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

> You see floating abstractions under every bed and around every corner.

Bill, my dear young man :-) .... that is because floating abstractions ARE under every bed and around every corner. Turn the lights on and clean your glasses.

We are not taught very abstract material well in the schools, which leads to us having them float on us as we parrot them back for tests without fully understanding. To make this worse, as Oists, we learn a whole host of very abstract terms in an abstract philosophical system. And we often start repeating them as soon as we've read Rand, without sufficient time to digest and integrate. And that's even beyond (see this and other Oist discussion lists) the misuse of lower-level concepts and the hassling over definitions and people not even knowing what being insulting or civil or patronizing or independent or initiation of force means...and then they debate endlessly what a particular abstraction means, because they never had a clear definition or because the meaning switches between posts or arguments.

Floating abstractions a constant problem? Hell, yes!! It is probably the biggest thinking error there is among sophisticated, well-educated people...and if you think about it, that makes sense.

Very few intellectuals, Oist or not, that I have met are -not- prone to letting their abstractions become disconnected from time to time. Instead of worrying about the frequency with which I see this mistake, why not ask whether that is because the mistake is actually frequently being made?

> you can also err in the opposite direction, by becoming "concrete bound" (another Objectivist catchphrase).

Yeah, but that's seldom -our- problem. The problem for Oists and for intellectuals and philosophers tends to be that they try to be too abstract or unconcretized. The problem for the anti-intellectuals is the opposite...Bill, check your closets and under your bed before you go to sleep tonight....

Post 341

Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 1:58am

In general, I agree with Rand's statement about the dichotomy that happens between a man and a woman for the simple fact that there are difference, both psychological and biological, that make such a division of habits within a relationship more conducive for both participants. But it must be prefaced that this is neither an intrinsic quality or an extrinsic quality, rather that both participants see a value in each other. And, more specifically, it is dynamic, sometimes a man knows when to take a backseat to an issue and vice versa. It's the key differences between the two that make the 'magic' as it were. At least from my own understanding that's how I've noticed the more successful relationships[man/woman in this case] seem to operate.

In contrast, I've seen the fact that both my mother and father having the direct opposite of a successful marriage/relationship, being that their lack of dynamicism and difference[in the psychological sense], being a good indication for this failure[not because both my mom and dad are bad people, but maybe that they are not exactly what the other wanted or wished for...]. I've also seen this same pattern in the failed relationships of friends and co-workers, where it seems to be no meeting of the minds, or souls for more poetic, in such relationships, thus nothing good is bound to occur if neither participant are willing to have that sort of intimacy or exchange.

Now, do I think Rand ever formulated a formal argument for her position on this? Honestly, I would have to say no since in the excerpt, she is clearly talking in the more poetic/artistic sense rather than from a formal argument of aesthetics, which would have developed a more fruitful argument in brevity and contingency.

-- Bridget

Post 342

Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 7:31am

Okay, Phil, how about this thinking error--the tendency to see floating abstractions where they don't in fact exist? What shall we call that? Is that not a floating abstraction of sorts, because it constitutes a knee-jerk reaction to any discussion that is not peppered with concrete illustrations? The fact that you don't flood your discussion with concretes does NOT mean that you're guilty of a floating abstraction--that your abstract thinking is not tied to concrete reality! To continually accuse others of this error without adequate knowledge or justification comes close to something like psychologizing--we could call it "philosophizing" for want of a better term. If there is ample evidence that it exists, then, yes, point it out by all means, but don't assert its existence where you don't have sufficient evidence for doing so.

- Bill

Post 343

Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 1:12pm

Dr. Dennis wrote:

interdependence specifically avoids dependence...but are never dependent upon one another. This is simply because interdependence (as per my definition) assumes individuals that are otherwise complete

I dissagree, and assert this is obviously in conflict with reality. Human beings crave social stimulation. They often go insane (prison) when isolated in solitary confinement, or in sensory-deprivation experiments. People love each other as much as the drugs that stimulate our brain's pleasure-centers. People behave somewhat altruistically in family-units and fighting-units. They risk death and die for each other. We go hungry to see a piece of cake in our families mouth, but not in our neighbors.

But codependency is sick, degrading people-addiction; degrading relationship modes. Just as we're all addicted to food, we are addicted to society. But just as some food is not as good as others, some forms of relationships are not as good as others.

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

ROTFMAO! I must say, I visited your website, and being interested in meeting new women, was repelled by the identification requested when I used the http://www.beingaman.com/Software/GetStarted1.asp link. Perhaps later when I start my anonymous remailer.

Why can't you just say whatever without requesting personal information? Too often I (and no doubt many others) are asked for e-mail or address info so we can be spammed with porn, prostitution adds or predatory church and social organizations that want to get un-wed mothers off their budgets and on the incomes of shy, introverted geeks with good incomes.

I suspect you'll do better business recruiting the churched. How I miss church. Compassionate people that try to like you whether they feel like it or not! But I wouldn't trade my freedom to hate the truly despicable and evil for the compassion of suckers and fools!

Yet, God is the projected personification of sense-of-life. To praise and worship God is to praise and worship life and living. To seek reconciliation with a just God is to acknowledge an Objective, not subjective reality. Conversion experiences are real; if not with a God in heaven, than with the reality of existence existing. Too bad they have a lot of the right methods about wrong details.

Scott

Post 344

Monday, January 16, 2006 - 4:41pm

Hello Scott!

Thanks for asking. I suggest you read our privacy policy here: http://www.beingaman.com/privacy_statement.htm and pay particular attention to "The Collection of Personal Information" and "Disclosure to Third Parties". We do not disclose information collected via these (or any) sources to third parties. Period. This free tool asks about some personal information that deserves some control on your part. We can't (and frankly don't want to) control your screen Likewise, with this site, and our discussion group, fully 95% of the information provided is free to use by anyone at any time.

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 345

Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 5:04pm

Newberry:

...if men are promiscuous and woman monogomous, who or what are the men having sex with?

     Ever watch Sex and the City or Desperate Housewives? Literally, they're fiction, but...definitely not fantasy. There are definitely enough females who are NOT 'monogomous' except in their official standing (like many males, granted), and/or are monogomous only in their expectation of their spouses.

     Actually, your question is a bit skewed in it's mixing of categories, no offense. --- The contrary of promiscuous is 'faithful', not (necessarily) monogomous, and the contrary of monogomy is polygamy (both of which imply 'marriage' [whatever that means by users of the term], as non-promiscuity doesn't.) A polygamist may be non-promiscuous, given...her...harem, while a monogomist may be promiscuous...occasionally...especially in 'open marriages' (a subject making a comeback on talk shows recently, mesees).

     Then there's the 3rd overlapping framework of polyamory vs mono-amory (or whatever the latter's proper name thereof: "soul-mate"?)

     Then there's bi-sexuals, gays, trans-, and...for those not catching the news lately, those who aren't interested in 'mature' males/females to begin with.

     Add in those who prefer to, well, stay on the farm and I think I answered your question Michael. --- Small segments add up to a fair-sized group of availables.

:)

LLAP
J:D

P.S: Re the original question that started this thread, as far as I'm concerned (to answer a question of another thread) the 'essence' of O'ism is nothing more and nothing less than Galt's speech. All else is summarizing or explicating of it and all such can also be considered (if accurate) the 'essence' of O'ism re-phrased in different simplified contexts...including Rand's famous 'one-foot' summary.
     I delineate all that to point out that given Galt's speech, NOTHING is said or implied about any philosophical basis for analysing gender/sex roles therein. Ergo, to speak about female SWAT-team decision-makers, Chiefs-of-Staff, C-I-C's (not to be confused with buisness-managers or Presidents, C-E-O's, or even state-governors), etc. has more to do with one's view of the Psychology thereof re males/females than the any philosophy supposedly implies. And everyone has different opinions (not to be confused with knowledge-based beliefs) about what's true in Psychology, (or, if you wish, 'Philosophical-Psychology') even re 'sex/gender' roles in varied situations (sex AND readiness-for-aggressive-violence); hence we'll not reach much consensus for generations.

(Edited by John Dailey on 1/19, 5:40pm)

(Edited by John Dailey on 1/19, 5:52pm)

Post 346

Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 10:25am

I agree with John. I have had about a dozen girlfriends, loyal to every one of them. Yet most of them were found unfaithful, either by admission, or via my keen perception & subsequent investigation. Desperate Housewives is a show all too true (for me).

Ed

Post 347

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 1:26pm

Out of curiosity, I read a Ross Jeffery's (sp?) "speed seduction" book I got on an IRC site. Discusses the use of NLP in dating. Anyone using his techniques would get second-hand intimacy and shallow, sentimental reative dates. Not the kind of mother I'd want for a daughter.

There are worse things than being alone. Too bad the sick culture makes us choose

Scott

Post 348

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 1:39pm

Too bad the sick culture makes us choose

But it doesn't.

Sarah

Post 349

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 1:41pm

Scott, I have also read the Speed Seduction Workbook by Ross Jeffries due to my interest in Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP).

I have a summary of his "embedded command" techniques here.

I agree with your assessment of the hazards this material poses to those who want authentic intimacy rather than pure hedonism. Solitude would be a better alternative to pass the time, hence my argument about the validity of being an Island. I felt quite shocked at some of the hostile responses I got to my concept of the Island. Hopefully, my article on the role of the Island, slated to post this Wednesday, will clear the air.

I had roommates in college who built their self-esteem around how many women they could seduce per semester. I need to write an article about that.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/22, 1:43pm)

Post 350

Monday, January 23, 2006 - 3:46am

We're probably two who can handle solitude. The more subjective, consensus-valued a person is, and the less intellectual stimulation they value, the less they can probably stand their own company.

I suppose I could dig it out of google, but I found an interesting chat some guys were having about sex on a preparedness usenet group. In fact, I was trying to find some really funny pictures of a couple beautiful girls putting men in hazardous circumstances by distracting them (working on a building, being in a road, et.) I was going to label it "Dominique before she met Roark".

Anyways, this one guy describes how he inadvertantly picked up a prostitute in Holland, and was brokenhearted she wouldn't even look at him. Yes, some guys actualy have feelings, and have their sex drive and affection contaminated with a sense of identity, unlike Beavis and Butthead.

IIRC Ross Jeffries defines love as delusion and infatuation, rather than respect and admiration for values and a sense-of-life. Definitely a horrible and contemptable book. But its just as well the Beavis's and Butthead's of the world get all the shallow women out of our way.

Scott

Post 351

Friday, January 27, 2006 - 9:35am