|It's too bad about Jeanine.|
The worst thing is that her absence will be hardly noticed, at least by me. She potentially could have been a rich source of important dissent, but she never made the effort to clearly communicate her unique (and important) viewpoint. In all her tens of thousands of words, she never once made a coherent statement of her fundamental approach and intellectual background, never laid that fundamental mattress from which she could've sprung into myriad topics, on which she could've fallen back when faced with inevitable misunderstanding. A real hearty discussion and debate about the morality of prostitution, etc., would have been really interesting and great to have on this site -- and Jeanine would have been the perfect person to spearhead it.
But she didn't. Instead, she chose the method of self-satisfying "self-expression." Which is fine. But when one gives no regard to the audience to whom one is expressing herself, that's also rude. And, ultimately, annoying. I'm sure Jeanine has emotional reasons -- frustration among them -- for her communicative behavior on this site, but none of that makes this tragic apex any less inevitable.
My first clash with her came a while back when I questioned the implications of a comment she made about abortion. In one post, she refused to engage in debating the matter, and she assumed to know and proceeded to characterize the entire background of my thought and intellectual upbringing, and how it left me incapable of understanding anything. The response amounted to: "You are incapable of understanding my position, so I won't waste my time explaining it, other than to say that you are incapable of understanding my position." You can fill in the adjectives to describe that, but I didn't even take it seriously enough to be insulted, so amused was I by its childish stereotyping. (Not to mention how wrong her assumptions were.)
Jeanine was guilty of the very things she was victim to. She herself showed no effort to understand and comprehend the context of others, or of history. She did not display the respect for reality (including the reality of the perspectives of others) that is mandatory to win an argument from a marginalized position, especially her cultural position. She did not practice objectivity, in the most profound sense of the term. Just look at her final gesture. Based on the actions of some under the guise, she has rejected all philosophy and those involved with it. (Much in the same way that Cordero, based on the actions of some under the guise, has rejected all prostitution and those involved with it.) We are thus reduced to something so blatantly invalid as collective judgment!
Too bad, indeed.
I regret the loss of Jeanine, if only because her sheer presence challenged many preconceived notions. Nonetheless, I can't help but think that she deserved what she got. I think that in spite of my agreement with her on a number, though not a majority, of counts.
Just on the issues briefly raised in this thread (and which should have been its primary focus) I think that line--"Show me the woman a man is sleeping with and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life" (paraphrased)--is quite possibly the most ridiculous sentence Rand ever wrote. Too bad we couldn't discuss why.
And men are defined by Websters as "they who have penises." I don't see any grounds for referring to someone who lacks a penis as "Mr." I see no point other than purposeful brattiness in referring to such a person as a man, whether it is Jeanine Ring or John Kerry.