Woman and Man


anthony

Recommended Posts

So the condition of our lives is to "command" Nature, by obeying her first. (from - I think - Francis Bacon's quote.)

I carried out a small experiment for a while, asking people I know, this : "Is there any reason that men and women should be different?"

The replies were mainly predictable - the difference in muscle power, hormones, culture, upbringing, brain chemistry, and of course traditional,or primitive, roles, and child birth.

A few answered more thoughtfully, admitting that ultimately both genders possess the capacity to reason; they have a mind.

On this I found Ayn Rand's opinion to be strangely conventional, almost collectivist I hesitate to add.

Does anyone else have the suspicion that one can rise above one's own gender-nature? That the genus and differentia (I get these mixed up) is of much lesser criticality than shared cognitive ability?

This has been on my mind a long time, but I haven't yet resolved it.

Value Chaser (John) seems to have some interesting ideas on this, but I welcome anyone's input of course - from The O'ist point of view, and/or from personal insight.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Tony:

I am not sure what precisely you are asking?

Rand was "conventional" about the issue meaning _________?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony:

I am not sure what precisely you are asking?

Rand was "conventional" about the issue meaning _________?

Adam

Adam,

I shared her distaste with the feminist, men-hating, movement of the time... but it has always seemed to me that she supported the traditional superiority of male over female.

This is borne out by her off-the-cuff remarks I've read (the woman Presidency issue, and others), and by her man- as- hero, and woman-as-hero-worshipper roles in her novels.

(I am truly hoping we can avoid introducing that 'rape' scene yet again, here.!)

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony:

I am not sure what precisely you are asking?

Rand was "conventional" about the issue meaning _________?

Adam

Adam,

I shared her distaste with the feminist, men-hating, movement of the time... but it has always seemed to me that she supported the traditional superiority of male over female.

This is borne out by her off-the-cuff remarks I've read (the woman Presidency issue, and others), and by her man- as- hero, and woman-as-hero-worshipper roles in her novels.

(I am truly hoping we can avoid introducing that 'rape' scene yet again, here.!)

Tony

Didn't one of Rand's publications favorable review The Feminine Mystique? I think Rand's and Objectivism's stance on feminism is a bit more complicated than conventional roles. I do admit, some of Rand's opinions here strike me as silly and I don't think those are compatible with Objectivism's core principles.

Have you read Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony and Dan:

I have always tried to draw a distinction between feminism and gender feminism.

However, the essential premise of feminism, in terms of equality should have been absorbed by our constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.

However, there was a "hidden agenda" which manifested itself as gender feminism which is the female form of misogyny, or misandry.****

I just wanted to be clear about how I draw Ayn and her support of "feminism."

Finally, she did support Betty Friedan's book that came out in the 50's I believe.

Adam

****Misogyny (pronounced /mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is hatred (or contempt) of women or girls. Misogyny comes from Greek misogunia (μισογυνία) from misos (μῖσος, hatred) and gynē (γυνή, woman). It is parallel to misandry—the hatred of men or boys. Misogyny is also comparable with (but not the same as) misanthropy which is the hatred of humanity in general. The prefix miso-, meaning hatred or to hate applies in many other words, such as misandrist, misocapny, misogamy, misarchy and misoxeny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't one of Rand's publications favorable review The Feminine Mystique?

Yes, Edith Efron gave a clearly favorable review in the Objectivist Newsletter. I remember that I was a bit surprised reading that, not because I had read the book itself, but I'd read enough about it and about its author to think that it was not really Rand's cup of tea. I suspect that she had no idea either and that she just trusted Efron's judgment.

Edited by Dragonfly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony and Dan:

I have always tried to draw a distinction between feminism and gender feminism.

However, the essential premise of feminism, in terms of equality should have been absorbed by our constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.

However, there was a "hidden agenda" which manifested itself as gender feminism which is the female form of misogyny, or misandry.****

I just wanted to be clear about how I draw Ayn and her support of "feminism."

Finally, she did support Betty Friedan's book that came out in the 50's I believe.

Adam

****Misogyny (pronounced /mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is hatred (or contempt) of women or girls. Misogyny comes from Greek misogunia (μισογυνία) from misos (μῖσος, hatred) and gynē (γυνή, woman). It is parallel to misandry—the hatred of men or boys. Misogyny is also comparable with (but not the same as) misanthropy which is the hatred of humanity in general. The prefix miso-, meaning hatred or to hate applies in many other words, such as misandrist, misocapny, misogamy, misarchy and misoxeny.

Even with that distinction in mind, I still believe Rand's views here are problematic. She seems to be all for the first type of feminism you mention, but then why her stand against a female president (to be sure, I'm against all presidents, male, female, or otherwise) and her view on the essence of femininity as man-worship. (On the latter: Why is not the essence of masculinity woman-worship? And where do this whole thing come from? What about gays, bis, and asexual types? What do they fall under? All these seems to me like Rand attempting to universalize her particular tastes in gender roles and not like something derived from or compatible with Objectivist core principles.) These seem to conflict with your first type of feminism, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't one of Rand's publications favorable review The Feminine Mystique?

Yes, Edith Efron gave a clearly favorable review in the Objectivist. I remember that I was a bit surprised reading that, not because I had read the book itself, but I'd read enough about it and about its author to think that it was not really Rand's cup of tea. I suspect that she had no idea either and that she just trusted Efron's judgment.

I believe I read the review many years ago. I think Friedan might have changed her views over time. If my memory's correct, too, while the review was sympathetic, I believe there were some criticisms. I'll have to look for it to be sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All these seems to me like Rand attempting to universalize her particular tastes in gender roles and not like something derived from or compatible with Objectivist core principles.

She didn't do that only with gender roles, but also with her particular tastes in art and music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I read the review many years ago. I think Friedan might have changed her views over time. If my memory's correct, too, while the review was sympathetic, I believe there were some criticisms. I'll have to look for it to be sure.

I just reread the review and it was in fact quite positive, with only one critical remark, about Friedan's proposal for a "G.I. Bill of Rights" for women. Efron writes: "Mrs. Friedan may have made this proposal because she does not understand the Statist implications of the phenomenon she is combating", and concludes with: "Apart from this regrettable failure to understand the political context of her subject, Mrs. Friedan has written a brilliant, informative and culturally explosive book. The Feminine Mystique should be read by every woman - and by every man - in America".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All these seems to me like Rand attempting to universalize her particular tastes in gender roles and not like something derived from or compatible with Objectivist core principles.

She didn't do that only with gender roles, but also with her particular tastes in art and music.

Yes, of course. And she's not the only person to ever do so. In fact, in many areas, this is how many people work: merely rationalizing their particular tastes and likes. (And I make no claims to be above this, though I feel, when I do make that sort of mistake, it's an error on my part.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All these seems to me like Rand attempting to universalize her particular tastes in gender roles and not like something derived from or compatible with Objectivist core principles.

She didn't do that only with gender roles, but also with her particular tastes in art and music.

Exactly DF:

Ayn's inconsistency on feminism was one of many inconsistencies, amongst them music and art as you noted.

Her politics were, to say the least inconsistent.

I never let certain inconsistencies in philosophers or scientists deflect me from trying to understand the core principles and assumptions that they posit.

Ayn, warts and all, works well for me.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All these seems to me like Rand attempting to universalize her particular tastes in gender roles and not like something derived from or compatible with Objectivist core principles.

She didn't do that only with gender roles, but also with her particular tastes in art and music.

Exactly DF:

Ayn's inconsistency on feminism was one of many inconsistencies, amongst them music and art as you noted.

Her politics were, to say the least inconsistent.

I never let certain inconsistencies in philosophers or scientists deflect me from trying to understand the core principles and assumptions that they posit.

Ayn, warts and all, works well for me.

Adam

Understanding and adopting core principles, should they prove worthy, means one need not accept the warts and all. In other words, one can pick and choose -- when it comes to Rand or anyone else. Of course, she and some of her follows prefer to package deal here: making it seem like one must make an all or nothing choice, but this is simply not the case. (This doesn't mean, of course, everything is a grab bag, but there's nothing stopping one from adopting far and wide and mixing views from a variety of sources.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan:

I appreciate your attempting to restate what I wrote, were the words "I agree" not available?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan:

I appreciate your attempting to restate what I wrote, were the words "I agree" not available?

Adam

I don't think you wrote exactly what I wrote. In particular, you ended your post with "Ayn, warts and all, works well for me." Actually, that doesn't work for me: getting rid of the warts is much better, in my view. In fact, that sentence might even be taken to mean one must accept the warts and keep them -- either accepting her all they she said in toto or rejecting it in toto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are statistics that show even though women get equal pay in the military, even though an equal percentage of women as men are being sent to Iraq, in Iraq men are being asked to take more front-line and dangerous positions that women. In other words, statistics (referenced throughout Warren Farrell's book Myth of Male Power) show that men are exposed to more risk than women but are not compensated for such risks.

So no matter how much law aims to equalize gender, cultural beliefs engender discrimination even so. As per above, law makes salaries equal, but salaries shouldn't be equal given the actual behaviors promoted in our cultural atmosphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan:

I appreciate your attempting to restate what I wrote, were the words "I agree" not available?

Adam

I don't think you wrote exactly what I wrote. In particular, you ended your post with "Ayn, warts and all, works well for me." Actually, that doesn't work for me: getting rid of the warts is much better, in my view. In fact, that sentence might even be taken to mean one must accept the warts and keep them -- either accepting her all they she said in toto or rejecting it in toto.

Dan:

OK.

I see the inconsistencies and the errors of judgment that she made.

Do you see them, or are you stating that the inconsistencies and errors of judgment do not exist in Ayn Rand, writer and philosopher.

Adam

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan:

I appreciate your attempting to restate what I wrote, were the words "I agree" not available?

Adam

I don't think you wrote exactly what I wrote. In particular, you ended your post with "Ayn, warts and all, works well for me." Actually, that doesn't work for me: getting rid of the warts is much better, in my view. In fact, that sentence might even be taken to mean one must accept the warts and keep them -- either accepting her all they she said in toto or rejecting it in toto.

Dan:

OK.

I see the inconsistencies and the errors of judgment that she made.

Do you see them, or are you stating that the inconsistencies and errors of judgment do not exist in Ayn Rand, writer and philosopher.

Adam

That's not what I meant. Let me try once more. You wrote and I reacted to "Ayn, warts and all, works well for me." My reaction was not meant to convey that I believe Rand, as "writer and philosopher," was wart-free. Rather, I meant in terms of what I'd accept -- as in accept as valid and true -- would be to revise her views to remove the warts. To put this another way: if she made mistakes -- and I believe she made quite a few -- then these are to be acknwoledged and corrected. This is no different than I'd want to do with any other writer or thinker, including myself.

Maybe I misunderstood you as well -- as it appeared strange to me anyone would want to accept another person's views even when they were a mix of correct and incorrect positions. One would want, I trust, to always be selective -- separating out the correct positions and retaining those while rejecting the rest. (This is not to say the process is simple and quick.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan:

I appreciate your attempting to restate what I wrote, were the words "I agree" not available?

Adam

I don't think you wrote exactly what I wrote. In particular, you ended your post with "Ayn, warts and all, works well for me." Actually, that doesn't work for me: getting rid of the warts is much better, in my view. In fact, that sentence might even be taken to mean one must accept the warts and keep them -- either accepting her all they she said in toto or rejecting it in toto.

Dan:

OK.

I see the inconsistencies and the errors of judgment that she made.

Do you see them, or are you stating that the inconsistencies and errors of judgment do not exist in Ayn Rand, writer and philosopher.

Adam

That's not what I meant. Let me try once more. You wrote and I reacted to "Ayn, warts and all, works well for me." My reaction was not meant to convey that I believe Rand, as "writer and philosopher," was wart-free. Rather, I meant in terms of what I'd accept -- as in accept as valid and true -- would be to revise her views to remove the warts. To put this another way: if she made mistakes -- and I believe she made quite a few -- then these are to be acknwoledged and corrected. This is no different than I'd want to do with any other writer or thinker, including myself.

Maybe I misunderstood you as well -- as it appeared strange to me anyone would want to accept another person's views even when they were a mix of correct and incorrect positions. One would want, I trust, to always be selective -- separating out the correct positions and retaining those while rejecting the rest. (This is not to say the process is simple and quick.)

Dan:

Yes, I agree. I kinda thought we we semantic ships slipping selectively by each others central points.

Adam

alliterally addicted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what I meant. Let me try once more. You wrote and I reacted to "Ayn, warts and all, works well for me." My reaction was not meant to convey that I believe Rand, as "writer and philosopher," was wart-free. Rather, I meant in terms of what I'd accept -- as in accept as valid and true -- would be to revise her views to remove the warts. To put this another way: if she made mistakes -- and I believe she made quite a few -- then these are to be acknwoledged and corrected. This is no different than I'd want to do with any other writer or thinker, including myself.

Maybe I misunderstood you as well -- as it appeared strange to me anyone would want to accept another person's views even when they were a mix of correct and incorrect positions. One would want, I trust, to always be selective -- separating out the correct positions and retaining those while rejecting the rest. (This is not to say the process is simple and quick.)

Dan:

Yes, I agree. I kinda thought we we semantic ships slipping selectively by each others central points.

Adam

alliterally addicted

No problem.

In this area, do you agree that Rand made a mistake -- at least, that's she's inconsistent? (And I'm not saying this is her one and only mistake ever.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what I meant. Let me try once more. You wrote and I reacted to "Ayn, warts and all, works well for me." My reaction was not meant to convey that I believe Rand, as "writer and philosopher," was wart-free. Rather, I meant in terms of what I'd accept -- as in accept as valid and true -- would be to revise her views to remove the warts. To put this another way: if she made mistakes -- and I believe she made quite a few -- then these are to be acknwoledged and corrected. This is no different than I'd want to do with any other writer or thinker, including myself.

Maybe I misunderstood you as well -- as it appeared strange to me anyone would want to accept another person's views even when they were a mix of correct and incorrect positions. One would want, I trust, to always be selective -- separating out the correct positions and retaining those while rejecting the rest. (This is not to say the process is simple and quick.)

Dan:

Yes, I agree. I kinda thought we we semantic ships slipping selectively by each others central points.

Adam

alliterally addicted

No problem.

In this area, do you agree that Rand made a mistake -- at least, that's she's inconsistent? (And I'm not saying this is her one and only mistake ever.)

Dan:

In terms of her position on feminism? Absolutely. Made no sense at all.

However, inside that great mind was a submissive woman, which a number of people perceive as a "weakness," but I can make a very cogent argument against that position. In my cheap armchair quarterback view, that was the primary driver of her sexuality and her subconscious male worship position.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of her position on feminism? Absolutely. Made no sense at all.

However, inside that great mind was a submissive woman, which a number of people perceive as a "weakness," but I can make a very cogent argument against that position. In my cheap armchair quarterback view, that was the primary driver of her sexuality and her subconscious male worship position.

Adam

Whereas men have a "fight or flight" response to stress, research shows that women physically have a "tend and befriend" reaction. In other words, when stress hits, women are more likely to nurture and seek out nurturance. The difference between these reactions arises from hormonal response to oxytocin versus testosterone.

So what is the submissive woman? A person who wants love, a person who seeks out human bonding versus fighting for success? I've often mistaken the oxytocin response to stress as weakness, but I will be the first to say that I've been dead-wrong about my previously-harsh judgments against "submissiveness." We can't judge an oxytocin response from a testosterone perspective, because the same action has different meaning to different internal signals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of her position on feminism? Absolutely. Made no sense at all.

However, inside that great mind was a submissive woman, which a number of people perceive as a "weakness," but I can make a very cogent argument against that position. In my cheap armchair quarterback view, that was the primary driver of her sexuality and her subconscious male worship position.

Adam

Whereas men have a "fight or flight" response to stress, research shows that women physically have a "tend and befriend" reaction. In other words, when stress hits, women are more likely to nurture and seek out nurturance. The difference between these reactions arises from hormonal response to oxytocin versus testosterone.

So what is the submissive woman? A person who wants love, a person who seeks out human bonding versus fighting for success? I've often mistaken the oxytocin response to stress as weakness, but I will be the first to say that I've been dead-wrong about my previously-harsh judgments against "submissiveness." We can't judge an oxytocin response from a testosterone perspective, because the same action has different meaning to different internal signals.

Christopher:

Interesting information. My lady was completely non-resistive. We had a number of arguments as to dealing with an intruder. Hers was not to resist and mine was to kill the intruder as quickly as tactically possible in a given situation.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what I meant. Let me try once more. You wrote and I reacted to "Ayn, warts and all, works well for me." My reaction was not meant to convey that I believe Rand, as "writer and philosopher," was wart-free. Rather, I meant in terms of what I'd accept -- as in accept as valid and true -- would be to revise her views to remove the warts. To put this another way: if she made mistakes -- and I believe she made quite a few -- then these are to be acknwoledged and corrected. This is no different than I'd want to do with any other writer or thinker, including myself.

Maybe I misunderstood you as well -- as it appeared strange to me anyone would want to accept another person's views even when they were a mix of correct and incorrect positions. One would want, I trust, to always be selective -- separating out the correct positions and retaining those while rejecting the rest. (This is not to say the process is simple and quick.)

Dan:

Yes, I agree. I kinda thought we we semantic ships slipping selectively by each others central points.

Adam

alliterally addicted

No problem.

In this area, do you agree that Rand made a mistake -- at least, that's she's inconsistent? (And I'm not saying this is her one and only mistake ever.)

Selene,

Dan is clearly a radical thinker ("radical" being derived from Latin "radix" 'root') which makes his argumentation compelling because it focuses on core issues demanding a clear answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shared her distaste with the feminist, men-hating, movement of the time... but it has always seemed to me that she supported the traditional superiority of male over female.

This is borne out by her off-the-cuff remarks I've read (the woman Presidency issue, and others), and by her man- as- hero, and woman-as-hero-worshipper roles in her novels.

(I am truly hoping we can avoid introducing that 'rape' scene yet again, here.!)

I think the scene does belong here because it addresses a core issue. Rand herself called it "rape by engraved invitation", which imo clearly indicates where her sexual preferences lay. The sadomaschism of the sexual scenes described in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged is hard to miss.

Selene: However, inside that great mind was a submissive woman, which a number of people perceive as a "weakness," but I can make a very cogent argument against that position. In my cheap armchair quarterback view, that was the primary driver of her sexuality and her subconscious male worship position.

I think her male worship position was pretty conscious. Didn't she explicitly state that she was a hero worshiper?

Dan Ust: Even with that distinction in mind, I still believe Rand's views here are problematic. She seems to be all for the first type of feminism you mention, but then why her stand against a female president (to be sure, I'm against all presidents, male, female, or otherwise) and her view on the essence of femininity as man-worship. (On the latter: Why is not the essence of masculinity woman-worship? And where do this whole thing come from? What about gays, bis, and asexual types? What do they fall under? All these seems to me like Rand attempting to universalize her particular tastes in gender roles and not like something derived from or compatible with Objectivist core principles.) These seem to conflict with your first type of feminism, no?

"Univeralizing her particular tastes in gender roles" is right on target. Imo Rand was unable to identify her personal preferences as subjective, but instead elevated them to something others "ought to" (objectively) prefer as well. Hence her presenting Howard Roark as the ideal man (instead of "her" ideal man), and "as man should be", i. e. as a role model for others.

As for "gays, bis and asexual types" (do the latter really exist?), imo accepting them was far removed from Rand's thinking. She found homosexuality "disgusting", but then this was at a time when practicing homosexuality was still considered as a criminal offense in several countries.

Christopher: Whereas men have a "fight or flight" response to stress, research shows that women physically have a "tend and befriend" reaction. In other words, when stress hits, women are more likely to nurture and seek out nurturance. The difference between these reactions arises from hormonal response to oxytocin versus testosterone.

Depends entirely on the circumstances. For example, when there is a fire alarm, women will opt for flight as well as men. :)

Also, in life-threatening situations, like in being assaulted by an attacker, women can fight back very hard as well.

WhyNot: A few answered more thoughtfully, admitting that ultimately both genders possess the capacity to reason; they have a mind.

Good to know. :)

I personally try to avoid strict categorizing. For it does not take into account the infinite varietes among individuals.

What I find very liberating is that gender roles are far less rigid now than they were at the time when I grew up.

Imo in their desire to be appreciated as individuals and loved, women and men are far less different than it may appear on the surface.

Edited by Xray
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