Question for the Objectivists (or just fans of Rand's work)

[Nocturnal]

If you know what I mean by the title then I shouldn't have to bother explaining to you what I'm asking when I ask about your thoughts on my question.

In both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, the main female characers, Dagny and Dominique, are each sort of meant to be ideal women, from Rand's perspective. What confuses me, however, is that Rand also seems to be a proponent of "masculine men and feminine women," while her ideal female characters have very clear masculine characteristics. There are even times where she points out the masculine nature of certain mannerisms or features the women have.

Rand, from what I have seen, appears to have a very firm grasp on reality in her philosophy, but I'm not very clear on her interpretation of sexuality/gender. Is it flawed? Am I just misinterpreting something? I would appreciate it if anyone could explain it.

I ask this here because I think it is the best place for looking for an interpretation from someone who understands the nature of sexuality, and also knows about Objectivism.

 

[LuvMyArmyMan]

Hun, I think you are on the wrong website. These men are nothing but neanderthals and I highly doubt they even know who Ayn Rand is, or Objectivism for that matter.

I have heard of her but as of yet i have to conquer one of her books. I will eventually. But its nice to know that a man can enjoy her work.

 

[The Antichrist_Star]

Originally posted by LuvMyArmyMan
Hun, I think you are on the wrong website. These men are nothing but neanderthals and I highly doubt they even know who Ayn Rand is, or Objectivism for that matter.

I have heard of her but as of yet i have to conquer one of her books. I will eventually. But its nice to know that a man can enjoy her work.

Well... every once and a while I like to step out of the cave, and drag my stinking ass to the local bookstore for the occasional read.

As far as Ayn Rand work goes, I've only read (entirely anyway) her shortest book 'Anthem' though I do own both 'Atlas Shrugged' and 'Fountainhead' and happen to know a tash about Objectivism. With that in mind, I will do my best to tackle your question.

I would say that her interpretation of sexuality/gender is not very flawed at all, and is something that Freud often talked about a great deal. The way Freud and Rand see it, 'masculine' men and 'feminine' women often share similiar characteristics or have the tendency to waver between the two extremes. This is especially true in modern society as it is often recommended to not be too masculine (if you are a man or a woman) or too feminine (again, if you are a man or a woman) but somewhere in between.

Something else to consider... 'Fountainhead' was written in 1943 (around World War II) and 'Atlas Shrugged' in 1956. It was during much of this time period of course (especially during and after WWII) that women made great strides in the workforce, and establishing equality in society. This may also aid in explaining the 'masculinity' in her female characters.

AS

 

[Cbaoth]

I think asthetically both of the two women you mention are both very feminine (Sleek, elegant). I think you may be confusing there strong individualism with masculinity?

 

[simon]

I've just started reading Atlas Shrugged, so I'll get back to you in er...due course.

 

[Centaurion]

Originally posted by LuvMyArmyMan
Hun, I think you are on the wrong website. These men are nothing but neanderthals and I highly doubt they even know who Ayn Rand is, or Objectivism for that matter.

I have heard of her but as of yet i have to conquer one of her books. I will eventually. But its nice to know that a man can enjoy her work.

so what the **** are you doing here?

 

[Bible_Belt]

Ayn Rand was a moron, and objectivism is even stupider. Human perception is so limited that defining reality by it does not get very far. String theory says that there are more dimensions that we are capable of perceiving, but objectivism would say that those dimensions don't exist, entirely because we can't see them. To limit reality to our field of view does not make sense. We miss more than we see.

 

[Nocturnal]

Originally posted by The Antichrist_Star
The way Freud and Rand see it, 'masculine' men and 'feminine' women often share similiar characteristics or have the tendency to waver between the two extremes. This is especially true in modern society as it is often recommended to not be too masculine (if you are a man or a woman) or too feminine (again, if you are a man or a woman) but somewhere in between.

I kind of see where this is going... your sexuality does not determine the nature of your life or your goals, it only determines (at least partially) the manner by which you attain them.

I don't know if I necessarily like the idea of wavering between the two. To be masculine or feminine almost seems like living by a principle, and when you live by principles, it is usually in your best interest to stick to them, even if in the short run it might seem detrimental.

Originally posted by The Antichrist_Star
Something else to consider... 'Fountainhead' was written in 1943 (around World War II) and 'Atlas Shrugged' in 1956. It was during much of this time period of course (especially during and after WWII) that women made great strides in the workforce, and establishing equality in society. This may also aid in explaining the 'masculinity' in her female characters.

AS

While this may be true, I don't think that Rand would have written it very differently if she were to write it today, where women are already established in the workplace and it is not such a big issue.

Originally posted by Cbaoth
I think asthetically both of the two women you mention are both very feminine (Sleek, elegant). I think you may be confusing there strong individualism with masculinity?

There are various instances where Rand describes them as feminine, but describes them as masculine on other occasions, which those adjectives specifically.

Quoting this

"For Rand, femininity was in some sense derivative or dependent, if not subordinate: "For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship - the desire to look up to man." (Binswanger, p. 166; Rand, The Objectivist, Dec., 1968, p. 1)"

It should be noted that her characters only subordinate themselves to men that they deeply repect, and it is out of sexual pleasure, so it is done in her own interest.

There is another part of Rand's notion of femininity that I can't seem to put my finger on...

Originally posted by Bible_Belt Ayn Rand was a moron, and objectivism is even stupider. Human perception is so limited that defining reality by it does not get very far. String theory says that there are more dimensions that we are capable of perceiving, but objectivism would say that those dimensions don't exist, entirely because we can't see them. To limit reality to our field of view does not make sense. We miss more than we see.

I don't consciously live in those dimensions (whether they exist or not) so I don't care to consider them. The laws of nature than I can know are still valid in this reality, regardless of any other dimensions. Reality to me is the reality I can relate to and have experiences in. Beyond that, I can derive no significance in regard to my own life.

If you want to talk about what is wrong with Objectivism, feel free to start your own thread.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Originally posted by Bible_Belt
String theory says that there are more dimensions that we are capable of perceiving, but objectivism would say that those dimensions don't exist, entirely because we can't see them.

WTF???!! What does Objectivism have to do with what one can or can not see? I have to question your source of the definition. It sounds as if you had gotten it from some religion based groups that denounce any beliefs other than their own.

Using Rand's own words, Objectivism is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. And 'no,' it doesn't have anything to do with sexuality nor is there any separation of limiting labels or roles that pigeonholes and stagnates people.

Her works project the protagonist(s) no matter the sex, as people who can get things done by their own merits and for their own purpose. They are not led nor do they operate by opinions, other people's of objectives/motives and they do not expect others to owe them anything. Her most famous quote from Atlas Shrugged says "I swear on my life and my love of it, I will not live for the sake of any man nor ask him to live for mine."

As for the sexes, her female protagonist may have characteristics which are normally defined as male such as powerful, opinionated and driven; in a way, they were heroic also. However, they were still very feminine with all the typical womanly needs, however they only appreciated the most driven, purposeful men, those similar to a a DJ. Characters like Howard Roark, John Galt, and of course Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d'Anconia were all heroic types men. Objectivism does not differentiate between the sexes; it's about (hu)man(s) being heroic, purposely driven by their own intentions and produces their achievement by their own merit.

 

[drixsa]

Originally posted by LuvMyArmyMan
Hun, I think you are on the wrong website. These men are nothing but neanderthals and I highly doubt they even know who Ayn Rand is, or Objectivism for that matter.

I have heard of her but as of yet i have to conquer one of her books. I will eventually. But its nice to know that a man can enjoy her work.

You are at Chico State, stick to drinking beer and leave talking to the real people.

To keep it brief. Rand's theories dont add up. They dont add up in her books and they don't add up in her other writings.

She had two good books that were almost ruined by concepts of "objectivism."

 

[Bible_Belt]

I am mixing up subjectivism with objectivism. It is the former that defines reality by existence. Objectivism teaches that reality is independent of perception, which I agree with, but I don't agree with the conclusions that are reached by Rand.

http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0202a-almanac.htm
Faith is the worst curse of mankind, as the exact antithesis and enemy of thought

Faith has its problems, but "worst curse of mankind" is going overboard.

 

[diplomatic_lies]

Originally posted by Francisco d'Anconia
Objectivism is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

I think this is where a lot of people confuse objectivism with greed. Nobody is saying you should be greedy and murder millions of people to get your way, but just to live life for yourself.

After all, many anti-self ideologies actually cause more harm. Didn't Hitler saw himself as an unselfish man, doing good for his people?

 

[A-Unit]

Re:

Read "Atlas Shrugged." Loved it. Not entirely intune with her theories.


Reading "The Fountainhead."


------------------------------------------


In an ideal world, her theories are great. To an extent, I believe in them and live by them.


Her most significant statement I agree with is the virtue of selfishness. And people take that wrong. Selfishness means I do it for my own sake, with no regard for others. However, if I donate money, because I think I could buy my way into heaven, or because it makes me feel good, or because I just want to because I believe it spreads good wealth, so be it.


However, I do not believe in the FORCED subjugation of people to other people. That, to me, is social slavery. There are lots of people below poverty and lots of people just above it. Those below povery suck from the system while those just above it do what they can to get by and have a life. Is that fair? Hell no.


I also believe her capitalists are portrayed a "little" too ideal. In today's world, corruption is more the norm than the exception. I believe there's a small subset of wealthy people who live good lives and amassed their wealth in fair fashion and do what they can. I believe there's also the ultra elite who see the huge masses of people as simple commodities and units of production. That society is an engineered experiment becoming MORE like a matrix than it ever has been. This is nothing new. As far back as dominion over people goes, rulers have long so unquestioned authority, order and power. The perception that the masses have power and influence is just that, perception.


---------------------------------------


Her women understood love as a virtue and value. That love and sex were virtuous and to be valued. That the object of their love is an indication of their value. Dagny, who shacks up with John Galt on multiple occasions, and does so with (the Steel Tycoon), does so out of her own interest to do so. It isn't graphic, but it does sound almost like softcore porn.


She would be somewhat abhorred at what women do today. They lower their values for unworthy men, they settle for low class guys, and they don't aspire to the hero in their lives. Instead, they seek to fill a role or position that was portrayed by some guy on TV or in a movie.


A-Unit

 

[Consent]

How is Fountainhead?
Which book is better between that and Atlas Shrugged?

 

[diplomatic_lies]

I also believe her capitalists are portrayed a "little" too ideal. In today's world, corruption is more the norm than the exception.

Dude, you live in America. That's like one of the world's LEAST corrupt countries. Try living in Brazil, China, Egypt, or places like this.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

How is Fountainhead?
Which book is better between that and Atlas Shrugged?

The Fountainhead wasn't bad at all but Atlas is much better. Fountainhead is a quicker read though.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Dude, you live in America. That's like one of the world's LEAST corrupt countries. Try living in Brazil, China, Egypt, or places like this.

What A-Unit was referring to was that at the time of its writing, "pure" capitalist were heroic. Capitalist weren't just the Carnegie's, Vanderbilt's or Rockefeller's, they were any person who owned and nurtured their business with their own minds, this also included the early immigrants. They were all mostly business owners in this case, farmers.

Through the years the term Capitalist have been bastardized by the Democrats (yeah I said the "D" word) who falsely call people like Kenneth Lay Capitalist. Lay wasn't a Capitalist, he was a looter, a moocher and a cheat.