RoR: Forum

Very interesting article.

Be your own Hero, I agree.

I have often heard the complaint from men that women they like are generally attracted to arrogant assholes.

What I think is really happening is that these women are attracted to a man's perceived confidence and high self-esteem. He may not look particularly attractive, but if he acts like he is, then he will appear so to her. It often turns out that his confidence and self-esteem are in fact hiding deep insecurities and she is often the last to see it.

However, confidence and self-esteem are what we are all attracted to in other human beings - both male and female.

Nevertheless, just as important is to look a bit underneath the confident veneer for such things as honesty, integrity, sincerity, openness about emotions and a good sense of humour. There is more to being hero than meets the eye ;-)

Post 1

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 7:10am

I have mixed feelings about this. Some salient points are made, the major point, as I understand it, is that we have to be our own heroes. I agree.

What I do not believe is correct is that Rand was looking for someone to "come and save her". Making the following pretty ugly:

If Ayn Rand had realized this explicitly before she got so bent out of shape about academic philosophers not jumping on her band wagon after reading Atlas Shrugged, she might not have . How different things might have been � both personally and creatively � had she not been so hurt and bitter and angry about this.

What is your evidence for declaring the Rand "spent years bemired in the depression she suffered."

Post 2

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 8:59am

Robert Davison asked: "What is your evidence for declaring the Rand 'spent years bemired in the depression she suffered.'?"

Well, I should have specifically said "over two years," rather than leaving the unintended impression that it was a large number of years. My source for this claim is Barbara Branden's biography, The Passion of Ayn Rand. On p. 301, she states, "Within little more than a year after publication [of Atlas Shrugged, 1957]...Ayn began sinking into a profound, terrible depression. It was a depression that would last almost without abatement for more than two long years." Rand's mood, Barbara says, was "tense, irritable, demanding, with violent outbursts of rage and bitterness. During some part of nearly every day, she wept in pain and frustration." What bothered Rand was not the bad reviews, the outpouring of hatred against her, or the initial slow sales of Atlas, but "that there was no one to object to the attacks, no one to oppose them, no one with a public name, a public reputation, a public voice, to speak for her in that world which was villifying her, to defend her, to fight for her..."

In the end, it was not people of public stature stepping forward to defend Rand that helped raise her out of her depression. It was the "growing success of NBI, in conjunction with her two years of conversations with Nathaniel [Branden]." (p. 308) Barbara quotes Rand as saying: "The man who really saved my life during this period was Nathan. I was almost paralyzed, and it was his understanding of the culture which helped me clarify and identify what was really happening." (p. 308)

Rand had spent years pouring out her heart, soul, and phenomenal intellect and creativity in support of the intellectual and the businessman, and she no doubt had put high hope on some of them endorsing and applauding what she had done. This would have given a considerable boost, not only to her spirits, but also to the fortunes of her book. But I think it was a basic mistake to count on this, as she apparently did and paid a steep emotional price for doing so. Luckily, she had people who cared to help her deal with it.

Roger Bissell

Post 3

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 9:20am

This gay man draws the appropriate parallels. I have been doing some writing on this subject for other venues that might end up here at some time. I definitely am interested in your thoughts on heroism and passivity, as well as your observations on the self being the first example of heroism one should develop.

Post 4

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 9:29am

James Kilbourne wrote: "I definitely am interested in your thoughts on heroism and passivity..."

I'm glad you picked up on that point, James. There is an important difference between receptivity and passivity. One can be receptive and very pro-active, at the same time. I like to think of this as "dropping the hanky." :-)

REB

Post 5

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 11:36am

Roger,

That was a very nice article. You touched on a point that I think is fundamental to accepting a philosophy - that is applying it in practical terms (although the focus of your article was another).

A person I knew once was involved in a Buddhist group of some sort and stressed to me during that time a principle they teach, which is not waiting for an act of goodness to be done, but doing it immediately. A really banal example would be turning off a leaky faucet instead of putting up with the dripping noise until you can't take it anymore.

Being a hero seems to me as something like that. If a person sees a wrong regarding something he values, then he will feel much better about himself if he stands up and does something at the time it is needed. Not later.

So many talk about being a hero. Trying to be one makes you get your ass kicked sometimes, but in my own attempts, the effort has been worth it.

One last point. This is the very first time I have seen the religious experience characterized like you did:

In theistic worship, the worshipper is aiming at a receptive attitude, in which God can spiritually penetrate or enter into the worshipper and do His wonderful thing. (Whatever that is. Yuk.)

I'm still laughing.

Michael

Post 6

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 1:02pm

Roger,

Thank you for clarifying.

Rand was a strong capable woman, who led an heroic life. Using her as an example for this disorder is wrong, unfair certainly in a proportional sense, and it skews her reputation as a great historical figure. One can point to any great person in history and find a time in which they suffered great dispair. To explore a common ailment by chosing an uncommon example is like "a painting of a beautiful woman with a cold sore on her lips".

It shocked me.

Post 7

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 1:07pm

Michael,

Was Roger was referring to someone like St. Theresa of Avilla? Bernini's sculpture was, perhaps , Art History's first portrayel of an orgasm.

Sharon

Post 8

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 1:18pm

Roger,

Your remarks frighten me. If all you say is true; and I have heard similar less than positive opinions about Rand's behaviour; could it be that the passion of Ayn Rand is not so perfectly conceived; not as definitively complete as it could be? How could someone who knew all the answers succumb to mortal temper tantrums? Have I read this incorrectly?

Sharon

Post 9

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 4:14pm

I like the main thrust of this article very much. I am also puzzled at hearing such a question �where are the heroes?� especially from Objectivists, males or females. I kind of think that the meaning of �man� in Ayn Rand �heroic man� idea somehow got mixed up with the meaning of the �male man� for some women.

As for the equality between the two individuals in a romantic relationship, this poem sums up my ideas as how it should be. (I can post the poem here again if it�s too much trouble for anyone to sign-up on the Romance subforum).

Regarding Ayn Rand depression, it is not shocking to me at all. Given what Ayn Rand had gone through in life, given that she had lost every one of her family members at the time (she didn�t know her younger sister had survived at the time), it was absolutely astonishing and heroic that she had achieved what she did, and had only those dark moments at that particular stage of her life. Barbara�s description of Rand here sounds very real to me.

Post 10

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 11:47pm

Roger, in this article you deftly combined some bawdy wordplay with a sharp analysis of an important issue in romantic relationships. Great work!

Post 11

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 12:16am

quote When Objectivist women express their disappointment and/or anger that the Objectivist men of their acquaintance are not being heroes (�where are the heroes?�), they are(...) judging those men for not �coming through for them� as champions and defenders � and thus revealing instead their sexism, male chauvinism, insensitivity, etc.

I haven't been posting here very long, but I see no evidence of women complaining about men not being heroes. I see A LOT of pansy-assed men complaining about women however. I guess I have missed something, along with thousands of other women in my corner of the blogosphere who are sick and tired of reading this sort of thing everywhere they go.

...But a real hero doesn�t want a simpering, clinging little weakling draping herself on him or throwing herself at his feet. He wants a real heroine, a woman of achievement and character, who yet swoons with anticipated ecstasy at the sight of a metaphysically potent male.

Heroic women don't want simpering, clinging, cry-baby men either. I call bullshit.

Post 12

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 6:36am

I guess I should have made it clear that I was not writing my essay specifically in response to things women have said on this list, but things I had read/heard Objectivist women say over the past 40 years of my experience, some of them within the past 10 years or so. I assure you these manifestations are real, and I simply offered my observations and suggestions in the spirit of "if the shoe fits, wear it."

One other point: how a hero or heroine copes with a cold sore is of no earthly interest to me (though it might be to some, I suppose). But how they cope with debilitating depression, especially when it has a large existential/cultural component, is of great interest to me. Part of why I admire people is seeing how they cope with big problems, and how they succeed in spite of setbacks and agony and despair. It's also very interesting to note that they often succeed only, or more quickly, because of the help of others who care.

Thanks to those for their helpful and kind comments.

REB

Post 13

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 7:23am

Roger,

Too bad you failed to identify the cold sore quote it is from Fountainhead and has very much to do with art.

Post 14

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 9:19am

Andrew said,
"Roger, .... Great work!"

I can't hold it any longer! Are you two related?

Post 15

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 10:51am

Heh, I suppose Roger and I might share some noble Bissell blood, if he hails from the same old-fashioned Connecticut families as my father's family. But we are not immediately related, no. Although, Roger, Linz tells me you have a son named Andrew. (?!)

Post 16

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 4:44pm

Quoting Robert:

"Thank you for clarifying.

Rand was a strong capable woman, who led an heroic life. Using her as an example for this disorder is wrong, unfair certainly in a proportional sense, and it skews her reputation as a great historical figure. One can point to any great person in history and find a time in which they suffered great dispair. To explore a common ailment by chosing an uncommon example is like "a painting of a beautiful woman with a cold sore on her lips".

It shocked me."

And:
"Too bad you failed to identify the cold sore quote it is from Fountainhead and has very much to do with art."

Wait...don't tell me. You're new, right?? Fresh off the Christian guilt trip cruise? Well, welcome aboard to the "rational views" high flyers club! Robert, let me briefly fill you in on what you've missed over the past 30+ years:

Ayn Rand was a human being, subject to scrutiny, admiration, objective criticism, and more admiration (some boarding on worship). She was not "perfect" or a replacement deity for recently disjointed Christians. Her ideas are not substitutes for Christian dogma. Her motives were not divine. She was like many other geniuses, who also had their hearts broken. Human.

Again, Objectivism is not a dogmatic system of thought and Rand's fictional characters are not religious deities. Shocking, ain't it?

I know you love her. I love her, and believe me, Roger loves her.
(I've been reading him for years, one of the nicest guys you'll ever want to meet.)

Post 17

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 5:23pm

Robert, I'm well aware of where the "cold sore" comment originated. (Rand also touched on the point in The Romantic Manifesto.) But I wasn't aware that we were discussing art. I wasn't, anyway. I was discussing real-life, including Rand's.

Teresa, thanks for your comments. I agree, of course. And I especially appreciate your warm personal comment: "I've been reading him for years, one of the nicest guys you'll ever want to meet." But in the interest of full disclosure, Teresa and I have never had the pleasure of meeting face to face. We've just corresponded a lot by email, especially back in the 90s, and we even spoke by phone once. She is a fine lady, and I'd like to think our good opinions of each other would not change appreciably, if we were to meet in person. :-)

Andrew, my boy, it is a pleasure to make your acquaintance, after reading so many of your posts and hearing so much about you! Yes, I do have a son named Andrew. He was born in 1979, and he is a rock-pop musician living in Nashville (as do his two siblings). He has put out 4 CDs and a DVD, and his musical group is called Popular Genius (the name deriving from the attributes of one of the characters on the children's cartoon program "Sailor Moon"). If you're interested in sampling some of his musical creations, check out his group's website at: http://www.populargenius.com/

As for how we might be related, yes, I also trace my lineage back to Captain John Bissell, the progenitor of the Connecticut family. If you are at all curious as to our precise relationship, write me off-list and tell me your ancestry as far back as you know it, with names, dates, and locations that would help me figure out what line of Bissells you belong to. You might also like to read "Why I Like Genealogy," my "plagiaristic parody" of Ayn Rand's essay on stamp collecting. It's posted at:
http://members.aol.com/rebissell/WhyILike.html

Good discussion, everybody!

Roger Bissell

Post 18

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 2:51pm

Roger,

I tried to be polite about this, but your response has been dismissive and condescending. Now the gloves are off.

First let me speak to your sycophant Teresa.

Wait...don't tell me. You're new, right?? Fresh off the Christian guilt trip cruise? Well, welcome aboard to the "rational views" high flyers club! Robert, let me briefly fill you in on what you've missed over the past 30+ years:

Ayn Rand was a human being, subject to scrutiny, admiration, objective criticism, and more admiration (some boarding on worship). She was not "perfect" or a replacement deity for recently disjointed Christians. Her ideas are not substitutes for Christian dogma. Her motives were not divine. She was like many other geniuses, who also had their hearts broken. Human.

Again, Objectivism is not a dogmatic system of thought and Rand's fictional characters are not religious deities. Shocking, ain't it?

It is not an Objectivist to �go off half cocked�, nor is it seemly to delight in the fact that Ayn Rand was less than perfect. Of she wasn�t perfect, she didn�t claim to be. You don�t know me! How dare you make such a silly pronouncement?

Now Roger,

�If the shoe fits, wear it.�?

Equating �human� with weakness and flaws, implies that strength, virtue and heroism are inhuman; that heroes achieve greatness not because of who they are, but in spite of what they are.

If Rand

�had realized this explicitly before she got so bent out of shape about academic philosophers not jumping on her band wagon after reading Atlas Shrugged, she might not have spent years bemired in the depression she suffered? How different things might have been � both personally and creatively � had she not been so hurt and bitter and angry about this?�

You poltroon! Ayn Rand was not some silly school girl depressed because �no one was coming to save her�? She strove mightily against overwhelming odds and suffered personal and public adversity to complete her masterpiece Atlas Shrugged. It was a magnificent achievement. You have the gall and fatuousness to quote Kahlil Gibran, a mystic of the first water, and to deride her for being depressed when the men of mind and virtue barely noticed her achievement? The enormity of her effort prompted a proportional emotional response, enormous despair. How dare you lump her in with a bunch of desperate housewives who find that the quarterback they married is not John Galt?

Post 19

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 4:26pm