Echoes of Ayn Rand: A “Submissive Wife” as President?


Dennis Hardin

Recommended Posts

The submission theme also involves the males in AS. Both Rearden and D'Anconia readily submit to Galt (the novel's undisputed alpha male), relinquishing the love of their lives, Dagny, to him.

You have a point, but I think that wasn't meant to be part of the philosophy; it came off to me as an unintentional result of the fact that Dagny's lust-life was Rand's own wish-fulfillment.

Your interpretation is probably correct.

Objectivism is/was as much a culture as a philosophy and Rand and Randians way back then did a lousy job--maybe no job at all--in keeping the two separate. Rand set up a caste system too boot. The closer you were to her the higher your caste. The bottom line was she was John Galt. She did write that speech, afterall.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Angela and Andrew:

Hmmm that has a nice ring to it A is A!

I would never equate ravish with rape.

Additionally, at first, I had a very difficult time with the concept of D/s because I have always sought my equal as a lover, or wife.

I had to willingly suspend disbelief and take a free and unfettered approach to concepts like T(otal)P(ower)E(xchange). "Spanking" was distinguished from "hitting" and was a methodology for increasing endorphin levels. The other aspects of the practice include a variety of "play" and "scenes."

However, I would never immerse myself in that lifestyle, but it has its uses.

Adam

Andrew thanks for the insights on the Goth world because I could not see your mind crammed into some of those boxes. Your explanation makes perfect sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify; I was not using "ravish" as a synonym for "rape."

Thanks for clarifying.

Am I correct in assuming that what you connote with "ravish" would go more in the direction of scenes like in GWTW between Scarlett and Rhett after he carried her up the stairs?

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom line was she was John Galt. She did write that speech, afterall.

Brant - imo this is among the most astute remarks you've ever made on OL!!

John Galt (and also, but to a lesser degree, D'Anconia and Rearden) represented the male side of Ayn Rand (her "Animus", Jungians would call it).

Although Rand frequently declared herself to be a worshipper of "male heroes", it looks like she had a lot of this "male energy" in her own personality too, and possibly it was this male energy that drove her so strongly, and which profoundly shaped her personality.

I have often associated something "androgynous" about Rand, but somehow could not get it into focus. Now the pieces of the puzzle fall more into place for me.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So "ravish" is an euphemism for exactly what?

From the dictionary:

2. To force (another) to have sexual intercourse; rape.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ravish

So to answer your question. I can only speak for myself here: I can't imagine having a relationship with a man who tried to force sexual intercourse on me. Under no circumstances would I accept this.

Just to clarify; I was not using "ravish" as a synonym for "rape."

I was meaning, basically, "rough and forceful sex with an 'active' partner (who can be described as the 'ravisher') and a 'passive' partner (who can be described as the 'ravished')."

This can easily be consensual.

Dennis was asking you whether or not you enjoyed having your partner take an active role, whilst you take a passive role, in vigorous and energetic and rough sex.

Thanks for clarifying.

Am I correct in assuming that what you connote with "ravish" would go more in the direction of scenes like in GWTW between Scarlett and Rhett after he carried her up the stairs?

"Dennis was asking you whether or not you enjoyed having your partner take an active role, whilst you take a passive role, in vigorous and energetic and rough sex."

I would substitute the word aggressive for 'rough'--rough has a connotation of brutal or violent--but yes, that's exactly what I was asking. (Things might get a little 'violent' at times, of course.)

The sort of fireworks we can imagine as having transpired between Rhett and Scarlett would capture the essence of it exactly. Or between Roark and Dominique. Of course, the descriptions of passion in The Fountainhead verged upon sado-masochism. I don't mean to imply that most women necessarily want that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you aren't ravished and ravishing during sex, then WTF are you really doing? As for rape, yeah, I guess a rapist could ravish his victim. Was the rapist ravishing the thirteen year-old girl I read aboiut many years ago, until grandma broke his back with a shovel? Who gives a shit.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I correct in assuming that what you connote with "ravish" would go more in the direction of scenes like in GWTW between Scarlett and Rhett after he carried her up the stairs?

Something like that, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you aren't ravished and ravishing during sex, then WTF are you really doing?

I think that might have been a joke, but some people enjoy tender sex as opposed to ravishment.

And additionally, some people like both parties to be relatively active/aggressive, as opposed to merely one party (as typical ravishment sex involves).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would substitute the word aggressive for 'rough'--rough has a connotation of brutal or violent--but yes, that's exactly what I was asking. (Things might get a little 'violent' at times, of course.)

The individual connotations we have with certain terms may lead to misunderstandings.

I for example have exactly the opposite connotations with "aggressive" and "rough" than you have.

I connote "aggressive" far more with brutal/violent than I connote this with "rough".

But whether we use "aggressive" or "rough" - it is important to convey clearly to the other person what we mean. I see a lot clearer now (although I find the term "ravish" still a bit confusing, even as an euphemism).

If we approach the issue from the basics, there is certainly an element to sex that can be perceived as quite "rough". Children who accidentally surprise their parents in that situation often think of them as wrestling/fighting in some way.

When our stone-age ancestors dragged females by the hair into their cave to copulate with them, one can assume that there was a considerable amount of violence involved as well.

Therefore connecting sexuality with violence may well have a biological root.

But the question is to what degree does this still play role in guiding our choices in that field.

Just as we don't resolve disputes anymore by bashing our heads in with stones because we have become more civilized, the NIOF principle has also found its way into the sexual ethics of modern society, in that a (non-consensual) enforcement of the sexual act is considered as a criminal offense.

"Dennis was asking you whether or not you enjoyed having your partner take an active role, whilst you take a passive role, in vigorous and energetic and rough sex."

The problem here is that some people would label as "rough" what others would not yet think of as rough.

Also, "vigorous and energetic" sex need not include roughness.

As for "passive", I connote so much "being bored" and "uninterested" with the term that I can clearly answer with a "No" here.

"Passive and uninterested" is what I associate with Scarlett O' Hara's attitude toward sexuality before her "awakening".

While the actual scene is not shown - those older films where not everything is shown in detail are often far more "erotic" than modern ones because they stimulate the viewer's creative imagination - I've always imagined Scarlett as being quite active in that bedroom, abandoning all her previous inhibitions.

A passionate lover can also be a very caring lover. I think this is a combination which many women find very appealing.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew thanks for the insights on the Goth world because I could not see your mind crammed into some of those boxes. Your explanation makes perfect sense to me.

Glad I could help you out :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you aren't ravished and ravishing during sex, then WTF are you really doing?

I think that might have been a joke, but some people enjoy tender sex as opposed to ravishment.

And additionally, some people like both parties to be relatively active/aggressive, as opposed to merely one party (as typical ravishment sex involves).

You're right. I was only thinking of one type of sex. "Ravish" itself may not be quite the word I need as it's too strongly correlated with rape--not at all what I had in mind.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

I have the notion that she got her inductively-gained concepts excatly right so much of the time, that she grew over-confident with such assertions.

From the specific to the general; from what works for me, to what should work for everyone.

Resulting, now and again, in her rationalizations.

Check your premises, Ayn - one would like to say to her.

A frequent thinking error by Rand was to believe that her personal preferences constituted an objective standard of value.

The same applied to the things she personally rejected.

The impact of her subjective value judgements on her followers was considerable.

Just two examples listed in past threads:

(I'd heard years ago that Peikoff once incurred Ayn Rand's disapproval because he liked the music of Johannes Brahms. I didn't know, till I read Heller, that he actually gave away all of his Brahms recordings after Rand made a pronouncement ex cathedra. Heller gives the year and the recipient.)

Robert Campbell

A friend of mine attended a conference in the late ‘80’s, pre-Kelley split, and reports that John Ridpath said he once was a Beethoven fan, and on AR’s advice that this pointed to a problem (psychological, sense of life, whatever), he worked on it and got over liking Beethoven.

Even a brilliant intellect is but a child when it comes to human sexuality and gender.

(Strangely, perhaps, in some areas, I sense she was extremely naive and inexperienced.)

Interesting points.

Ridpath told me he could not date Peikoff's ex wife because she chewed her food like a cow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Questioner under fire for asking Bachmann what it means to be a ‘submissive’ wife

"The Lord says: Be submissive, wives. You are to be submissive to your husbands," [Michele] Bachmann said at the time[2006], according to the [Washington] Post. Her campaign hasn't disputed the remarks.

On Thursday, the Washington Examiner's Byron York, a conservative columnist who was one of the moderators of the 2012 debate, asked Bachmann directly about that quote.

"As president, would you be submissive to your husband?" he asked, a question that prompted the crowd to erupt in loud boos.

After a slight pause, Bachmann smiled and thanked York for his question.

"Marcus and I will be married for 33 years this September 10th," she said. "What submission means to us it means respect. I respect my husband. He's a wonderful, godly man and a great father, and he respects me as his wife. That's how we operate our marriage."

Obviously, Bachmann was lying about what the word “submission” means. No doubt it means something very different to her as opposed to what it meant to Ayn Rand, but it doesn’t simply mean ‘respect.’ I think the issue raises same fascinating questions—whether or not you agree that femininity means “hero-worship” as it did for Rand. There is a definite sense in which a female is “submissive” to the male sexually. Quite aside from all that religious crap, there is something going on here psychologically that could potentially present a problem for a woman president. I think the fact that this issue came up means that it does have significance, even if the public discussions do not begin to address what that significance really is.

Excerpts from Rand’s 1968 article:

I do not think that a rational woman can want to be president. Observe that I did not say she would be unable to do the job; I said that she could not want it. It is not a matter of her ability, but of her values.

...when it comes to the post of president, ...do not ask: "Could she do the job and would it be good for the country?" Conceivably, she could and it would - but what would it do to her?

The issue is primarily psychological. . .

...the higher [a woman's] 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.

Now consider the meaning of the presidency: in all his professional relationships, within the entire sphere of his work, the president is the highest authority; he is the "chief executive," the "commander-in-chief." ...In the performance of his duties, a president does not deal with equals, but only with inferiors (not inferiors as persons, but in respect to the hierarchy of their positions, their work, and their responsibilities).

This, for a rational woman, would be an unbearable situation. ... To act as the superior, the leader, virtually the ruler of all the men she deals with, would be an excruciating psychological torture. It would require a total depersonalization, an utter selflessness, and an incommunicable loneliness; she would have to suppress (or repress) every personal aspect of her own character and attitude; she could not be herself, i.e., a woman; she would have to function only as a mind, not as a person, i.e., as a thinker devoid of personal values - a dangerously artificial dichotomy which no one could sustain for long. By the nature of her duties and daily activities, she would beome the most unfeminine, sexless, metaphysically inappropriate, and rationally revolting figure of all: a matriarch.

For a woman to seek or desire the presidency is, in fact, so terrible a prospect of spiritual self-immolation that the woman who would seek it is psychologically unworthy of the job.

From “An Answer to Readers (About a Woman President),”

The Objectivist, Dec. 1968

The response Socrates would have given Rand was, 'Then female dogs have it better than human females. Female dogs give birth, nurse, then go about their doggish business". In other words, in this particular, Rand was silly-wrong, and does not deserve a serious response.

BTW, the bioblical command that Paul gave women was 'upotassestheai'.. If women speak up in congregation, let them be tied down as a ox on a harness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The response Socrates would have given Rand was, 'Then female dogs have it better than human females. Female dogs give birth, nurse, then go about their doggish business". In other words, in this particular, Rand was silly-wrong, and does not deserve a serious response.

BTW, the bioblical command that Paul gave women was 'upotassestheai'.. If women speak up in congregation, let them be tied down as a ox on a harness.

Eva

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The response Socrates would have given Rand was, 'Then female dogs have it better than human females. Female dogs give birth, nurse, then go about their doggish business". In other words, in this particular, Rand was silly-wrong, and does not deserve a serious response.

BTW, the bioblical command that Paul gave women was 'upotassestheai'.. If women speak up in congregation, let them be tied down as a ox on a harness.

Eva

Ah even then bondage was poplular...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now