Actually the word "prophet" simply means:
1) To foretell
or:
2) To forth tell

I think that the word "prophet" is very applicable to Ayn. Anyone who can think in abstractions like she could certainly would be considered to be prophetic.

I think thay words are often given religious meaning when they aren't religious at all.

Rand had a sense of pure season, and how to present it, that her male successors just don't project. Rand was first suggested to my by a male professor. I have never been one to pick a work by gender, despite college attempts to get me in woemn's studies, unsuccessfully. Ran, from the first reading made perfect sense. I had never heard life as it should be expressed so perfectly. What she said, was the essence of life as I had been taught to live it. She got it. I have met men who embraced her thought, and others who were scared to death by it. It was too hard for them, they were too weak. I don't think even a man could have soothed theri fears.

"more has to be done" (emphasis mine)

I completely agree. It is more than a matter of mere ideas - there has to be a certain passion or conviction behind the ideas which inspire the sharing of those ideas with others (beyond works of fiction). And there has to be some end in mind beyond mere intellectual stimulation for it to affect any but the fringe academic. When Objectivism can define THAT and a real life John Galt steps forward to advance that vision, only then can it begin to expand and become mainstream. Every major religion or philosophy has had it - from the Ancient Greeks to modern Marxism and everything in between. In marketing speak, there has to be a "hook" somewhere - something that compels the audience to action. What is the hook Objectivism offers? (If someone could kindly rewrite Galt's speech down to something digestible in 10 pages that would be a good start.)

I think that Objectivism can, eventually, become a mainstream philosophy, but more has to be done; it is not a matter of people's following a personal leader; it is a matter of ideas. And if there are enough "professional intellectuals" who create enough works of their own, it can inspire people, eventually.

I doubt it. Her message was just too unconventional for many people. (But I am amused by one comment at the radio station after Galt's speech, made, I think, by Ma Chalmers:"Women don't go for all that intellectual stuff. You can count on the women.")

You are likely right. In the 50s and 60s being a woman writing a novel with strong philosophical underpinnings would have been, at best, considered pretentious, and something to mock. I admit that I am somewhat guilty of that because I published a graphic novel called "Elvius Shrugged" in which we stole the basic plot, but substituted show biz characters for the Atlas characters. John Galt was Elvis, and there were Frank Sinatra, as well as famous entertainers of the day. Unlike others, it was done with love and a tribute expressed directly to Rand. The last time I admitted to this, someone tore me a new one, But if you read it, you'll find that is a homage and not a http://parody.In any case, being a very old codger, I was a kid when the Fountainhead movie came out and I went to see it and bought a soft cover copy, mostly because the name of the author fascinated me. I had no idea she was a little Russian lady who spoke with an accent exactly like my grandpa's.

I would say that AR acted very rationally and to the point, and not at all like a bimbo airhead woman, as was the "typical" woman of the time.

Her ideas met with the same hatred from the establishment as would be expected from any man. The establishment took her ideas seriously, which is why they hated her and demonized her work.

Actually, being female probably gave Rand an edge, as a female philosopher is rare. Women authors with real talent have been well received for the last couple of centuries.

It isn't so much prejudice that makes the appearance of women in professional life historically rare, but the biological fact that only women can bear children, which occupies a lot of time. Women with determination have been able to capture the reins of power in seemingly impossible situations. Hatshepsut seized the throne of ancient Egypt, in an era when only men were supposed to be the pharaoh, as one example. Sarah Breedlove, otherwise known as Madam C.J. Walker, daughter of a slave, was the first American female millionaire, as another.

I think Ayn Rand herself would have laughed at the idea she was hampered by her sex. She would have told you it was her unsettling message that upset people.

Either a yes or no answer is immaterial as the question allows for only an answer that would be a fallacy of relevancy as Ayn Rand was a woman. As such the premise cannot be tested.

For me it made no difference at all. The first time I heard of Ayn Rand people had told me that she was a witch and that was her philosophy and I was not interested until a woman friend of mine read one of her books and told me that wasn't true at all and referred me to one of her books. After reading one I purchased all that I could find and followed her work closely. I think if you are an objectivist or looking for such work it won't make any difference.
I think what makes her work difficult to accept is that most people have a view of altruism whether promoted by the state, their religion or their political party and this makes it very difficult for them to accept her work and reconcile what they already believe to be true.

"I think that one has to reject ... religion to accept Objectivism"

I agree, and I think that's why it will never be a mainstream philosophy.

"Female prophets..."

Not sure why this even becomes an issue. If you're going to denounce religion, you're going to denounce prophets as well - male or female - because the primary role of a prophet is as a spiritual leader who converses with the divine. Why cast Ayn Rand as a "prophet" in the first place? Doesn't make any sense to me...

"Brandon and Peikoff were too cerebral and competitive..."

Another reason why Objectivism will never be a mainstream philosophy. You can't fracture a movement and then expect it to stay together. There has to be clear and unambiguous leadership and I don't think that exists in Objectivism, whereas Buddhism has the Dalai Lama, Catholicism has the Pope, Marxism has Marx and Stalin and now Bernie Sanders, and the Democratic Party has George Soros and the Clintons (though the Obamas would love to steal that mantle). I would point out that probably the only reason Islam hasn't completely dominated the globe is because early on it fractured into Sunni and Shiite based on claims to leadership and authority which have had them at perpetual war for more than a millennia.

Very good reply, Mam.

Love the flying spaghetti monster reference!

I do not know the answer to this interesting question. I think it says something that people don't think of her as "a woman philosopher".

It seems to me people tell women sacrifice is a virtue more than they tell that to men. (That's just a feeling; I don't have evidence.) But if I'm right about that, Rand could be seen as "feminist" because she's an example of a woman who says she's putting her desires first.

Bingo!...I agree whole heartedly.

It wasn't her sex that threw a wrench in conventional wisdom it was her message. She could have been a flying spaghetti monster and received the same reception because she challenged prevailing views by stirring up something fundamental in all people..

NO!...plain and simple.
Most people are not objective (religious or non religious)...makes no difference who or what suggests otherwise.

All of us here put no stock into whether the philosophy comes from a male or female.

I think so. This is my personal opinion based on my life experiences. I think human beings are hard wired in such a way that the impact of her philosophy would have more if she had been a male. At the same time, any individual who can understand and embrace Objectivism could care less about the gender of the originator. Very interesting question, coaldigger. Good one