Robert Struble II

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Robert Struble II

    The "Gender Role" argument. My Position

    in Articles

    Posted

    Mr. Struble,

    Welcome.

    There is an essay on this topic in my philosophy journal Objectivity. The title of the essay is "Who Is Dagny Taggart?" Its author is Charles Wieder.

    You can read this essay by going to www.objectivity-archive.com. Click on Volume 2, Number 6.

    I bet you a coke you will find the perspective in this essay original and very interesting.

    Stephen

    Stephen,

    Thanks for the welcome and referring that article.

    The "Gender Role" argument. My Position

    in Articles

    Posted

    Objectivism and Gender Roles

    GOAL: To prove that the Objectivist philosophy logically entails rejection of gender roles.

    DEFINITIONS:

    Sex: Biological features that designate someone as male, female or other

    Gender: The psychological counterpart to sex, i.e. personality traits, etc.

    Gender Role: How someone is meant to express their gender (i.e. how a man/woman SHOULD be

    owing to their man-ness or woman-ness).

    Overview: Gender roles are, in essence, moral precscriptions. The concept refers to a set

    of 'dos' and 'do nots' that are applied to individuals of one sex only, with another set

    being applied to the other sex (assuming a two-sex situation). If gender roles are valid,

    then there are objectively proper expressions of maleness and femaleness that are to be

    followed.

    Gender roles (among other prejudices and inequalities) are something I have been frustrated with for at least the last ten years (I'm now 24). When I heard about Objectivism I was thrilled because it seemed like I had finally found a philosophy that consistently integrated everything I believed. Then I found out about some of Miss Rand's views on women and I was puzzled. It seemed contrary to the rest of Objectivism. At first I thought, I must be wrong and must not understand her, who am I to question her consistency in thought. But then I realized that not only do I have the right to question what seems flawed, but every reason to. I still respect and admire her very much on most issues. But on this one I think she was wrong.

    As a new Objectivist I have been struggling with this for a few months now. Your post offered some clarity. Thank you for that.

    Do you have a link or a source for that information about the orthodoxy denouncing/criticizing her on this?

    Thanks,

    Robert