Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

CF: Touche! lol My point was just that the the experience of actually being married is somewhat different from the romantic fantasies people sometimes have. (not that there is anything wrong with romance!)

BD: I think my answer is clear. I agree with Shane; who earns what and pays for what really doesn't matter much.

I find it interesting that CF and BD are both from outside the US. Is it possible that your "traditional" attitudes on this issue (and Ayn Rand's as well) have little to do with Objectivism and much more to do with the societies and families in which you were raised?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Meanwhile, those who have not taken this little 'poll' (and are willing to) could still do so now (before we get lost in the maze of the debate), please? Hunterrose? LaVache? Q? RC? (Styles and GC, i would have preferred you answered the hypothetical question as it is. Thanks. And oh, perhaps you could be kind enough to also ask your good wives the same question - exactly as it is in the hypothetical situation - just when you are getting married? that would be really helpful.)

:sorcerer:

What do you mean "as it is?" I did answer it as it is, and even added a true to life scenario. Are you asking for us to answer without contextual concern?

Also, as far as my wife is concerned, my vote can count for two. She thinks the same way.

Another point I wanted to add was that while in college, and we were dating she paid for most of our trips and meals. She was working for a "well off" family and I only had the reserves for money. She made SIGNIFICANTLY more money than me. I felt bad, at times, because I could not afford to give her more, however when expressed she was taken aback because the whole idea of us going out was not about WHO paid, but about the TIME we spent together. WHO CARES WHO PAID? And suddenly, I didn't anymore. She made more money. Not a problem, and a year and a half later we're married.

If you would, blackdiamond, answer my question...how can you limit romantic love to how much money either party makes, and expect to derive some kind of morality judgement from that? There is MUCH, MUCH, much more to love and relationships than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's contradictory for you to call yourself 'rational and independent' - your answer in my poll - and to then virtually attribute your behaviour and values to social pressures, even to the slightest degree.

I did not attribute my behavior to social pressure. I asked to what degree the behavior of the woman you were referring to

But a woman ... would not need any such strong qualifier before she feels comfortable with this kind of situation. In fact, she would proudly tell her family, friends, everyone, about this situation - whether or not she is absolutely 'smitten'.
was a direct effect of her biology separate from social pressure.

Social pressures can be right or wrong, but it's never appropriate to follow them. If they're right, you follow the objective rationale behind them, and if they're wrong, you shuck them of. There is a great deal of social pressure in this country (US) for men and women to behave in certain ways, and from what you've said about Zambia, it seems there are also similar pressures there.

i don't know any man in my country who would without wanting the fact to be hidden
(Now from that quote, the pressure seems to be that men should avoid the appearence of being dependent on a woman, but I don't think that's the point you were trying to make.) Is there any rational basis for these social pressures? If so, let's find out what it is, so we can dispense with them.

I really would like to ask rational women a number of other questions, like: do you actually feel so pressured by society into beautifying yourself and spending so much time in the mirror that if you had your way you would certainly stop doing this
This would be an interesting question to ask, though I would probably ask it this way: "How much time do you spend in front of a mirror? Why?" and let her answer in her own words. Your second question also uses some 'loaded words,' but that's okay, I'll work around.
Do you wish you were in a society where they did not (irrationally?) expect you to be "the man" - the strong one, the security provider, etc - in your relationship? Do you wish for "freedom" from the pressures of society?
Emphasis mine.

Wishing won't make it so, so rational people don't tend to wish (they act instead), and a rational society doesn't expect anything from anyone except a respect for individual rights, so perhaps we should ask "Do you choose only relationships wherein you are the primary breadwinner? Why or why not?" Again, letting him answer in his own words.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. are you a man? 2. are you a rational (and independent) person? (I think you are). 3. would you be proud (and happy) to be the man in my 'couple 2' example?
Since you seem to be fond of asking questions without the appropriate context: Yes, yes and yes.

Secondly, observe that you end that statement with "i imagine i would be smitten". You are trying to say, i think, that your love for her has to be so strong ("swept off my feet", "smitten") that you would not mind this situation (or else there would have been no need to add that last sentence, especially after already saying "swept off my feet"). But a woman (rational or not), i believe, would not need any such strong qualifier before she feels comfortable with this kind of situation. In fact, she would proudly tell her family, friends, everyone, about this situation - whether or not she is absolutely 'smitten'. But would you? (without being 'swept off your feet' and 'smitten' into a comfortable state? interestingly, they say love is a 'drug'! Hm.)
The statement I emphasized brings up an interesting question: Do you believe a rational woman would marry anybody if she was not in love with them? Your statement suggests that she would.

I will repeat my answer and make it explicit: I would be perfectly comfortable marrying a woman who made more money than me, but only if I loved her. Now that I have read your question several times, why don't you look through my answers again. You will find that all of my statements in response to your questions address them as you've asked them.

I know you don't like being accused of evasion, so i won't do it now!
Aha! But you have. Until now I have refrained from accusing you of evasion.

You continue to develop hypothetical situations stripped of the appropriate context, ask questions based on these fantasies, then evade the honest answers you receive. A more productive avenue would be to answer my question: Why can't femininity be the object of a woman's hero worship, and why can't masculinity be the object of a man's? This is the third time I have asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit that i find these discussions quite stimulating in many ways; that in itself is a value worth the time spent on this fat forum!
Agreed.

How would you feel if you were in the situation described above - and what would you think?
After thinking it through a bit, I wouldn't particularly like to be the man in the situation presented.

While I doubt there will be many ladies to weigh in on this, I'd imagine they might be more receptive than I am to being taken care of in the exampled situation.

Since the subjects of my research would be rational, independent people, would i be wrong to conclude from this [assuming the answers are as i expect] that it is not just "common irrationality" that determines these different behaviours? would i be wrong to conclude that it is not just "cultural pressures enforcing differing ideals on young girls and boys" that determine such differences between men and women?
I'll grant that a questioning of rational people might present what is likely an answer. But even the rational person(s) can err.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. I was trying to limit the question to the wedding scenario and the stage where you are planning marriage, settling etc. The reason is that after years of marriage, other issues might affect how you feel about this - eg. her company might just suddenly promote her, etc and you would perhaps also recognise that a major part of her success might be because of the support/motivation you have given her, and so on. This is why i wanted to limit it to that period before you actually do get married: how you would feel about getting married to this rich woman when you are not quite in her league (not just a few hundred bucks different).

And my question was just trying to gather the 'feelings' of both sides, ie to compare the (rational) men's to the (ratioanl) women's feelings about such a situation.

Frank O'Connor, (Mark's example): i do not know too much about him - and neither do i know if this was the situation AT THE TIME they planned to marry or indeed at the time of their wedding. Did he meet a rich woman while he was a poor man? In fact, O'Connor probably exemplifies what i am saying here and why i limited my question to pre-marriage feelings: years on, the wife became a bestselling author, but as she herself confessed, his support in this process was most invaluable. This is why i wouldn't ask O'Connor how he would feel about his situation post-atlas shrugged, etc. (I would want him to stick to my hypothetical situation 'as it is').

Notice also that this is not a question of whether your wife makes MORE money than you, and neither is it a question of whether you are completely dependent on her. My question was simply about how you would feel (pre-marriage) with the prospect of your lifestyle being highly elevated to a level where you would not sustain it without her, but she would hers without you; not that you would die without her - but you would certainly not have this new lifestyle that you now value and greatly enjoy, without her.

Perhaps the reason i keep asking it is because i can not believe my eyes! Culture shock, indeed!

[Hunterrose, on the other hand - your answer is not shocking; it is perfect :thumbsup: . Are you in the US, though? GC might have a point about me and CF being outside America, although he confirms some of the criticism that Americans get from many non-Americans from the way he states his observation: essentially "if you are not like us, it is your traditions that are wrong". It does not occur to him that it might just be something wrong in modern American culture and not the rest of the world's "traditions" as such.]

STYLES: If you would, blackdiamond, answer my question...how can you limit romantic love to how much money either party makes, and expect to derive some kind of morality judgement from that? There is MUCH, MUCH, much more to love and relationships than that.
Styles, i am not limiting romantic love to the issue of money. An example can isolate only one thing because it is demonstrating that there is a difference between the two genders in at least some of their values in romantic relationships (and then we can proceed to investigating the source of that difference, whether "common irrationality" or their different "natures." From there we can proceed to address the question of morality, not directly from the money issue.). The example could have been on another aspect completely - if it could also achieve the purpose of demonstrating this difference. Are we okay now?

STYLES: She made SIGNIFICANTLY more money than me. I felt bad, at times, because I could not afford to give her more, however when expressed she was taken aback because the whole idea of us going out was not about WHO paid, but about the TIME we spent together.

This is the kind of answer i was looking for. I simply want to find out if the woman would also have felt as bad as you felt (pre-marriage, as your confession beautifully shows) if you were the one paying, and whether this bad feeling you had was just an irrational feeling or it was something that is connected to reality. It seems that your feeling changed only when she assured you that she was okay with it. She misled you! :lol:

(See GC, even American men do feel bad "at times". I wonder if it is not some kind of rationalising -or reassurances from their women - that makes them get comfortable with a wrong situation?).

Featherfall: The statement I emphasized brings up an interesting question: Do you believe a rational woman would marry anybody if she was not in love with them? Your statement suggests that she would.

I will repeat my answer and make it explicit: I would be perfectly comfortable marrying a woman who made more money than me, but only if I loved her.

Featherfall, featherfall. It was you who emphasised that you had to be "swept off your feet" (and) "smitten", for you to be comfortable with that situation. If you believe a rational person can not marry a person they are not in love with, and you have informed us from the poll that you are a rational person, why would you still emphasise that you would have to be (really) in love with the woman you are marrying - if it is not as a buffer to your emotions in the (otherwise uncomfortable) situation described? Is it just to inform us that every rational person should be in love with the person they want to marry (as you now want to indicate)? is that why you said "i imagine i would be smitten"? Are you sure i am the one evading the "honest" responses i am receiving? Do you think anyone reading this will get that idea?

[And no: You have neither "repeated" your answer nor "made it explicit": you have changed it and made it less explicit].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GC might have a point about me and CF being outside America

Godless is from outside America himself: he's a Canadian. (And now lives in Washington, D.C., which is even less American!)

although he confirms some of the criticism that Americans get from many non-Americans from the way he states his observation: essentially "if you are not like us, it is your traditions that are wrong".

I think that's actually true in most cases: the American way is usually right, and the "European" or whatever other way that the Left admires is wrong. Of course, it isn't necessarily so in every case, but the approach to femininity and masculinity is no exception: the ideals represented by John Wayne and Marilyn Monroe are the traditional American way, and Johnny Depp and his ilk are the un-American ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Styles, i am not limiting romantic love to the issue of money. An example can isolate only one thing because it is demonstrating that there is a difference between the two genders in at least some of their values in romantic relationships (and then we can proceed to investigating the source of that difference, whether "common irrationality" or their different "natures." From there we can proceed to address the question of morality, not directly from the money issue.). The example could have been on another aspect completely - if it could also achieve the purpose of demonstrating this difference. Are we okay now?

.

My point is, you cannot ISOLATE one period in time (ESPECIALLY in a relationship) without taking into account the points that led you there. Again, situations without context. You are trying to set up a strawman.

This is the kind of answer i was looking for. I simply want to find out if the woman would also have felt as bad as you felt (pre-marriage, as your confession beautifully shows) if you were the one paying, and whether this bad feeling you had was just an irrational feeling or it was something that is connected to reality. It seems that your feeling changed only when she assured you that she was okay with it. She misled you! :)

You're misreading me. MY irrationality was pointed out, I saw that (using MY own reason) and corrected it. There was no misleading. Please don't put words into my mouth or make the wrong interpretation from my words.

As an extra point, it would not have been different if the roles had been reversed. My wife is a proud woman who expects to make it on her own. It seems like what you are tying to ask or assert is whether a woman is okay with being dependant on a man vs. a man being dependant on a woman. However, I think the point we are trying to make in return is that in a Rational relationship there is no "dependance" regardless of who makes more money or by how much. I do/did not LOVE my girlfriend/fiance'/wife because she made more than me....I love her because of our shared values and shared experiences.

Edited by Styles2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is exactly that for a woman, seducing a millionaire IS making it on her own, while the same cannot be said about a man.

Ahhh...I see where we disagree now.

So, a woman's role is to be a sex object? Not a mind of her own?

Edited by Styles2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would there be a dichotomy between being a sex object and "a mind of your own" ? In fact, the only way a woman can become a sex object attractive to rational men is through the use of her mind.

I'll rephrase the question then. You feel that a woman's mind should be utilized so that she may become a sex object? Or that the primary focus of her productivity is to be noticed by a "rational man?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is exactly that for a woman, seducing a millionaire IS making it on her own, while the same cannot be said about a man.

1) Seducing a millionaire alone? Or seducing a man to whom she is attracted for many reasons, including his productive ability? The former ('golddigging') would clearly be immoral, because it places value in wealth, not in the means of producing wealth. I'll assume you mean the latter.

2) Why can the same not be said about a man?

3) I don't think any rational person, male or female, would want to be in a relationship with someone who required of them value incommensurate with the degree of value returned; it's pity motivated charity. But if one party provides wealth and success in exchange for admiration and support and encouragement, this is a fair trade. There's no reason such a fair trade between a successful woman and a supportive man would be immoral - they're trading value for value on mutually agreed upon and mutually beneficial terms. Nor is there any reason both parties cannot offer both success and support, where both have careers. Only if one party was significantly less able to offer success (or support) would it not make sense for that party to engage in providing success (or support). So if all women, by virtue of their anatomy are less able to provide success to a relationship than men are by virtue of their anatomy (or if men are less able to provide support to a relationship than women are, again by virtue of anatomy), then it would be appropriate to say that it is irrational for a (general) woman to provide success and a (general) man to provide support. So either prove that a woman's anatomy makes her a less competant provider of success and wealth (or that a man's anatomy makes him a less competant provider of admiration, support and encouragement), or show another reason why we shouldn't evaluate a relationship based on the individual talents of the parties to it.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blackdiamond, if you are going to solicit the opinions of those in this forum, please don't cherry-pick from the responses.

Featherfall, featherfall. It was you who emphasised that you had to be "swept off your feet" (and) "smitten", for you to be comfortable with that situation. If you believe a rational person can not marry a person they are not in love with, and you have informed us from the poll that you are a rational person, why would you still emphasise that you would have to be (really) in love with the woman you are marrying - if it is not as a buffer to your emotions in the (otherwise uncomfortable) situation described? Is it just to inform us that every rational person should be in love with the person they want to marry (as you now want to indicate)? is that why you said "i imagine i would be smitten"? Are you sure i am the one evading the "honest" responses i am receiving? Do you think anyone reading this will get that idea?
I emphasized the fact that I would only marry someone I was in love with because your question omitted the notion of love, along with many other necessary conditions of a healthy marriage. Your attempts to guess at my emotional state amount to psychologizing. If you believe my responses to your question are evidence of immorality on my part, it is up to you to show how my values are anti-life.

[And no: You have neither "repeated" your answer nor "made it explicit": you have changed it and made it less explicit].
You are free to retract this statement or support it, although I don't suspect you will do the latter. You have consistently dodged opportunities to draw logical connections between the facts and your assertions. With each post you give me more evidence to conclude that you are without intellectual honesty.

Because I have asked the question regarding the object of hero worship three times, in three different ways, I have to conclude that you are unwilling to answer it, or incapable. I will ignore your further posts in this thread unless you decide to address my question or introduce your 'new idea'. If you choose to do either, please PM me.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You feel that a woman's mind should be utilized so that she may become a sex object? Or that the primary focus of her productivity is to be noticed by a "rational man?"

Perhaps not (always) the primary focus, but certainly one of the main focuses. Without the scare quotes around "rational man," that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's actually true in most cases: the American way is usually right, and the "European" or whatever other way that the Left admires is wrong. Of course, it isn't necessarily so in every case, but the approach to femininity and masculinity is no exception: the ideals represented by John Wayne and Marilyn Monroe are the traditional American way, and Johnny Depp and his ilk are the un-American ones.

Indeed. Hence my insertion of the term "modern" (as opposed to "traditional") in this last sentence (emphasis added):

Blackdiamond: It does not occur to him that it might just be something wrong in modern American culture and not the rest of the world's "traditions" as such.

Otherwise, i love America "qua" America!

Styles: You're misreading me. MY irrationality was pointed out, I saw that (using MY own reason) and corrected it. There was no misleading. Please don't put words into my mouth or make the wrong interpretation from my words.
Styles, i am not misreading you and i am not putting words into your mouth: these are words in my own mouth :P . I did not say that you did not think before making your decision (how could i insult you like that, Styles). I know you did think, but it was after she pointed out that "the important thing is the time we spend together and not who pays", or words to that effect. You say that this statement from her pointed out your irrationality. Forgive me, but I simply can't see how it did that, and it is the purpose of this (stage of the) discussion to establish if indeed you were being irrational or not, qua man. Perhaps you could tell us how her statement logically established your irrationality and we can move on. "Pointing out" your irrationality does not mean just stating her opinion.

Styles: As an extra point, it would not have been different if the roles had been reversed. My wife is a proud woman who expects to make it on her own.

Ah, so what you are now telling us is that your wife would only see this irrationality when it's in another person (like you), and yet she is the same herself? So, it appears the argument she gave you was only because she was not the one in the "reversed" role - she doesn't actually believe that "it doesn't matter who pays, it's the time spent together"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Seducing a millionaire alone? Or seducing a man to whom she is attracted for many reasons, including his productive ability? The former ('golddigging') would clearly be immoral, because it places value in wealth, not in the means of producing wealth. I'll assume you mean the latter.

You assume correctly. :P

2) Why can the same not be said about a man?

Because the creation of material wealth ($$$) is one of the key masculine virtues. A rational man wouldn't seek a masculine virtue in his wife, but rather practice that virtue himself.

3) I don't think any rational person, male or female, would want to be in a relationship with someone who required of them value incommensurate with the degree of value returned; it's pity motivated charity.

I agree.

But if one party provides wealth and success in exchange for admiration and support and encouragement, this is a fair trade.

If she is already successful, why would she need support and encouragement? :lol:

None of the partners in my "dream couple" has any use for such hand-holding. We have a self-confident millionaire married to a self-confidently beautiful girl. He could be wealthy without her, and she could be beautiful without him; it's just that they enjoy living together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the creation of material wealth ($$$) is one of the key masculine virtues. A rational man wouldn't seek a masculine virtue in his wife, but rather practice that virtue himself.
Production is a virtue; the creation of material wealth is just one example of production. But production is a virtue for both men and women. Why do you say it is a key masculine virtue? Why don't you think it is a key virtue for women?

None of the partners in my "dream couple" has any use for such hand-holding. We have a self-confident millionaire married to a self-confidently beautiful girl. He could be wealthy without her, and she could be beautiful without him; it's just that they enjoy living together.
Do you think it would be immoral for a productive woman to be married to a good looking man? If so, why?

Would you like to share any thoughts on the notion of femininity being the object of a woman's hero worship or masculinity being the object of a man's? You are currently one of the few active posters who supports the position that homosexuality is immoral, and this question is one that your camp has yet to address.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you believe my responses to your question are evidence of immorality on my part, it is up to you to show how my values are anti-life.

No, i never went that far, FeatherFall. Calm down.

You are free to retract this statement or support it, although I don't suspect you will do the latter.

I will.

Your first answer was this:

But if a beautiful, rich, rational woman swept me off of my feet, I would marry her and allow her to cover the expenses. I imagine I would be smitten.
and then in your next post, you said:

I will repeat my answer and make it explicit: I would be perfectly comfortable marrying a woman who made more money than me, but only if I loved her.

My charge was that you did not merely repeat your answer (and made it more explicit), but you changed it and made it less explicit. I find the expression "but only if i loved her" to be less explicit than "swept off my feet" and "i imagine i would be smitten", which sound more explicit in describing the emotional state you would have to be in. I pointed out that saying "i imagine i would be smitten" after already saying "swept off my feet" would appear that you are making a strong emphasis on the level or degree of love (or feeling) that would make you feel comfortable with this situation. It does not appear to me that this double emphasis was merely because i had left out the aspect of love and other things that go into marriage in my question.

I honestly do not see how this reveals that I am "without intellectual honesty."

And ...

FeatherFall: Because I have asked the question regarding the object of hero worship three times, in three different ways, I have to conclude that you are unwilling to answer it, or incapable. I will ignore your further posts in this thread unless you decide to address my question or introduce your 'new idea'. If you choose to do either, please PM me.

... And neither do i exactly understand why you would like to hear the 'new idea' of someone who is so thoroughly devoid of any intellectual honesty, or indeed to see how he addresses your three-way question (or is this - failure to understand - just more evidence of my complete intellectual dishonesty? :P ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the creation of material wealth ($$$) is one of the key masculine virtues. A rational man wouldn't seek a masculine virtue in his wife, but rather practice that virtue himself.

There are two enthymemes between your first sentance here and your second. The two missing premises which must be true in order for the conclusion to follow are:

1) Men should behave in an exclusively masculine way, and

2) There exist exclusively masculine virtues.

Neither of these are self-evidently true. Nothing of rational human behavior is self-evidently true, since rational people's behavior is motivated by reason - there's a reason rational people behave certain ways and form certain values. So what is the reasoning behind these two premises?

If she is already successful, why would she need support and encouragement?

...

None of the partners in my "dream couple" has any use for such hand-holding. We have a self-confident millionaire married to a self-confidently beautiful girl. He could be wealthy without her, and she could be beautiful without him; it's just that they enjoy living together.

Why do they enjoy living together? What does he gain from her, and what does she gain from him? Would he still enjoy living with her if she were dumb as a brick? Is self-confident beauty the essential factor necessary of a woman in a rational relationship?

I think we're starting to make progress on this issue.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Production is a virtue; the creation of material wealth is just one example of production. But production is a virtue for both men and women. Why do you say it is a key masculine virtue? Why don't you think it is a key virtue for women?

Me: "A bra is a piece of clothing for women."

You: "Underwear is clothing; a bra is just one example of underwear. But underwear is for both men and women. Why do you say it is female clothing? Why don't you think it's made for men?"

Would you like to share any thoughts on the notion of femininity being the object of a woman's hero worship or masculinity being the object of a man's?

You mean do I think it's OK for a woman to admire beautiful women, or for a man to admire great men? Sure I do. I admire great men myself. But it's one thing to admire, and another thing to go to bed with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two missing premises which must be true in order for the conclusion to follow are:

1) Men should behave in an exclusively masculine way

A man cannot behave in a feminine way. He can try to, but the result won't be feminine; it will be effeminate. It will be the spectacle of a being trying to act against its own nature.

2) There exist exclusively masculine virtues.

I do not rely on this premise in the part you quoted. I rely on the premise that the creation of material wealth is a key masculine virtue; which means: if you are a man who wants material wealth, you should go ahead and create material wealth yourself, because it's the best thing you can do with your body in order to achieve that purpose.

It isn't necessarily so for a woman. A woman can use her body in another way, which may be more efficient for her: she can create "aesthetic wealth," which rational men value, and are willing to gain and keep by sharing their "$$$ wealth" with her.

Why do they enjoy living together? What does he gain from her, and what does she gain from him?

See above. :D

Would he still enjoy living with her if she were dumb as a brick?

No.

Is self-confident beauty the essential factor necessary of a woman in a rational relationship?

One of the essential factors. The other one is "not being dumb as a brick" ; that is, being willing to think independently, having integrity, being intellectually honest, being capable of judging people rationally ... she needs all the rational virtues that her husband possesses too.

She can afford to be dumb as a brick about the internal workings of a car engine or the syntax of programming languages. She may learn about such things if she's interested--she may even run a railroad!--but the point is that she doesn't have to.

In a division-of-labor society, having a single great skill can earn you all the forms of wealth that anyone produces; you may, but don't have to, acquire additional skills. The important thing is to specialize on that which you can do best, and then do it as well as you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CF, the same applies to a man in a division of labor society. If you're really good at, say, manufacturing cars then you don't need to know any programming languages, either. I assume you mean that the important difference here is that a woman can focus on pursuing beauty as a means to her values, while for a man this won't work?

Also, would you consider it proper for a man to earn money by using his beauty? (for example if he is a model)

Edited by Maarten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me: "A bra is a piece of clothing for women."

You: "Underwear is clothing; a bra is just one example of underwear. But underwear is for both men and women. Why do you say it is female clothing? Why don't you think it's made for men?"

This misrepresentation of my position is insufficient to support yours. So is this:

I rely on the premise that the creation of material wealth is a key masculine virtue; which means: if you are a man who wants material wealth, you should go ahead and create material wealth yourself, because it's the best thing you can do with your body in order to achieve that purpose.

It isn't necessarily so for a woman. A woman can use her body in another way, which may be more efficient for her: she can create "aesthetic wealth," which rational men value, and are willing to gain and keep by sharing their "$$$ wealth" with her.

What you have said applies equally to men and women. The creation of material wealth is a key human virtue; it is something that must be done with one's mind and thus not affected in any significant way by the physical differences between men and women. Have you heard of male models or Martha Stewart?

You mean do I think it's OK for a woman to admire beautiful women, or for a man to admire great men?
No, my statement was about hero-worship; the intense kind of admiration that forms the basis of romantic relationships. Earlier, I quoted Ayn Rand. I will do so again:

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.

This does not mean that a feminine woman feels or projects hero-worship for any and every individual man; as human beings, many of them may, in fact, be her inferiors. Her worship is an abstract emotion for the metaphysical concept of masculinity as such -- which she experiences fully and concretely only for the man she loves, but which colors her attitude of all men. This does not mean that there is a romantic or sexual intention in her attitude toward all men; quite the contrary: the higher her view of masculinity, the more severely demanding her standards. It means that she never loses the awareness of her own sexual identity and theirs. It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother -- or leader.

Her statement shows that, to have love, two people must share values. It also shows that the 'key' value is hero-worship. The object of their hero-worship must be the hero-worship of the other. This of course, lies on the premise that Masculinity parallels femininity.

However, her quote is not enough to show that masculinity is exclusively the object of hero-worship in a woman, or that femininity is exclusively the object of hero-worship for a man. I suspect that the distinction is only valid because men and women tend to be attracted to their sexual opposites.

Edited by FeatherFall
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...