought it up by saying something like, "Now, people are often surprised to learn about a young lady like you having a predilection for something thought to be the exclusive domain of men."

Which is just the point I was making. The description of the typical woman does not include a fascination for big and strong motorbikes, so if the typical guy buys a Harley for her girlfriend, chances are she will not be as excited as she would be if her man got her an earring or a perfume.

Nor does the description of the ideal woman include a love for motorbikes. A love for motorbikes does not add to a woman's femininity. It does add to a man's masculinity.

However, contrary to "most people," I was not surprised when I heard that that outstandingly feminine lady was a Harley enthusiast. I didn't even think that it detracted from her femininity. It didn't add to it, but it didn't detract from it either. It is possible, but not necessary nor probable for a feminine woman to be bent on Harleys. Improbable, but entirely possible.

Moreover, I even thought that her fascination for Harleys added to her attractiveness. Not to her femininity but her attractiveness. Why? Because I think Harleys are great too, and if a person shares my tastes, that will score him a point on my fondness scale. And this lady drove her Harley in spite of the expectations of "most people," which proved to me that she was an independent individual who put her self-interest first. THAT scored her even more points!

I didn't fail to remember her when I told Godless to leave me alone with his feminist bromides. I chose this example on purpose, so that it would be easy for me to deflect the inevitable retort of "There are girls who do love Harleys!" Yes, there are girls who do, but I am not talking about this girl or that girl but about THE IDEAL GIRL--an abstraction that comprises all that which makes a woman feminine. You derive this abstraction from the concrete women you see by identifying feminine traits in the individual women.

Godless is neither willing to recognize the feminine traits in individuals nor to talk about the abstraction. He substitutes feminist dogma for the former and conveniently chosen concretes for the latter. He BOTH misintegrates and disintegrates!

[Capitalism Forever]

What is wrong with dreaming?

Nothing.

[Capitalism Forever]

You quote me:

A man who earns much less than his wife, lives in a house owned by her, drives a car paid for by her money, etc., is a miserable failure and can never really be proud of himself, as to live qua man involves the creation of wealth--material wealth--and by accepting wealth he hasn't earned, he admits that he is incapable of creating wealth himself. On the other hand, a woman who needs to buy herself a husband is also a failure, as she admits that she is incapable of winning a man's admiration qua woman--i.e. by being beautiful and lovely.

But if both the wife and husband are billionaires--remember, we are talking about ideal cases--then it doesn't matter much which of them has more billions; they are both successful.

In summary, I would say that if a woman marries a man for his money, that means success for both, but if a man marries a woman for her money, that means failure for both.

Then you say:

You see, you simply state that he earns less than she does. You did not mention the motive of the marriage.

I recommend that you put some more care into your posting. Lesson #1 to learn is to recognize that not all of your fellow posters are the same person--I see above that you've grasped this. Now you may be ready for lesson #2: Read what you quote before you comment on it!

[Godless Capitalist]

Which is just the point I was making. The description of the typical woman does not include a fascination for big and strong motorbikes, so if the typical guy buys a Harley for her girlfriend, chances are she will not be as excited as she would be if her man got her an earring or a perfume.

Nor does the description of the ideal woman include a love for motorbikes. A love for motorbikes does not add to a woman's femininity. It does add to a man's masculinity.

I didn't fail to remember her when I told Godless to leave me alone with his feminist bromides. I chose this example on purpose, so that it would be easy for me to deflect the inevitable retort of "There are girls who do love Harleys!" Yes, there are girls who do, but I am not talking about this girl or that girl but about THE IDEAL GIRL--an abstraction that comprises all that which makes a woman feminine. You derive this abstraction from the concrete women you see by identifying feminine traits in the individual women.

Godless is neither willing to recognize the feminine traits in individuals nor to talk about the abstraction. He substitutes feminist dogma for the former and conveniently chosen concretes for the latter. He BOTH misintegrates and disintegrates!

I'm not accepting the idea that there is some sort of universal (Platonic?) IDEAL woman, especially not if it includes such superficialities as liking earings and perfume.

It doesn't seem as if you can actually name any substantial universal "feminine" or "masculine" traits. My experience of reality (not feminist bromides) leads me to think that they do not exist. If you can name some, please do. Otherwise you are just being evasive.

I am certainly open to persuasion on this issue. I have long been curious about why I am straight rather than bisexual despite the implications of my explicit beliefs. There must be some reason; what is it?

[jfortun]

  Yes, there are girls who do, but I am not talking about this girl or that girl but about THE IDEAL GIRL--an abstraction that comprises all that which makes a woman feminine. You derive this abstraction from the concrete women you see by identifying feminine traits in the individual women.

This is getting absurd. If I took all of the traits one traditionally thinks of as feminine and crammed them in to a single woman I would have to kill that woman because she would be unbearable. Your point begs the question if ideal (according to whom?), and feminine (just the "good" ones? how is this definition not influenced by culture? please define).

If we take Dagny Taggart as the the archetype of womanhood, her traits hardly come from the pool of typical feminine traits we see in the women around us. She had a good deal of testosterone flowing through her veins.

[argive99]

It doesn't seem as if you can actually name any substantial universal "feminine" or "masculine" traits.  My experience of reality (not feminist bromides) leads me to think that they do not exist. If you can name some, please do. Otherwise you are just being evasive.

I think you are wrong here. There is an abundance of data collected by evolutionary biologists to suggest that there are distinctively male traits and distinctively female traits. Just to name one, 'presenting'. When female mamals are interested in a male sexually they all do some version of presenting; ie they will draw attraction to their sexual organs in some way.

In the jungle, the female cat will lift her butt in the air and 'present' it to the male. In a bar, a woman will throw back her hair and push forward her chest (emphasizing her bumpy bits). The presenting the backside may or may not follow later depending on a number of factors not the least of which is the content of the man's wallet which oh by the way is another evolutionary vestige; ie man as 'the resource provider'.

Two books I reccommend:

1)The Mating Mind

2)The Survival of the Prettiest

Oh and here's one universal male trait: scratching your balls for the simple reason as stated by one nameless philosopher, "all balls itch."

[Godless Capitalist]

Very amusing; I am not sure if you are trying to be facetious or not.

[argive99]

Very amusing; I am not sure if you are trying to be facetious or not.

Read the books and see how facetious I am being. There are universal male and female traits. I consider you amusing for even doubting it.

[Godless Capitalist]

OK, I will take you seriously. What do you think determines "presenting" behavior in human females (something I have never actually observed by the way). Is it genetic? (If so, what about free will?) Is it learned? (if so, it is cultural and not universal.)

[argive99]

OK, I will take you seriously. What do you think determines "presenting" behavior in human females (something I have never actually observed by the way). Is it genetic? (If so, what about free will?) Is it learned? (if so, it is cultural and not universal.)

Just because something has its roots in a genetic predisposition doesn't mean it violates free will. Free will is but one component of a rational consciousness. But it doesn't displace millenium of genetic adaptions which serve to enhance the survival of the species. Also, I wouldn't say its pure gentics, but some combination of genetic predisposition and pattern behavior.

As for not observing a woman's presenting; are you serious? Hell, that's the first thing I look for. Body language man, body language. The twirling of the hair, the errect spine, the protruding chest, many times even the uplifted butt. These are all signs of presenting, especially when done in combination, and it is cross cultural (see Etcott).

Lastly, why are you so dead set against there being uniquely male and female attributes? It doesn't imply superiority in one if that's your fear. Different but equal.

Unless you're in divorce court in which case it pays to have a vagina.

[Godless Capitalist]

I'm not dead set against the idea of distinct attributes; I just don't see any significant ones.

I don't pick up women in bars so maybe that's why I have never seen "presenting." But you are still not explaining the source. Does the woman do it consciously, or is it some sort of automatic (genetic) reaction? And anyway, so what? Men do similar things, right? (standing taller, pulling their guts in, squaring their shoulders.) What does that prove about relationships?

[Godless Capitalist]

  There are some common traits within each sex but I fail to see how those traits make it possible for anybody to deduce any given relationship's propriety beyond that it be based on mutual sharing of rational values.

Just wanted to quote this again because it is so clear and succinct. Why no response to it?

[Godless Capitalist]

It doesn't imply superiority in one if that's your fear. Different but equal.

"For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship - the desire

to look up to a man." (AR)

Now I don't think AR ever defined masculinity but somehow I doubt she would have defined it as the desire to look up to a woman.

"It is because men are metaphysically the dominant sex . . . that a thing such as Women's Lib could gain plausibility and sympathy among today's intellectuals" (AR again)

What does she mean by "metaphysically dominant"? It certainly sounds like superiority.

"By the nature of her duties and daily activities," a female president ". . . would become the most unfeminine, sexless, metaphysically inappropriate, and rationally revolting figure of all: a matriarch" (AR once again)

Sorry but this is just plain silly. What about Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, etc.?

[argive99]

"For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship - the desire

to look up to a man." (AR)

Now I don't think AR ever defined masculinity but somehow I doubt she would have defined it as the desire to look up to a woman.

"It is because men are metaphysically the dominant sex . . . that a thing such as Women's Lib could gain plausibility and sympathy among today's intellectuals" (AR again)

What does she mean by "metaphysically dominant"? It certainly sounds like superiority.

"By the nature of her duties and daily activities," a female president ". . . would become the most unfeminine, sexless, metaphysically inappropriate, and rationally revolting figure of all: a matriarch" (AR once again)

Sorry but this is just plain silly. What about Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, etc.?

I think you are revealing yourself here. I would bet that you're a TOC kind of guy and you may even like those slick dudes Sciabarra and Silber. Yep, I think you've got an axe to grind...

Well, I don't see Rand as equating 'dominant' with superior. Here, I think she is just referring to the metaphysical fact that men are physically stronger than women (barring the rare exception). Do you honestly think a women of Ayn Rand's intelligence and courage would define femininity as subservience? This kills me when people bash on Rand for "On a Female President" and yet forget who she was. Please, read it again with a rational eye and put aside your disdain for her for just the length of time it takes you to read the article.

As for female matriarchs, Rand never said that women weren't capable of the job of a nation's head office holder. She felt that no rational woman would want the job to begin with. And I think you proved your point; Thatcher, Gandhi, and Meir were not the most feminine and glamorous of women.

Did you really read that article? Or do you just like quoting it to spit on Ayn Rand? People do that often. Read "Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand". Sciabarra'a contribution to the advancement of Obectivism in our time.

[Capitalism Forever]

ideal (according to whom?)

Herself.

If we take Dagny Taggart as the the archetype of womanhood, her traits hardly come from the pool of typical feminine traits we see in the women around us.

Really? Then why did she think thoughts like: "it was new to feel protected [by John Galt], and to feel that it was right to accept the protection, to surrender..."

And I take it you haven't read Anthem yet.

[Godless Capitalist]

I think you are revealing yourself here. I would bet that you're a TOC kind of guy and you may even like those slick dudes Sciabarra and Silber. Yep, I think you've got an axe to grind...

Well, I don't see Rand as equating 'dominant' with superior. Here, I think she is just referring to the metaphysical fact that men are physically stronger than women (barring the rare exception).  Do you honestly think a women of Ayn Rand's intelligence and courage would define femininity as subservience? This kills me when people bash on Rand for "On a Female President" and yet forget who she was. Please, read it again with a rational eye and put aside your disdain for her for just the length of time it takes you to read the article.

As for female matriarchs, Rand never said that women weren't capable of the job of a nation's head office holder. She felt that no rational woman would want the job to begin with. And I think you proved your point; Thatcher, Gandhi, and Meir were not the most feminine and glamorous of women.

Did you really read that article? Or do you just like quoting it to spit on Ayn Rand? People do that often. Read "Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand". Sciabarra'a contribution to the advancement of Obectivism in our time.

Nope, no axe and I don't even know who those people you reference are. And yes I have read the full articles several times and they still do not make sense to me.

Yes, Rand does seem to be referring to physical strength. But why is that relevant or important? Maybe if you need to have a fridge moved but otherwise it seems superficial.

What makes you think women should be concerned with being "feminine and glamorous" above wanting to be national leaders or whatever other career they may choose? And why would those be mutually exclusive anyway? Benazir Bhutto certainly seemed feminine enough.

(I'm going out of town for the weekend so don't think I'm ignoring you if i don't check back in until Tuesday. I'll delete this note then)

[argive99]

Nope, no axe and I don't even know who those people you reference are. And yes I have read the full articles several times and they still do not make sense to me.

Yes, Rand does seem to be referring to physical strength. But why is that relevant or important? Maybe if you need to have a fridge moved but otherwise it seems superficial.

What makes you think women should be concerned with being "feminine and glamorous" above wanting to be national leaders or whatever other career they may choose? And why would those be mutually exclusive anyway? Benazir Bhutto certainly seemed feminine enough.

(I'm going out of town for the weekend so don't think I'm ignoring you if i don't check back in until Tuesday. I'll delete this note then)

I see now that what you are taking issue with is Rand's view of man/woman relationships and sexuality. That's a huge subject and nothing I say is going to convince you of the legitimacy of her idea of sexual surrender and hero worship. This subject has been discussed many times on this board, you may want to do a search. Or if Betsy Speicher has the patience to once again explain the whole deal, she can enlighten you. After all, she's a woman. I guess from your perspective, it sounds better coming from a woman.

I'll just say by way of closure, that physical strength is a huge factor in man/woman relations. The whole history of evolution especially for mamals indicates that there is a division of labor between the sexes with the pattern being a stronger male and a weaker female. This can not be questioned. To think that millions of years could go by with this format and not have human psychology develop in such a way with physical strength being a critical phenomenon is total naivete.

Its complicated, but a woman must take into account in her evaluation of a man the fact of his strength and a man must take into account the fact of the woman's physcial vulnerability. This dynamic underscores the entirety of the sexual act. I don't know if you are a homosexual or not. But if you're heterosexual you should know that. If you don't, I feel for your wife.

But that's it for me. And I only dig chicks that are soft, cuddly, feminine and glamorous. I'll leave the matriarchs for those men who deserve them.

[RationalBiker]

Yes, Rand does seem to be referring to physical strength. But why is that relevant or important? Maybe if you need to have a fridge moved but otherwise it seems superficial.

This is clearly trivializing the importance of physical strength and the protection it can afford women. The importance of that strength is not limited to the displacement of appliances and it's certainly not superficial.

Most women are either incapable of (or would have a very difficult time) defending themselves against the unwanted physical advances and/or assaults of which most men are capable and to which they often resort.

Ask a rape victim how superficial physical strength is. Ask an abused woman how superficial physical strength is. Women often seek men to protect them from this behavior (though even in doing so they sometimes find partners who abuse them as well). It provides them with some security and protection that they would otherwise be lacking which in turn enhances their survivability.

All too often situations are reduced to the most basic and savage level of physical assault. To undermine the importance of physical strength and it's relationship to survivability (even in our "civilized" world) is simply astounding.

VES

[RationalBiker]

If we take Dagny Taggart as the the archetype of womanhood, her traits hardly come from the pool of typical feminine traits we see in the women around us.  She had a good deal of testosterone flowing through her veins.

Can you explain how typical = ideal?

VES

[Inspector]

It's good to see that there are other "real men" out there. I will throw my sanction to the statements above this post that were given by RationalCop, argive99, and CapitalismForever.

I've spoken extensively on the subject over at CapMag forums, using basically the same viewpoint and ideas as above. Interestingly enough, that discussion also came from an off-topic tangent from a thread entitled "homosexuality." Unfortunately, since it was off-topic it was deleted or else I would repeat it.

But, for now, good show gentlemen!

[jfortun]

Can you explain how typical = ideal?

VES

The assertion was :

THE IDEAL GIRL--an abstraction that comprises all that which makes a woman feminine. You derive this abstraction from the concrete women you see by identifying feminine traits in the individual women.

Well most of the women I know (not my wife thankfully) are far more emotional then men tend to be. Do I take this into account when forming the image of the ideal woman? Or do I blank out the typically feminine traits that I don't happen to like?

Dagny certainly was not typical in this sense. She was much more masculine in her business dealings and her competetive nature.

I will concede that generally speaking, a woman will seek a physically strong partner- but how important is that really in terms of a long-term multidecade relationship? Intellect, rationality, wit, sense of life- these are traits worth seeking out for a successful life-long commitment and yet these are traits that one could hardly classify as particularly masculine or feminine.

I think judging the propriety of a romantic relationship based on how well it fits into the hero-worship model is too simplistic, plus it doesn't say much about the male side of romantic love.

[Capitalism Forever]

But, for now, good show gentlemen!

Thanks!

[RationalBiker]

Well most of the women I know (not my wife thankfully) are far more emotional then men tend to be.  Do I take this into account when forming the image of the ideal woman?  Or do I blank out the typically feminine traits that I don't happen to like?

Dagny certainly was not typical in this sense.  She was much more masculine in her business dealings and her competetive nature.

So, is being "emotional" a bad thing in and of itself? Or in an "ideal woman" would you not seek (if you were still looking) a woman who was emotional in a "good" way? Would you prefer a stoic woman? I would say that you probably do (or did) take that into account in that you looked for that expression of "emotional" that you liked.

Dagny was a very emotional woman. That she tempered it with reason and rationality did not change that characteristic. But Hank still offered her that physical strength that she could not match. I don't think Dagny would have sought out a physically weak man even if he had all the other qualities you mentioned.

IF you generally accept woman seek physically stronger partners, and that women are generally more emotional, we are now talking about two characteristics which tend to be gender specific. In my mind these are two very important distinctions between men and women. These are two distinctions that have significant ramifications to their relationships (sexual and otherwise) both short term and long term.

In my observation, men often express feelings vicariously through the emotions of the woman. And more directly, a man will often open up to that one woman shedding pent up emotional tension which "soothes the savage beast".

Intellect, rationality, wit, sense of life- these are traits worth seeking out for a successful life-long commitment and yet these are traits that one could hardly classify as particularly masculine or feminine.

While those traits themselves are not uniquely feminine or masculine, would you agree that they are often expressed differently in either a feminine or masculine manner based on gender?

As an example, wit. Do you not see a significant difference in the manner and delivery of female comedians vs. male comedians? Sense of life - the difference between the manner of delivery of singers, actors, etc.... based on gender? They are demonstrating the same traits, but with uniquely different style and grace significantly affected by their gender (aside from their individuality).

I subscribe somewhat to the idea behind Maslow's Heirachy of Needs. If you look at those needs, I think for women it generally means seeking a man that first provides for physiological and safety needs, and the progesses to the higher qualities which you mentioned. I would certainly agree rationality, intellect, wit and sense of life are important for a long term relationship, but so is strength and the ability to provide and protect. Don't you think a woman would generally seek ALL of those qualities?

VES

[Thoyd Loki]

Quote Capitalism Forever

I recommend that you put some more care into your posting. Lesson #1 to learn is to recognize that not all of your fellow posters are the same person--I see above that you've grasped this. Now you may be ready for lesson #2: Read what you quote before you comment on it!

Thanks for the snotty attitude. But your conclusion is still invalid, as is the descriptions of your man=wealth producer/woman=beauty qua man/woman.

[stephen_speicher]

A man who earns much less than his wife, lives in a house owned by her, drives a car paid for by her money, etc., is a miserable failure and can never really be proud of himself, as to live qua man involves the creation of wealth--material wealth--and by accepting wealth he hasn't earned, he admits that he is incapable of creating wealth himself.

Perhaps there is some context to these remarks that was not provided, but this seems incredibly rationalistic and monumentally wrong. To "live qua man" is to recognize that your own happiness is the moral purpose of your life, and if you value productive work your happiness will measure your success in achieving your values. Since when has "material wealth" been elevated to the status of what it means to "live qua man?" Material wealth is certainly a very nice thing to have, but it is hardly a measure of what a man needs in order to be "proud of himself" and to "live qua man."

What audacity it must take to claim that a man is "a miserable failure" if his productive work does not create nearly as much material wealth as the chosen productive work of his wife, if he then partakes in her greater earnings. When a man and a woman commit to living a lifetime together they usually each share in the material rewards of the other. What is important to them in this regard is their respective love and commitment to their productive work, not who chose a career that could create more material wealth than the other. Ayn Rand certainly did not considered her beloved husband to be "a miserable failure" because he enjoyed the material benefits from Miss Rand's financial success.

But if both the wife and husband are billionaires--remember, we are talking about ideal cases--then it doesn't matter much which of them has more billions; they are both successful.

So to you "success" is measured in how much money you earn rather than the joy and accomplishment of your chosen productive work? If a brilliant teacher earns a relatively modest income, but he happens to be married to a billionaire wife, then he is not successful?

In summary, I would say that if a woman marries a man for his money, that means success for both, but if a man marries a woman for her money, that means failure for both.

I find it hard to believe that these words are coming from you. I have read many interesting and reasonable commentaries you have made on this forum, but I find this incredible. A woman marrying a man for his money means success for both? And a man doing likewise means failure? How can the ridiculous notion of marrying for money be gender dependent and, in one case, lead to "success?"