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

Well, Bill, now that you and Sarah have "refuted in spades" some of the assertions of Dennis, what of it?

Do you intend to write a useful book on dating and romantic relationships based on the facts you presented?

Will it have more utility than the one Dennis wrote?

I anxiously await your final product, including the work required to market it widely and effectively.

Post 221

Monday, January 9, 2006 - 12:15pm

Lance,

Can you tell us what kind of statements you would get arrested for?

Michael,

I don't literally mean men would get arrested. I mean that culture is such that men are not encouraged to be men. Men are discouraged from saying No to women. We have been taught that what a woman wants is for the man to share his feelings. Big mistake, fellas! She can't hero-worship a wimp/crybaby. As a result there aren't enough heroes for women to hero-worship.

Cary Grant and Clarke Gable (in Gone With the Wind at least) are excellent models for their interaction with women. They're gentlemen. They want the woman to be happy and at the same time they won't act like the woman's butler. And they don't make a habit of breaking down emotionally in front of her. They keep it light and playful which is what love is most of the time.

George,

I liked your story about the cheerleader. Nietzsche says:

The perfect woman is a higher type of human than the perfect man, and also something much more rare.

That's been my experience.

Post 222

Monday, January 9, 2006 - 12:43pm

Lance,

I disagree that men shouldn't share their feelings with women. This doesn't mean getting weepy, but it does mean achieving an integrated emotional intimacy within the context of a marriage or long-term relationship.

I disagree with the idea that this might destroy a woman's admiration for a man. What I do think it does is show respect for the woman by allowing her to share your inner experience.

Jim

Post 223

Monday, January 9, 2006 - 1:20pm

I second James Heaps-Nelson's comments about the benefits of emotional intimacy between men and women.

I will even go as far as to suggest that in traditional American society, a man will have difficulty exploring his own feelings absent an intimate romantic relationship with a woman. Numerous studies suggest that American men get cultural encouragement to repress rather than express. See Why Men Won't Commit by George Weinberg for more on this. Articulating deep feelings to a trustworthy person one loves in that way can be a liberating, illuminating and bonding experience.

This does not mean one should wallow in emotionalism. But it does mean that identifying emotions clearly in the first place is key to reaching those desire states of intimacy with a partner. "Psychological visibility" aids in that process of identification and intimacy.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/09, 1:23pm)

Post 224

Monday, January 9, 2006 - 1:20pm

Jim:

I disagree that men shouldn't share their feelings with women. This doesn't mean getting weepy, but it does mean achieving an integrated emotional intimacy within the context of a marriage or long-term relationship.

Hey Jim, when we share our feelings it is our negative feelings that are shared way too often. As for positive feelings I think it's best to demonstrate them in action. There are ways to show her that you love her without telling her that every 5 minutes. And she won't believe it unless you show her anyway. Insincere men tell women they love them all the time.

For me, what's so important to know is that women already know how you feel. They are way ahead of us when it comes to reading emotions using their intuition. So when you tell them how you feel you are more likely to mess things up than to have her love you more. Because, again, she already knows what's going on. She can tell by your body language and the way you say things.

Rarely, if ever, will sharing your feelings make her feel better about you. But it very often will lower her view of you. She wants to hero-worship and we can accommodate that.

Post 225

Monday, January 9, 2006 - 2:02pm

Lance,

I guess different people have different experiences. I've generally found that women have been extremely lousy at guessing what I was feeling and I had no better track record with them.

What I have found is that when you are not open enough in your communication women have a tendency to read between the lines in ways that may or may not be accurate. Now, it may maintain a kind of romantic tension to keep women guessing a little bit during the first few months of a relationship but it gets old pretty quickly after that.

Jim

Post 226

Monday, January 9, 2006 - 2:03pm

Woman: �I see that you are feeling like a hero.�
Man: �Damn right.�
Woman: �Ooh. I love that!�
Man: �Of course you do.�
Woman: �Could we talk about��
Man: �Shouldn�t you be worshipping?�

Post 227

Monday, January 9, 2006 - 2:45pm

Robert,

Thanks for the comment. I'm delighted to find Rand despised it. So do I.

Luke,

I suppose Carnegie's books may be of value for developing children, or recovering sociopaths in a parole program, people that need to start considering the feelings of others.

And I agree that one should know when to cut losses, to stop throwing good money after bad, and I could rant some more about the "lessons", and how they can be twisted.

But that is my point about the Carnegie' philosophy. Its a bunch of concrete principles, like the 10 commandments. Don't lie, steal, kill, et. unless there are *special exceptions*. You are lying, cheating or killing the enemy of the leader, people, or clergy.

And what is the principle behind making exceptions to the rules? That some combination of tradition/entrenched power, authority, popular consensus and/or sentiment should be the substitute for one's own reason. Usually causing the individual to self-sacrifice to the collective or leader, or worse, mere tradition.

That is what Rand denounced so often, why she had to base her philosophy starting from the axiom existence exists. She well said such concrete-bound philosophies were like a bunch of lumber thrown in a tangled pile of contradiction and conflict, while objectivism is like a geodesic dome.

Again, I think it is a mistake for students and practitioners of Objectivism to waste time and confuse themselves with Carnegie. In the book "How to start living..." Carnegie admonishes re-reading the book, like a Bible, applying the principles and considering them. You've only got so much time. You're going to make associations and evaluate your experience and behavior according to principles. You want to waste your time on concrete-bound rule-sets, or a self-consistent hierarchical value structure that necessitates checking context and premises?

Jamming your mind with confusing data can be as bad as believing lies. It separates you from truth and achievement. Motorola wanted their employees to take in the secular religion for a reason. To make us good little toadies, good little worker-drones.

Scott

Post 228

Monday, January 9, 2006 - 2:55pm

Sarah,

Lets not squabble, and demean ourselves.

Glad to see you're an admirer of Berne. "What to say after Hello" is another good book. Rand and Berne identified the same evil, but from different perspectives. I posted this recently regarding evil in the human condition; the denial that A is A, that man (rather, rational animals) are ends in themselves:

The essence of corruption is concealed motivation to victimize others in the guise of helping them.

Rand:"Are you seeking to know what is wrong with the world? All the disasters that have wrecked your world came from your leaders' attempt to evade the fact that A is A. All the secret evil you dread to face within you and all the pain you have ever endured, came from your own attempt to evade the fact that A is A. The purpose of those who taught you to evade it, was to make you forget that Man is Man."

(man as an end in himself, not an individual sacrificed to either a collective or tyrant)

Harry Browne's "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World"
and excerpt from http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/ffp05.shtml :

"There are two basic reasons why most people remain enslaved:
1.They�re unaware of the many options and alternatives available to them;
2.They accept without challenge certain assumptions that restrict their freedom.

Harry calls these assumptions traps. As long as you don�t challenge these assumptions, they can keep you enslaved."

Psychologist Eric Berne identifies the nature of people to play "Games" - to behave in victimizing ways, from http://www.ericberne.com/Games_People_Play.htm :

"A game is an ongoing series of complementary ulterior transactions progressing to a well-defined, predictable outcome. Descriptively, it is a recurring set of transactions... with a concealed motivation... or gimmick."

(In other words a victimizing fraud played by stupid, corrupt, suicidal predators and prey.)

Scott

Post 229

Monday, January 9, 2006 - 3:55pm

Well said, Scott - glad somebody else caught that...

Post 230

Monday, January 9, 2006 - 4:50pm

Hello Sarah!

What in the hell makes you think I have "...no respect for the woman [I'm] with..."???

If your foundational premise is that "...women deserve respect..." I'll simply stop you there with this: I don't respect women.

I don't respect conservatives or liberals or musicians or welfare mothers or the learned or the ignorant or cross-dressers or neo-fascist creationists or dyslexic nazi-Eskimos either. I don't respect any particular group of people - I respect only individuals on a case by case basis and only then based upon what they say and do.

The women I have been with would defend ferociously the level of respect they get from me simply because they earn it. To imply anything else doesn't insult me in the least; it insults these great women.

Best regards...

Dr. Dennis W. Neder
President
~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.
Remington Publications
818.334.8826
www.beingaman.com
Publishers of "Being a Man in a Woman's World I & II"

Post 231

Monday, January 9, 2006 - 5:16pm

Hi Dennis,

Do you respect men? After all, you did write two books about being one in a woman's world...

//;-)

(I don't speak for Sarah, but everything I have read from her so far shows that she is no collectivist - and she normally kicks some serious ass along the way on a one-to-one very individual basis.)

I'm not taking any sides on this (I'm a man in a man's world), just furnishing a little context...

Michael

Post 232

Monday, January 9, 2006 - 5:43pm

Dennis,

All those ferocious women who would defend you�what would they make of you going back 42 posts to find a pretext for a rant instead of addressing the evidence Sarah has since presented?

Jon

Post 233

Monday, January 9, 2006 - 7:27pm

Luke,

I didn't set out with the intention of refuting Dennis' work. I simply responded to his assertion that his comments were valid and based on his research. He did ask me to present my own information if I disagreed with his.

Dennis,

I think you misunderstood that comment. It was a rhetorical question concerning the fact that your website and the portions of your book that I've had the chance to read make demeaning comments about all women which could lead the average guy to assume that any woman he gets is going to be immature and neurotic.

Sarah

Post 234

Monday, January 9, 2006 - 7:38pm

Jon,

Hilarious. :) (post 226)

Lance,

I disagree, but neither of us would have much to build an argument on so I'll leave it at that.

James,

I agree.

Sarah

(Edited by Sarah House
on 1/09, 9:13pm)

Post 235

Monday, January 9, 2006 - 9:21pm

Lance,

I disagree, but neither of us would have much to build an argument on so I'll leave it at that.

Sarah, what do you disagree with?

Post 236

Monday, January 9, 2006 - 9:35pm

Lance,

Post 224.

As for positive feelings I think it's best to demonstrate them in action. There are ways to show her that you love her without telling her that every 5 minutes. And she won't believe it unless you show her anyway.

Doesn't have to be every five minutes. I'd rather it not be, actually. It's all about the apropos.

As for actions, it's just as easy to spot an insincere action as an insincere word.

Sarah

Post 237

Monday, January 9, 2006 - 11:35pm

Luke wrote,

Well, Bill, now that you and Sarah have "refuted in spades" some of the assertions of Dennis, what of it?

I guess she doesn't consider it a refutation, but I sure do! And you seem to have acknowledged that it is. Yet you act as if it's irrelevant--irrelevant that what he said happens not to be true--irrelevant that he smeared a whole class of people with a false and unsubstantiated allegation as to their level of intellectual seriousness (a level which even he has failed to meet)--irrelevant that he has betrayed the kind of sexist bigotry appropriate to a frat-house mentality of sophomoric buffoons--irrelevant that he feels no need to apologize for any of it, but instead to assert that he values the "individual" woman. And you defend him unapologetically by diverting the issue to a subject that is entirely beside the point. You ask,

Do you intend to write a useful book on dating and romantic relationships based on the facts you presented? Will it have more utility than the one Dennis wrote? I anxiously await your final product, including the work required to market it widely and effectively.

Is any comment necessary? I think you've said it all, Luke.

- Bill

Post 238

Monday, January 9, 2006 - 11:40pm

Bill,

It's not that I don't consider it a refutation, just that I wasn't "out for blood" with no intention of producing anything of my own, which is what Luke's comments implied to me.

Sarah

Post 239

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 2:41am