Ayn Rand and the Kzinti
Inspired by a comment that Jan made under the subject “If you could ask Ayn Rand One Question”, I am reminded of Larry Niven’s “Ringworld” and that Kzinti. Now I understand that the whole Ringworld universe involves quite a number of novels and I really haven’t read beyond Ringworld myself, but all these years later (I read it in the 70s) I still remember an interesting aspect to the Kzinti – the female of the species was non sapient.
This caused some consternation in relations between them and the Humans. From the Kzinti perspective, the fact that humans were having sex with intelligent beings seemed rather kinky, sort of like being homosexual. From the human perspective, they looked at the Kzinti as inclined toward bestiality. It wasn’t a major deal but it caused discomfort.
That is how I feel when I read Ayn Rand say:
“Now consider the meaning of the presidency: in all his professional relationships, within the entire sphere of his work, the president is the highest authority; he is the “chief executive,” the “commander-in-chief.” ...In the performance of his duties, a president does not deal with equals, but only with inferiors (not inferiors as persons, but in respect to the hierarchy of their positions, their work, and their responsibilities).
This, for a rational woman, would be an unbearable situation. ... To act as the superior, the leader, virtually the ruler of all the men she deals with, would be an excruciating psychological torture. It would require a total depersonalization, an utter selflessness, and an incommunicable loneliness; she would have to suppress (or repress) every personal aspect of her own character and attitude; she could not be herself, i.e., a woman; she would have to function only as a mind, not as a person, i.e., as a thinker devoid of personal values - a dangerously artificial dichotomy which no one could sustain for long. By the nature of her duties and daily activities, she would become the most unfeminine, sexless, metaphysically inappropriate, and rationally revolting figure of all: a matriarch."
To me Rand’s view hints of being a mild version of the views of the Kzinti, that there is something unnatural about having emotional interactions with an equal. It seems so out of touch with the modern world and a very strange view for someone who was obviously such a strong intellectual force.
Of course this may be mostly generational. I remember my wife telling me that when she was young her mother advised her that if she was in any competition with a boy that she should be sure to let him win because boys don’t like girls who are better than them. Neither of us liked that idea.
Rand can certainly be excused for wanting to seek someone who is strong and powerful and worthy of admiration, but shouldn’t men have the same goal? And really, with all the various capabilities that humans have, it’s almost entirely impossible to find someone who you are better at in every way, or who is better than you in every way. One can find someone who can be admired on either side of the gender gulf.
Of course with respect to the Presidency, the president may be the highest organizational authority, but he deals with people who are his superior on a daily basis. The people who advise him are chosen to be people with greater expertise than he has and he certainly can admire them, their achievements and their abilities.
This caused some consternation in relations between them and the Humans. From the Kzinti perspective, the fact that humans were having sex with intelligent beings seemed rather kinky, sort of like being homosexual. From the human perspective, they looked at the Kzinti as inclined toward bestiality. It wasn’t a major deal but it caused discomfort.
That is how I feel when I read Ayn Rand say:
“Now consider the meaning of the presidency: in all his professional relationships, within the entire sphere of his work, the president is the highest authority; he is the “chief executive,” the “commander-in-chief.” ...In the performance of his duties, a president does not deal with equals, but only with inferiors (not inferiors as persons, but in respect to the hierarchy of their positions, their work, and their responsibilities).
This, for a rational woman, would be an unbearable situation. ... To act as the superior, the leader, virtually the ruler of all the men she deals with, would be an excruciating psychological torture. It would require a total depersonalization, an utter selflessness, and an incommunicable loneliness; she would have to suppress (or repress) every personal aspect of her own character and attitude; she could not be herself, i.e., a woman; she would have to function only as a mind, not as a person, i.e., as a thinker devoid of personal values - a dangerously artificial dichotomy which no one could sustain for long. By the nature of her duties and daily activities, she would become the most unfeminine, sexless, metaphysically inappropriate, and rationally revolting figure of all: a matriarch."
To me Rand’s view hints of being a mild version of the views of the Kzinti, that there is something unnatural about having emotional interactions with an equal. It seems so out of touch with the modern world and a very strange view for someone who was obviously such a strong intellectual force.
Of course this may be mostly generational. I remember my wife telling me that when she was young her mother advised her that if she was in any competition with a boy that she should be sure to let him win because boys don’t like girls who are better than them. Neither of us liked that idea.
Rand can certainly be excused for wanting to seek someone who is strong and powerful and worthy of admiration, but shouldn’t men have the same goal? And really, with all the various capabilities that humans have, it’s almost entirely impossible to find someone who you are better at in every way, or who is better than you in every way. One can find someone who can be admired on either side of the gender gulf.
Of course with respect to the Presidency, the president may be the highest organizational authority, but he deals with people who are his superior on a daily basis. The people who advise him are chosen to be people with greater expertise than he has and he certainly can admire them, their achievements and their abilities.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
To those looking for someone to dominate, I would say you have an ego problem. To those looking to be dominated, you also have an ego problem. You should be looking for a partner and companion in whom you share life and life's experiences. It's impossible to enjoy the journey if you're fighting over control of the steering wheel.
Jan, just got second episode
(I'm glad you chimed in on this thread, Mamaemma. I was hoping to hear from you. I looked up Jim Duggar...hope he does not agree with me on anything.)
Jan
I have a feeling that Jim Bob Duggar agrees with you. :)
Anyway, love the post.
Wm is fond of that series and sometimes talks about it...He and I often do not like the same shows, though. Hmm...if you think I would like it too, I will see if it is available on the Internet and give the first episode a shot.
Jan
My answer is unavoidably and unapologetically, Yes.
For those that believe that they've found a 'chink' in the Objectivist bulwark, AR's advice on the source of contradictions is highly appropriate, not argument after argument.
Bletchley Park-where Enigma was cracked. anyway, these themes are explored. In the 1st season, our heroine, who is a pattern observer, expert code cracker, tracks down a serial killer. The dialog is excellent-and there's none of the short-cut-don't let you have all the clues (pet peeve of mine) going on. I think one time you said you may not have TV, but maybe stream it for your enjoyment.
All of my life, whenever I was a leader, which frankly was not hard to do, eventually, I would run up against a man who said these two words if I was strident: "calm down." I NEVER hear men saying that to each other when rationally discussing a issue. I am not in hysterical mode or anything like it-just assertive. happened many times. never in front of Dale. fancy that :)
That is the key phrase: Safe Harbor. All of the cultural trappings are oriented towards creating an automatic proponent who will support her husband and his point of view unquestioningly because that is all she knows of the world. In return for his guarding her in perpetual childhood and providing for her sustenance, he has a mini-vacation when he comes home - someone who always sees his perspective and takes his part.
This fair trade of physical support for blind advocacy is repugnant to me, but it explains a LOT about where we are coming from and it has the advantage in that it has no villains. The men are not trying to harm the women, they see themselves as protectors.
Jan
Amused, but also serious.
Jan
It is going to take time for the genders to come to a better equilibrium after women being second-class individuals (I cannot say "citizens" because women largely were not.) for millennia. But this is happening. We are making good progress.
Like Wm's wife, I was sometimes told as a child to 'make sure I let the boy win' if I wanted him to like me. Mostly, this was from relatives, not my immediate family: what I got there, from my mother, was the advice, "Be the power behind the throne; do not seek to sit on the throne yourself."
Well, as many of you know, I am amongst those folks who do medieval reenactment as a hobby, so 'thrones' are very real things to me. Once, when I was in my 30's, I was having dinner with my mother at her home. I was talking about my boyfriend (with whom I was living) fighting to win the tournament called Crown, the winner of which becomes King for the next 6 months. My mother leaned forward over the table: "You should be trying to win Crown yourself, Jan!" I teased her, ironically quoting her saying back at her, "...be the power behind the throne..."
She was lifting a forkful of green beans to her lips. She paused, with the fork halfway...put the forkful of food back on her plate. Then she looked me directly in the eyes, and the woman who had been born in 1914 said, "Well. I was wrong."
I treasure that moment.
Jan
When asked for advice about finding out if a potential mate is someone a young person can get along with, I tell the questioner to plan, prepare and serve an elaborate meal together. Decide beforehand who is to be the executive chef, and who the sous chef (subordinate). Repeat, with the roles switched. A successful distinctive meal demands confidence, communication, and rapid decision making. If the couple can trade roles successfully, giving and taking orders without serious conflict, there's promise for the relationship.
I've been open to women who want to share the lead, or be in charge all my life, and have been disappointed many times. Some women are very comfortable letting the man make all the decisions, while others hide behind a subordinate role when convenient, reserving the right to criticize. The lament from these last is often "If you really loved me, you'd know what's wrong!"
Thankfully, I finally met a woman who was unabashed at telling me I was full of s__t on our first date, giving me confidence I'd never have to worry about what she was really thinking. It's still working, after 35 years. We discuss, trade ideas, and switch the lead often, as appropriate.
There's still pressure out there against female leaders and one has to integrate it.