Rand the Right Winger

[Peter]

Does anyone know what my friend Peter Reidy is doing? He wrote Wright and Rand. It looks like he stopped posting about six months ago. I checked internet obits but did not find his name mentioned, (god forbid) and he does not answer his email. Curiouser and curiouser. He corrected my latin tenses for my closing:

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

From: "Peter Reidy" <peterreidy@hotmail.com>

To: reason_on@hotmail.com, atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Rand's Politics

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 21:16:24

Concerning Hardesty's assertions, here are some facts as best I know them:

- "In 1964 Rand backed Barry Goldwater for President and stated in a March, 1964 interview with Playboy, that the US had a 'right' to invade Cuba, the USSR or any other 'slave pen'."

She backed Goldwater with reservations, and the quotes are accurate. She deals at greater length with the right to invade in "Collectivized Rights".

- "Rand was vehemently opposed to the 1963 Partial Nuclear Test Ban Act which prohibited atmospheric nuclear testing and which has saved countless lives, just here in the US of people who would otherwise be poisoned by radiation, from above ground nuclear tests."

She opposed it in passing (not "vehemently") in the Playboy interview and referred readers to Teller's testimony. The rest is an early example of the junk science that has become so much more prevalent lately.

- "Rand thought it morally okay to bomb villages in Vietnam and that it was just tough that noncombatants were killed, an attitude that ARI extends to the whole Arab World today."

I think she would have agreed, though I don't know of anyplace where she actually said so. The part about ARI is true.

- "Rand was against any form of social welfare, she favored a free hand for the FBI & CIA to combat 'spies'".

Correct about social welfare. "Free hand" is too vague to judge, and the scarequotes bespeak a serious ignorance of twentieth-century American history.

- "She was strongly for Nixon's appointment of William Rehnquist to the Supreme Court, whom Reagan later elevated to Chief Justice, [sic] he is a hardcore rightwing ideologue."

Questionable. She condemned the double standard of the Rehnquist opposition and said, at most, that his record was cause for guarded optimism. ("The Disenfranchisement of the Right", I think. In "Censorship, Local and Express", she explicitly repudiated him, years before he became Chief Justice. "Hardcore rightwing ideologue" is, once more, impermissibly vague.

- "Rand was for the death penalty in principle."

Correct, though Nathaniel Branden actually authored the statement, in "The Objectivist Newsletter".

- "Rand was opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act".

True. See her essay "Racism".

- "According to the late Roy M. Cohn, Rand thought Joe McCarthy was too soft on communism !"

Don't know Cohn actually said this or, if he did, whether his report was accurate. Her only published mention of McCarthy is in "Extremism, or The Art of Smearing". She said that she was not an admirer, but not for the

same reasons as most people. She wouldn't have liked his irresponsibility and his anti-intellectualism. As far as I know, she never said what Hardesty says Cohn said she said.

- "Rand's political mentor was Isabel Paterson, an arch-conservative and anti-Semite, according to Barbara Branden's biography".

Correct, though Barbara Branden says that they eventually broke with each other and that Paterson's penchant for nutzoid hostility was the main reason.

What do you mean by "the McCarthy trials"? Strictly speaking, he held hearings, not trials. I suspect you are conflating them with the HUAC movie hearings, where Rand was a witness. These were quite separate events, and she had no personal involvement in the former.

Did you and Hardesty ever agree on what "rightwing" means? It strikes me as an example of what she called an anti-concept (see "Extremism").

Peter

[Chris Grieb]

I think Reidy posted within the last week on OL. He got a question about when he saw Nathaniel Branden for therapy in the 70ths.

[Peter]

Thanks, Chris. Rand was against a female president in principle. Would Rand the right winger, vote for Obama or Palin in 2012?

Peter

Here is a female president thread. NB and BB are in it.

Bill Dwyer remarked about a female president:

“In the January 1968 issue of _McCall's_ magazine, Rand wrote, "A woman cannot reasonably want to be a commander-in-chief." A year later in January 1969, Rand wrote an article entitled "About a Woman President" for _The Objectivist_ (which appeared in the December 1968 issue and was later reprinted in her anthology, _The Voice of Reason_ (1988). In that article, she again stated, "I do not think that a rational woman can want to be president." [_The Voice of Reason_, p. 267] She also stated that being president "for a rational woman would be an unbearable situation," adding, "And if she is not rational, she is unfit for the presidency or for any important position, anyway." [ibid., p. 269]

I think that Rand's views on this issue also qualify as a part of her philosophy, since what she regards as "rational" and "not rational" are a part of it. Again, however, it is the position of ARI that Rand's views on a woman president are NOT part of her philosophy.

End of Bill’s quote

From: Ellen Moore <ellen_moore@mb.sympatico.ca>

To: Atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: About A Woman President

Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:32:01 -0500

In response to Phoebe Morrison's questions, I would never think that a question like Phoebe's was mean-spirited, I am not mean-spirited, and I never thought Ayn Rand was mean-spirited; in fact just the opposite. I think Rand was a woman who lived with grand passions, and I think that was absolutely clear from all of her writings, and from the choices we know she made during her life.

Phoebe asked, "Did you think that Margaret Thatcher was 'psychologically unworthy of the job' of Prime Minister?"

I'd answer that I have no knowledge of Mrs. Thatcher's psychology, but I do think that she was worthy of the job of Prime Minister in her context of the time. I think she has been the most admirable statesman (or stateswoman if you prefer) of recent history. She was strong, straight talking, proud, gracious, and formidable in times of crisis, ready for any challenge she faced -- and she was poised in political defeat. She really was a tower of strength to the members of parliament when she was at the helm. Remember her saying, "This is no time to go wobbly, George."

I also think that this view I express here is perfectly consistent with Rand's essay on A Woman President. Rand never said that a woman could not do the job as well, if not better, than any man. Rand did not site any rule that decreed one must never vote for a woman as President. So, that is definitely not the issue of her essay. I hope you have it handy to reread; it's always advisable for anyone to know the content of what one is discussing, criticizing, accepting or rejecting.

Introduction:

I will make some general comments first about this topic. Sexuality is a highly emotional and individual experience. It is a unique experience for each individual, yet the more self-analysis and introspection one has learned to do, and the more one has knowledge of human sexuality in individual cases, one may be able to recognize certain similarities between oneself and others. One may know others from one's personal experience with them, and one may understand the terms they describe their experiences and feelings to be. One can never know first hand, or even have much understanding of what another person's experiences or

feelings are. This is a common occurrence in people who fail to understand the sexuality of others because they have never shared similar experiences and emotions. In my view, if one does understand deeply, it is because one knows personally what that passion is like, or they may make the effort and have the ability to conceptually grasp what they have not experienced personally.

I think much of this kind of misunderstanding we have heard on Atlantis about Rand's essay is caused by the fact that some participants are not knowledgeable about the basis of Objectivism. And they have not shared similar experiences or emotions. I am thinking specifically about the relation between reason and emotion, and about her conceptual epistemology and morality.

Re: reason and emotion. Objectivism defines our terms of identity and relations. i.e., "Man is a being of volitional consciousness." "Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses." "Emotion is an automatic response to value judgments." In my own words, emotions are actually "psycho-epistemological" because emotion results from an integration of one's epistemology and psychology.

When we experience an emotion it is the result of a seemingly instantaneous evaluation that is a subconscious appraisal. We identify the experience, we evaluate it according to whether it is pleasurable or painful (whether it is "for me or against me"), we make a judgment about it, and then our emotional response is automatic. For instance, when someone insults you, you need not go slowly through each step, you automatically feel an angry emotion immediately. Therefore, if one's premises are reasonable, one's emotions will follow automatically. But if one's premises are unreasonable, or mixed, then one's emotions will still automatically follow. As Rand said, "Emotions are not tools of cognition", so one's knowledge must be valid knowledge of reality (i.e., known by means of reason) in order for one's emotions to respond according to reality. Otherwise, emotional responses may indicate unresolved issues, and irrationalities in our epistemology and psychology. Such emotions will lead automatically into further conflicts, and if unresolved finally leads into neurotic emotional states.

Now to the essay about A Woman President, Rand offered her idea of what femininity means in this essay - and she explained Man worship in the Introduction to The Fountainhead, written in January, 1969.

"The issue is primarily psychological. It involves a woman's fundamental view of life, of herself and of her basic values. For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero worship - the desire to look up to a man. "To look up: does not mean dependence, obedience, or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of strong character and independent value judgments. ... Hero worship is a demanding virtue; a woman has to be worthy of it and of the hero she worships. Intellectually and morally, i.e., as a human being, she has to be his equal; then the object of her worship is specifically his ~masculinity~, not any human virtue she might lack."

... "Her worship is an abstract emotion for the ~metaphysical~concept of masculinity as such - which she experiences fully and concretely only for the man she loves, but which colors her attitude toward all men ... the higher her view of masculinity, the more severely demanding her standards. It means 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~."

In Rand's Introduction to The Fountainhead, written in 1969, she wrote about man worship,

"It is the entire emotional realm of man's dedication to a moral ideal. ..." "The man-worshipers, in my sense of the term, are those who see man's highest potential and strive to actualize it ... [Man-worshipers are] those dedicated to the ~exaltation~ of man's self-esteem and the ~sacredness~ of his happiness on earth." [Note that in this passage she is referring to Man in general, Man in abstraction, but it may also be applied to a specific man or woman in a particular case.]

The president, in all his professional relationships is the "highest authority", the 'chief executive", and the "commander-in-chief". In his professional hierarchy, the president deals only with his inferiors (not as persons) in respect to their work and their responsibilities. Rand's view of femininity would make this post intolerable for a rational woman who could not want to be the ruler of ~all men~ she deals with. It would be necessary to deny her own sense of femininity, and it would be impossible to view those men she ~rules~ without, as Rand wrote, having to "suppress every personal aspect of her own character and attitude," i.e., to the abstract ideal as she hero worships and looks up to as ~masculinity~. Unless she was another "Clinton", she would have to feel that her femininity was inappropriate, and she'd have to act as if it was absent in her professional life. As Rand wrote, a woman president would be somewhat like the figure of "a matriarch" in firm control over her living progeny. This essential denial and suppression of one's sexual femininity is what I think Rand meant by "spiritual self-immolation" while a woman does her professional job as President. Rand thinks that any woman who would want to be in this position would be "unworthy of the job." I agree.

Now there is nothing written here to indicate that a woman could not do the job, and there is nothing to indicate that a woman is lesser than a man, or subservient to a man or men -- and there is nothing to indicate that it would be wrong for anyone to vote for a woman president in the proper circumstances. Those views as expressed are silly distortions and false implications of what Rand wrote. I agree with Rand that a woman who understands her own femininity, as Rand does, could not ~reasonably want~ to be commander-in-chief.

My Understanding:

Ayn Rand was not just an average thinker. She was a most intelligent woman capable of dealing with a broad range of highly abstract generalizations and integration. In this essay she was not referring to a casual roll in the hay, or even about a satisfactory sexual relationship between lovers. This was not written about the ~physical~, the concrete, it was about the metaphysical and the idealistic. Rand was fully able to articulate her own thinking about the broadest abstract ~metaphysical~ meaning of femininity, of a woman's hero worship, of rational self-esteem, of the ~sacredness~ of woman's happiness on earth, of a rational woman's sexual ~sense of self~.

All this is evidence shows that she was presenting her own highest abstract ideals - that is the truism her readers alone are responsible to understand. I think that the issue may be understood by any idealistic person able to grasp abstract conceptual ideas as presented by her. She wrote, "that this issue is not self-evident and that it is not easy to conceptualize." I would not have been able to articulate this idealism of femininity as she did, but I did understand her meaning when I read it. And each time I read it I understand more, and more deeply.

I also see that without this idealistic sexual attraction between femininity and masculinity, there would not be any grand passion such as Romantic Love. The best level at which many people experience their sexuality is pallid in comparison, and at worst it is depraved.

Because humans are volitional their personal sexual psychology is a developmental process beginning at birth and formed over a lifetime according to their experiences and their conceptual evaluations – to whatever extent they learn to achieve and use the ability to reason. Needless to say any mixed premises, inconsistencies, and unresolved conflicts will undercut their ability to understand and maintain the idealism they may have subconsciously felt in youth as merely an exciting promise for future life. A life lived in a conflicted mental muddle will not be the same as a life lived by reasoned mental integration. So, obviously, individuals will differ in their sexual psychology and their understanding of femininity and masculinity.

The essence of Rand's integration was to distinguish between the conceptual meaning of femininity and masculinity. Since men and women may become equally intelligent, rational, independent, strong, moral, etc., they will desire a mate who can share their values and ideals, one who can be trusted and with whom one feels secure in their moral character. I call this "wanting a strong homeplace of security" when "the world is too much with us". I think that if the essence of femininity is "hero worship", then the essence of masculinity is heroine worship. It requires two different sides of the same idealism – a coming together of an understood grand passion for mutual benefit.

Did Ayn Rand write this piece for irrational minds or irrational psychologies? No, she wrote it because she thought her rational readers would, perhaps, understand what she knew and had conceptually integrated. And if they thought about her meaning they would see how right she was. In essence, Rand always wrote for rational minds.

Personally, it is my firm belief as an Objectivist that any form of power lusting is not a value and not an ideal. In fact, I view it as a neurosis. I cannot conceive of any rational person who would want to take a position of power over others. That is not the proper role of a rational leader. A leader is any person who has the strength of intelligence and character able to influence other independent individuals to rise to the order of right actions at the right time. Therefore, any such woman or man may be that kind of leader.

But that is not the case in the realm of Politics and the Presidency as it exists today. I do not approve of this political party system of government -- it so often brings the worst to the top, and it only occasionally brings out the best in men and women who seek professional politics. Most of them want power over others, want to impose their own views and values onto others who fundamentally disagree. It's bad enough to see an irrational man claw his way to the top position, but for an irrational woman "feminist" to want to have power over a population of men, women and children, to me, is an obscenity.

I could never want to be President. For a rational woman, it would be the loneliest place in which she would have to deny her own sense of femininity - alone at the top of a world she never wanted to live in.

Yet, in the present context, I am convinced that a rational woman ~could~ do the job as well as any man. I just do not understand or agree why she would ~want to be there~ to do it. When the context is such that wielding power is absolutely necessary for self-defense, then all brave men and women should be able to rise to the challenge. Otherwise, the President is much like the Queen in England, all pomp and protocol, with no power.

I think it was Jason Alexander who said, "Politics is dead. Ayn Rand killed it." I agree. With Objectivism, we can conceive of better than this system. Dictators and Authoritarians will have no place and no power in a rational society. A rational femininity and masculinity have no need for power over others.

Ayn Rand was right.

Ellen Moore

From: "Dennis May" <determinism@hotmail.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: Re: Act like you have a pair!

Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:43:52 -0500

I wrote:

<"...I understand it is disheartening to speak of big visions when the Objectivist/Libertarian movement cannot seem to roll a drunk much less a government, but what are some of the "Big Visions" some of the rest of you have out there. I've hear Monart Pon express some concerning "The High Frontier" but

little else. What are some of your visions for the future?">

Michael Sikorski wrote:

>My vision for the future is the mass communication of the virtues of capitalism: reaching out to John and Jane Voter, reminding them of the capitalist "Big Vision" to which Dennis refers.

Individual leadership combined with a well thought out advertising campaign would seem to be what Michael is talking about. The individual(s) would necessarily need to be a successful capitalist himself. If this were combined with a specific goal or related to actual job recruitment the message would go much further than generalized comments. Military recruitment ads talk about a way of life and a job paying money. Socialists talk about victimization or bad luck and by the way you are going to get the money. Lottery programs are all about getting the money and getting ahead regardless of your lifestyle.

I would see such a capitalist campaign most effective in say generating revenue for a private space adventure "where we are building the future of humanity", starting a new small private nation where "you can be your own man", or creating a new kind of corporation where only the best and brightest need apply. The message must be as big as the capitalism which goes with it. As Napoleon said: "Small Plans Do Not Inflame the Hearts of Men”.

I don't think the value of personal leadership in this case can be overemphasized. I have heard many accounts of how the personal leadership of George Washington saved the American Revolution from turning in on itself even after the British had been driven out. The Air Force often spoke of Washington in relation to

his leadership and straight forward honest nature and resolve. Whoever the messenger is, all the slings and arrows of the media will barbeque his hide eternal. It will take [to steal a phrase from the movie "Dragnet"] someone with balls as big as church bells. There is little doubt why few have even attempted to step up to

the plate. A job this big will take a big man [or woman].

Dennis May

From: Ellen Moore <ellen_moore@mb.sympatico.ca>

To: Atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: Rand's Position on Femininity

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 22:28:55 -0500

George, et al,

I have been having difficulty in understanding exactly what George's problem is in not understanding Rand's essay on A Woman President. His post today gave me the first clues. His disagreement does not appear to be the fact that Rand had and expressed her own personal sexual psychology, it is that he thinks she intended on imposing her sexual psychology on all women as a tenet of Objectivism. I am certain George is wrong. My view is that she succeeded in presenting a valid generalization for 'woman qua woman'. And that's what a woman philosopher should do.

The questions are: Must all women have the same sexual psychology in order to be Objectivists? Do all men? Is psychology in general, and sexual psychology in particular, something that philosophical principles can decree? Do differences in individual psychology, and sexual preferences, disallow one from being an Objectivist? What about the validity of generalizations for sexuality, or femininity and masculinity?

Well, I cannot think of any subject that is more prone to individual differences than is sexuality for each individual self. Yet, I think that Rand is right when she formed this sexual generalization about femininity, but it does not have to apply in the same way and in the same respect in different individual contexts for all human beings, male or female.

Obviously it is a truism that everyone's psychology is a product created by a volitional, developmental psycho-epistemological process in the individual context of personality maturation. Therefore, one's psychology was being formed early in life, and its causes and experiences are complex and derivative. Even if one's sexual psychological premises are mixed, but are not explicitly irrational and immoral, I am open to the idea that many individuals could agree with and apply the essential philosophical principles that could be viewed as those of Objectivists. The key is, does one's sexual psychology contradict fundamental rational principles? Since I have not thought deeply about this application, it could be an interesting topic for discussion.

Rand made it very clear that she was talking about the essence of femininity being an abstraction, a *metaphysical* abstraction of "hero worship", of admiration for a man's "masculinity" - of being able to look up to a man. In fact, if the distinction between femininity and masculinity did not exist in general, then sexual attraction would mean nothing more than momentary physical, sexual satisfaction. To many, it is no more than scratching an itch. And to others, it is so much more than that. Is there anyone who disagrees that there are individual differences in sexuality?

Rand wrote, "woman qua woman". "qua" means "in virtue of being". In Rand's terms that would mean "by a woman's feminine identity" in her sexual relation to a man and his sexual masculinity. Rand also made it clear that a woman's femininity, her hero worship, would be and should be toward the man she loves, and definitely not to every man she meets. Such admiration and hero worship is a proper emotion only for those men she greatly admires, or deeply loves within an intimate relationship.

There may be many women who never rise to that level of metaphysical abstraction conceptually, and they would never experience or understand any great admiration or hero worship, or grand passion for any man. At best, such a woman would be able to be a friend or a pal, or a sex object. At worst, such a woman would simply seek to manipulate, control and use men sexually to further her own self-serving goals. But these kind of women [and it is also clear that Rand wrote about different types of women in her novels] are not what Rand was talking about in this essay. She was talking about "woman qua woman" and femininity - the man worshipper.

What does that mean? Rand often said, "Man qua Man", and she meant " by their nature, men and women, not as they are, but as they could be and should be". In this context of femininity, when Rand says "woman qua woman", she means the femininity of woman, not as she is, but as she could be and should be -- only *if* she lives up to her highest potential. And that to Rand means [i think] a rational woman who rises

to the highest level of intelligent womanhood possible to her. If a woman does that she is feminine, and rationally speaking she is moral. Then, and only then, would she desire a man with the highest essence of metaphysical masculinity and moral character she could and should admire.

I have presented at least part of my case for agreeing with her ideas in her essay. And also, I agree with Morganis that ~if~ George disagrees with Rand it is George's responsibility to prove her reasoning and generalizing is false. All he has done is call her view of femininity "silly". I think he is way off the mark on this one.

Today, by noting her statement of "woman qua woman", George writes, that Rand "was not merely referring to her own sexual identity and personal preferences. Rather, she was making universal judgments about female psychology *in general*. The 'essence of femininity' that Rand discusses does not merely refer to *her* personal preferences, but to *all other women* as well."

These are the clues to George's mistakes. His claim is that he has known many individual women and their sexual psychology. What he has not understood is Rand's sexual psychology, her ideals of femininity and masculinity, and her generalizations reached on the basis of her conceptual integration. Also he does not understand that one could be an Objectivist without reaching the ideals of femininity and masculinity that Rand wrote about in this essay. She wrote of the idealization of sexual psychology, "The man worshipers [who] are those who see man's highest potential and strive to actualize it. ... those dedicated to the *exaltation* of man's self-esteem and the *sacredness* of his happiness on earth." This means women, too.

George, look at the men in the world, are there many who strive and reach this ideal? Are there many women who are capable of being man-worshippers? I, personally, think there is only a small percent of women or men who are man worshippers in the sense that Rand meant. Do you really think that Rand was generalizing about all women's sexual psychology? I do not. I think she was telling her readers what is possible for humans to feel sexually, i.e., the best of femininity and masculinity, and about what humans could feel and should feel if they rose to the best, highest level of what a rational "human being" means.

There is one other idea Rand expressed in this context [but not in this essay with which I really disagree. Barbara has reminded me of this. Rand believed that a man is defined by his fundamental relationship to reality, while a woman is defined by her fundamental relationship to man. Rand, in her context, may have wanted to know that there was a man of such grand stature that he could and would stand in for her reality, especially that he would be more important to her than any other value in her life. I doubt if she ever found such a man, so I think that she, as man worshipper, created him in the character of John Galt, "a man of supreme masculinity and a philosopher who is a man of action."

Personally, I do not believe that any man stands before my own value of self, or between my own mind's evaluation of reality. I too would worship the values of a man who could be a philosopher and a man of

action - that's my idealism. But he would always come second to my own views about reality and my love for him. This is why I think that, if the best in a woman is her femininity and hero worship, then the very best in man is his masculinity, and in being a heroine worshipper. Neither is valid without the other, not even in abstraction or in fiction - it's mutual and reciprocal.

Ellen Moore

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

Reply-To: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

To: "*Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: Rand's Position on Femininity

Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:28:03 -0500

Ellen Moore wrote:

"I have been having difficulty in understanding exactly what George's problem is in not understanding Rand's essay on A Woman President. His post today gave me the first clues. His disagreement does not appear to be the fact that Rand had and expressed her own personal sexual psychology, it is that he thinks she intended on imposing her sexual psychology on all women as a tenet of Objectivism. I am certain George is wrong. My view is that she succeeded in presenting a valid generalization for 'woman qua woman'. And that's what a woman philosopher should do."

Whether Rand considered her views on sexual psychology to be "a tenet of Objectivism" is of little interest to me, and I don't know what it means to say that I supposedly believe Rand "intended on imposing her sexual psychology on all women." (I don't know what "imposing" would mean in this context.)

The point is this: On the one hand, Ellen claims that "Rand had and expressed her own personal sexual psychology." Fine, no problem, as I have said before. But, as I also argued before, Rand did not *intend* her argument against a woman president *merely* to express her personal preferences; rather, she universalized her personal views so as to apply to *all* woman.

I thought Ellen disagreed with this, but she now says: "My view is that she succeeded in presenting a valid generalization for 'woman qua woman'. And that's what a woman philosopher should do."

So which is it? Is Rand's argument *merely* an expression of her personal preference, or is "a valid generalization for 'woman qua woman'"? I wish Ellen would make up her mind. (Actually she apparently has, as I indicate below.)

Consider this passage from Rand's article which Ellen quoted in a previous post: "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."

This is clearly a blanket critique of ALL women who would seriously *want* to be president (at least when qualified males are available). Rand is *not* saying, in effect: "Given my personal sexual psychology, I am personally disposed to view a woman who desires to be president in this way, but this is a subjective preference with which others may rationally disagree."

It would be absurd to suppose this is Rand's argument. On the contrary, she is using her *theory* of feminine sexuality to psychoanalyze, in effect, other woman who do not share her views.

To be more precise, Rand's argument is a variation of a common Objectivist tactic, a polemical dance that I call the "Psycho-Epistemological Twist." E.g., when a critic asks an inappropriate question, an Objectivist might reply: "The mere fact you *asked* that questions reveals such-and-such about your psycho-epistemology" -- and the "such-and-such" is always something negative, a supposed flaw in the question-asker's manner of thinking. (Anyone who has been around Objectivist circles will doubtless have seen this tactic, of which there are several variations, used many times.)

Similarly, Rand maintains that any woman who would seriously want to be president (again, when no qualified men are available) has such a warped psychology that the implications of this *desire* alone would render her "psychologically unworthy of the job."

The is the Psycho-Epistemological Twist with a vengeance, and to suggest that this merely expresses a personal preference of Rand's part, one based on her own unique sexual psychology, is absurd on its face – at least, that is, if we claim this is what Rand *intended* to say.

I agree that Rand is doing nothing more than expressing a personal preference; indeed, it is because this *subjective* preference was used to make supposedly *objective* judgments about the psychology *other*

women that I called Rand's argument "silly." This would be like a woman arguing, "I prefer the missionary position in sex; it is my favorite, and any woman who might prefer to be on top instead clearly has psychological problems."

The remainder of Ellen's post clearly indicates that she *now* believes Rand's article is based on her views of "woman qua woman" and not merely on her personal preferences. And thus has Ellen shifted 180 degrees from her original position.

This, of course, raises a different set of questions. But at least Ellen has conceded my point (to the effect that Rand intended her argument to be based on an *objective* assessment of female psychology), so I shall take up her new assertions at a later time.

Ghs

From: Ellen Moore <ellen_moore@mb.sympatico.ca>

To: Atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: Re: Rand's position on femininity - George

Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 15:41:35 -0600

George,

No matter what you say, my position on Rand's view of femininity has not changed. Your techniques of sophistry may attempt to call white black (whenever you feel like it), but that does not make you "intelligent", it just makes you "tricky dicky Georgie".

There is nothing in your post that is new or effective in your railing about Rand's sense of femininity. The only relief I can take out of all your verbiage is that you did not call me "religious" or "cultist". On the rest of this issue, your views express clearly what you have not understood about Rand and about Objectivism. This is your unresolved issue.

Rand's assessment of femininity re *woman qua woman* is objective. There is nothing "subjective" about her personal sexual psychology, or about her universal generalizations - but you evidently have never grasped what *woman qua woman* means. Never mind, I am sure that there are not many women who have grasped what this sexual "sense of life" would, could, or should mean to them either. You evidently cannot even dream of what it would be like to have a relationship with a woman who *does* understand what an objective idealization of "woman" is. Or maybe, they just cannot penetrate this "sense" into your skull.

I am also very sure that there are many women who *would want* to be president in the same way that many men do. The root of that "want" is power, pure and simple and direct. Not only that, but such women would *want* it even if there were a thousand men who might be more power-hungry - if indeed there is any such man. There is no difference between the capacity for power-lust among men and women. There is quite enough irrationality and subjectivity to go around in the population of humanity.

The thing is: you see Rand and her ability for objective integration and generalization as leading to a philosophy that "intends" to make all humans obey philosophical rules she set out. You are wrong. I see only rational principles for Unique Individualism.

Go ahead, make my day!

Ellen M.

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

Reply-To: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

To: "*Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: Rand's position on femininity - Morganis

Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 20:47:22 -0600

Ellen Moore wrote (to Morganis):

"Previously you asked me to show why George's claim that what Rand wrote about femininity did not also apply to masculinity re: wanting to be President. I was explaining here that I see no reason to think that she thought any different about a man president. If she did, I don't know that she wrote it in a public presentation, did she? The question remains -- if men and women are equally capable, why would either a rational man or a rational woman "want to be president".

Am I understanding this correctly? Is Ellen Moore seriously contending that Rand *intended*her argument against a woman president to apply equally to any *male* who would also *want* to be president?

Although I happen to agree with Ellen's anarchistic argument against the need for any president whatsoever, this clearly was not Rand's view. In fact, one of my biggest complaints about Rand's article is that it vastly overestimates the importance of the American presidency when compared, say, to the importance of thinkers, inventors, and captains of industry.

I will have more to say about this when I manage to recover from the worst bout of flu that I have had in many years. But for now I just want to be sure that my fever has not caused me totally to misunderstand Ellen's point. Is she attributing her own views about the presidency to Rand as well? Is she saying that, according to *Rand,* any male who would seriously desire to be president would thereby be psychologically unfit for the job?

Ellen wrote:

"George hasn't yet offered any good argument to show that Rand's article was "silly". So, his forever repeating a non-argument does not lend it any more credence."

My charge of silliness was predicated on the fact that nowhere does Rand offer any serious argument for her views about the sexual persona of "woman qua woman." And neither does Ellen. Even Ellen's longest posts on this subject are bereft of any genuine argument; rather, they consist of a series of arbitrary assertions, with polemics and grandiose generalizations substituting for evidence. And that fits my definition of "silly."

But even Ellen outdid herself when she wrote:

"As for the psychology of masculinity, I think we require a masculine philosopher to explain what that would and should be."

This statement goes far beyond silly; it is just plain dumb. For one thing, how would Ellen even recognize a "masculine" philosopher unless she first understood the meaning of "masculinity"? And Rand had a theory of masculinity, did she not? Does Ellen therefore dismiss Rand's theory of masculinity *solely* on the basis that she was a woman?

Given Ellen's Sherman-tank style of writing, it's possible that I have misunderstood her points. I sincerely hope so. If not, this exchange promises to become extremely bizarre, even by Mooreian standards.

Ghs

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

Reply-To: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

To: "*Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: Rand's Position on Femininity

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 07:56:22 -0600

Ellen Moore has repeatedly challenged me to support my charge that her views about feminine sexuality, which she attributes to Ayn Rand, are "silly," because (I claim) they are unjustified and therefore arbitrary. Okay, the following is a brief review of Ellen's post of 10/23/01, which (to my knowledge) is her most extensive treatment of this subject to date.

EM:

"Well, I cannot think of any subject that is more prone to individual differences than is sexuality for each individual self."

If what Ellen means to say is that individuals differ dramatically in their sexual tastes and preferences, then I entirely agree.

EM:

"Obviously it is a truism that everyone's psychology is a product created by a volitional, developmental psycho-epistemological process in the individual context of personality maturation."

What Ellen appears to be saying here, albeit in a convoluted fashion, is that one's present psychology is the product of one's past psychological development. This is certainly a truism. But Ellen also appears to be saying that each and every aspect of one's present personality was (at some time) a product of volitional choice. If so, this is anything but a truism; in fact, it is clearly false.

EM:

"Therefore, one's psychology was being formed early in life, and its causes and experiences are complex and derivative."

What does Ellen mean by "one's psychology"? One's character? Personality? And what does it mean to speak of "causes and experiences" that are "derivative"?

EM:

"Even if one's sexual psychological premises are mixed, but are not explicitly irrational and immoral, I am open to the idea that many individuals could agree with and apply the essential philosophical principles that could be viewed as those of Objectivists."

What is a "sexual psychological premise?" It would help immensely if Ellen would put less energy into verbiage and more into defining her terms.

EM:

"The key is, does one's sexual psychology contradict fundamental rational principles? Since I have not thought deeply about this application, it could be an interesting topic for discussion."

Only a proposition can "contradict" another proposition (or "principle"). A "sexual psychology" -- and whether Ellen is here referring to preferences, feelings, dispositions, habits, or something else, I have no idea -- cannot "contradict" anything.

EM:

"Rand made it very clear that she was talking about the essence of femininity being an abstraction, a *metaphysical* abstraction of "hero worship", of admiration for a man's "masculinity" - of being able to look up to a man."

Okay, so this is an "abstraction," and possibly even a "metaphysical abstraction." Where does this get us? The pertinent question is whether or not Rand's generalizations about feminine sexuality are *justified.*

Where is the evidence and/or arguments to support the claim that "hero worship," however defined, is the "essence of femininity"?

EM:

"In fact, if the distinction between femininity and masculinity did not exist in general, then sexual attraction would mean nothing more than momentary physical, sexual satisfaction."

This is plainly false, at least if by "the distinction between femininity and masculinity," Ellen is referring to *Rand's* distinction. And what precisely is wrong with "momentary physical, sexual satisfaction"? Why should we denigrate physical pleasure pursued for its own sake?

EM:

"Rand wrote, "woman qua woman". "qua" means "in virtue of being". In Rand's terms that would mean "by a woman's feminine identity" in her sexual relation to a man and his sexual masculinity."

In other words, "femininity" is a relational concept, one that must be defined with reference to "masculinity." Okay, but where does this get us?.

EM:

"Rand also made it clear that a woman's femininity, her hero worship, would be and should be toward the man she loves, and definitely not to every man she meets. Such admiration and hero worship is a proper emotion only for those men she greatly admires, or deeply loves within an intimate relationship."

This is another case where assertion replaces argument. Again, why should "hero worship" even be accepted as the "essence of femininity" in the first place? Why cannot a man look up to and admire a woman – and thereby engage in "hero worship" -- in a precisely reciprocal manner? Is the possession of a penis a point of metaphysical privilege?

And what does it mean to say that a woman "should" engage in "hero worship" of this sort? Is this a moral prescription, i.e., is a woman "immoral" if she doesn't agree with Rand's theory? Or is this perhaps a prescription for psychological health, i.e., is a dissenting woman somehow psychologically immature if she dares to disagree with Ellen's assertions?

EM:

"There may be many women who never rise to that level of metaphysical abstraction conceptually, and they would never experience or understand any great admiration or hero worship, or grand passion for any man. At best, such a woman would be able to be a friend or a pal, or a sex object. At worst, such a woman would simply seek to manipulate, control and use men sexually to further her own self-serving goals. But these kind of women [and it is also clear that Rand wrote about different types of women in her novels] are not what Rand was talking about in this essay. She was talking about "woman qua woman" and femininity - the man worshipper."

Again, there is no argument given to support the assertion that "grand passion for any man" must necessarily involve "hero worship" in Rand's sense. Ellen has simply reformulated her original arbitrary assertion in different words.

EM:

"Rand often said, "Man qua Man", and she meant " by their nature, men and women, not as they are, but as they could be and should be". In this context of femininity, when Rand says "woman qua woman", she means the femininity of woman, not as she is, but as she could be and should be -- only *if* she lives up to her highest potential. And that to Rand means [i think] a rational woman who rises to the highest level of intelligent womanhood possible to her. If a woman does that she is feminine, and rationally speaking she is moral. Then, and only then, would she desire a man with the highest essence of metaphysical masculinity and moral character she could and should admire."

Again, we have a simple repetition of the same unproven generalizations, with a bit of silly moralizing thrown in to spice up the same warmed-over dish.

EM:

"I have presented at least part of my case for agreeing with her ideas in her essay. And also, I agree with Morganis that ~if~ George disagrees with Rand it is George's responsibility to prove her reasoning and generalizing is false. All he has done is call her view of femininity "silly". I think he is way off the mark on this one."

When and if Ellen is willing to present arguments instead of repeating the same tired assertions about the "essence of femininity," etc., then I will be happy to respond to those arguments.

EM:

"[George's] claim is that he has known many individual women and their sexual psychology. What he has not understood is Rand's sexual psychology, her ideals of femininity and masculinity, and her generalizations reached on the basis of her conceptual integration."

Precisely *what* abstractions did Rand integrate to reach her conclusions about the "essence of femininity"? Ellen often uses phrases like "conceptual integration" without bothering to mention what concepts are being integrated. She then accuses her opponents of failing to understand such "integration." Ellen should explain what she is talking about.

EM:

"George, look at the men in the world, are there many who strive and reach this ideal? Are there many women who are capable of being man-worshippers?"

Why should anyone care about such matters? Again, where is the argument?

I'll stop here, since I am now the one who has become repetitive. All of Ellen's "arguments" are of the same type as discussed above. She continuously substitutes verbiage for argument, as if lofty phrases like "metaphysical abstraction," "woman qua woman," and "conceptual integration" -- not to mention her incessant moralizing about sexuality -- should somehow convince other people.

This is why I regard her views as "silly." They remind me somewhat of Freud's contention that a sexually mature woman should ideally experience vaginal rather than clitoral orgasms. At least Freud offered some arguments to support this claim, specious though they were. But his claim was "silly" nonetheless, and one needn't go into the details of Freudianism to reject his claim outright. The person who makes this kind of sweeping sexual generalization, be it Sigmund Freud or Ellen Moore, has the burden of proof, and without such proof such assertions are utterly arbitrary and need not be taken seriously. In thus rejecting Ellen's arbitrary assertions about feminine sexuality, I am simply behaving like a good Objectivist.

Ellen can claim all she wants that I fail to "understand" her (or Rand). This is even true in one sense. Specifically, I fail to understand why Ellen refuses to present any arguments to substantiate her assertions. Is she unable to distinguish arguments from assertions?

Ghs

From: Ellen Moore <ellen_moore@mb.sympatico.ca>

To: Atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: Re: Rand's Position on Femininity - George

Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 13:22:09 -0600

George wrote,

"Is she [me] unable to distinguish arguments for assertions."

Are you unable to distinguish between conceptual abstractions and perceptual concretes? Are you unable to distinguish between conceptual explanations versus posing endless answered questions? Are you unable to distinguish verbiage from conceptual arguments? The techniques of sophistry you use to ask questions till hell freezes over is actually your inadequacy *IF* you absolutely refuse to understand any conceptual explanations. [Rand's or mine]

I know by the methods you are using that you try to put all the responsibility onto me to answer, over and over, all your questions when you failed to grasp what was written. You offer nothing but silly questions caused by your refusal, or inability, to deal with the ideas presented. Even if you cannot understand what Rand wrote, or what I understand, the very least you could do is admit that you do not understand how a rational woman feels about her own sense of femininity. I suppose all you know is those women who do not understand it either, and when they tell you it's "stupid" that is all the "facts" you need to know. I understand female sexual psychology much better than you ever will because I have explored the entire process – from concrete to conceptual to romantic idealism.

For example, did I say anywhere that momentary sexual satisfaction is "wrong" , or an immoral experience? No! If physical orgasm is the momentary best one experiences, then that is all one can achieve and understand. I explained that it is not the kind or level of sexual satisfaction one achieves with the highest conceptual idealism about one's own femininity. I call this Romantic Love, and that is what Rand called it. If you don't know what I mean by that, then I cannot force that conceptual knowledge into your mind - no matter what I write. [No one else on ATL is demanding or opposing this as you are, and there's a lot of highly sexy and conceptual members here, I think.]

Here's the point: If you do not understand what Rand meant in her essay, you must show why and how she is wrong. Where is your argument? Saying her article was "silly" *is* an arbitrary assertion unless you can *explain" that she was wrong in every statement. All you've done so far is deny, question, and demand answers, then you deny, question, and demand more answers. That is not an example of intellectual responsibility nor is it rational argumentation.

Tuesday you wrote what must have been flu-caused muddling. You did not even distinguish what I, Ellen M., was saying - as differentiated from what Rand had written. I asked, has Rand ever written an essay explaining her theory of *masculinity*? If so, I have not seen it. Yet, you now maintain she had a theory about it? Tell us, what is her theory of masculinity, as interpreted by you, George?

If you cannot offer ATL your own interpretation of Rand's theory of masculinity, could you offer your own theory of masculinity? No? Why don't you put your money where your mouth is?

If you had any idea that I am going to offer any theory of masculinity, you are wrong. All I could say, conceptually, in abstraction, is that I do understand that the essence of femininity is hero worship, and therefore I think, reciprocally, that the essence of masculinity is heroine worship. I can say this because I understand my own feminine sexual psychology, and I see no reason to think that males are significantly different than females when it comes to conceptual abstraction.

But, I can also say that I have no understanding of masculine sexual psychology other than the experiences I have known personally. Also, I have no personal understanding of homosexuality, or bisexuality, or cross-dressing, or masochism or sadism. O'yeah, I have read and heard about all sexual behaviors, but what I really understand deep down conceptually is my own specific experiences. Beyond individual contextual experience, all knowledge is volitional and conceptual. And that, George, is the basic cause of all the differences between your views and mine. [Months ago, I read all your posted argumentation disagreeing with Bill Dwyer about volition vs soft determinism, but nowhere in your prose did I get any impression that you understood the Objectivist theory of volition.]

So, let's hear you, George Smith, explain femininity and masculinity on the basis of your psycho-epistemology. Then, maybe we could all understand exactly why and how your views differ from Rand's or mine.

One last point: You accused Rand of "universalizing" and making false generalizations. This indicates to me that you also do not understand Rand's view of "objective" and "objectivity". I spent several hours one evening in '75, debating against Joan and Allan Blumenthal who, after 25 years in Rand's inner circle, still argued that objectivity required "universalizability". They did not agree with my arguments, but Peikoff did assure me the next day that I was right in stating that objectivity is individual and contextual -- and it is epistemological. Rand never offered such a Kantian premise as "universalizability", and she objected strongly to the idea of " collective subjectivity". According to Objectivism, objectivity is contextual and individual, as is every aspect of rational cognition. In conclusion, there is no valid context such as "universalizing" a psychological sense of femininity. Yet, I think there are other women besides me who understand conceptually what Rand wrote - in spite of all our individual contextual differences.

p.s., I never offered any "anarchistic argument" about male presidents. Yes, I do say that one's psychology, and one's psycho-epistemology, is caused by one's volitional actions of consciousness - it's true.

Ellen Moore

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

Reply-To: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

To: "*Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: Rand's Position on Femininity - George

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 14:07:10 -0600

Ellen Moore's last post was par for the course. For example, she wrote:

"You offer nothing but silly questions caused by your refusal, or inability, to deal with the ideas presented."

Since when is it silly to demand that assertions be backed up with arguments? Have you ever heard of the burden of proof, Ellen? And if, by chance, you have actually presented an argument in the past, please cut

and paste it so all of us can see it.

Ellen wrote:

"Here's the point: If you do not understand what Rand meant in her essay, you must show why and how she is wrong. Where is your argument? Saying her article was "silly" *is* an arbitrary assertion unless you can *explain" that she was wrong in every statement."

This is an absolutely incredible statement, especially coming from someone who professes to understand Objectivist epistemology. Are you a Marxist, Ellen? Or do you regard Marxism as fallacious? If the latter is the case, then, given your own standards, you must read every page of Marx's *Capital* (all three thick volumes) and then explain where Marx was "wrong in every statement." After all, Marx presented a lot of arguments, so, according to your twisted logic, the burden is clearly upon *you* to show where Marx was "wrong in every detail." If you cannot do this -- and I will give you a week or so to pen your decisive,

line-by-line refutation -- then you must obviously embrace Marxism.

Or don't you apply the same standards to yourself that you demand of others?

I was simply asking for an argument to substantiate the claim that *either* you *or* Rand made about the "essence of femininity." You have consistently refused to provide one -- unless we regard as an "argument" your statement to the effect that, as a female, you someone have a mystical insight into all this.

I think my point about silliness has been made -- or, rather, you have made if for me. Thank you for being so utterly predictable.

Ghs

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

Reply-To: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

To: "*Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: The Philosophy of Sex (was Rand's Position on Femininity)

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 14:38:42 -0600

Ellen Lewit wrote:

"This is a reply to Ellen Moore's earlier reply to George Smith's reply .... She has written since but that one seems more a personal squabble with George (he was baiting her, too)."

You are very wise for a woman who has (presumably) lived but one lifetime. 8-)

Your points were also very interesting. Once I'm feeling a bit better, and able to do something more than swatting at flies (uh oh, more bait), I would like to get into this a bit more. I think the "philosophy of sex" -- which is what this discussion is *supposed* to be about -- is a problematic area, given the highly individualized nature of sexual attitudes, beliefs, and preferences.

A good place to begin would be to inquire whether a true "philosophy" of sex is even possible -- and, if so, what *method* could be used to substantiate claims in this field. I call this the *philosophy* of sex, rather than the *psychology* of sex, because the former attempts to establish prescriptive norms whereby some sexual attitudes, preferences, and dispositions can be judged "better" or "worse" than others. This is the kind of thing Rand undertakes in her article about a woman president.

Ghs

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

Reply-To: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

To: "*Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: Rand's Position on Femininity - George

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 15:35:07 -0600

I want to comment on the following from Ellen Moore: :

"If you cannot offer ATL your own interpretation of Rand's theory of masculinity, could you offer your own theory of masculinity? No? Why don't you put your money where your mouth is?"

Although, to my knowledge, Rand never wrote an essay devoted to the subject of "masculinity" per se, she clearly had some opinions about this matter. For one thing, as Ellen herself has conceded, "femininity" is a relational concept for Rand, one that is defined as an attitude of "hero worship" towards a man. This would suggest that "masculinity" has to do with possessing those qualities that are worthy of the "hero worship" that Rand speaks of.

As for my own views about "masculinity," they are the same as my views about "femininity." I don't think there is an objectively ascertainable "essence" for either.

I think the words "masculine" and "feminine" customarily mean nothing more than what an individual happens to find appealing in the opposite sex. In other words, these terms merely express subjective preferences (unless they are linked to physical characteristics, such as sex organs).

In many cases, one's culture can play a significant role in influencing how people view masculinity and femininity. For example, some girls, bombarded with ads that feature quasi-anorexic models, might associate femininity with extreme thinness -- whereas in some cultures and some ages the pleasingly plump female might be viewed as the exemplar of femininity. Or the essence of "woman qua woman" might be viewed as the ability to bear and raise children. To pretend that even the most rational person it totally immune to cultural influences is extremely naive.

Again, I seriously doubt whether there are any objective standards by which we can gauge the *psychological* characteristics of masculinity and femininity. Two men can have a fulfilling romantic relationship, as can two women -- and in neither case does it follow that one partner is necessarily playing the masculine or feminine role, however these may be defined.

In short, our definitions of masculinity and femininity, psychologically considered, depend on our personal preferences, and such preferences may stem from a variety of causes. Some of these may be within our volitional control, but many are not.

I therefore have no problem with Ellen Moore (or anyone else) saying, "This is my personal ideal of femininity." But this is akin to saying, "This is my personal ideal of a perfect dinner" -- in other words, this is what I happen to *like,* for whatever reason.

The problem arises when we extrapolate from our personal preferences and apply them universally to other people. And we enter the realm of silliness when we claim that how I personally view such things is how others *should* view them as well. I happen to like a lobster dinner, but I don't uphold this as an "ideal" dinner for others. And I certainly wouldn't engage in a silly argument about the essence of a "good dinner qua good dinner" with people who happen to dislike lobster.

Ghs

From: Ellen Moore <ellen_moore@mb.sympatico.ca>

To: Atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: Re: Rand's position on femininity - Ellen L

Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 15:44:55 -0600

Ellen L.,

Aren't you just a little bit flattered about George calling you "a very wise woman who has lived but one lifetime. 8-)" Now, wait for the other shoe to fall --- because I have read your post twice, and I agree with everything you have stated therein - even your first point about mens' and womens' relation to reality.

I did explain that I view the sexuality of femininity and masculinity as vital to a romantic sexual relationship, i.e., otherwise it loses the value and idealism of romantic love. I think that is what you mean, too.

You write, "What you haven't addressed is why a woman would not want to be president? Yes I did, I said that a rational woman would not want to have power over all men - I mean, not over even one man. And beyond that, I wrote that I did not think a rational man would want to have any dictatorial power over any people at all. I also said that I see no purpose for a president in a free country. And that is not an anarchist view. And I'm glad that you just agreed with me. I do not think that power over others has anything to do with objective sexuality, either. Of course, one can give up power to another person or group, but I think that is quite the opposite of self-interest in sexuality, or elsewhere.

What I have been saying does not apply to all women, either intellectua

[Barbara Branden]

Hardesty: "Rand's political mentor was Isabel Paterson, an arch-conservative and anti-Semite, according to Barbara Branden's biography".

I never said, nor do I believe, that Isabel Paterson was anti-Semitic. Nor did Rand believe it.

Barbara

[Dragonfly]

Hardesty: "Rand's political mentor was Isabel Paterson, an arch-conservative and anti-Semite, according to Barbara Branden's biography".

I never said, nor do I believe, that Isabel Paterson was anti-Semitic. Nor did Rand believe it.

I think that remark was based on this passage in PAR (p. 203):

Ayn then invited Morrie Ryskind and his wife Mary. The evening went well, but when they left, Pat said, "I don't like Jewish intellectuals." Angrily, Ayn replied, "Then you don't like me." Pat laughed, insisting that she had not meant it "that way".

I can understand that people will interpret that remark as evidence for antisemitism. That she backpedaled when confronted by Rand is also understandable, but that doesn't take away the fact that there is no other rational explanation for her remark than an antisemitic attitude, while she apparently did not think of Rand's jewish background at the time (I doubt that she deliberately wanted to insult Rand).