Is Rand's take on gender roles in romance part of Objectivism?

Thank you, George. That was poetic.

(All- I see Mike’s post above got sanctioned. Please do not sanction this post. Thanks.)

Jon

Post 201

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 1:37pm

Luke,

Another potential part of your book: Games People Play : The basic handbook of transactional analysis by Eric Berne -- buy it

Book description:
"We think we’re relating to other people–but actually we’re all playing games.

"Forty years ago, Games People Play revolutionized our understanding of what really goes on during our most basic social interactions. More than five million copies later, Dr. Eric Berne’s classic is as astonishing–and revealing–as it was on the day it was first published. This anniversary edition features a new introduction by Dr. James R. Allen, president of the International Transactional Analysis Association, and Kurt Vonnegut’s brilliant Life magazine review from 1965.

"We play games all the time–sexual games, marital games, power games with our bosses, and competitive games with our friends. Detailing status contests like “Martini” (I know a better way), to lethal couples combat like “If It Weren’t For You” and “Uproar,” to flirtation favorites like “The Stocking Game” and “Let’s You and Him Fight,” Dr. Berne exposes the secret ploys and unconscious maneuvers that rule our intimate lives.

"Explosive when it first appeared, Games People Play is now widely recognized as the most original and influential popular psychology book of our time. It’s as powerful and eye-opening as ever."

I'm still looking for the developing self-assertiveness part.

Sarah

(Edited by Sarah House
on 1/08, 1:39pm)

Post 202

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 2:00pm

Luke,

For the self-assertiveness part, I found this pdf: Learning to be Assertive which seems to provide the kind of advice you're looking for (see next to last page), and it cites:
Asserting Your Self: How to Feel Confident About Getting More from Life by Cathy Birch
and
Assert Yourself: A Self-Help Assertiveness Programme for Men and Women by Gael Lindenfield
as sources for their summary.

Sarah

Post 203

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 2:20pm

Good job, Sarah. I have read I'm OK, You're OK as well as The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem but have not read the ones you mention. Thanks for sharing. My main point was that I have not seen these techniques integrated in the way Neder does. In other words, he explicitly says it is all right for a man to assert himself in a relationship and contrasts that with the many cultural messages that say otherwise. I can appreciate the man's candor in this regard. I should note that he also says it is fine for a woman to assert herself as well, and that both should do so in a rational fashion.

Post 204

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 2:24pm

Sarah,

Surely you know a failure of one component of a system to develop, function or operate will not the others. As far as nature's concerned, a sterile creature isn't viable, and might be better off dead - except for social animals like ants, bees, perhaps wolves or humans. Although, speaking from experience, not having any children makes it much easier for me act on my disgust for the culture and neglect benevolence in favor of self-interest.

And it seems to me perfectly reasonable for Fred to ask Jane to go for a roll in the hay. Reminds me of an account I heard of a guy that went around school simply asking girls if they wanted to have sex with him. He got laughed at, slapped, assaulted by boy-friends, but occasionally scored.

Your arguments can be pretty shallow at times Sarah. Considering an implication, premise or two deep finds objections. But I agree with your premise (if I understand it) that you/women shouldn't be forced to conform to whatever pre-conceived behavioral templates.

Ed,

I'm not trying to get us killed. I don't know what your "mission" is. I just try to be a good physicist-philosopher. Shooting my stimuli particles at targets to analyze the spectrum of the scattered collision fragments.

Michael,

I'm a disciple of Fred's so far as he says what most in the culture are in denial over. I like those that see and speak the honest truth, not deceptive, victimizing lies. But no, I don't share his views about sex as a trivial sport, men not being emotionally involved. But in general, there is some truth in what he says.

His comments about male promiscuity and female monogamy I've heard from biologists as well, and the behavior is in other species.

As far as sex goes, I don't know of studies, but I suspect a minor fraction of promiscuous women are servicing a major fraction of males. From the government school I attended, I knew a few girls, maybe 10%, involved with at least 20% of the guys.

Scott

Post 205

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 2:27pm

Luke,

As long as you get value from that strategy, it remains egoistic. Only when it fails to deliver value does it become altruistic.

The Dale Carnegie "what's in it for me" sets you up to be an altruist. I like the "What's in it for us" concept. One thing I noticed about a "charismatic" ex-friend, was this guy showed attention and interest to new people, but with old acquaintances he would re-direct our conversation to what he was interested in. This is bait-and-switch. Worked when I was young, but not now. Lots of people "change" becoming more "selfish" after they are in a relationship (after they have "hooked" their fish, perhaps with a legal marriage contract), leaving their partner feeling deceived and cheated.

Not only did I read that crappy book, Motorola sent me to a "Dale Carnegie" course. Lots of *interesting* lessons were taught, such as:

(following lessons from the book How to Stop Worrying...)

My "code of peasants" - The slave who is beaten least is paid the most / Be grateful you're not as bad off as Joe / "I was angry I had no shoes, then I saw a man with no legs."

"Don't pay too much for what you want" - translated: "be passive and not ambitious or else; "If you want to cry, I'll give you something to cry about!".

That is why I'm studying Rand's philosophy, honest and technical. Not a bunch of cheap bromides that can be twisted around to cheat you, a secular religion for fools to fool themselves into serving predatory fools.

Put that cheap peasant philosophy at the bottom of your reading list.

Scott

Post 206

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 2:50pm

Scott Stephens lamented:

The Dale Carnegie "what's in it for me" sets you up to be an altruist.

I disagree. I never said it offered all the answers or that one should abandon Objectivism and the trader principle. I simply said that the Carnegie book, like so many books, delivers some value to the reader -- and that one needs always to keep one's own self-interest in mind. I will respect the maturity of the other person to keep his self-interest in mind as well.

I like the "What's in it for us" concept.

So do I. But that includes "what's in it for me" for both parties by its nature.

"Don't pay too much for what you want." Translated: "Be passive and not ambitious or else." ... Put that cheap peasant philosophy at the bottom of your reading list.

I disagree with that translation and interpretation. One always has to keep costs in mind when pursuing values, and verify with reason that one has not fallen into a blind ambition that will cost one dearly in the long run. That is the thought process of a successful entrepreneur and not a peasant.

Post 207

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 3:02pm

Dale Carnegie's book is a study guide for being a social metaphysician. Rand despised it.

Post 208

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 3:27pm

Scott,

If you care to provide actual arguments for your position I'll be happy to address them.

Sarah

Post 209

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 3:33pm

Luke,

My main point was that I have not seen these techniques integrated in the way Neder does. In other words, he explicitly says it is all right for a man to assert himself in a relationship and contrasts that with the many cultural messages that say otherwise.

Indeed, in that he is apparently unique. Now, if only he had done it without taking jabs at all women in the process.

Sarah

Post 210

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 3:37pm

Hello Sarah, Luther and all...

Perhaps this response is unnecessary as I believe that Luke captured the essence of my point quite nicely in a later post.

Ignorance has nothing to do with reading the newspaper at any age. In fact, many of the more ignorant people I know read the newspaper daily. Likewise, I have the privilege of seeing ignorance firsthand in many of the letters I receive everyday from readers.

My point was one of marketing. Specifically, how does a man go about creating rapport and connection with women - particularly younger women - where the day's news isn't an available topic? This comes under the heading of "Selling what your customer is buying."

There are a number of recent marketing surveys that show far less than 1/2 of women under the age of 45 follow TV or printed news; but you have to define exactly what "news" means as generic studies affect the overall conclusions. "Popular" news such as "dinner hour news programs" have bent significantly over the last 10 years to include "soft" news (fashion, personal-interest, community, etc.) and these programs show a significantly higher female audience than do "hard" news programs (financial, political, crime, etc.) Remember that these are primarily marketing studies that show advertisers exactly how to reach their target markets.

With that said, egoism is just one tangible issue both men and women have to learn to deal with effectively in order to build quality relationships which dovetails nicely into the topic of this thread.

Best regards...

Dr. Dennis W. Neder
President
~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.
Remington Publications
818.334.8826
www.beingaman.com
Publishers of "Being a Man in a Woman's World I & II"

Post 211

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 3:48pm

Dennis,

I see your point about marketing. Given your audience (presumably males) I can understand why you would have phrased your advice to appeal to them, but that doesn't make your insinuations any less insulting.

Sarah

Post 212

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 3:59pm

Robert Malcom wrote:

Dale Carnegie's book is a study guide for being a social metaphysician. Rand despised it.

Could you please quote where Ayn Rand said this?

Post 213

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 4:03pm

There's a passage in in PAR about it. The same man who ordered either the fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged printed turned down How to influence people and win friends. This appearantly amused Rand.

---Landon

Post 214

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 4:19pm

Dennis,

Regarding the news again, you must also define "follow." From the study I provided earlier:

As you can see 51% of women compared to 46% of men check the hard news regularly, not necessarily through network sources. The only places you find numbers much lower than 50% is in the lower age brackets, which supports my earlier comments that, for the younger couple, the day's events aren't likely to be on the conversation roster for either gender.

Sarah

(Edited by Sarah House
on 1/08, 4:20pm)

Post 215

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 4:30pm

Luke wrote: "Whether you judge my life otherwise is, well, superfluous."

Of course.

"I have no idea what I said in my posts that led you to make your remarks."

Ok, that is fair. (BTW, I didn't write the synopsis, it was forwarded.) I will use one example. You wrote: "...can help a man to sort the wheat from the chaff when searching for his soul mate..."

You’ve gone out to coffee with a potential partner, for whatever reason it doesn’t workout and you both go your separate ways. Meanwhile your view is that you were sorting "the wheat from the chaff". Think about that metaphor. That humans once they fit your standards are fit for consumption and if they don’t they are worthless chaff? Now perhaps you view yourself as nothing but raw grain going through the harvesting process and then of course the metaphor would be exact especially if you were looking for a soul mate. Or you could view yourself as the reaper...

That is why I am not connecting to many of your posts on this thread.

Michael

Post 216

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 4:47pm

Landon wrote:

There's a passage in in PAR about it. The same man who ordered either the fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged printed turned down How to influence people and win friends. This appearantly amused Rand.

I wonder if she ever read Carnegie or just judged it based on its title. In any case, I have beaten this to death. Objectivism comes first and all else builds within and upon that structure and foundation or gets discarded as incompatible. My disagreement with Carnegie critics comes from how well his rapport strategies fit with the Objectivist trader principle.

Post 217

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 4:53pm

Newberry wrote:

That humans once they fit your standards are fit for consumption and if they don’t they are worthless chaff? Now perhaps you view yourself as nothing but raw grain going through the harvesting process and then of course the metaphor would be exact especially if you were looking for a soul mate. Or you could view yourself as the reaper...

That is why I am not connecting to many of your posts on this thread.

I grew up on a farm. We made use of everything we could. Chaff and straw are not "worthless" but do have functions different from wheat. We harvest the wheat, let the chaff become fertilizer on the ground, and bale the straw for uses in feeding goats and planting lawn grass.

In that sense, I am both wheat and a reaper of it. If I get discarded as chaff by one reaper, that frees me to be wheat for another. The same goes for everyone. This marks the limits of metaphors.

Post 218

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 7:39pm

George, Mike and Jon, you guys are really sweet.
I got sort of fired up last time when there was this kind of discussions at SOLOHQ, but not any more. (We have Sarah here already :-) ). I scan through people's comments here, which may or may not reflect the true characters of women (or men) in general, or the women (or men) in their lives specifically, but it definitely reflects some aspects of their own sense of life and their own character. That's actually how I think of Rand's own view on her ideal men. And I view your sentiment toward women in a similar light.

Post 219

Monday, January 9, 2006 - 11:25am