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

The one qualifying quote is Hong’s: “How to be Married and Still be Single.” (The others came AFTER you introduced codependency.) And how on earth you got codependency from this quote without being clueless is beyond me. Her sarcasm means that while you ARE married, she wonders if it feels that way to your spouse.

So, you are saying that Hong and Ayn Rand needed your lesson on codependency.

Clueless.

Post 301

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 11:36am

Hong wrote:

Looks like the parties Luke is up against include you, me, and Rand. ... I apologize to Luke for having made those entirely unnecessary comments.

I appreciate your sincere apology, Hong. Perhaps Jon can learn some manners from you.

Neither of you has yet stated, explicitly, that your basic level of happiness does not depend entirely on your spouse. I doubt that it truly does, but perhaps you would like to say so.

Could someone please articulate exactly where Ayn Rand said that one's happiness depends entirely on any others?

Post 302

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 11:42am

In the Playboy interview she said she would step into the line of fire and die before watching Frank take a hit.

She needed your help, Luke.

Post 303

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 12:02pm

Manners?

You introduced codependency into a conversation where NO ONE was falling into any codependency traps. You did it as a smear. You were losing an embarrassing argument, so you decided to smear your discussants by implying they were all codependents.

Now you suggest that it could all be cleared up by us stating, “explicitly, that [our] basic level of happiness does not depend entirely on [our] spouse.”

Beyond bizarre.

Post 304

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 12:12pm

Jon, I am scouring my copy of that interview and cannot locate that assertion. My copy is from The Atlas Society. Can you name the page number?

I think, though, that a difference exists between defending a loved one from an aggressor and building one's entire life around that loved one.

Whereas the former involves an emergency situation that tests the limits of defending rational values, the latter illustrates a chronic situation of endless codependence.

In that same interview:

Page 7

PLAYBOY: According to your philosophy, work and achievement are the highest goals of life. Do you regard as immoral those who find greater fulfillment in the warmth of friendship and family ties?

RAND: If they place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral. Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man's life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite; whereas, if he places his work first, there is no conflict between his work and his enjoyment of human relationships.

Page 8

PLAYBOY: You hold that one's own happiness is the highest end, and that self-sacrifice is immoral. Does this apply to love as well as work?

RAND: To love more than anything else. ... It is for your own happiness that you need the person you love, and that is the greatest compliment, the greatest tribute you can pay to that person.

So, the bottom line is that work comes first, romance comes second and all other human relations come third.

This interview took place in 1964 during her affair with Nathaniel Branden. She may well have had a codependence problem.

Post 305

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 1:29pm

Luke,

"Could someone please articulate exactly where Ayn Rand said that one's happiness depends entirely on any others?"

Somewhere along the line you introduced "all or nothing" into the argument of our dependency on others. I think objectivist theory of human nature could be improved by recognizing the extent that our maximum flourishing depends on our relationships with others. Of course to be truly human means to be rational. But what use is our rationality if it does not make us happy? Our maximum happiness is related to our maximum productivity which is impossible without our interdependence in free trade relationships with others. Our reasoning needs to be focused. As individuals what we are able to be focused on varies greatly. So we pick our specialities, focus our minds, apply our reason, and trade our productivity for what we do best with others who focus their minds on other things.

This works best if we as individuals practice good will and transparency to our fellow productive citizens. It feels good to be genuine and transparent and have good will for our fellow humans who we hope to have good relationships with. And trading our productivity is hugely to our mutual benefit.

This good feeling comes into focus the most with the person we choose as a mate. Of course a great deal of our happiness depends on our mate. Your mate is the person who best represents of all of the things that you admire in people, including genuiness, transparency and goodwill. We feel "visible" to our mate, and vice versa.

The problem I have with Dennis's book is this, designing strategies for dealing with the generalizations we make about a group of people seems to be the opposite of simply being genuine and transparent to people and taking people as they come, so to speak.

I would be delighted if you would talk about how much people are actually dependent on each other rather than defining our dependency as "none" or "complete". Surely we rely on other people to some extent for our happiness.

Post 306

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 1:36pm

PLAYBOY: Would it be against the principles of Objectivism for anyone to sacrifice himself by stepping in front of a bullet to protect another person?

RAND: No. It depends on the circumstances. I would step in the way of a bullet if it were aimed at my husband. It is not self-sacrifice to die protecting that which you value: If the value is great enough, you do not care to exist without it. This applies to any alleged sacrifice for those one loves. [Emphasis added.]

Post 307

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 1:55pm

I just realized what Luke said in post 277 is "Interdepedency or codependecy". I had thought it is "Independency or codependency". My apology again.

I am now studying Luke's definitions of all those terms and I can't seem to pass the first one:

Dependence: A condition in which an individual cannot survive without the support of another person.

Hmm, do you know any individual who actually died ("can not survive") when his or her spouse/supporter/enabler is gone?

Post 308

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 2:56pm

“If you or your sanctioners have a problem with me as a human being, say it already !”

Luke, you hold disgusting and irrational attitudes about women, relationships and marriage.

I have watched over the last year and a half as many have tried in friendly, benevolent ways, to bring your attention to these issues. You have never shown any indication of grasping that there may be a problem. Indeed, just the opposite. In each case, your response was to shit in your hand and throw it in their face along with the all-purpose, “I am an island.”

Just one example. A few months ago, you waltzed into the Jokes forum and attacked Summer S. over a quip to the effect that, “men are like this…” (a quip in the Jokes forum! where you yourself have countless times luxuriated in expressions of abject sexism) You didn’t relent until I pointed out and others laughed at the fact that you were on the rag. You did apologize to her, but even then it was clear you still didn’t get it.

My post about blacks in this thread was intended as a gentle pointer for you to experience how you sound. Did you even notice how it sounded? No. You actually EMBRACED that bigoted, patronizing nonsense.

It is now clear to me that you will never get it, because these irrational biases and attitudes of yours simply don’t disturb you—indeed it is obvious to me that you are PROUD of them. They rear up so often I have to conclude that you CULTIVATE them. For this reason, I no longer have any respect for you. You are an island, but mostly an idiot.

I will be leaving you alone now.

Post 309

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 3:08pm

Mike Erickson wrote:

Somewhere along the line you introduced "all or nothing" into the argument of our dependency on others. I think objectivist theory of human nature could be improved by recognizing the extent that our maximum flourishing depends on our relationships with others. [...] I would be delighted if you would talk about how much people are actually dependent on each other rather than defining our dependency as "none" or "complete". Surely we rely on other people to some extent for our happiness.

Well, I never meant to imply "all or nothing" regarding dependency, but simply to distinguish the various types of relationships. The most dependent human is the newborn infant, who totally depends upon others for all his needs -- food, clothing, shelter and love. The infamous story of the medieval monks who raised infants in total silence to determine if they had an innate language -- with the result being that the infants died -- illustrates this need for "tender loving care" that infants have.

Ayn Rand presented the "stranded alone on a deserted island" example to illustrate that a fully capable and mature human can satisfy his own basic needs without "needing" others. This includes his need for love via self-esteem or love of self. This is where Objectivism diverges from the Christian viewpoint presented in Love Is a Choice by Robert Hemfelt. In that book, the author argues that parents need to fill the "love well" of their child until the child develops an in loco parentis relationship to God the Father through Jesus Christ. Objectivism holds that one needs no "imaginary friends" to experience a sense of love. Self-esteem will do that.

A codependent relationship exists when two dependent people have not developed sufficient maturity via earned self-esteem and end up depending on each other for their sense of self-worth. This type of relationship can stunt the growth of the parties and hinders them from reaching their full potential. By contrast, an interdependent relationship exists between two independent people who have developed sufficient maturity via earned self-esteem and end up complementing each other's sense of self-worth. This type of relationship augments rather than stunts the growth of the parties. For dependent people, as Leonard Peikoff notes in OPAR, solitude means death. By contrast, for independent people, it simply means a temporary diminishment in flourishing.

Glenn Fletcher, thanks for sharing that passage. I suppose one could enter that frame of mind and still be an Objectivist. "It depends on the circumstances."

Hong asked:

Hmm, do you know any individual who actually died ("can not survive") when his or her spouse/supporter/enabler is gone?

Studies suggest men actually have this happen more than women in old age, i.e. men tend to die more quickly after their wives die than vice-versa. This suggests that they have more susceptibility to physical symptoms of emotional stress than women do. Of course, if they depend on each other for medical care, then they are no longer "fully independent" people anyway.

Post 310

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 3:13pm

Jon wrote:

I will be leaving you alone now.

Jon, I am very grateful for your utter forthrightness. I am very happy that you have finally broadcast, openly and without apology, your sincere assessment of me. I like it when communication is open and honest rather than dodgy and smarmy. I appreciate your commitment to leaving me alone to live my own life as I see fit.

Thanks!

Post 311

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 3:18pm

“…commitment to leaving me alone…”

That is, until I catch you, yet again, spewing your redneckisms at a woman.

Post 312

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 3:26pm

Jon, I hear your position. I get your position. I reject your position.

Post 313

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 3:27pm

That wasn’t a redneckism spewed at a woman, so I will leave you alone.

Post 314

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 4:13pm

Luke, in answering my question about "dependence" said:

Studies suggest men actually have this happen more than women in old age, i.e. men tend to die more quickly after their wives die than vice-versa. This suggests that they have more susceptibility to physical symptoms of emotional stress than women do. Of course, if they depend on each other for medical care, then they are no longer "fully independent" people anyway.

The "dependency" in the examples you cited here sounds entirely reasonable to me. Old people are like infant and children. They are legitimate dependents. But this has nothing to do with my question about "dependence" in relationship or marriage, doesn't it?

Post 315

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 4:31pm

Hong, I apologize if I misunderstood your question. So let me take your question again and apply it to normal, otherwise healthy adults or teenagers.

Romeo and Juliet might illustrate the situation you describe except that Juliet faced marriage to a stranger she did not love. It is a work of fiction.

Ayn Rand died shortly after her husband, but she was old and ill.

Outside of suicides, I am having trouble naming any healthy adults of moderate age who died of heartbreak from losing a spouse to divorce or death.

Can you name some?

Some people, in a jealous rage, actually kill their lovers rather than let them go free. Others commit suicide because they "feel" they cannot live without their lovers.

I do not consider it healthy to rely on a spouse that heavily as a motive to live, to kill or to die.

If my wife died or divorced me, I would grieve briefly and then get onward with life.

Post 316

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 4:54pm

This thread seems to deal mostly with the concept of "interdependence"; something I've written extensively about.

The important point to understand is that interdependence specifically avoids dependence (other than the intractable and intrisinc inclusion in the spelling!) A couple that is interdependent might also be independent by themselves, but are never dependent upon one another. This is simply because interdependence (as per my definition) assumes individuals that are otherwise complete, but that enter into the relationship with forethought of mutual benefit. But even more, this involves both knowing what each brings - and gets - from the relationship. It is a very high way to live, but worth the effort in my opinion and experience.

People that choose this sort of relationship can easily live successfully without their partners, but they choose not to because of the mutual benefit received by both. Likewise, each takes the responsibility of insuring this mutual benefit for themselves and their partners.

Interestingly, I've seen this philosophy tied to other relationship formats successfully including triads, quadrates, open relationships and so forth.

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 317

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 5:22pm

You know what is Luke? You're no fun, your not a romantic.

Many of us here are attracted to Rand because keen sense of romanticized life that she presents in her fiction, and in a sense to much of her non-fiction. I understand the importance of rationality but it has nothing to do motivation. Rationality is not an end in itself, it’s a means. If you are addressing people who admire Rand for her rationality and for her stunningly grand vision of a romantic soul--it would be wise to incorporate that aspect of Rand in your vision as a club leader. None of your post even hint of the type of dedication to love that Rand depicts in her work. Comparing that sense grandeur to Dr. D's vision and philosophy of relationships--you should be able to detect a qualitative difference--and that is what several of us cannot understand that you don't get.

Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 1/13, 5:28pm)

Post 318

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 5:54pm

Luke is my friend.

His manner of expression is overly-technical and one that grates on the nerves of people when they talk about love and passion. I even have an urge I have been fighting to ask him for a flow chart showing heart-strings. (And Jon's posts crack me up - they are funny as all get out. He should go into comedy writing. Seriously.)

However, in real life, Luke is a warm loving human being who is devoted to his wife in a manner few I have met ever attain. So what if he takes the instruction manual approach and I don't? And he states things in a manner that sounds callous and sexist at times? (btw - He is neither.) He got there. I've seen it. He has achieved happiness and a wonderful marriage. But I will not share his personal affairs. I will merely say that Luke's magnificent character love-wise does exist and it is extremely inspiring to those privileged enough to see it up close.

Luke is most definitely not the enemy. May I suggest reading between his lines for the more romantically inclined? Once you meet him and get to know him, you will understand what I mean.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 1/13, 5:56pm)

Post 319

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 6:10pm