Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

[stephen_speicher]

Well, but what does "masculinity" mean? And why can't a man worship a woman's "femininity" in the same way?

For me at least the answer to this issue rests on answering questions like these.

First, let's make sure we are clear on the context here. This issue is really more one of psychology (and also sense of life), rather than one of philosophy. It is difficult for many people to understand their own psychology, much less the psychology of another person. And, even for those who are well-aware of their own psychology may have difficulty grasping the psychological issues for a person of a different gender than their own.

I do not presume to speak for Ayn Rand, or talk with authority about her psychology, but here in a nutshell is my understanding of what she has said, written, and revealed over the years. First and foremost Ayn Rand was a man-worshipper, here "man" meaning the species and not just the gender. To man-worship is to hold onto a vision of man at his highest potential, a representation of that which we should struggle to achieve. She once referred to the sense of life dramatized in The Fountainhead as being man-worship, with all the usual religious connotations of exaltation and reverence being applied instead to man.

It is not surprising that the history of civilization has been primarily the story of man, here "man" being the male gender. Man has always been dominant in action, being, in general, taller, faster, and physically stronger. This translates into modern terms, where the female now (rightfully) has a role alongside of the male, and where, as Ayn Rand made clear, the female is the equal of the male both intellectually and morally. But, psychologically, for Ayn Rand, man-worship of the species translates into hero-worship of the male by the woman, in the context of her feminity and her romantic relationship with a man. Where man-worship represents the highest potential for the species, hero-worship recognizes the special metaphysical status of the masculinity which separates a man from a woman. That is the sense on which I believe Ayn Rand revealed her psychology of 'looking up to a man' in the context of romance.

If none of this resonates with you personally, then fine. But if you have read Ayn Rand's major novels and grasped her sense of man-worship, and followed her heroine's dramaticization of hero-worship in their romantic relationships, then, even if you do not agree that that is how life should be, you should at least be able to see that hero-worship of a man by woman is her recognition of the metaphysical status of man as representing the highest potential for her to look up to in romance.

[RationalBiker]

I believe there are more rational options than you or Capitalism Forever believe there to be.

How many do I believe there to be?

VES

[jfortun]

How many do I believe there to be?

VES

17.

[RationalBiker]

17.

And I thought you knew...

VES

[AshRyan]

The context of this discussion is how rational man or woman approaches romantic love, so I am not making statements about what triggers "a woman's" romantic interest in a man, but about what triggers a rational woman's romantic interest in a man. Or, in other words, about what a woman should love a man for.

I guess Frank O'Connor and Ayn Rand weren't rational in regard to their romantic relationship in your view, since their relationship completely went against everything you have said on this matter. After all, Ayn Rand made a ton more money than Frank O'Connor did, and Ms. Rand didn't have most of those allegedly feminine qualities for which you say a rational man should romantically love a woman.

[Capitalism Forever]

Ms. Rand didn't have most of those allegedly feminine qualities for which you say a rational man should romantically love a woman.

I didn't know Miss Rand personally, and I think you didn't either! And you and I were certainly not there during her private moments with her husband. All I know is that she knew a lot about what it means to be feminine and that she had no problem seducing the man of her dreams--so I think it's not unreasonable to suppose that she could be very feminine when she wanted to!

[stephen_speicher]

I didn't know Miss Rand personally ...

Thank you for correcting the "Ms." to a "Miss." I always bristle when I see the modern usage applied to Ayn Rand, who herself would have no part of feminist-inspired language. I think it most proper to show our respect by referring to "Ayn Rand" or "Miss Rand."

I do not even like the unadorned "Rand," which seems a bit harsh and too impersonal. As Allan Gotthelf has pointed out, using "Rand" is a bit like referring to her as any old philosopher, and such unadorned last name usage is often meant to distance the writer from the person mentioned, or at least to reduce the perception of fawning. Allan has no problem declaring his "unabashed admiration of and awe for her mind and thought," just as he did in publication with his wonderful book, On Ayn Rand.

[jfortun]

Thank you for correcting the "Ms." to a "Miss." I always bristle when I see the modern usage applied to Ayn Rand, who herself would have no part of feminist-inspired language. I think it most proper to show our respect by referring to "Ayn Rand" or "Miss Rand."

No disrespect to Ayn Rand was intended but can someone explain to me how Ms. is less respectful than Miss? While it may have associations with the feminist movement the title originally was suggested by business writing organizations before it was coopted. The title itself is merely a feminine form of Mr.- that is it does not indicate marital status. "Miss" indicates a girl or an unmarried woman- Ayn Rand was neither; "Mrs." indicates a married woman but to my knowledge that title has never been used in assocation with her name.

Grammatically, "Ms." is appropriate. Why let the feminists have their way with our words?

Edited to add: If Ayn Rand expressed a preference for Miss I am happy to use it.

[stephen_speicher]

No disrespect to Ayn Rand was intended but can someone explain to me how Ms. is less respectful than Miss?  While it may have associations with the feminist movement the title originally was suggested by business writing organizations before it was coopted.

The title "Ms." rose as a symbol of the feminist movement in the 1960s, with Gloria Steinem and Ms. magazine waving the feminist banner into the following decade. It remains a modern-day symbol of feminism, and just because it has become common usage does not mean we have to accept it. Ayn Rand rejected the feminist movement and all its trappings, and out of respect for Miss Rand we choose not to associate her name with such a defamed symbol.

If Ayn Rand expressed a preference for Miss I am happy to use it.

Ayn Rand rejected the common usage of "Ms." just as she rejected the common usage of "selfish." Every third party reference to Ayn Rand in all of her Objectivist newsletters always referred to "Miss Rand" in announcements, statements, articles, etc. where she was mentioned (except, of course, when referred to as "Ayn Rand"). These references to "Miss Rand" were all done with her approval as editor, and you will never find any "Ms. Rand" reference therein, despite the common usage. Likewise, in OPAR and other books by those who knew Miss Rand, the reference is always to "Miss Rand," as per her wishes.

[AshRyan]

I didn't know Miss Rand personally, and I think you didn't either! And you and I were certainly not there during her private moments with her husband. All I know is that she knew a lot about what it means to be feminine and that she had no problem seducing the man of her dreams--so I think it's not unreasonable to suppose that she could be very feminine when she wanted to!

Please forgive the grammatical error.

No, I didn't know Miss Rand and her husband personally, but enough evidence can be gleaned from sources about her personal life such as Michael Paxton's documentary Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life to tell that their romantic relationship bore no resemblance to your ideas about what is proper in such a context to the rational man and woman. Of course I think she could be feminine when she wanted to be--I just disagree that the essence of femininity has anything to do with most of the attributes you listed.

[stephen_speicher]

Of course I think she could be feminine when she wanted to be ...

This strikes me as a rather odd statement. Would you say: "Of course I think that John Galt could be masculine when he wanted to be?" That doesn't have quite the right ring to it, does it? As Ayn Rand noted in her "An Answer To Readers (About A Woman President)," the hero-worship of a truly feminine woman is only fully experienced for the man she loves, but the essence of her feminity "colors her attitude toward all men." For Ayn Rand, a feminine woman "never loses the awareness of her own sexual identity and theirs."

So, rather than thinking that Miss Rand "could be feminine when she wanted to be," Miss Rand appears to have thought that her feminity was omnipresent and its expression was a matter of degree.

[AshRyan]

Yes, you're right, that was a bad way of putting it.

[Thoyd Loki]

Except that I don't think there is a dichotomy between the qualities I mentioned and the qualities you mentioned. Beauty, grace, loveliness, and charm require intellect, wit, and a good sense of life!

I have a few questions with this. What is the difference between beauty and lovliness? Why do these two have anything to do with any sort of acheivement or intellect, wit, or even a good sense of life? There are plenty of women out there blessed with their mother's genes that possess neither intellect, wit nor a good sense of life. The same goes for men.

Loveliness: quality of being lovely, exquisite beauty.

Root Lovely: Loving, kind, affectionate. 2. Worthy of love; suited to attract love; spiritually or morally beautiful. 3. Lovable or attractive on account of beauty

Grace. You mean grace of movement? Are we talking about a grace of refinement, of manners? Grace as in elegant proportions? A graceful body? If this last, then we can just toss it in with beauty and lovliness, and we'll just say beauty.

Charm: A quality or feature exciting love or admiration; attractiveness; the undefinable power of delighting; sexual attractiveness.

Charm is actually a bad concept, it is close to magic in meaning, usage and intention. It is empty.

What you have described is characters from English costume dramas. This "woman" is a huge floating abstract in reality. And none of the qualities require wit, intellect (maybe to a normal level, she can't be retarded), nor, especially a good sense of life.

Have you ever heard of the cunning of a cold hearted woman? She has the attributes you named; it is called her web.

[Capitalism Forever]

No, I didn't know Miss Rand and her husband personally, but enough evidence can be gleaned from sources about her personal life such as Michael Paxton's documentary Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life to tell that their romantic relationship bore no resemblance to your ideas about what is proper in such a context to the rational man and woman.

I haven't seen that documentary, so unfortunately I cannot comment on that. Could I ask you to summarize what it said about their relationship?

Of course I think she could be feminine when she wanted to be--I just disagree that the essence of femininity has anything to do with most of the attributes you listed.

I didn't propose those attributes as the essence of femininity! They are signs of femininity, and the value of femininity to a man.

[Capitalism Forever]

As Ayn Rand noted in her "An Answer To Readers (About A Woman President)," the hero-worship of a truly feminine woman is only fully experienced for the man she loves, but the essence of her feminity "colors her attitude toward all men."

Which was certainly true of Miss Rand--after all, she described the essence of femininity as "hero-worship" and the essence of her philosophy as "the concept of man as a heroic being." Thus, her femininity did indeed color her entire professional career!

[stephen_speicher]

Which was certainly true of Miss Rand--after all, she described the essence of femininity as "hero-worship" and the essence of her philosophy as "the concept of man as a heroic being." Thus, her femininity did indeed color her entire professional career!

You are conflating two different things. I take Ayn Rand as saying that the hero-worship of a truly feminine woman is directed towards a man (male gender), whereas "man as a heroic being" is directed towards the species man.

[Capitalism Forever]

I have a few questions with this. What is the difference between beauty and lovliness?

[...]

Loveliness: quality of being lovely, exquisite beauty.

Root Lovely: Loving, kind, affectionate. 2. Worthy of love; suited to attract love; spiritually or morally beautiful.  3. Lovable or attractive on account of beauty

LOL Come on, don't tell me you need a dictionary to know what "lovely" means! If you never saw a girl and thought she was lovely, you need to go out more!

Why do these two have anything to do with any sort of acheivement or intellect, wit, or even a good sense of life? There are plenty of women out there blessed with their mother's genes that possess neither intellect, wit nor a good sense of life.

Genes do not a beauty make! A woman's body is just the raw material; it is up to her what she turns it into. Her hairstyle, her clothes, her jewelry, her gait, her way of talking, and so on are all things she chooses. Not to mention the emotions expressed on her face and in her eyes! All of these things are a reflection of her sense of life and her values--and she needs to be rational in order to have rational values.

[Capitalism Forever]

You are conflating two different things. I take Ayn Rand as saying that the hero-worship of a truly feminine woman is directed towards a man (male gender), whereas "man as a heroic being" is directed towards the species man.

But both stem out of an admiration for heroism, don't they?

[Thoyd Loki]

LOL Come on, don't tell me you need a dictionary to know what "lovely" means! If you never saw a girl and thought she was lovely, you need to go out more!

Genes do not a beauty make! A woman's body is just the raw material; it is up to her what she turns it into. Her hairstyle, her clothes, her jewelry, her gait, her way of talking, and so on are all things she chooses. Not to mention the emotions expressed on her face and in her eyes! All of these things are a reflection of her sense of life and her values--and she needs to be rational in order to have rational values.

Evidently I do to show you that most of the traits you named were narrowly synonyms. The only one that wasn't was the vague "charm" which is something around meaning the ability to attract. Or to cast spells which is used in a mystical/love connotation.

All the graceful walking, diamonds, and tailored hair in the world won't turn ugliness into beauty (without the man drinking lot's of alcohol that is). Why can I not tell a woman's values from what she says (maybe not even how she says it) and the actions she takes?

What am I to grasp from a woman (let's says she is naturally beautiful-there is such a thing) that comes out of a post office, no jewelry, t-shirt and jeans, and then because she didn't take walking classes has a "wide gait!" she slips and falls flat on her ass, and says "sh**" and gets back up to her "pick-up truck!".

What is the sense of life difference between a woman that has short hair with bangs, and one that likes it long with a pony-tail? Now, if you are saying that your distinction was between one that keeps her hair neat and clean, and one that lets bugs breed in it, then you brought up a non-point.

What is the difference in values between a woman that likes to wear nice sparkling jewelry and one that does not like to wear any at all? And I mean values that actually matter. Will this give you an indication of intellect? Of wit? Charm? Philosophic compatability with yourself?

What if one is a sophisticated city woman, but the other is a rough tomboy from the woods of Wisconsin? Would the city girl be the better in values and sense of life?

You always bring up at the end rationality or intellect, but it never seems to be part of the original inventory. You bring up these non-essentials like beauty, grace, charm, lovliness, dress, hair, jewlelry, gait(!), speech, and then say, "Oh, she has to be rational to have these." When the point is she doesn't have to be rational to have them either! Ever seen Hitler's mustache not severly neatly trimmed? Well, what am I to make of that!

[stephen_speicher]

But both stem out of an admiration for heroism, don't they?

You are missing the point. You concluded from what I said:"Thus, her femininity did indeed color her entire professional career!", but the distinction I made was between a philosophical view pertaining to humanity as such, and a psychological expression of her feminity in relation to men.

[Capitalism Forever]

Evidently I do to show you that most of the traits you named were narrowly synonyms.

Yes, they have greatly overlapping meanings. But that doesn't detract from my point.

The only one that wasn't was the vague "charm" which is something around meaning the ability to attract. Or to cast spells which is used in a mystical/love connotation.

The word I used was not "charm" but "charming" and its meaning has nothing to do with mysticism whatsoever.

All the graceful walking, diamonds, and tailored hair in the world won't turn ugliness into beauty

So where do you think ugliness comes from? Is a woman born ugly and destined to stay so all her life? Do her genes predetermine her to wear ugly clothes, have an ugly hairstyle, and put an ugly sneer onto her face? If not, then why is an ugly woman ugly?

Why can I not tell a woman's values from what she says (maybe not even how she says it)

You can tell her purported values from what she says, but you cannot tell her virtues. Specifically, you cannot tell if she has the integrity to act consistently on her values.

and the actions she takes?

Is putting on an earring not an action?

What am I to grasp from a woman [...]

What do you mean by "What am I to grasp" ?

What is the sense of life difference between a woman that has short hair with bangs, and one that likes it long with a pony-tail? Now, if you are saying that your distinction was between one that keeps her hair neat and clean, and one that lets bugs breed in it, then you brought up a non-point.

Non-point because ____ ?

What is the difference in values between a woman that likes to wear nice sparkling jewelry and one that does not like to wear any at all? And I mean values that actually matter. Will this give you an indication of intellect? Of wit? Charm? Philosophic compatability with yourself?

It is an indication that one of them values wearing jewelry and the other doesn't. Alone, this information doesn't mean much. But when you combine it with the myriad of other signs you see, you will be able to form a picture of their respective value hierarchies and tell how rational they are.

[jfortun]

I think this needs to be moved to a separate thread but I will comment anyway:

Outward beauty has very little to do with inward beauty. I will agree that a person with self-esteem will prevent themselves from becoming a train-wreck, but that does not mean they seek a glamorous look. That's as far as the relationship between values and beauty go.

I know far too many people (women and men) who look great on the outside but crumble when you break the surface. Except in extreme circumstances looking at someone will tell you virtually nothing about their values.

[Thoyd Loki]

quote=Capitalism Forever,Sep 14 2004, 06:50 AM]

Yes, they have greatly overlapping meanings. But that doesn't detract from my point.

It still means that your concept of a woman is pretty empty, and still just a "pretty face".

QUOTE(Thoyd Loki @ Sep 13 2004, 10:50 PM)

The only one that wasn't was the vague "charm" which is something around meaning the ability to attract. Or to cast spells which is used in a mystical/love connotation.

The word I used was not "charm" but "charming" and its meaning has nothing to do with mysticism whatsoever.

You attacked the inessential in my comment, that was offered in a different sentence as the alternative use of charm or charming. The fact is that "charm" or "charming" is a vague concept that adds little to your already slight woman.

So where do you think ugliness comes from? Is a woman born ugly and destined to stay so all her life? Do her genes predetermine her to wear ugly clothes, have an ugly hairstyle, and put an ugly sneer onto her face? If not, then why is an ugly woman ugly?

Yeah, usually the ugly stay ugly, the beautiful, beautiful. I am not talking about what a person is here but just their looks-naked looks. I will repeat again, not all the add-ons in the world will turn the ugly into the beautiful, although the opposite is not true. The beautiful can become ugly by: physical abuse (crack et all), a sneer, bad hair (has to be pretty bad) etc. You put Janet Reno in the best of everything, that is still one huge ugly hound!

Let's be blunt here. Let's say you meet a woman who loves Ayn Rand and to the best of your knowledge has the requisite Objectivist views and is highly rational, in character, she seems to have it all for you. She also dresses impeccably, wears the finest jewelry, add has the best hairstylist on (some fancy New York street), and she smiles all the time.

But, there is one problem. She is 5'2", 250 lbs (because of a thyroid condition or something). She also has an intestinal problem that causes thunderous flatulence every time she brings pressure to her abdomen area. One of her eyes wander so one of them is never looking at you. Her nose is bigger than Jamie Farr's and veers sharply to the right in opposition to her wandering eye that looks periphially left causing one that looks at her to become cross-eyed. She has size twelve feet. And, due to a glandular disease (coupled with a allergy to soap and deoderants) she has quite the body odor. And she has hip dysplasia(sp?), so her gait is awful.

(This is only partly fiction, I added a few more ailments and any sense of rationality to my sister-in-law, truly a hideous specimen).

She is simply an ugly woman. She does her best in action to better her "beauty", but she is just physically ugly. Yet you seem not to understand this. So, should you pursue such a woman?

You can tell her purported values from what she says, but you cannot tell her virtues. Specifically, you cannot tell if she has the integrity to act consistently on her values.

You can tell her virtues by her actions. That I stated in the same sentence as values that you split up and answered here as if I did not say it. This is my original sentence below.

Quote Thoyd Loki

Why can I not tell a woman's values from what she says (maybe not even how she says it) and the actions she takes?

You cannot sever the facts in reality, that is why I did not sever them in my sentence as you did which means you misquoted me.

Is putting on an earring not an action?

Yes! But it is a non-essential. Erring tell you nothing about the morality of a person. What information does that give you? You think you can use errings as a criteria for a mate?

What do you mean by "What am I to grasp" ?

What am I to infer about her. What can I conclude about her character?

Non-point because ____ ?

Because we are not discussing what the last drunk guy at the bar won't take home at closing. That one washes her hair regularly, and has it neat, is essentially different than the one that let's bugs breed in it. But all the others are optional choices that tells you nothing about her character. And we know we are not talking about the latter.

It is an indication that one of them values wearing jewelry and the other doesn't. Alone, this information doesn't mean much. But when you combine it with the myriad of other signs you see, you will be able to form a picture of their respective value hierarchies and tell how rational they are.

So, one does, and one does not. Even when you know everything you can reasonably know it still tells you nothing. Tell me, which one is the rational one? The one that does wear it or the one that does not? Does the one that does not, also mean that she doesn't wash her feet or what? Jewelry will never gove you an indication of rationality or the lack of, no matter what the other evidence.

[Godless Capitalist]

I agree with jfortun's comments over the last few pages. On a personal note, my wife and I also do not have a leader/follower relationship. Several people seem to be arguing that the man should be the leader because that's the traditional or common situation, which is not a rational argument.

If none of this resonates with you personally, then fine. But if you have read Ayn Rand's major novels and grasped her sense of man-worship, and followed her heroine's dramaticization of hero-worship in their romantic relationships, then, even if you do not agree that that is how life should be, you should at least be able to see that hero-worship of a man by woman is her recognition of the metaphysical status of man as representing the highest potential for her to look up to in romance.

Yes, I have read the novels and I think I grasp the concept of hero-worship. But I think it can apply both to men and women (as it would seem Ayn Rand did as well). What I do not see is why male heroism should be substantially different from female heroism (except sometimes in the case of pure physical strength, which is rarely of much relevance). Why can't two men or two women admire each other's herioc qualities and be romantically attracted to each other because of them?

[stephen_speicher]

Yes, I have read the novels and I think I grasp the concept of hero-worship. But I think it can apply both to men and women (as it would seem Ayn Rand did as well). What I do not see is why male heroism should be substantially different from female heroism (except sometimes in the case of pure physical strength, which is rarely of much relevance). Why can't two men or two women admire each other's herioc qualities and be romantically attracted to each other because of them?

Whether or not, or in what way, Ayn Rand's view of feminity and masculinity could apply to homosexual relationships is a separate issue from the one which we started discussing more than a week ago. My main purpose in discussing this issue with you was not and is not to convince you of the rightness of Ayn Rand's view, but rather to clarify the statements you have made about what her view is.

As I hope I have made clear in my several prior posts, Miss Rand emphatically acknowledged that there is no asymmetry in regard to intellect and morality between a man and a woman. But I think that she held man (masculinity) as the proper symbol of the species as recognition and acknowledgment of the clear metaphysical disinctions between man and woman. In general, man is stronger, taller, and faster than woman. Based on my understanding of what she has written, this metaphysical distinction had profound psychological significance on the proper romantic role of a man and woman. One sees in her characters that man is the pursuer and woman is the pursued. It is woman who is conquered by and surrenders to a man. The man (predominantly) is the initiator of sex and (predominantly) is the one in control.

Note this passage from Atlas Shrugged in reference to Dagny and Francisco.

"She wore slacks or cotton summer dresses, yet she was never so feminine as when she stood beside him, sagging in his arms, abandoning herself to anything he wished, in open acknowledgment of his power to reduce her to helplessness by the pleasure he had the power to give her."

Can you see Francisco or John Galt "never feeling so masculine as when he stood beside her?" Or Galt "sagging in her arms?" I hope not, but even if you do, my purpose is not to convince you but rather to make clear my understanding of Ayn Rand's view of feminity and from whence it derives. You are free to disagree with her view, but we should at least agree on our understanding of what her view is.