What's the general view of gender in Objectivism?

Now, I haven't read the Romantic Manifesto, but I read it does cover this topic, so I thought I post on it and ask. What would be the view of gender under Objectivism? Specifically, does it see it as a role or as analogous to one's sex? Because, I'm not into the Post-Modern views of Judith Bulter and company, but I think the argument of gender essences seems a bit daffy in light of how diverse folks are within the sexes (Stay at home dads, Moms that own a company, and so on...).

-- Bridget

Post 1

Friday, July 14, 2006 - 10:32am

If you're talking about how the respective sexes ought to act outside of expressly sexual situations, Rand didn't have much to say, but her thoughts were in line with current mainstream thinking; what jobs people ought to do has, with rare exceptions, nothing to do with sex. Her most succinct statement on this was in the Playboy interview, and I hope someone out there will send in the quote. Friedan's The Feminine Mystique got a very enthusiastic review in The Objectivist Newsletter (by Edith Efron), and her remarks in Playboy suggest that the book's thesis was on her mind.

As for superficials like clothes and hairstyles, I should think (just inferring here) she'd advise us to accept the conventional roles, as a consequence of accepting and being glad about what we are. I mean, does she strike you as somebody who'd be OK with drag queens?

A point I've noticed in the novels is that, while her women can have a masculine aspect (Dagny Taggart being the principal case in point), her men are always one hundred percent butch.

She said that no woman should be president. This is anthologized in Objectivism: The Voice of Reason. Femininity, she believed, entailed looking up to and surrendering to a man. Being a head of state (as opposed to being head of a business or being in any lesser political office) requires the occupant to be in charge all the time, and she wouldn't have trusted a woman who sought such a role. I don't know of anyone who defends her on this. It ranks up there with her paeans to cigarette-smoking on the list of things her admirers would most like to forget.

Peter

(Edited by Peter Reidy on 7/14, 1:19pm)

(Edited by Peter Reidy on 7/14, 1:20pm)

Post 2

Friday, July 14, 2006 - 12:56pm

Peter, I've read that essay, and it was probably the first time I did a double take on what I was reading when reading anything from Rand. I admire Rand a great deal, but I can't agree with her on that essay "About a Woman President" and it seems to me she just gave arbitrary gender roles. I didn't understand her reasoning as to why no rational woman would want to be President.

So this seems to be a double edged sword to me, on the one hand I can point to this essay and say "See, I'm not a Randroid, I clearly do not agree with everything she said" but the flip side, people use this essay as ad hominem attacks against her and the philosophy of Objectivism.

Regardless, this miniscule unimportant amount of disagreement can't possibly blemish the overwhelming amount of good philosophy she espoused that I have come to agree with.

Post 3

Friday, July 14, 2006 - 3:20pm

I believe Rand understood her own sexuality but did not understand the range of sexuality that exists amongst mankind. I also believe she was in error when she wrote, "About a Woman President."

Remember that Rand's thinking is not the foundation for Objectivism. She was the great discoverer and communicator of this wonderful philosophy but Objectivism's foundation is reality. And reality is the final arbiter of what is right and wrong.

As long as you are pursuing values that properly promote your life, your sexual activity, even if outside the norm, is also proper.

On a personal note, I have no doubt that I am heterosexual in spite of my general lack of interest in sports and my enjoyment of musicals. :)

Post 4

Friday, July 14, 2006 - 4:10pm

Bob Wrote:

I am heterosexual in spite of my general lack of interest in sports and my enjoyment of musicals. :)

The former I could buy, but the latter is a real stretch.... ;-)

Bob

Post 5

Friday, July 14, 2006 - 7:46pm

What - ye presume "Sound of Music" is only for women? ;-)

or "Showboat"?

or "The Producers"?

For Shame!!!!!

Post 6

Friday, July 14, 2006 - 9:51pm

Yeah, basically, I never saw how Rand could conclude her assessment on the grounds of Objectivism. o_O But, often, I get asked by non-Objectivists and wannabe-Objectivists, "How can you call yourself an Objectivist and be transgender?" I simply don't have an answer at this time, maybe because there isn't a clear one yet for me. I always keep thinking about it and mulling it over in my own head. Yet, I don't feel like I'm doing something bad or immoral or unnatural when I'm being myself. I see it as a means of expressing my values, nothing more. Not everyone wants to be John Wayne, and not everyone wants to be Marilyn Monroe, just to give contrast to the types of people who have exhibitted particular gender roles. And in that context, gender for me is just another word for what one values, but often ignores the reasons for why one values it.

-- Bridget

Post 7

Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 8:40am

Bridget,

I think you can still call yourself an Objectivist and still object to Rand's views on gender roles. These were minor views compared to the huge amount of material she wrote. To take a huge system, and disagree with a few minor details, doesn't negate identifying yourself with the system.

For example, take the theory of evolution. Every biologist (at least the ones that are rational) accept the theory of evolution as true. But not all of them agree on every single fine detail of the theory. A famous dispute on a detail of the theory of evolution was between Richard Dawkins, and Stephen Jay Gould.

Yet both these scientists still agree in the overall theory of evolution. Both would still call themselves evolutionists.

Regards,

John

Post 8

Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 11:00am

Bridget said:

But, often, I get asked by non-Objectivists and wannabe-Objectivists, "How can you call yourself an Objectivist and be transgender?" I simply don't have an answer at this time, maybe because there isn't a clear one yet for me.

Bridget, I recall a story where someone asked Rand "Why should we listen to you, you arent even a real American" To which she responded, "I chose to be an American, what have you ever chosen?"

Personally, I think Rand's only failing was that she did not elevate the individual or the rational choices of the individual to their ultimate logical conclusions, still subscribing to a few social \ gender\ physical conceptions.

I also recall a news story about a young girl who wanted to be a flight attendant, and had wanted it all her life. (a link eludes me now) Unfortunately she was too short so had surgery done which lengthened her legs so she was able to meet the physical requirments of the job. I would be hard pressed to see why Rand would object to such a thing. Conversely, it is gaining popularity to get the same surgery in China among young boys, since being taller is associated with an elevated social status, I think Rand would disagree with this, the difference being the motivating source of action between the two. The former being internal, the latter being external and 2nd handed.

Given that, I think the reason why you chose to change your gender would be at the heart of the issue, and since you seem an intellegient rational individual interested in objectivism, I seriously doubt the source was 2nd handed ness. In that, you chose to become a woman, you made yourself into what you wanted to be. I think that is a pretty strong affirmation of rational individualism. How many of those wannabe objectivists have had the guts and courage to make as life altering of a decision as that?

We are all, essentially, sentient beings plopped into an arbitrary external machine to carry us about. If *you* want to change that machine, adding things here or taking things away there, according to your values, as long as they are of rational self interest, you are definately an objectivist.

What is it they think about being transgender is explicitly anti-objectivist anyway?

Post 9

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 2:18pm