About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 8:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

I just meant that it sounded as if Ed was saying there's the Platonic humanness floating around out there and that we have human identity because we are human rather than, say, trees. I understand that he was actually saying that, for the most part, there are common characteristics that allow us to generalize "me" to "you similar to me" to "we human." Caveman talk, done.

Sarah

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 12:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah wrote,
Bill,

Complete sidestep of my question.
Okay, I'll bite. How so? Sarah, if we're going to have a dialogue on this, you need to be more forthcoming. I think I've extended myself in good faith and given a sincere, comprehensive reply. Don't you think I deserve something a bit more than a cryptic retort with no explanation?!

Perplexed and a little vexed,

Bill


Post 22

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 7:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

Why does what Peikoff says about who is or isn't an Objectivist matter?

Sarah

Post 23

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 9:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah,

You just wrote:
Why does what Peikoff says about who is or isn't an Objectivist matter?
It doesn't, except to Peikovians.

btw - I am not a Peikovian (but I like some of his work). I am an Objectivist, though.

(Saying that really pisses Peikovians off, too.)

Michael


Post 24

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 5:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Men lie about having more sex, women lie they get less. Three quarters of wives cheated on take back the male, only one quarter of males don't divorce their cheating wives. Hmmmm.

I happened across a link to a quite amusing site by a guy named Fred, who has some interestingly obviouse, elephant-in-the-living-room, naked-emperor observations.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm

http://www.fredoneverything.net/SexAndSociety.shtml

Training Neutered Poodles
Instinct And The Politics Of Sex
... The premise of the current adventure is that men and woman are fungible -- that, perhaps after a bumpy start, and with the temporary encouragement of affirmative action, the sexes will work happily, and interchangeably, side by side. Any doubts regarding the probability of this sunny consummation are held to represent the most retrograde of social thought.
...
Women neither like nor respect hierarchy, particularly male hierarchy, and their mere presence short-circuits it. Sexual tension is inescapable among humans. Sex generates equality. A male colonel regards a male private as a subordinate. Instinctively he regards a female private as a woman. Both feel the age-old contract, that women trade sex for anything they want, and men trade anything they have for sex. Most women in varying degrees will use the equation, while insisting otherwise. Men can’t. The greater the degree of hierarchy, the greater the divisiveness.

The key word in all of this is instinct: We are wired to behave in these ways. When footsteps are heard downstairs at night, it is invariably the man who grabs the pistol and goes to adjust the burglar. A man, with a little encouragement, will open doors for a woman, take her coat, hold her chair. Only with the aid of powerful drugs could one imagine a woman doing these things for a man.
...
This isn’t simple gold-digging. Rather, women seem by instinct to expect to be cared for by men, and men expect to do it. It no longer makes economic sense. The instinct remains.

The conflict between the instinctive desire to be protected, and the political determination to have no part of it, plays a large part in sexual politics. Note the near-hysteria of the hostility to Deadbeat Dads – that is, men who don’t meet the expectations of instinct.

We are dealing with inbuilt behavior, and telling ourselves it is politics. Note that women unendingly demand more funding for medical research into diseases peculiar to women. Yet it is common knowledge that men die some seven years earlier than women, suggesting starkly that men, not women, need more research. Never in fifty years on the planet have I heard any woman, ever, say, “My god, our men are dying. We must do something.” Why not?

Either (a) women are grotesquely selfish or (b) they are wired to look after their own physical well-being, and that of the children, while letting men take care of themselves. Since women do not in general seem to be selfish, I’ll take (b).

Finally, and crucially: The women’s movement today is no longer a quest for equality. It was, but isn’t. It has become instead a drive for revenge, for power, and for domination over and humiliation of men. It is never phrased this way, of course. For tactical reasons, feminists trade in the highly solvent currency of rights, justice, discrimination, and victimhood. Men say little. They cannot afford psychologically to admit the extent to which they are being walked on.

But think about what is actually happening. For example, the campaign to force Virginia Military Institute first to accept girls and second, to retain pregnant ones, was hardly founded on a pent-up desire among women to be in the infantry. The intent was to humiliate a profoundly male institution, and force men to swallow it. It worked.

The campaign of humiliation has succeeded all across the country, too wildly for easy explanation. Males in offices tremble in fear of charges of harassment. Powerful editors are afraid to be alone with a woman in their offices. A female officer in the military can complain that a morning run is demeaning, whereupon the Pentagon will obediently stop the runs. Think carefully about this: The Joint Chiefs of Staff are afraid of a woman who doesn’t feel like running. Something strange is happening.

The truth is that men are crawling like neutered poodles, and feminists are quietly laughing. They are instinctively contemptuous of men they can push around, which today means almost all of them. It’s fascinating, twisted, almost kinky. One thinks of a dog rolling over to bare its throat to appease a bigger dog.

Whatever it is, wherever it is going, it is not as simple as we pretend. It is not even close.


http://www.fredoneverything.net/Maureen2.shtml

Will Someone For God's Sake Marry Maureen?

...Maureen Dowd, the professional spinster of the New York Times, will soon birth a book, no doubt parthenogenetically, called Are Men Necessary? The problem apparently is that men have not found Maureen necessary.
...
She makes a career of being disagreeable about men. What’s sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose, say I.

Reading her unending plaints, one concludes that she is deeply in love—with herself, and too loyal ever to cheat with a man.
...
“I’m so smart, I’m so powerful, I’m so, sooo elite, so talented, so…special.”
...
“I’m successful, shriek. Men hate me because I’m smart. They feel threatened because I’m so wonderful.”
...
Maureen’s agonizing does however provide exegesis of the American female mind at a curious moment. Again and again their question seems to be, what form of pretense is needed to achieve marriage? Must I feign sex-kittenhood? Be a calculated suck-up who always laughs at his jokes? Hide my brains? The underlying idea is that they must commit some fraud to attract a man. This of course implies that they aren’t attractive without committing fraud.
...
Those of us who have wives from Mexico, Thailand, the Philippines, Chile, or China view Maureen as being a very strange creature indeed, perhaps expelled from a geothermal vent.
...
By contrast foreign women are psychologically coherent. They are sexy because they are women and like being sexy, not as a Vaudeville act or marketing tool. Resentment is not their primary emotion. They love their children and regard raising them as a pleasure, not an imposition of which they are ashamed.

If you read Maureen and her littermates, you realize that they are those most uncomfortable of women, heterosexual man-haters. For example, Maureen, from her new book:

“Men, apparently, learn early to protect their eggshell egos from high-achieving women. The girls said they hid the fact that they went to Harvard from guys they met because it was the kiss of death.”

Who would marry that? Yet it is classic Maureen, snotty, catty, hostile.
...
The drumbeat of animosity is never missing from her hetero-anguished feminism. Men are vain, frightened, immature, unreliable, treacherous, fascinated by gewgaws, obsessed with sex, and unfaithful. Several questions arise. If men are so bad, why does Maureen want one?
...
This confusion and hostility has made the American woman into an internationally acclaimed shrew. Yes, there are degrees, and perhaps more exceptions than examples, but talk to white men from Washington to Hong Kong and you see the same shudder.


No, life isn't equal or fair, but A is A, and likely to be less-painfull for those not so stupid as to pound square pegs in round holes.

Scott

Post 25

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 11:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Scott said:
No, life isn't equal or fair, but A is A, and likely to be less-painfull [sic] for those not so stupid as to pound square pegs in round holes.
Agreed, Scott.  However, which are round and which square is not necessarily determined, contra Fred, by sex.
Glenn


Post 26

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 12:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Scott,

I have an instinctual aversion to pain. My ability to think beyond the immediate situation allows me to put up with the pain of needle pricks to get things like flu shots so I can stay healthy. Sure instincts can be taken into account, but alone they're never justification for a philosophical or political position.

And Fred's observations appear to quite ignorant and/or a hasty generalization of a select few wackos to all women.

Sarah

Post 27

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 1:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah wrote,
Bill,

Why does what Peikoff says about who is or isn't an Objectivist matter?
Sarah, first, you say that Peikoff is right in stating that one can't call oneself an Objectivist unless one agrees with all of Rand's philosophical views, and ask me why? So I offer a carefully considered and critical answer, thinking that I know where you're coming from. Then you accuse me of sidestepping your question, but offer no explanation as to why. When I ask you for an explanation, you respond, not by giving me an answer, but by asking yet another question that you expect me to
answer--a question which, moreover, doesn't make any sense in light of your previous question. Evidently, what Peikoff says mattered to you, because it was you who said that he was right and then asked me why. And since "it matters" if what he says is right, it matters whether or not he is right.

Peikoff's opinion on that issue does not, of course, matter over and above anyone else's; and I did not mean to suggest otherwise, as he is not some kind of infallible authority. What does matter is the truth or falsity of his position. It is because people believe (as you do) that he is right that they find themselves in the difficult position of either having to accept all of Rand's philosophic beliefs or disowning the title "Objectivism" as the name of their philosophy.

- Bill

Post 28

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 1:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

Sorry, there's a misunderstanding. I sometimes forget that you can't hear my tone. My statement wasn't that he is right and asking why, my post 22 has the question I was trying to ask in the first place.

Sarah

Post 29

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 2:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Big misunderstanding. Bill, in Sarah’s post 13 she quotes you believing you would affirm the quote, as you would affirm, ‘You see, a thing cannot be and not be, according to the law of non-contradiction.’

Further, when she wrote: “And he's right... why?” She means, ‘And do you think he’s right? Why the hell do you think he’s right?’

Most men can't read. (Just trying to kick-up the controversy of the sexes.)

Post 30

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 2:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
To Sarah and Jon,

Well, that certainly explains a lot, don't it?! :-P Thanks for setting me straight, folks! It's nice that an issue can be resolved that easily for a change. :-) The problem with internet communication is that things do tend to get lost in translation, which is why it helps to go the extra mile--or extra sentence--by way of explanation.

- Bill

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 3:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Huh?

And I mean that seriously.

REB


Post 32

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 3:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

“Huh?”

It’s easy. Go back and read Bill and Sarah’s exchange. Both of them are making perfect sense if you remember that each of them disagrees with and thinks the other agrees with, this line from Bill:

“You see, you can't be an Objectivist and disagree with any part of Rand's stated philosophy, according to Peikoff.”

Post 33

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 4:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

To further clarify, the exact assertion that both of them disagree with and thought the other agreed with, is this:


—you can't be an Objectivist and disagree with any part of Rand's stated philosophy—


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 34

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 4:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Glenn,

Which are round and which square may not necessarily be determined, contra Fred, by sex. However there are significant statistical biases and differences. And just as there is a backlash by victimized women against men, Fred epitomizes the backlash by victimized men against women.

Sarah,

I have an instinctual aversion to pain. My ability to think beyond the immediate situation allows me to put up with the pain of needle pricks to get things like flu shots so I can stay healthy. Sure instincts can be taken into account, but alone they're never justification for a philosophical or political position.

And Fred's observations appear to quite ignorant and/or a hasty generalization of a select few wackos to all women.


You suffer vaccination for the benefit of not being sick or dead. You don't "sacrifice", you trade one value for another.

I could tell a gay he should get over his women-phobia and be straight so he'd have an easier life. Or tell an artist to be a computer programmer to make more money. Or tell anyone to work more, a play less - miserably survive rather than less-productively but joyfully flourish.

From personal experience with four female managers, I found all manipulative, subjectivistic, and two even sexually-harassing of the men around them. One said to me one day, "I don't like water; fish fuck in it". What should have I expected from a Toys-R-Us 30 something manager to a 19 year old college kid?

Another manager at an IT department said coyly in earshot of four males, "I do some of my best work with my tongue". And sexual harassment complaints had been made at that department before. Yes, one smiled, another one glared, and being an evangelical Christian at that time, it degraded the respect I had for her. For that matter, it would still today. I don't like, don't tolerate double standards, as I'm not allowed them either.

I quit my last job with Motorola over a seating arrangement; my female manager demanded I either tolerate listening to the only other female (secretary) loudly discuss her daughters sex-life on the phone, or grovel in the pecking-order before her office pet, to move from across the isle from the trailer-trash secretary to any of 25 or so empty cubicles. Fred is right about "affirmative action" too it seems.

I could go on, I wont. I've suffered plenty obnoxious competitive male coworkers, but seldom with fourteen or so male managers. One thing I can say about all of them is they put mission, not relationships first.

As with personal relationships, I suspect we Objectivists would not tolerate personal relationships with Subjectivists that value prestige derived from popularity, a corrupt fight for dominance in the guise of a loving relationship.

Statistically, women are more subjectivist than men. That's practically the thesis of John Gray's "Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus". Pop psych advice to help irrational subjectivist women and dominating men tolerate each other.

I don't know what you've experienced, but I know what I have. What Fred says about Dowd, the TV and newspaper media I see demeaning men and celebrating women, celebrating dependency and subjectivism, reinforce my convictions Fred is, in general, right.

I'm with Fred in appreciating intelligent, competent women, as well as male-worshippers. In Dominique, the two qualities co-existed. But with our present Subjectivist, "liberal", male-hating culture, I could never love a woman that didn't hate it. My enemies' friend is hardly going to be mine.

Scott

Post 35

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 7:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Scott,

Now you're just trolling. I'm through with you.

Sarah

Post 36

Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 7:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm with you, Sarah.

Post 37

Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 10:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm with Scott.

Ed
[note: there are at least 2 wrong ways to take that]


Post 38

Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 11:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

Then what's the right way to take it?

Sarah

Post 39

Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 11:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah,

My life experience has -- for me -- confirmed Scott's general point. That a general difference exists between genders. That, while it may not be specifically true (true for any given individual case), it is generally true that there is a difference (think stats: "a difference of the means" here).

Noting a general difference, without staking claims as to the source(s) of the difference -- seems harmless to me. In my life experience, it has been generally true that females have spent more of their time and energy seeking out (or caught up in) relationships -- while males have spent more of their time and energy seeking out (or caught up in) projects.

Ed


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.