caroljane

What do Women Want

Recommended Posts

This thread is started here because this corner is fairly empty. I could not find the original place where Xray and I started a leisurely conversation about why most posters on this forum are males, but it is a perennial topic and any teens who might be hanging here will still be discussing this when they are 105 like me.

It is not of total uninterest to teens because those predisposed to fall in love with an intellectual discipline usually do so at a young age. Many who so fall in love will stay in love for all their adult lives. They will love with words, with literature, with the language of music, with mathematics, with the maddening paradoxes of history, with the perilous certainties of engineering, with the scouring uncertainties of visual art.

Some will fall in love with philosophy.

Some of those who do will become Objectivists. Here begins our look at why few women post on Objectivist forums. Two reasons why they don't can be fairly easily dismissed:

1 - The abrasiveness of some posters in discussion.(assuming women are more easily offended by this . Ha, ha.)

2. The overall lack of women in Objectivism and philosophy in general. I believe this reason is valid. I have no statisticss, no empirical evidence at all, but my impression is that philosophy, as an avocation, is like chess --preponderantly a male recreation.

I am well aware that this is especially interesting to Objectivists, whose revolutionary founder was a woman, and whose best contemporary writer is a woman.

I am not thinking of the Barbara Brandens or the Madame Curies here when we speculate on why most interested women do or do not engage on O-forums. I can think of some reasons and would like to hear yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are men at fault for being confused on this? The fact that you chose to start a discussion clearly aimed at adults in a section devoted to teens might be seen by some of us as exculpatory.

(I don’t mean this to sound abrasive. I’m just genuinely befuddled.)

I'll add an emoticon to convey my sincerity. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are men at fault for being confused on this? The fact that you chose to start a discussion clearly aimed at adults in a section devoted to teens might be seen by some of us as exculpatory.

(I don’t mean this to sound abrasive. I’m just genuinely befuddled.)

I'll add an emoticon to convey my sincerity. :unsure:

Posting it here was just a whimsical choice. I was thinking about the fact that I decided my career path fairly early in life, about age 12 or 13, and the things I was most interested in as a teenager I am still interested in now, plus a lot more. There was no association with the man/woman theme.

Exculpatory of what? I certainly didn't intend any fault or slight towards the adults here--maybe this should move to the Living Room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see we are still here so I'll add a note on teenagers. It seems to me that teenage boys are more civilized and generaly nicer than they were in my day. I live across the street from Riverdale Collegiate and often chat with them in the lineup at the Yummy House at lunchtime - sometimes they even offer to carry my books and groceries home for me. Teenage girls are scary, though. Some things never change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are men at fault for being confused on this? The fact that you chose to start a discussion clearly aimed at adults in a section devoted to teens might be seen by some of us as exculpatory.

(I don’t mean this to sound abrasive. I’m just genuinely befuddled.)

I'll add an emoticon to convey my sincerity. :unsure:

Posting it here was just a whimsical choice. I was thinking about the fact that I decided my career path fairly early in life, about age 12 or 13, and the things I was most interested in as a teenager I am still interested in now, plus a lot more. There was no association with the man/woman theme.

Exculpatory of what? I certainly didn't intend any fault or slight towards the adults here--maybe this should move to the Living Room.

Exculpatory of men for being perplexed about women and their whimsical choices.

I suppose the obvious (and perhaps highly oversimplified) answer to your question about why so few women post here is because philosophy is very linear and logical. Most women seem to respond to life on a more intuitive and emotional level. Women are typically much more fascinated by Dr. Phil than Dr. Peikoff.

Teenage girls are scary, though. Some things never change.

Behind the wheel of a car, maybe. Otherwise the only thing scary about a teenage girl was the thought of asking her for a date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis, if the only choice were Dr Phil or Dr Peikoff, I'd run for Dr Jekyll and take my chances with Mr Hyde.

I think one reason for a preponderance of males responding to Rand's ideas, is the masculist message in her fiction. In my generation this clashed with the rise of feminism, although the philosophy is all about individualism regardless of gender. Intellectual girls in the 50s and 60s would be more easily drawn to the heroes and their ideas than those of the 70s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis, if the only choice were Dr Phil or Dr Peikoff, I'd run for Dr Jekyll and take my chances with Mr Hyde.

I think one reason for a preponderance of males responding to Rand's ideas, is the masculist message in her fiction. In my generation this clashed with the rise of feminism, although the philosophy is all about individualism regardless of gender. Intellectual girls in the 50s and 60s would be more easily drawn to the heroes and their ideas than those of the 70s.

Carol:

Do you make any distinction between feminism and gender feminism?

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis, if the only choice were Dr Phil or Dr Peikoff, I'd run for Dr Jekyll and take my chances with Mr Hyde.

I think one reason for a preponderance of males responding to Rand's ideas, is the masculist message in her fiction. In my generation this clashed with the rise of feminism, although the philosophy is all about individualism regardless of gender. Intellectual girls in the 50s and 60s would be more easily drawn to the heroes and their ideas than those of the 70s.

Carol:

Do you make any distinction between feminism and gender feminism?

Adam

Uh...I don't know. Is there a distinction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis, if the only choice were Dr Phil or Dr Peikoff, I'd run for Dr Jekyll and take my chances with Mr Hyde.

I think one reason for a preponderance of males responding to Rand's ideas, is the masculist message in her fiction. In my generation this clashed with the rise of feminism, although the philosophy is all about individualism regardless of gender. Intellectual girls in the 50s and 60s would be more easily drawn to the heroes and their ideas than those of the 70s.

Carol:

Do you make any distinction between feminism and gender feminism?

Adam

Uh...I don't know. Is there a distinction?

Equity feminism

Sommers describes equity feminism as an ideology rooted in classical liberalism, and that aims for full civil and legal equality for women. Experimental psychologist Steven Pinker[2] expands on Sommers to write, "Equity feminism is a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology."

Sommers contends that "Most American women subscribe philosophically to the older 'First Wave' kind of feminism whose main goal is equity, especially in politics and education".[1] However, Sommers also argues that equity feminism is a minority position in academia, formalized feminist theory, and the organized feminist movement as a whole, who tend to embrace gender feminism.

Feminists who identify themselves with equity feminism include Jean Bethke Elshtain, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Noretta Koertge, Donna Laframboise, Mary Lefkowitz, Wendy McElroy, Camille Paglia, Daphne Patai, Virginia Postrel, Alice Rossi, Nadine Strossen, Joan Kennedy Taylor, Cathy Young, and evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker.[2]

Gender feminism

In contrast to equity feminism, Sommers coined the term "Gender feminism" to describe what she contends is a gynocentric and misandric branch of feminism. Gender feminists typically criticize contemporary gender roles and aim to eliminate them altogether.[1] In current usage, "gender feminism" may also describe feminism which seeks to use legal means to give preference to women in such areas as domestic violence, child custody, sexual harassment, divorce proceedings, and pay equity. Psychologist Steven Pinker[2] described three defining pillars of gender feminism:

Gender feminism is an empirical doctrine committed to three claims about human nature. The first is that the differences between men and women have nothing to do with biology but are socially constructed in their entirety. The second is that humans possess a single social motive -- power -- and that social life can be understood only in terms of how it is exercised. The third is that human interactions arise not from the motives of people dealing with each other as individuals but from the motives of groups dealing with other groups -- in this case, the male gender dominating the female gender. Sommers argues that gender feminism characterizes most of the body of modern feminist theory, and is the prevailing ideology in academia. She argues that while the feminists she designates as gender feminists advocate preferential treatment and portraying "all women as victims", equity feminism provides a viable alternative form of feminism to those who object to elements of gender feminist ideology.

Similarly, Nathanson and Young[3] use the term "ideological feminism" to describe a dualist school of thought rooted in Marxist theory. Marxism's concept of perpetual conflict between working-class proletariat and capitalist Bourgeoisie has been replaced with feminist theory that posits perpetual exploitation of women by men, or by a patriarchal power structure. "In short, the names have been changed but not the ideology." Additionally, Nathanson and Young contend that ideological feminism is "profoundly anti-intellectual" and furthermore that:

Directly or indirectly, many ideological feminists have repeatedly argued that women are psychologically, morally, spiritually, intellectually and biologically superior to men. This was more explicitly expressed in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth than it was gain in the 1980s. That mentality is now pervasive -- not only in academic circles but in popular culture as well, where it will no doubt endure far longer. Sommers claims Wellesley, Mount Holyoke, Smith, Mills and the University of Minnesota are "extreme" examples of U.S. colleges where gender feminists exert a major influence on curricula.[4]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...exploitation of women by men, or by a patriarchal power structure."

This is the reality for so many millions of women in the Mideast, Africa, Asia.... what are these unnamed but all-powerful gender feminists doing about that?

I read an article by Phyllis Chesler recently about her work in this area. Whatever kind of feminist she is I guess I am that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...exploitation of women by men, or by a patriarchal power structure."

This is the reality for so many millions of women in the Mideast, Africa, Asia.... what are these unnamed but all-powerful gender feminists doing about that?

I read an article by Phyllis Chesler recently about her work in this area. Whatever kind of feminist she is I guess I am that.

Really, so you favor dominating public and social institutions. How refreshing, the socialist anarchist emerges. It's WAR - bring it on babes!

'Feminist activist

Chesler taught one of the first Women's Studies classes at Richmond College (which later merged with Staten Island Community College to form the College of Staten Island) in New York City during the 1969–1970 school year. During her time at Richmond College, she established many services for female students, including self-defense classes, a rape crisis center, and a child care center. She is one of five cofounders of The National Women's Health Network, with Barbara Seaman, Alice Wolfson, Belita Cowan, and Mary Howell, M.D., and is a charter member of the Women's Forum. She was an editor-at-large and columnist for On The Issues Magazine.

Chesler considers herself a radical feminist.[7] She has stated that "feminists must gradually and ultimately dominate public and social institutions—so as to ensure that they are not used against women",[8] and argued that there has always been "a war between the sexes".[9] In 1985, she described herself as "probably more of a feminist-anarchist than ever before".[10]

Phyllis Chester just the "girl next door type"

How my eyes were opened to the barbarity of Islam

Charming,

Edited by Selene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Criminy. In the article I read she talked very sensibly about the necessity for fighting honour killings, child marriage,FGM--- and said that feminists should not softpedal these things under the excuse of political correctness about cultural differences, and rescuing their victims should be a feminist priority.

Maybe she's evolved since 1985.

I don't want to dominate anybody or anything. Or submit to them either!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Criminy. In the article I read she talked very sensibly about the necessity for fighting honour killings, child marriage,FGM--- and said that feminists should not softpedal these things under the excuse of political correctness about cultural differences, and rescuing their victims should be a feminist priority.

Maybe she's evolved since 1985.

I don't want to dominate anybody or anything. Or submit to them either!

And that my fine lady is the difference between feminism and gender feminism.

Equality under the law for each individual is the basis for a just society.

Edited by Selene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis, if the only choice were Dr Phil or Dr Peikoff, I'd run for Dr Jekyll and take my chances with Mr Hyde.

I think one reason for a preponderance of males responding to Rand's ideas, is the masculist message in her fiction. In my generation this clashed with the rise of feminism, although the philosophy is all about individualism regardless of gender. Intellectual girls in the 50s and 60s would be more easily drawn to the heroes and their ideas than those of the 70s.

Carol--I am puzzled that you would say the message in a novel like Atlas Shrugged clashed with the rise of feminism. You would think that a strong female character like Dagny Taggart would be idolized by feminists, even while the liberal elite despised Rand's pro-capitalist theme.

At least Dr. Phil has made a positive contribution to our contemporary culture. Look at all the great material he has provided for Frank Caliendo. (I wonder if Caliendo can do Peikoff?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis, if the only choice were Dr Phil or Dr Peikoff, I'd run for Dr Jekyll and take my chances with Mr Hyde.

I think one reason for a preponderance of males responding to Rand's ideas, is the masculist message in her fiction. In my generation this clashed with the rise of feminism, although the philosophy is all about individualism regardless of gender. Intellectual girls in the 50s and 60s would be more easily drawn to the heroes and their ideas than those of the 70s.

Carol--I am puzzled that you would say the message in a novel like Atlas Shrugged clashed with the rise of feminism. You would think that a strong female character like Dagny Taggart would be idolized by feminists, even while the liberal elite despised Rand's pro-capitalist theme.

At least Dr. Phil has made a positive contribution to our contemporary culture. Look at all the great material he has provided for Frank Caliendo. (I wonder if Caliendo can do Peikoff?)

That is so funny! I never heard of Caliendo before, I will watch out for him. His take on Peikoff would be a joy. Though Stephen Colbert would be a better physical match - has he ever had a go at Pope L?

Yes, on the surface Dagny is a strong role model, and not unrealistic - there have always been real-life Dagnys "doing a man's job" and doing it better than, or equally as well as a man. Elizabeth I comes to mind. The clash is that her singularity, combined with the AS message, gives the female reader an either-or choice: be a producer, a first-hander, or be a Cheryl, longing to worship the first-hander in the form of a husband. Otherwise you're a looter or moocher. That was the impression I took away from reading AS. I admired Dagny and Cheryl - you have to - but I felt no female affinity with them and no desire to emulate them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my version of a story I read somewhere once on what women truly want. It's about King Arthur.

When King Arthur was young, he decided to travel to the far reaches of his kingdom to learn it well. But he was captured by a neighboring king, who intended to kill him. However, in toying with the young man, the evil king remembered his own youth, the idealism, the enthusiasm, the promise, and saw it reflected in the young King Arthur.

So he said, "You have two choices, either die now or find the answer to a question. I will give you a year to find that answer. And if you do not, I know your kingdom is weak right now, so I will invade it, find you and put your head on a stake for all to see."

That choice was no choice at all, so Arthur asked, "What is the question?"

The evil king replied, "Your question is this. What is it that all women, deep in their hearts, truly want?"

That sounded like it was not too hard, so the young King Arthur accepted and off he went back to his kingdom.

There he started asking everyone, poor people, land-owners, knights, travelers, friars, members of his court, the court jester, wise men, everyone he could think of.

Some people said that all women, deep in their hearts, really wanted children. Some said a husband. Others said a home, pretty clothes, a good kitchen, love, chivalry, to be better than her neighbors, and on it went. It seemed like there was no majority of opinion to be had.

Time came and went and the year was almost up. Becoming deeply concerned, young King Arthur finally consulted Merlin the Magician. He did not like to do that because magic always came with an unforeseen cost, but the hourglass was running out. So Arthur presented the whole problem to the magician and did not leave anything out.

Merlin listened calmly, then went into a deep trance. After a long while, said, "I do not know the answer, but I know who does. There is an old witch. She goes by the name of Wynflaeth..She lives by herself in the forest. If you can find her, she can tell you."

Losing no time, off went Arthur and some of his trusted members of the recently formed Knights of the Round Table. They were surprised that the old witch Wynflaeth was easy to find. The country folks were very afraid of her, so they knew the dark forest to avoid.

Wynflaeth, upon seeing Arthur and companions approach, called out to him, "I know why you are here!"

The horses came up to her and stopped as the young king almost fell off. He had never seen a woman as ugly as the one now before him. She had a long crooked nose with the biggest wart he had ever seen on a human being. Hair was coming our of her nostrils. She had three teeth left in her head and they were rotting. He could smell her over the stench of his steed. Her dark clothes were ragged and filthy with soot. He body was twisted and she leered from beneath her hunchback like a mad woman.

The witch, Wynflaeth cackled, then said, "So the young king wishes to know what women truly want deep in their hearts. Yes, the young king would like to know that, wouldn't he?"

King Arthur spoke with contempt, "You would toy with me? Tell me quickly, woman."

Wynflaeth responded, "Bah! You would look down on me even as you seek my counsel? Well, I know what you seek. I will tell you, but it will cost you."

King Arthur asked, "What is your price, woman? Speak up."

Wynflaeth paused, then said slowly, "I will be wed tonight to your trusted Knight Bediver. You must give me your sacred oath. Then I will tell you want all women really want."

Arthur looked at the witch, looked at his trusted friend, companion and defender, looked back at her, then fell into deep thought. Suddenly he blurted out, "I cannot ask for such a thing. I will face the evil king."

He turned his steed to leave, but Bediver shouted out, "There is no sacrifice so great that I cannot make it for my king. I will marry the witch tonight."

There was a pause, then Wynflaeth called out, "Give me your sacred oath, both of you."

After a heated discussion, both King Arthur and Knight Bediver swore that the hapless knight would wed her that very evening.

Wynflaeth called for silence. She said, "Now that I have your word, I will tell you. Every woman has a wish. It is hidden in a small corner of her soul. It is a secret desire. A silent torture. A cross to bear. Listen carefully.
Every woman, deep in her heart, truly wants to be in charge of her own life.
"

King Arthur and his companions were stunned. The witch had spoken true. They all knew it. They slowly started rejoicing and as the merriment grew, they began making plans to send the answer to the evil king.

"What about the wedding?" cried the witch.

A sacred oath is a sacred oath, so off they all went to the castle. One knight went in search of a holy man and another to get people to set up a banquet.

As promised, Knight Bediver and Wynflaeth were pronounced man and wife that very evening. The banquet stated.

If Bediver had misgivings before marrying the witch, watching her eat was almost more than he could bear. She spit as she talked. She constantly cackled and burped and was flatulent. She smelled like waste and manure. She was horrendous to look at. No one had much of an appetite.

Knight Bediver suddenly spoke, "Wife! Go to our chambers and prepare for our wedding night. I will be along shortly."

"Yes, my lord."

Off she went while Bediver started gulping down meade. If he was going to have to make good on his word and consummate the marriage, by God he would do it inebriated. After enough meade, he managed to reach the point where he did not feel so repelled. He got up from the table singing a drunken diddly and staggered over to the castle.

He banged on his chamber door and called out in careless banter, but stopped cold as it opened. He was suddenly stone sober. Before him stood the most beautiful woman he had ever seen. She was naked with her arms reaching out toward him.

"Come to me, husband," she said.

Knight Bediver was stupefied and did not move. "You are my wife, the witch Wynflaeth?"

"Indeed I am," she said. "You were kind enough to marry me, so I made myself like this. Does my lord like it?" she giggled.

All Bediver could do was look.

"But," said Wynflaeth, "There is a choice you must make. And you must make it now. You can have me like this at night and like I was at the banquet during the day, or you can have me like this during the day and like I was at the banquet at night. Which do you wish?"

And you, dear reader, which do you think he chose?

Which would you choose if you were Knight Bediver?

Beauty for your eyes only while the world sees ugliness, or beauty for all to see while you bear the ugliness in private?

Knight Bediver did not hesitate.

"My wife. Do as you please. You choose."

"As my lord is so wise," she said, "I will be beautiful both day and night."

And they lived happily ever after.

The moral of the story, dear reader, is that it does not matter whether your woman is ugly or whether she is beautiful. You must love her the same because all women, deep in their hearts, are witches.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my version of a story I read somewhere once on what women truly want. It's about Kind Arthur.

I didn't know he was "kind."

Head on a "steak'?

"Consecrate the marriage"?

Should I reread this more slowly?

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops.

Thanks, Brant.

Corrected.

Michael

You got two out of the three. You missed the best one, "head on a steak."

--Brant

too much Portuguese, I'd guess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my version of a story I read somewhere once on what women truly want. It's about Kind Arthur.

I didn't know he was "kind."

Head on a "steak'?

"Consecrate the marriage"?

Should I reread this more slowly?

--Brant

Consecrate is a very apt word here, and kind Arthur is a great typo. Sometimes we're wittier in our mistakes than in our intentions.

Michael, that is brilliant. You should put it in Creative Writing now and pin it.

Here's another year-to-find-the-answer story in case anyone hasn't heard it:

An evil depraved king was judging a batch of criminals, whimsically as was his wont. He hanged some, he burned some, he enslaved some. Getting bored, he contemplated a wretched thief who had stolen bread to feed his family.

"Ah, a thief. Why are my subjects so miserable and stupid? None of you is worth a hair on the hide of my noble horse Incitatus. He is beautiful and he is intelligent. If only he could talk, he would be my closest advisor. I know! Thief, I will give you a choice.

You can die now, mercifully by the rope or sword. Or you can live for a year, which you will spend in the stable, trying to teach my noble horse Incitatus to talk.

If at the end of that year Incitatus is not talking, you will die slowly from the most dreadful tortures I can spend the year thinking up.

But if you teach him to talk, you shall marry my daughter and inherit my kingdom. I'll kill off my other children, just for you."

The thief did not hesitate. "Lead me to the stable", he cried. "Does Incitatus like lullabies?"

"You fool", grumbled the guard as he dragged the thief toward the royal stables. "We'll be lumbered with a year of room service at the damn stable. What kind of idiot would spend a year with nobody but a horse to talk to and nothing to think about but the slowest most painful death in our history?"

"You are the fool," said the thief. "Think about it. In a year anything might happen. The king might die, or be overthrown. I might die, or be rescued. The horse might die.

"Or the horse might talk."

PS Incitatus was a real horse of Emperor Caligula's, who made him a Roman Senator. According to Graves, when the soldiers were debating who to make emperor after Caligula's assassination, there was a strong minority in favour of Incitatus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could not find the original place where Xray and I started a leisurely conversation about why most posters on this forum are males, but it is a perennial topic and any teens who might be hanging here will still be discussing this when they are 105 like me.

It was on the "Je reviens" thread in the Meet and Greet section.

Now that I think of it, "men-only book club" is not a bad partial description of OL. What do you think XRay? Gentlemen, I said PARTIAL.

"Men-only" connotes something like intentional exclusion, but the male OLers don't fall in that category, I think. :)

Someone else suspected that the shortage of women here may be due to the men often being too abrasive.

But I recall discussions on some true crime forums where the women were pretty abrasive as well, some of them using language which make the more "outspoken" gentlemen here sound like innocent choirboys ... :D

Interesting question though why so few women seem to post on philosophy forums. But maybe I'm wrong because I don't have enough detailed kowledge about other philosophy forums to do a valid comparison. Any ideas?

Here begins our look at why few women post on Objectivist forums. Two reasons why they don't can be fairly easily dismissed:

1 - The abrasiveness of some posters in discussion.(assuming women are more easily offended by this . Ha, ha.)

2. The overall lack of women in Objectivism and philosophy in general. I believe this reason is valid. I have no statisticss, no empirical evidence at all, but my impression is that philosophy, as an avocation, is like chess --preponderantly a male recreation.

I am well aware that this is especially interesting to Objectivists, whose revolutionary founder was a woman, and whose best contemporary writer is a woman.

Who is this best contemporary writer?

You would think that a strong female character like Dagny Taggart would be idolized by feminists, even while the liberal elite despised Rand's pro-capitalist theme.

I cannot see why feminists would idolize female heroines who, in the sexual scenes, enjoy submitting to sadistic dominant males.

I suppose the obvious (and perhaps highly oversimplified) answer to your question about why so few women post here is because philosophy is very linear and logical.

I don't think this is the reason. Eastern philosophy for example is more "cyclical", and yet there are no women represented there either. Imo the lack of women in philosophy has more to do with patriarchal structures. While Socrates & Co were free to discuss in the agora, their wives were confined to the home and to caring for the household and kids.

Most women seem to respond to life on a more intuitive and emotional level.

I know so many emotional men that I have difficulty in pigeonholing the genders here.

Just look at how emotional quite a few men can become here when debates get controversial ...

Dennis Hardin, post #6:

Women are typically much more fascinated by Dr. Phil than Dr. Peikoff.

Dr. Peikoff is very emotional too. So much in fact that it prevents him from thinking clearly.

I didn't know about Dr. Phil (which is why I for a fleeting moment thought you might refer to "our" Phil Coates here, but now get the picture after googling Dr. Phil.) :)

As for women possibly being more intuitive than men, the reason may lie in our evolutionary history.

For to women, the ability to interpret non-verbal signals (from their small children for example) has always been of crucial importance.

In social settings where women are not allowed to make open demands, again, they have to rely on their intuition, on their being able to put themselves in another person's shoes, to achieve their goals.

Daunce Lynam, post #22):

kind Arthur is a great typo. Sometimes we're wittier in our mistakes than in our intentions.

Wonderful Freudian typo, the "kind" Arthur. :)

MSK, post # 6:

"Every woman, deep in her heart, truly wants to be in charge of her own life."

So very true and it confirms what I have been convinced of ever since I consciously reflected on it:

There is no difference whatsoever when it comes to men and women here.

Edited by Xray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, on the surface Dagny is a strong role model, and not unrealistic - there have always been real-life Dagnys "doing a man's job" and doing it better than, or equally as well as a man. Elizabeth I comes to mind. The clash is that her singularity, combined with the AS message, gives the female reader an either-or choice: be a producer, a first-hander, or be a Cheryl, longing to worship the first-hander in the form of a husband. Otherwise you're a looter or moocher. That was the impression I took away from reading AS. I admired Dagny and Cheryl - you have to - but I felt no female affinity with them and no desire to emulate them.

No female affinity for Dagny? No desire to emulate her? I'm not sure I understand what's wrong with being a producer, a first-hander and wanting to worship your husband. Or are you agreeing with X-ray that Rand's message about the essence of being a female heroine was contradicted by Dagny's submissive sexual cravings?

I genuinely believe that the problem with a lot of women is that they have never been "kissed properly" (so to speak). . .

Edited by Dennis Hardin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, on the surface Dagny is a strong role model, and not unrealistic - there have always been real-life Dagnys "doing a man's job" and doing it better than, or equally as well as a man. Elizabeth I comes to mind. The clash is that her singularity, combined with the AS message, gives the female reader an either-or choice: be a producer, a first-hander, or be a Cheryl, longing to worship the first-hander in the form of a husband. Otherwise you're a looter or moocher. That was the impression I took away from reading AS. I admired Dagny and Cheryl - you have to - but I felt no female affinity with them and no desire to emulate them.

No female affinity for Dagny? No desire to emulate her? I'm not sure I understand what's wrong with being a producer, a first-hander and wanting to worship your husband. Or are you agreeing with X-ray that Rand's message about the essence of being a female heroine was contradicted by Dagny's submissive sexual cravings?

I genuinely believe that the problem with a lot of women is that they have never been "kissed properly" (so to speak). . .

Dennis,

You genuinely believe wrong.

As I recall Dagny herself was not "kissed properly" for years at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
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