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

Dean, [through tears of joy] ... you ... you ... you complete me!

Ed, have you ever noticed how beautiful some flowers are? Or how good they smell?

Of course I have ... "Dean-o" [my crude attempt to maintain an aire of masculinity here -- not often that 2 blokes are found talking about the scent & beauty of flowers, you know!]. I have enjoyed the presence of flowers. One thing that always got to me though, they're such transient things (their pleasance is gone within weeks).

Now, I already hear you guys recanting Spinoza that "[a]ll things excellent are as difficult as they are rare." But what about diamonds then? It would seem that diamonds are a girl's better friend -- as they never get old, tired, and wilt; like flowers do. Is it the transience, then? The Janet Jackson "What Have You Done for Me Lately?" phenomenon. This brings up another point about research.

I can't recall the exact research, but it had appeared that women focus on the quantity (repetitiveness) of gifts they've received -- and men focus on the quality. Now, keep in mind, it doesn't have to be a real "gift" though -- just some nice token of respect or something.

To keep a woman happy then, give her a flower every day. To keep a man happy though, give him a useful powertool merely twice a year -- or something like that (the usefulness of the tool "buys time" -- so that the man will still feel loved, even months after receiving the "gift").

Also from the research, women don't count huge gifts as overflowing into the gift-giving process (if you give a woman a house, car, or diamond ring -- you haven't "bought" any time, time where you could go without giving, and without "penalty" for that). Remember, it's not about a gift or gift-giving in general (gift is just a useful construct here, for the niceity).

Has this been anyone's experience in life? I've seen it happen in mine. Sheesh. It almost sounds like this thread belongs in Romance now.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/06, 11:18am)

Post 141

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 12:05pm

Sarah, you requested elaboration ...

One woman said to me that rational introspection was -- sometimes -- impossible. And that at that point, a certain kind of intuition ("women's intuition") was needed to guide consciousness (Reason requires an "automatic pilot" -- or a "pinch-hitter" -- so to speak).

For me, intuition is nothing more than implicit (subconscious) reasoning. From m-w.com ...

the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference

For me, the key word is "evident." For my interlocuter, I suspect, the key word would be "without." It's this "I can't give you reasons, but I know it's right" attitude, that I can't seem to wrap my mind around.

Now, I have often felt I knew what was right on a subject -- before explicit reasoning. But the key difference for me is that I then proceed to validate (I require explicitness from myself and from my reasoning). It has been my experience that females often could give hide nor hair for explicitness (that they had been content enough with implicitness to run their lives by it).

If we took a gallup poll, for example, on astrology, or faith healing, or [insert pomo idea here] -- I would think that a good 2 thirds (maybe more) of the enthusiasts would be female. Now, this impression of mine is falsifiable -- so now I have indeed made a bold conjecture that begs to be refuted. Though, again, merely the fact of difference (not the explanation of it) is at hand.

Ed

Post 142

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 12:11pm

Preliminary data (from http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359 ) ...

31% of the public believes in astrology including 36% of women and 43% of those aged 25 to 29 but only 17% of people aged 65 and over, and 25% of men.

Assuming, for external validity, equal numbers of men and women returning the survey, it's 60/40 (60% of those who believe in astrology are women, 40% are men).

I've been falsified (but not totally).

Ed

Post 143

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 2:03pm

Ed Thompson-

If women are irrational for being able to give no account of their feelings, surely the most inexplicable, and maddening, thing of all, is your own feelings for women? For what could be more irrational, than to be attracted to such a herd of emotionalists!

Perhaps you should check your premises?

http://gayfriendfinder.com/

Jess.

'Women are irrational, that's all there is to that!
There heads are full of cotton, hay, and rags!
They're nothing but exasperating, irritating, vacillating,
calculating, agitating, maddening and infuriating hags!'

http://www.pa.msu.edu/people/ramanika/Personal/Favourites/MFLady/Hymn2Him.htm

Post 144

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 2:25pm

Jess,

You have hit the nail on the head with that one (and Freud would say the same thing as you).

Oh, and thanks (I think) for offering that gay friend-finder thing. You see, there are 2 ways to take your gesture:

1) real pity & kindness -- reaching out to me in my time of personal crisis & need
2) that kind of almost gleeful, ruthless spite -- of which I had outlined above

Which is it, Jess?

Ed

Post 145

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 10:39pm

Ed,

Thanks for your elaboration.

One woman said to me that rational introspection was -- sometimes -- impossible. And that at that point, a certain kind of intuition ("women's intuition") was needed to guide consciousness (Reason requires an "automatic pilot" -- or a "pinch-hitter" -- so to speak).

I think a better description would be that rationalistic introspection is ineffective. Certainly you don't deny that biology plays a role in behavior? And that's really the thing here. From these types of exchanges I get the *gasp* feeling, er... I get the impression through rational examination of the circumstances ( ;) ) that there's not only a push to suppress emotion as a source of knowledge (fine), but also to suppress emotion, this intuition, as a source of decision making. If I'm walking alone, day or night, and my intuition tells me that someone or a group of people is bad news and needs to be avoided, damn right I'll listen to it despite any rational arguments why I should do otherwise.

As for the pomo polls, that seems dubious to me as an example of female vs male subjectivist tendencies. Your Harris poll, for example, was only conducted in the US. That leaves cultural influences in question. Not good enough.

And I wouldn't be too hard on Jess. While you may not be a woman-hater, your arguments can easily be taken as an misguided attack on our culture's sense of femininity. Would you chide a male who got angry if someone claimed that what we consider masculinity was related to a lack of intelligence? I.e. The more masculine you are, the less intelligent you are.

Sarah

Post 146

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 12:02am

Ed cited the following data:

31% of the public believes in astrology including 36% of women and 43% of those aged 25 to 29 but only 17% of people aged 65 and over, and 25% of men. . . .

That's because those who are 65 and older, of which I am one, have been there, done that! I find it frightfully amusing that young adults are now passing through the same nonsense that our generation went through in the 60's and 70's, when it was de rigueur to ask of every new acquaintance, "What's your sign?" To which Objectivists were found of replying, "The dollar sign!" It also helped if you had one pinned to your lapel. Used to drive the New Agers crazy, or at least I liked to think so!

It is true that women represented a disproportionate number of believers, not only in astrology but in all kinds of New-Age mysticism. Why that is, I don't know. It really is a curious disparity, and it was thought that the best place to meet women--and often very pretty women--was at a New Age convention. The place would be swarming with them. Same with art classes. If you wanted to meet pretty girls, take a class in painting or sculpture. If you wanted to meet guys, go to an Objectivist lecture or a libertarian convention--if, that is, you wanted to meet really strange guys, present company excepted, of course! :-) As my dear departed mother used to say, "All the world's queer except me and thee, and even thee's a little queer!"

- Bill

Post 147

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 12:21am

Sarah wrote: "The more masculine you are, the less intelligent you are."

Sarah,

Do you mean something like a hormonal driven Neanderthal?

Ed,

I know art isn't your strong suit but have you read Rand's The Art of Fiction?
There is quite a lot about the sub-conscious mechanism and how one works with it as an artist. You cannot create if you have to analyze every detail. You have to let your sub-conscious do its job of imagination, while enjoying the process. If you find something doesn�t work then you take a set time to analyze why, come up with an alternative solution and then let go and give free rain to your sense of life.
Many people reasonably enjoy exercising their sense of life. Enjoy things like flirting, flowers, provoking people (one of the favorite things to do) and they may not appreciate someone pressing them to analyze those things especially when it is something they enjoy. In fact you might even get spat on or worse. (Like something that rhymes with spat). ;)
I love bantering with Hong...we both play off our sense of life feelings...and sometimes we play a bit rough...I really don�t think much about it all...but if she were to be upset with me, I would take rational stock of the situation and analyze what I might have said, etc.
But I do think, especially if you appreciate Rand, to read that book. As long as I am giving unsolicited advice I think art emersion is always good, getting laid also, and I am sure George Cordero would recommend good scotch�I think doing all these things in one day would help place an analytical mind in perspective.
Michael

Post 148

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 12:26am

Michael,

Take it as whatever you want. It was just a what-if.

Sarah

Post 149

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 12:40am

Sarah,
I am confused, its late, I can�t quite wrap my mind around this whole thread�and I don�t feel any anger, and do so much like my hormonal neanderthal side.
Michael

Post 150

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 1:01am

Michael,

I wasn't being serious.

Sarah

Post 151

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 1:11am

hahahaha,

Sarah,

Neither was I....except for...umm... the neanderthal part.

Michael

Post 152

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 1:12am

Oh. Well, a smiley would've helped. :)

Post 153

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 1:17am

Can you put a smiley on dry humor?

Post 154

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 1:55am

Pete, to get back to the original question...

Gender "roles" could never be defined with as much precision as (we think) we'd like. I say "we think" because if we had answers to such things life would be boring as hell.

A young girl has to deal with reality just as a young man does. She has to say, "Ok, here I am. This is my body, this is my mind. What am I to do with it?" I think Rand's idea is that most young girls are happiest when they are stone in love with a genuine hero (of the girl's fancy) and I think she's right. I say "genuine" because if the hero is a fake (or if the girl is faking herself out) it breaks apart. Hero-worship is practically synonymous with Objectivism so it makes perfect sense.

So what is the Objectivist man's role here? Rand's male characters are typically aloof and highly focused on their work. The political correctness of our age turns most men into shrinking violets because if we say what we really think we'll get arrested!

(Edited by Lance Moore on 1/07, 2:13am)

Post 155

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 6:47am

Lance,

Can you tell us what kind of statements you would get arrested for? Staying on the thread of course.

Michael

Post 156

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 8:57am

Taking lesson from Lance, I went back to the original post. One thing I didn�t come across, maybe I could have missed it, is this: how would individual rights be affected do to any, real or imagined, differences of genders?
Art is another issue� that involves very deep sense of life and psychological stances. Rand was both a philosopher and an artist, what is true in one context is not necessarily so in another. Rand dramatizing male/female relationships in art which correctly is her prerogative, as it is any artist�s. Do you all think that Rand would agree to selective laws based on gender?
Michael

Post 157

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 11:51am

Sarah,

Certainly you don't deny that biology plays a role in behavior? And that's really the thing here.

Right. What I'd deny is the denial of difference. And any difference noted, any difference, is not a damned inescapable pigeonhole. Take the basic temperaments, for example. Some folks are extroverts (get energized from interaction with others) and some folks are introverts (get drained by interaction, even good interactions).

All an uncovered temperament does, is tell you where your strong and your weak points are. It doesn't mean you are stuck with them (humans are the unique creature that can grow -- ie. self-made souls). It merely tells you what to work on if you want more balance (or even more imbalance!).

If I'm walking alone, day or night, and my intuition tells me that someone or a group of people is bad news and needs to be avoided, damn right I'll listen to it despite any rational arguments why I should do otherwise.

I agree and do the same. In such cases, one doesn't have the time to analyze. All I'm saying is that one could, potentially, analyze this. Some folks say that there are things you can't analyze. I agree that some things, like the basic fact of consciousness, are not analyzable, but irreducible. I just think that many folks choose to widen the sphere of the "assumedly unanalyzable" to their detriment (and that, statistically, females have done this more than men have -- up until now).

As for the pomo polls, that seems dubious to me as an example of female vs male subjectivist tendencies. Your Harris poll, for example, was only conducted in the US. That leaves cultural influences in question.

Good point.

And I wouldn't be too hard on Jess.

Actually, "Jess" is our own Jeanine Ring (the trans-gender pagan), and (s)he just gave me a good dose of psychologizing via email. Talk about getting an esteem-whooping. There are some folks out there eager to tell you about your own deep, dark secrets (or to "instill" some of them onto you). Eager to tell you how little you understand the mystery, and how, if you just follow their superior insight into YOUR mind, then you will be freed from your inferior perspective and existence. If I want that kind of psychotherapy, I'll pay for it.

your arguments can easily be taken as an misguided attack on our culture's sense of femininity.

Yes, I know. That is why I tried so hard to make clear that that was not my purpose. I do get the general point though: to "expect" some stone-throwing, whenever you trail-blaze into something so personal. Despite appearances though, I never meant to come at it like the classics did, where men were taken as the moral standard by which women would be judged. I could (should?) have been better at making that aspect more clear.

Ed

Post 158

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 12:26pm

Michael,

Ed,

I know art isn't your strong suit but have you read Rand's The Art of Fiction?

No, I haven't. Speaking of fiction, I am about to share something with you (all) that may alarm some of you, make others shriek with repulsive disgust, make some of you feel immense pity, and make the rest of you shrug and say: "Well, that's Ed. Heck, what did you expect from such a character, anyway?" ...

Besides college, and the excerpts in New Intellectual (and the Lexicon), I haven't read fiction in 25 years.

There. I said it. It's out on the table. I find fact to be fascinating, even entertaining. Is that so wrong? When I was young, I read comics like they were going out of style. In elementary school, I wrote science-fiction short stories that got 1st-place awards. Recently, I wrote a short sci-fi on how to decisively deal with terrorists (eradication via free-market militia). But -- like a musician who doesn't listen to others' music -- I haven't sought out any fiction to read.

Michael, I respect you as an artist, and I do get the creativity advice. I agree that human creativity is not a series of single points, steps -- sort of like Monet saying: "Hmm, given the placement of these 3 dots, where should I put this fourth one?" Rather, it is an intuitive leap, a radical restructure, a mood, a synthesis. I get that.

Many people reasonably enjoy exercising their sense of life. Enjoy things like flirting, flowers, provoking people (one of the favorite things to do) and they may not appreciate someone pressing them to analyze those things especially when it is something they enjoy. In fact you might even get spat on or worse.

First of all Michael, if you are trying to provoke me, it's working. It takes a big person to admit that (to admit that another whom you respect, has gotten under your skin). First of all, there seems to be an insinuation that I, myself, do not enjoy a sense of life. I enjoy flirting and flowers, Michael. I enjoy playing with my niece and nephew. I enjoy playing guitar. Etc. But on top of that, if your aren't making this insinuation, then it comes across like you are giving an unexperienced child a life-lesson.

Secondly, if part of someone's sense of life is to provoke people, and these provokers don't "appreciate" having to analyze, then bugger off. Don't read the thread, then. Look away. The world does not revolve around your unchecked predilections ...

[whiny, pouty voice]
But, but, I don't want to have to put up with other's ideas. I don't want them to be able to voice them in partitioned quarters here. Because then I might run across them and be challenged by a competing view, and I shouldn't have to be put through all that. Life should be easier for me then that.

But I do think, especially if you appreciate Rand, to read that book. As long as I am giving unsolicited advice I think art emersion is always good, getting laid also, and I am sure George Cordero would recommend good scotch�I think doing all these things in one day would help place an analytical mind in perspective.

Thanks for this advice. I'm on it!

:-)

Ed

Post 159

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 12:35pm