Why is Objectivism Not Spreading, While Ayn Rand is Wildly Popular?


Recommended Posts

1. What Jonathan said.

2. Objectivism pretends to have final answers when really it's just groping in a good direction. (This is really #1).

3. The culture is very much anti-reason. People are gripped by anti-reason philosophies and couldn't care less about what reason has to say. They are philosophically dead inside. A good part of this stems from religion, but not all.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1. Too many alpha-males infesting the philosophical movement, from local groups on up to "the top."

Alpha males? Like Leonard Peikoff?? I know where you’re coming from, but I’d say there’s too many wannabe alphas, and a severe lack of the genuine article.

Good point.

O-land really doesn't have a lot of manly men. Most of them seem to be closer to the type of men you'd find at a Star Trek convention or role playing tournament -- not exactly burdened by an overabundance of testosterone and extroversion. Females are not being repelled by "alpha-males" jockeying for "the top," but by the fact that the Objectivist "movement" is largely inhabited by geeks and spazzes.

Plus, some of the worst "alpha-wannabe" behavior that I've seen has come from the few women in O-land. They can be smug and hyper-judgmental beyond belief, and, when they want to be perceived as important within the "movement," they're much more masculine and cutthroat about it than Objectivism's girlie-men.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Too many alpha-males infesting the philosophical movement, from local groups on up to "the top."

Alpha males? Like Leonard Peikoff?? I know where you're coming from, but I'd say there's too many wannabe alphas, and a severe lack of the genuine article.

Good point.

O-land really doesn't have a lot of manly men. Most of them seem to be closer to the type of men you'd find at a Star Trek convention or role playing tournament -- not exactly burdened by an overabundance of testosterone and extroversion. Females are not being repelled by "alpha-males" jockeying for "the top," but by the fact that the Objectivist "movement" is largely inhabited by geeks and spazzes.

Plus, some of the worst "alpha-wannabe" behavior that I've seen has come from the few women in O-land. They can be smug and hyper-judgmental beyond belief, and, when they want to be perceived as important within the "movement," they're much more masculine and cutthroat about it than Objectivism's girlie-men.

J

I guess in OL-land the sheep aren't nervous.

--Brant

here sheep!--here sheep!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Too many alpha-males infesting the philosophical movement, from local groups on up to "the top."

Alpha males? Like Leonard Peikoff?? I know where you’re coming from, but I’d say there’s too many wannabe alphas, and a severe lack of the genuine article.

Good point.

O-land really doesn't have a lot of manly men. Most of them seem to be closer to the type of men you'd find at a Star Trek convention or role playing tournament -- not exactly burdened by an overabundance of testosterone and extroversion. Females are not being repelled by "alpha-males" jockeying for "the top," but by the fact that the Objectivist "movement" is largely inhabited by geeks and spazzes.

Plus, some of the worst "alpha-wannabe" behavior that I've seen has come from the few women in O-land. They can be smug and hyper-judgmental beyond belief, and, when they want to be perceived as important within the "movement," they're much more masculine and cutthroat about it than Objectivism's girlie-men.

J

J,

I'm surprised anyone would actually want more Alpha Males in O-Land. That kind of goes against Rand's whole critique of social dominance that she makes in The Fountainhead.

I should also add that none of Rand's heroes were Alpha Males by traditional standards. Apart from Rand's little kink for bodice-ripper sex, none of them were exactly members of the Manwhore Of The Month club, none of them were social dominators (they were against any form of pack-heirarchialism, dominating or submitting (socially)), they typically had desk jobs and/or aspired to desk jobs rather than MAAANRY manual labor (which, when they did it, was exclusively about means-to-an-end), and all of them had very lithe builds (athletic at best, none of them were oh-so-buff). They weren't beer-swilling cigar-chomping military men either. Oh, and none of them ever killed anyone else.

If you'd like a tentative hypothesis as to why there are so many "geeks and spazzes" (thanks for the degrading terms) in Objectivism, let me make a suggestion...

Just imagine you're a young guy and your primary competencies are intellectual and your artistic/cultural interests aren't "normal." Naturally you get treated as bottom-feeding pond-scum by the pack-animals of the schoolyard for the crime of being intelligent, not fitting in, etc. This inflicts upon you crippling feelings of self-hate because at that age (and in that cultural mileu) you're pretty much guaranteed to see "fitting in" and "being normal" and "being like other people" as synonyms of "good."

And then you read Ayn Rand who turns every single thing you've been loathed for into a virtue. Who casts you as an heroic figure for not being sufficiently broken to the point of actually fitting in. Who posits (alongside a LOT of economists like Schumpeter and Mises) that it is intelligence and creativity that move the world and that the glorified High School football team captain will end up dumb, poor and with nothing but his memories of his glory days beating up the nerd that currently employs him.

And she actually makes a plausible case for this.

How the fuck would you feel?

Oh, and just a correction, the majority of women don't go for ultra-macho MAAANRY alpha males either. There have actually been statistical studies on this; men that were semi-androgynous (about 75% traditionally masculine, 25% traditionally feminine) actually got the most sex with women out of all tested groups.

As for Ayn Rand, she might have wanted to be ravished, but what kind of man did she want to ravish her? Look at Roark and Galt (and even Rearden and Francisco). Look at Frank and Nathaniel. I don't see much PREPOSTERONE!!! there.

So no, I don't think the gender bias is based on a lack of alpha males (that would also be kind of sexist really; the assumption that "women aren't into Objectivism because there aren't that many appealling breeding opportunities" kind of ignores the whole point that people are meant to support philosophies because they agree with them, not to get laid). Rather, the fact that Objectivists are mostly male is explained by the fact that even in this day and age, women are still expected to be emotionalist, superficial and shallow because Logic And Reason Are Male (this is not just a relic of pre-feminist eras; many radical feminists actually argue this!!). As such they're less likely on average to gravitate towards rational philosophies and go more towards ideas that emphasize "FEEEELINGZZZ" and "COMPASHHHUN!!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should also add that none of Rand's heroes were Alpha Males by traditional standards. Apart from Rand's little kink for bodice-ripper sex, none of them were exactly members of the Manwhore Of The Month club, none of them were social dominators (they were against any form of pack-heirarchialism, dominating or submitting (socially)), they typically had desk jobs and/or aspired to desk jobs rather than MAAANRY manual labor (which, when they did it, was exclusively about means-to-an-end), and all of them had very lithe builds (athletic at best, none of them were oh-so-buff). They weren't beer-swilling cigar-chomping military men either. Oh, and none of them ever killed anyone else.

Mostly bullshit. Including the killing stuff.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should also add that none of Rand's heroes were Alpha Males by traditional standards. Apart from Rand's little kink for bodice-ripper sex, none of them were exactly members of the Manwhore Of The Month club, none of them were social dominators (they were against any form of pack-heirarchialism, dominating or submitting (socially)), they typically had desk jobs and/or aspired to desk jobs rather than MAAANRY manual labor (which, when they did it, was exclusively about means-to-an-end), and all of them had very lithe builds (athletic at best, none of them were oh-so-buff). They weren't beer-swilling cigar-chomping military men either. Oh, and none of them ever killed anyone else.

Mostly bullshit. Including the killing stuff.

--Brant

I'm not sure I get what you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Too many alpha-males infesting the philosophical movement, from local groups on up to "the top."

Alpha males? Like Leonard Peikoff?? I know where you’re coming from, but I’d say there’s too many wannabe alphas, and a severe lack of the genuine article.

I would take a strictly structural, denotative approach here and call "alpha male" every man that has made it to the top of an organization.

It is not required to be a top dog in an organization to qualify as "alpha male" (for of course alpha males also exist in less-structured environments), but if a man has made it to the top in an organization, it makes him the alpha male there.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for why Objectivism is not spreading: in many respects, it is a very radical philosophy and radical philosophies are as a rule not widely accepted.

For example, as long as most people still belong to a religious denomination, the time may not be ripe yet for accepting radical atheistic positions as in Objectivism.

It's only been a few years since Dawkins, Hitchins & Co have reached a widespread audience with their books.

The still very strong, totally uncritical 'alloy' of belief in the bible + advocating capitalism among quite a few US politicians (and journalists sympathizing with them) closes the gate to every atheistic philosophy, even if this philosophy (like Objectivism) happens to share their advocating of capitalism.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I would say that the heroic male characters in her books are in fact "alpha males;" simply more of what I consider the real thing and less of the stereotypical. There's a lot more to coming out on top of a pack than sniffing your armpit and such. At least in the modern sense of it. Heavy masculinity does not preclude being rounded.

Look at Heinlein's characters, as an example. Same thing. It's the "strong, sensitive" (and piercingly intelligent) type. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I would say that the heroic male characters in her books are in fact "alpha males;" simply more of what I consider the real thing and less of the stereotypical. There's a lot more to coming out on top of a pack than sniffing your armpit and such. At least in the modern sense of it. Heavy masculinity does not preclude being rounded.

Look at Heinlein's characters, as an example. Same thing. It's the "strong, sensitive" (and piercingly intelligent) type. :)

In other words, you redefine the concept. Possibly to include traits which you personally share, so as to remake the concept into a more flattering one.

I'm using the commonly understood meaning of the term, primarily because the term is about placement in a social heirarchy; a placement which is dependent on embodying what other people consider "alpha male" traits. Claiming traits X, Y and Z make someone the "real" top-dog when everyone else only respects A, B and C won't make possessors of X, Y and Z into the socially dominant creatures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the distinction between wannabe alpha and the genuine article was displayed during the McCaskey affair. A wannabe pounds the table and ultimately invokes argument from authority, the genuine article earns respect by referencing facts, offering rational arguments and so on. If it turns out he’s wrong, he corrects the error, he doesn’t pound his chest and do charging displays to scare people off his turf. That approach does, however, work well among apes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the distinction between wannabe alpha and the genuine article was displayed during the McCaskey affair. A wannabe pounds the table and ultimately invokes argument from authority, the genuine article earns respect by referencing facts, offering rational arguments and so on. If it turns out he’s wrong, he corrects the error, he doesn’t pound his chest and do charging displays to scare people off his turf. That approach does, however, work well among apes.

Then your definition of the term radically differs from the common one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should also add that none of Rand's heroes were Alpha Males by traditional standards. Apart from Rand's little kink for bodice-ripper sex, none of them were exactly members of the Manwhore Of The Month club, none of them were social dominators (they were against any form of pack-heirarchialism, dominating or submitting (socially)), they typically had desk jobs and/or aspired to desk jobs rather than MAAANRY manual labor (which, when they did it, was exclusively about means-to-an-end), and all of them had very lithe builds (athletic at best, none of them were oh-so-buff). They weren't beer-swilling cigar-chomping military men either. Oh, and none of them ever killed anyone else.

Mostly bullshit. Including the killing stuff.

--Brant

I'm not sure I get what you mean.

Well, let's see. Dagny offed the guard--oops, alpha female--Francisco blew off the heads of two guys assaulting Rearden, and Ragnar never hurt a fly. Of course, there was Wyatt and his "desk" job. If you want to write something that's coherent, stop mixing up people with wolves. Look at all the "alpha males" who threw themselves at Roark and simply bounced off him. Oh yeah, "desk" job Roark, catching rivets in Boston and breaking granite in a quarry. Wynand and his long stream of mistresses, until he met and married Dominique. Does blowing up copper mines count for anything in your twisted Randian cosmology? A "desk" job isn't "exclusively about means-to-an-end"? Francisco wasn't a "social dominator"? Every party he went to he dominated. How do you know what kind of build Wyatt had? I don't recall that description. Hey, remember when Francisco almost killed Hank with his bare hands?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised anyone would actually want more Alpha Males in O-Land. That kind of goes against Rand's whole critique of social dominance that she makes in The Fountainhead.

I should also add that none of Rand's heroes were Alpha Males by traditional standards.

I believe you have the Randian male down accurately. He is not Alpha (or Beta or Omega), he is right 'off the chart'. Why, because we don't need reminding that Rand despised "society", and the Alpha Male has referents to other people - foremost. He lives by and through others - dominant leader and influential power broker; secondarily - mover and shaker, producer and initiator.

The Randian Male does not even notice society, except for a handful of individuals he respects, admires or loves. A loner who isn't aware that he is a loner, and wouldn't care to be any other way if he did know.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then your definition of the term radically differs from the common one.

So be it, if so I misspoke. Don’t make me go all Humpty Dumpty on you, I’m spelling out what I meant when I drew this metaphorical distinction. Actually it was Roger who first brought in this alpha male motif.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised anyone would actually want more Alpha Males in O-Land. That kind of goes against Rand's whole critique of social dominance that she makes in The Fountainhead.

My point was not that I'd like to see more alpha males in O-land, but that I think it's funny that, when wondering why Objectivism isn't popular, and why the "movement" attracts so few women, Objectivist men actually propose the idea that they're too masculine and alpha!

If you'd like a tentative hypothesis as to why there are so many "geeks and spazzes" (thanks for the degrading terms)...

I don't know that the terms "geek" or "spaz" apply to you, so don't take my comment personally. My use of the terms isn't meant to apply to anyone and everyone who is smart, but to people who are fairly knowledgeable of certain specific things, but completely inept at almost everything else. I tend to reserve the terms for intellectual hobbyists who have a very high opinion of themselves but really don't accomplish much in reality.

...in Objectivism, let me make a suggestion...

Just imagine you're a young guy and your primary competencies are intellectual and your artistic/cultural interests aren't "normal." Naturally you get treated as bottom-feeding pond-scum by the pack-animals of the schoolyard for the crime of being intelligent, not fitting in, etc.

Sure, there were people in high school who picked on the physically weak because they were weak, but then again, there were also those who called others "pack-animals" and such simply because they were interested in things that the "intellectual" students didn't like. The lashing out due to low self-esteem or envy went both ways.

This inflicts upon you crippling feelings of self-hate because at that age (and in that cultural mileu) you're pretty much guaranteed to see "fitting in" and "being normal" and "being like other people" as synonyms of "good."

And then you read Ayn Rand who turns every single thing you've been loathed for into a virtue. Who casts you as an heroic figure for not being sufficiently broken to the point of actually fitting in.

You have a good point there. One of the reasons that Rand's art is popular is because it makes people who don't fit in feel as if they are heroic for not fitting in, and I think that carries over into their appreciation of her philosophy -- I think that those who have the strongest need to believe in the fantasy of their own heroism are probably very emotionally invested in not being very critical of Objectivism.

Who posits (alongside a LOT of economists like Schumpeter and Mises) that it is intelligence and creativity that move the world and that the glorified High School football team captain will end up dumb, poor and with nothing but his memories of his glory days beating up the nerd that currently employs him.

Sorry, but that sounds more like a revenge fantasy than reality. Where I grew up, the glorified sports team captain usually graduated at the top of his class and ended up being much more productive than the nerds who looked down their noses at athletes. Granted, some of the nerds had legitimate complaints against some of the athletes, but there were also times when it was quite obvious that the nerds' insults were really nothing but envy.

Oh, and just a correction, the majority of women don't go for ultra-macho MAAANRY alpha males either. There have actually been statistical studies on this; men that were semi-androgynous (about 75% traditionally masculine, 25% traditionally feminine) actually got the most sex with women out of all tested groups.

I didn't say that the majority of women want "ultra-macho MAAANRY alpha males." My point was not that women want such men, but that they're also generally not attracted to the type of men who are Star Trek conventioneers, role playing gamers and Ayn Rand zealots who aren't as intelligent as they believe themselves to be, and who really aren't very successful or productive (they didn't end up creating anything or owning a business which employs the dumb high school football players who beat them up).

So no, I don't think the gender bias is based on a lack of alpha males (that would also be kind of sexist really; the assumption that "women aren't into Objectivism because there aren't that many appealling breeding opportunities" kind of ignores the whole point that people are meant to support philosophies because they agreewith them, not to get laid).

The point is not that women are not drawn to Objectivism because it doesn't attract enough alpha males to satisfy their appetites, but because it attracts so many geeks and spazzes rather than just normal males. It attracts a lot of people who are not living in reality but are treating Objectivism in the same way that others treat Star Trek conventions and role playing tournaments -- as a form of escape into a more comforting alternative to reality.

Rather, the fact that Objectivists are mostly male is explained by the fact that even in this day and age, women are still expected to be emotionalist, superficial and shallow because Logic And Reason Are Male (this is not just a relic of pre-feminist eras; many radical feminists actually argue this!!). As such they're less likely on average to gravitate towards rational philosophies and go more towards ideas that emphasize "FEEEELINGZZZ" and "COMPASHHHUN!!!"

I disagree. I think that it's the Objectivist geeks and spazzes who are emotionalist, superficial and shallow. They're attracted to Objectivism because of what it makes them feel. As you mentioned above, Objectivism allows them to cast themselves as heroic figures. Logic and reason often have nothing to do with it.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should also add that none of Rand's heroes were Alpha Males by traditional standards. Apart from Rand's little kink for bodice-ripper sex, none of them were exactly members of the Manwhore Of The Month club, none of them were social dominators (they were against any form of pack-heirarchialism, dominating or submitting (socially)), they typically had desk jobs and/or aspired to desk jobs rather than MAAANRY manual labor (which, when they did it, was exclusively about means-to-an-end), and all of them had very lithe builds (athletic at best, none of them were oh-so-buff).

I have no doubt that the "lithe build" Rand preferred, originally came from her real-life hero Leo, the "tall and thin" student she met in Petrograd in 1922.

"What I liked most was the arrogance and the haughty smile - the smile that said: Well, world, you have to admire me." (Rand quoted in B. Branden's The Passion of Ayn Rand, p. 47).

Virtually every female will have met such "Leos" at social gatherings in their youth; my personal attidude towards those "Leos" often went in the direction of "What a stuck-up balloon that is; how easy it would to be poke a little hole into it!" ;),

but one has to keep in mind that it was in 1922 when Rand met Leo. She was a child of her time here, with a very traditional feminine 'admiring' attitude.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“... the personalities in the [Objectivist] movement, especially at “the top,” ... have turned many people off. That’s why having leaders like Yaron Brook ... is important ...”

The personalities in the French revolution, especially at the top, have turned many Frenchmen off. That’s why having leaders like Robespierre is important.

Which is to say, regarding Yaron Brook it’s just the opposite. This clown has turned away countless would be Objectivists.

His pro-war writings are well-known, as is the absence of his anti-police-state writings. His economic writing is problematic. He claims banks are, generally speaking, innocent, the feds made them act irresponsibly. In a lecture he once said that the various wars in the Middle East have nothing to do with the economic downturn. Apparently he thinks that over a trillion dollars and counting spent on war materiel and destruction doesn’t affect our economy. This is Objectivism?

Goodbye Objectivism, with well-financed creeps like this promoting it, or claiming to.

Birds of a Feather reveals their true nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like most of the answers to the slowness of Objectivism in spreading in the last forty-plus posts fall broadly into three categories:

1) It's the IDEAS (the philosophy has mistakes or is unappealing or too radical or it's too soon for such ideas / they must take centuries to percolate.)

2) It's the CULTURE (religious culture, hostility to reason, poor education, people can't think or don't want to).

3) It's the PEOPLE (the advocates--Objectivists themselves are unappealing, poor salesmen, a turn-off, not sufficiently skilled or knowledgeable.)

My answer would be that all three areas clearly play a major role, but that one is the biggest of the three. (Which then would lead to two questions: Which one is the keystone, the 'big kahuna', the most telling hurdle or difficulty? And can anything currently be done about lessening the obstacle?.)

Just like a fire needs kindling material, air, and a flame or source of heat, a spreading intellectual movement needs ignitable kindling -- ideas which are embraced, understood, adopted, advocated [the ideas]. Plus it needs 'oxygen', a sustaining or hospitable environment [the culture.]

Finally, it needs the push, the spark, the precipitating and sustaining force that makes it ignite and keeps it hot enough to remain fiercely burning [the people/advocates].

Consider one of history's most successful religions, Christianity. Continuing to spread everywhere for two thousand years. It had all three: Fuel - it had a set of texts available everywhere in every language that people found powerfully written, a network of services and rituals and institutions and training and schooling; oxygen -- a culture used to religion and altruistic ethics and hungry for an 'improved' form of that and receptive to the promises Christianity makes and the services and sense of community it offers; heat or impetus -- eager, eloquent, passionate 'missionary' and 'crusader' type advocates with good people skills and good communication skills.

If you don't like to use a religion, you can use politics -- study the conservative movement, as far from influence and numbers around the time Buckley started National Review as Objectivism was or to some extent still is.

So this should provide some comparisons to the Objectivist movement.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like most of the answers to the slowness of Objectivism in spreading in the last forty-plus posts fall broadly into three categories:

1) It's the IDEAS (the philosophy has mistakes or is unappealing or too radical or it's too soon for such ideas / they must take centuries to percolate.)

2) It's the CULTURE (religious culture, hostility to reason, poor education, people can't think or don't want to).

3) It's the PEOPLE (the advocates--Objectivists themselves are unappealing, poor salesmen, a turn-off, not sufficiently skilled or knowledgeable.)

My answer would be that all three areas clearly play a major role, but that one is the biggest of the three. (Which then would lead to two questions: which is the 'big kahuna', the biggest or most telling hurdle or difficulty? And can anything now be done about lessening the obstacle?.)

It's the ideas, particularly the stodgy idea of keeping the system tightly locked down. No genuinely rational and intelligent person is going to put up with that nonsense. So all the rational/intelligent people leave and there you are, left with irrational/unintelligent people, and good luck turning that into a successful movement.

This is not a purely Objectivist problem by the way, as I intimated here: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11127

All movements seem to tend to collect authoritarians at the top, who control the doctrine and thereby cement their own positions of intellectually stunted authority. We need a new "movement methodology" that actually inspires rationality in people.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All Objectivism has to do is substitute "God" for "reality." This taps into the need for de-alienating human beings from reality. "God" would have all the attributes of reality and everywhere you looked God would be looking right back at you, especially while standing in front of your mirror.:blink:

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was not that I'd like to see more alpha males in O-land, but that I think it's funny that, when wondering why Objectivism isn't popular, and why the "movement" attracts so few women, Objectivist men actually propose the idea that they're too masculine and alpha!

How about this: the trouble is the off-putting spectacle of obvious betas (and even omegas) posing as alphas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, let's see. Dagny offed the guard--oops, alpha female--

I'm discussing Rand's depiction of men here. "A Real Man Is A Killer" is a pretty well-established trope; it doesn't apply to women (indeed, killing is often considered defeminizing under the same basic ideas).

Note that I'm not DEFENDING these ideas, I'm simply saying that they are longstanding culturally-accepted beliefs about what proper maleness is.

Francisco blew off the heads of two guys assaulting Rearden

If I remember the fight scene, most of the takedowns were non-lethal. Perhaps I misremembered.

and Ragnar never hurt a fly.

Didn't he leave the crews alive?

If you want to write something that's coherent, stop mixing up people with wolves.

"Mixing up people with wolves" is precisely what I'm criticizing. My point is that Rand's depiction of masculinity is not the traditional idea of "alpha male" (an idea which, as you pointed out, does indeed treat people as wolves).

Oh yeah, "desk" job Roark, catching rivets in Boston and breaking granite in a quarry.

If you read what I wrote, I quite clearly said that "when they do manual labor, its a means to an end." Roark's ideal job is a desk job; his ambition isn't physical exertion but seeing his intellectual creations brought into reality.

Wynand and his long stream of mistresses, until he met and married Dominique.

Wynand isn't a representation of Rand's ideal of proper masculinity. Roark is. That said, Wynand probably IS an embodiment of traditional alpha-maleness.

Does blowing up copper mines count for anything in your twisted Randian cosmology?

This isn't MY "twisted" cosmology. I'm simply arguing that Rand's ideal masculinity wasn't as gender-conservative as her reputation suggests. To substantiate this argument, I am taking a very traditional and old component of the common concept of proper maleness (specifically, "a real man is a killer") and comparing it to Rand's characters.

Were workers in the mine when Francisco blew it up?

Even if so, does Rand at any time portray an explicit act of killing as masculinizing of the killer? I don't think so.

A "desk" job isn't "exclusively about means-to-an-end"?

The point I was making was that the aspirations of Roark et. al. were to intellectual jobs rather than physical ones. Traditional masculinity as understood by what we might call 'common society' is pretty anti-intellectual (venerations of the "Apollonian Masculine" (reason/logic/intellect as male) are mostly confined to philosophy and intellectual elites).

Francisco wasn't a "social dominator"? Every party he went to he dominated.

Francisco was the center of attention, sure. But "center of attention" and "dominator" aren't the same thing. Hell, ask Adam (Selene) for more on this; in the BDSM scene its the submissives that are the center of attention.

By "social dominator" I mean something quite specific... Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) in Psychology, or, to put it briefly, the ability to intimidate others into following your will. What Wynand attempts to do to Roark at one point, and Roark defies.

How do you know what kind of build Wyatt had? I don't recall that description.

I'm simply pointing out that Rand's heroes (especially the ones she seemed to sexually desire (not that there's anything wrong with that)) have a marked tendency towards lithe builds. Roark, Rearden, Leo and Galt certainly did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised anyone would actually want more Alpha Males in O-Land. That kind of goes against Rand's whole critique of social dominance that she makes in The Fountainhead.

My point was not that I'd like to see more alpha males in O-land, but that I think it's funny that, when wondering why Objectivism isn't popular, and why the "movement" attracts so few women, Objectivist men actually propose the idea that they're too masculine and alpha!

Thanks for the clarification. I certainly agree with you that, if some Objectivist men argued that the low number of Objectivist women was due to the men being "too masculine and alpha," I would find such an explanation very flawed indeed (and rather indicative of an ironic case of second-handing; they're remaking a socially-admired quality into their own image... so much for their claims that they are independent thinkers unbound by socially accepted orthodoxy).

I don't know that the terms "geek" or "spaz" apply to you, so don't take my comment personally. My use of the terms isn't meant to apply to anyone and everyone who is smart, but to people who are fairly knowledgeable of certain specific things, but completely inept at almost everything else. I tend to reserve the terms for intellectual hobbyists who have a very high opinion of themselves but really don't accomplish much in reality.

I see. Your use of the terms differs from mine, then. I should add that a lot of people have gotten very semantic with these terms and tried to propose fixed definitions, but let me give you my basic understanding: its a combination of three seperate things - mental competence (general intelligence), uncommon/unpopular hobbies/interests, social ineptitude (the last two traits tend to reinforce each other since a lot of social interaction is premised on the possibility of shared interests/hobbies). And yes, by my definition of the term, I'm a geek. It was the term "spaz" that I found a bit degrading, but yeah.

Sure, there were people in high school who picked on the physically weak because they were weak, but then again, there were also those who called others "pack-animals" and such simply because they were interested in things that the "intellectual" students didn't like. The lashing out due to low self-esteem or envy went both ways.

I should clarify that "pack animals" can easily refer to non-sporting people too. Even intellectuals can act like pack animals (forming a collective and setting up an internal dominance heirarchy). The pack mentality is unfortunately a mental state which anyone can lower themselves to and I've seen plenty of it amongst some self-proclaimed nerds.

You have a good point there. One of the reasons that Rand's art is popular is because it makes people who don't fit in feel as if they are heroic for not fitting in, and I think that carries over into their appreciation of her philosophy -- I think that those who have the strongest need to believe in the fantasy of their own heroism are probably very emotionally invested in not being very critical of Objectivism.

I agree with you to a point. I agree with Rand that these traits (actually not being a pack animal, thinking for oneself, not giving in to the group) are indeed heroic when genuinely practiced. Unfortunately, merely being a nerd doesn't automatically preclude pack-animal behavior; quite a few of them will set up the same pack structure amongst themselves and create a parallel hierarchy.

We all know how the NBI sank into this behavior and generated a culture of conformity, groupthink, heirarchialism etc.

Thus, I'd say the "fantasy of their own heroism" applies because the orthodox Objectivists end up failing the standards they claim to believe in. The problem isn't in their standards of heroic but rather their failure to live up to them.

Sorry, but that sounds more like a revenge fantasy than reality. Where I grew up, the glorified sports team captain usually graduated at the top of his class and ended up being much more productive than the nerds who looked down their noses at athletes. Granted, some of the nerds had legitimate complaints against some of the athletes, but there were also times when it was quite obvious that the nerds' insults were really nothing but envy.

Our experiences differ, then. Where I grew up, whilst pack-animalism can exist within any cultural/ideological group, pack-animalism was much more prevalent (in general) amongst the sports teams. This was partly due to the fact that the school authories tended to use sports primarily to inculcate such a pack mentality in order to make kids easier to control (the less necks, the less leashes required). And yes, I freely admit my wording was clearly a revenge fantasy; I'm a bitter and twisted nerd/geek and proud of it (I'm a goth, but if "geek" or "nerd" means "socially challenged with unorthodox interests" then goths are types of geeks/nerds).

It attracts a lot of people who are not living in reality but are treating Objectivism in the same way that others treat Star Trek conventions and role playing tournaments -- as a form of escape into a more comforting alternative to reality.

Just a clarification; not all people that play RPGs or a big fans of Star Trek are necessarily running from reality. As for RPGs, some simply enjoy the fictional worlds/intellectual properties and thus want to participate in them. Some find the questions and moral dillemmas posed in certain RPGs interesting to ponder. Also, RPGs can be interesting design challenges (from the 'designer' point of view). As for Star Trek (I'm not a fan of it per se, but The Borg are a frightening-as-hell villain), many people simply like it for having an idealistic and positive view of the future. Contrast that with the pessimistic dystopian futures that figure in heaps of speculative fiction. If I were to use Randian terms, Star Trek has a positive, romantic vision of human potential. Yes, it can be emotionalist and sometimes its post-scarcity economy is depicted in strangely socialist terms, but its appeal doesn't necessarily indicate "reality denial."

Now, I think you'll agree with me here. I'm just saying your statement could be interpreted by some as alleging that any form of enthusiasm for escapist entertainment is symptomatic of self-loathing. I think this is a far stronger implication than the one you intended to make. There are plenty of reasons besides self-loathing someone might enjoy escapist, somewhat fantastical kinds of entertainment; disgust with others (as opposed to the self) being merely one possible reason.

I disagree. I think that it's the Objectivist geeks and spazzes who are emotionalist, superficial and shallow. They're attracted to Objectivism because of what it makes them feel. As you mentioned above, Objectivism allows them to cast themselves as heroic figures. Logic and reason often have nothing to do with it.

If you're talking about the orthodox Objectivists, I'm inclined to agree partially. I think it goes beyond a desire to see oneself as heroic, though; I think a lot of their behavior is motivated by a desire to see others as inferior. This explains their perverse zest for moral condemnation and the pleasure they seem to take in contemplating the awfulness of their enemies (to borrow David Kelley's words). In other words, they're still pack animals; they just enjoy the fantasy of being "true alpha" (so to speak) owed deferrence due to their (insert traits here). They never jettisoned a desire to fit in/be normal/be like everyone else in the first place, all they did is change the clique they wanted to be accepted by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, let's see. Dagny offed the guard--oops, alpha female--

I'm discussing Rand's depiction of men here. "A Real Man Is A Killer" is a pretty well-established trope; it doesn't apply to women (indeed, killing is often considered defeminizing under the same basic ideas).

Note that I'm not DEFENDING these ideas, I'm simply saying that they are longstanding culturally-accepted beliefs about what proper maleness is.

Francisco blew off the heads of two guys assaulting Rearden

If I remember the fight scene, most of the takedowns were non-lethal. Perhaps I misremembered.

and Ragnar never hurt a fly.

Didn't he leave the crews alive?

If you want to write something that's coherent, stop mixing up people with wolves.

"Mixing up people with wolves" is precisely what I'm criticizing. My point is that Rand's depiction of masculinity is not the traditional idea of "alpha male" (an idea which, as you pointed out, does indeed treat people as wolves).

Oh yeah, "desk" job Roark, catching rivets in Boston and breaking granite in a quarry.

If you read what I wrote, I quite clearly said that "when they do manual labor, its a means to an end." Roark's ideal job is a desk job; his ambition isn't physical exertion but seeing his intellectual creations brought into reality.

Wynand and his long stream of mistresses, until he met and married Dominique.

Wynand isn't a representation of Rand's ideal of proper masculinity. Roark is. That said, Wynand probably IS an embodiment of traditional alpha-maleness.

Does blowing up copper mines count for anything in your twisted Randian cosmology?

This isn't MY "twisted" cosmology. I'm simply arguing that Rand's ideal masculinity wasn't as gender-conservative as her reputation suggests. To substantiate this argument, I am taking a very traditional and old component of the common concept of proper maleness (specifically, "a real man is a killer") and comparing it to Rand's characters.

Were workers in the mine when Francisco blew it up?

Even if so, does Rand at any time portray an explicit act of killing as masculinizing of the killer? I don't think so.

A "desk" job isn't "exclusively about means-to-an-end"?

The point I was making was that the aspirations of Roark et. al. were to intellectual jobs rather than physical ones. Traditional masculinity as understood by what we might call 'common society' is pretty anti-intellectual (venerations of the "Apollonian Masculine" (reason/logic/intellect as male) are mostly confined to philosophy and intellectual elites).

Francisco wasn't a "social dominator"? Every party he went to he dominated.

Francisco was the center of attention, sure. But "center of attention" and "dominator" aren't the same thing. Hell, ask Adam (Selene) for more on this; in the BDSM scene its the submissives that are the center of attention.

By "social dominator" I mean something quite specific... Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) in Psychology, or, to put it briefly, the ability to intimidate others into following your will. What Wynand attempts to do to Roark at one point, and Roark defies.

How do you know what kind of build Wyatt had? I don't recall that description.

I'm simply pointing out that Rand's heroes (especially the ones she seemed to sexually desire (not that there's anything wrong with that)) have a marked tendency towards lithe builds. Roark, Rearden, Leo and Galt certainly did.

Without countering anything above--I mean let whoever think it out--let's posit this idea: Ayn Rand as the true alpha-male of Objectivism. Everybody else either got neutered or kicked out.

--Brant

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