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

Hello again Sarah!

You cleverly editted that study to find the statistics that met with your desired outcome! Tsk, tsk, Sarah! Results pandering - pure and simple. Doesn't this group deal with Objectivism? I see nothing objective about passing information through a strainer waiting for the results you want to filter out. Likewise, I suggest that you actually read my books if you care to challenge their premise.

I too read that report. When you go down further into the material, you'll find exactly what I was talking about. It shows that less than 30% of women under age 49 attend "hard" news programs and men in the same age group above 50% as per my original assertion! When I have the time, I'll re-read the study and produce the results here.

I regret that with the huge volume of mail I receive everyday, my own discussion group, interviews, writing and the other impacts on my time, I'm unable to follow this group as closely as I'd like. In the future I'll endeavor to stay up current as this response appears quite late according to the volume of posts.

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 241

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 8:06am

Hello William!

Actully, I suggest YOU actually READ the study yourself if you believe that something has been refuted. Being spoon-fed ideas, philosophy or entire belief systems is dangerous in my humble. You'll discover that nothing has be "refuted" at all; simple excerpted for public consumption and with the clear intent of misdirecting. Seems that in at least one case, it worked!

Just as I tell my readers (both male and female) - "Don't be a follower, be a student."

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 242

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 10:53am

Dennis,

Edited? No, I provided context. Something your comments still seem to lack. I look forward to seeing which part of the study that came from, because I seem to be having trouble finding it. I did, however, find this:

Women in particular have moved away from network news magazines over the past two years (36% in 2000, 26% currently).

Many more women than men say the excessive coverage of wars and violence is a reason why they sometimes do not follow international news (45% vs. 30%).

Mothers have trouble finding the time to follow the news. Fully six-in-ten (62%) say they wish they had more time for the news, more than fathers (52%) and women who do not have children at home (48%).

Also, I've been careful to clarify that I'm talking only about your website and the parts of your book I have read. I'm not generalizing to the entire book without reading it.

I understand that you are busy. Do take your time.

And if you can't keep our conversation civil I see no point in continuing it.

Sarah

Post 243

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 6:05pm

I used to have much difficulty relating to blacks. For instance, they never seemed to understand what I was talking about. Then I discovered the fact that nationwide half of all blacks haven�t graduated high school. Now I get on with blacks very well. I avoid complicated words and I avoid all complicated subjects.

I treat each one as an individual, for sure. That�s essential. That�s how I tell them I respect them as an individual black. I can tell they love it when they see my expression change as I realize: �wait! This one HAS graduated high school, or it damn sure seems like it.� I still keep it simple, though.

Now, MANY of them have graduated high school, of course! And when I meet one, I remind myself: �This is one fine, high school educated black.� But in many regions, most are not. So going out there and trying to relate to blacks without keeping this fact at the front of my mind is just a recipe for disappointing Jon/blacks relations.

Applying this single fact about blacks has dramatically increased the utility of my interactions with them. Someone needs to write a book with ALL the secrets about them so I can REALLY kick up the relating-to-blacks thing.

Post 244

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 6:48pm

Jon,

I'm stunned. That's as good an analogy as I've ever seen in an argument. If that doesn't bring crystal clarity to this argument nothing will! Congrats.

Mike E.

Post 245

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 11:06pm

I wrote: "I think you've said it all, Luke." He replied,

Well, Bill, I guess you have no use for me. That is fine. I have more use for Dennis than I have for you. Dennis has developed a product that, despite the shortcomings exposed here, still has great utility. I see no need for him to apologize for being productive or for treating the people with whom he interacts as individuals.

Nor should you. I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on the rest of it. I was responding only to that particular issue. My point was that you seemed to consider the kind of sexism he displayed to be of little or no consequence, when it's a pretty important issue in its own right. Whereas you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, you also don't want to keep the bathwater along with the baby and never clean the tub. His may be a good book in other respects, but when there's stuff like that in there, it makes you wonder about the author's competence and common sense. I mean suppose someone were to write a book on race relations, in which he included the statement that blacks were genetically inferior to whites. Would you continue to laud the book and to dismiss as insignificant the racism of its author? No, of course, you wouldn't! At least, I don't think you would. So how is this any different?

- Bill

Post 246

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 11:36pm

God, Jon, you had me going there for a second! My satire-detecting antennae have been getting a lot of static interference lately, so for awhile I thought you were serious. But then I realized, this is just too good, and if it isn't done intentionally, then it's self-satire, which of course it couldn't be, because you're not some yahoo who could be that clueless.

Wonderful stuff! If you haven't considered a career in journalism, you should!

- Bill

Post 247

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 12:36am

Luke,

Let me set the record straight: I'm not after an apology. I don't really care if Dennis changes his books or not and I doubt either of us will lose sleep over this exchange. Dennis asked me to justify myself and I did (or am in the process of doing so). Plain and simple.

Edit: But he's still wrong.

Sarah

(Edited by Sarah House
on 1/11, 12:36am)

Post 248

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 1:20am

Jim:

I've generally found that women have been extremely lousy at guessing what I was feeling and I had no better track record with them.

Jim,

To your point above, don't you think that both parties know what each is feeling when they are truly in love? When they are sort of giddy and can't get enough of each other? With that as the model I can't for the life of me see anything that is gained from describing the feelings to each other.

I think the guessing games come up (and go bad!) when the relationship begins to nose-dive. By then it's too late. The damage is done. Those nose-dives should never happen. When they do happen you gotta bail out.

Post 249

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 1:44am

Lance,

Post 224.

As for positive feelings I think it's best to demonstrate them in action. There are ways to show her that you love her without telling her that every 5 minutes. And she won't believe it unless you show her anyway.

Doesn't have to be every five minutes. I'd rather it not be, actually. It's all about the apropos.

Sarah

Sarah, you are agreeing with me.

As for actions, it's just as easy to spot an insincere action as an insincere word.

Sarah, this is what I said originally:

There are ways to show her that you love her without telling her that every 5 minutes. And she won't believe it unless you show her anyway. Insincere men tell women they love them all the time.

Are you claiming that loving words and loving actions are equal? That you take as much value from a guy saying "I love you, Sarah" as you take from a guy showing you he loves you?

Post 250

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 2:21am

Lance,

Am not. Is not.

I'm saying that, for me, a simple "I love you" at the right moment is vastly more valuable than any gifts or some such things that one could get me to "show me" I'm loved. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you or maybe I'm low maintenance or maybe it's 4 am and I've gone crazy. Maybe.

Incoherently,
Sarah

edited: missing letters have since been found
(Edited by Sarah House
on 1/11, 2:33am)

Post 251

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 2:25am

Incoherently,
Sarah

To the contrary! That's the most sense you've ever made. Consider posting exhausted more often.

:-D

Post 252

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 4:53am

Lance,

In some trivial way, yes, I know whether my wife is happy or sad, alienated or connected, at peace or ill at ease and she knows that about me. Most of the time I don't know the source of those feelings. I also have to ask my wife in the appropriate way what she needs and communicate what I need.

For that, you have to share your feelings and the context for them.

Jim

Post 253

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 5:52am

Is there any statement in Jon's Post 243 that is factually erroneous?

If not, is there any reason not to follow the advice he prescribes?

This study suggests he has his basic facts straight regarding graduation rates of blacks and other minorities. The state of education is pretty abysmal.

Thomas Sowell argues in Race and Culture that these disparities arise from cultural values that happen frequently to correlate with race. In other words, a certain body of cultural values comes with Asian or Mexican immigrants or within the sub-culture of the black community. Some values promote education and achievement and others do not. So the problem arises not from color but from culture.

The harsh reality is that when dealing with less educated people of any color, you will likely need to use simpler words, concepts and principles.

I grew up in a rural area where, at the time, 80% of the people on my school bus were black. I was one of four white people on the bus. All others were black. (This was before the massive influx of Asians and Mexicans into North Carolina.) One of my teachers called me "The White Shadow" because I was the only white person in the "second load" room after school waiting for the bus.

I would try to carry on a conversation with some of my fellow riders, but would usually get retorts like, "Luke! Why you be usin' them big words so much?" Between that and the general violence and disrespect I experienced, I just tried to keep quiet and out of trouble. Evidently being "nice" and "respectful of others" was not enough to warrant being let alone.

Jon wrote Post 243 as a satire. I do not take it as such. Everything I have experienced corroborates his statements.

EDIT: Much of what I have said applies to the sub-cultures of men and women in the United States as well. Note that this has nothing to to with genetics and everything to do with cultural values. So while I would dismiss genetic arguments as racist or sexist, I would not do likewise for cultural arguments.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/11, 5:59am)

Post 254

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 6:02am

Lance,

Of course you like Cary Grant and Clark Gable. They're men's men :-). I was always partial to Jimmy Stewart, Gregory Peck and Montgomery Clift.

Jim

Post 255

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 6:56am

You would never know it to look at him, tho............ ;-)

Post 256

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 10:15am

Luke,

I think Jon's point is that to write a book on how to relate to a particular group of people that stereotypes them as intellectually inferior is prejudicial and patronizing. Nor is it likely to help you evaluate someone's character and abilities if you prejudge them ahead of getting to know them personally.

Of course, there are circumstances in which you will naturally expect a certain kind of behavior, such as that of the black kids on your school bus. But there might be a black kid on there who was not like the rest; if you dismiss them all on the basis of their race as a bunch of ignorant yahoos, you'll never find out. Furthermore, you're not dating any of them, so the idea that you should approach the women in your life with stereotypical expectations and a condescending attitude doesn't begin to make sense. How is that going to help you to find the love of your life?

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 1/11, 10:20am)

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 1/11, 3:05pm)

Post 257

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 10:45am

Bill wrote:

Furthermore, you're not dating any of them, so the idea that you should approach the women in your life with stereotypical expectations and a condescending attitude doesn't begin to make sense. How is that going to help you to find the love of your life?

It would not. Jon advanced a false analogy, Mike Erickson's claim to the contrary notwithstanding. A person will have an incentive to build romantic bonds with someone sexually compatible based on orientation and gender. A person will not have such an incentive to build friendship bonds with another person based on a different skin color -- unless, of course, he aims for political or civil activism or perhaps to leave a "comfort zone" and grow.

The statistics simply offer a strategy for selecting a best possible avenue for initiating rapport building, thus optimizing use of finite resources. One should notice after a brief period the education and interests of the other person and adjust accordingly. One need not rely on "stereotypes" after this initial phase nor "condescensions" ever. Dennis never advocated such, nor did he accuse a significant number of women of being "intellectually inferior" -- simply focused on a different set of values based on cultural influences.

Post 258

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 3:14pm

Luke,

So your argument is that if you're going to have successful relations with women, you have to recognize that certain cultural differences exist between them and men. Okay, I'll buy that. But you'll have to admit that it didn't come off in quite that benign a characterization. Plus, I'm still not convinced that Dennis has his facts right, which could turn out go be a problem, if he's basing his advice on them.

- Bill

Post 259

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 4:00pm