You forgot to mention she's got this whole raging BDSM kink going on and that tends to form the basis of her views on gender roles.
She's always had this annoying habit of deciding a priori that her own personal tastes are objectively correct.
So, since Ayn Rand gets off on taking the sub role, she decides that it's the proper and correct way for women to behave.
Yeah, I know, that doesn't really make much sense. Ayn Rand is a kind of a cautionary tale of a person who started out trying to bust cultlike thinking, but ended up starting her own cult and letting the power go to her head.
...
So, since Ayn Rand gets off on taking the sub role, she decides that it's the proper and correct way for women to behave.
Oh no! Now I'm scared of turning into her!
"All pain is a punishment, and every punishment is inflicted for love as much as for justice." — Joseph De Maistre.^ Can't speak for Kara, but doesn't that kind of assume that women are privileged over men (a rather controversial view)?
I think this is probably the most insightful summary of Rand I've read here.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The StaffI've always been angry about Ayn Rand's views toward women and homosexuals. I considered making an IJBM about it several times, but always refrained because I thought it was the weakest way to criticize Ayn Rand, and I lacked the information to criticize her for other things.
Anime geemu wo shinasai!On the other hand, it's a criticism pretty specific to her, unless Objectivists carry on with that particular prejudice.
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.Considering that Ayn Rand considered herself to be The Paragon of her own philosophy, I'd say that the complete mess that was her private life is a great place to start in terms of criticising her.
And since her sordid escapades make far more interesting reading than John Galt's notorious ontological infodump RANT then critics are much more likely to base their criticism on something they've actually read.
(This is a pet peeve of mine. As sucky as Atlas Shrugged can be, it is a fucking masterpiece compared to the incredibly shoddy criticism it typically receives.)
edited 25th Jan '11 5:21:20 AM by TibetanFox
It receives said shoddy criticism because John Galt is just utterly impossible to read and the book itself is so horrible, it's nearly impossible to read. So usually, most people just tackle objectivism as it is defined outside of the book. There'll be things like a CEO leaving his company and then instantly all competence leaves the corporation and oil pumps will explode because nobody knows what to do.
Her problem I feel was placing this broad stroke of "usefulness" in the wrong place. Though her argument was that "anybody" could be useful (including a plumber and so on, so as not to place it solely on university educated individuals), the way she presented it made it seem like only people within the top 1% of society could be useful (even if most of them were not). That creates this misconception about her argument. But even still, if you accept that some people are more useful than others you have several problems with the philosophy immediately (and since I didn't study objectivism very closely, maybe someone has John Galt's explanation)...
a) How much of the population is useful?
It seems to me she indicates a very small number of "great persons" are useful in society, like less than 1% and everyone else is a moocher. That's just crazy. You know, I like having a bunch of einsteins as much as anybody else, but saying that is all we need is a silly take on how economics works... at all. If you had even 10% of your population on welfare, that puts you squarely into the realm of "one of the shittier mid-east countries". If you had like 20-30%, that puts you into the realm of a piece of crap subsaharan nation. It doesn't take that many non-workers to collapse your economy.
If she meant that, many people ride on the great accomplishments of that small 1%, I would like to point out that economy isn't purely about inventing things or genius innovation. One has to take account of the short and long term aspects of a situation. Farmers farm food, but they don't make theory of special relativity, but you need to eat food. So even though the vast majority of people don't do anything "apparently" useful, they do things that are vital to the survival of society as a whole without being special in anyway.
b) Doesn't this justify an autocracy?
And now I can get back to the OP here. If I understand objectivism correctly, it is the understanding that some people are better than others (and how do we even determine this when the fields of expertise are so diverse in a real world economy?) then do we not put those people in power over others? So for her to think women and gays are lower than men, objectivism justifies sexism and homophobia. If I were to then state, without proof, whites are better than others, then I justify racism "objectively". In fact, the whole concept of having some people better than others specifically justifies whatever screwed up -ism exists in the time period in question. Racism, sexism, homophobia or just straight up autocracy.
Wouldn't the most optimum government for objectivism be an adoption-based monarchy with absolutist power over a bunch of free market driven provinces? As awesome as that may sound... it'd probably suck total ass to live there with poverty rates in excess of 30% because anybody who isn't "useful" just gets thrown out of mind and social support.
Ayn Rand's philosfy in a few easy points:
-everyone has a moral responsibility to be individualist and entirely rational.
-Ayn Rand is perfectly rational, therefore everything that she does is objectivly better than the alternatives. (for exemple she smoked, therefore smoking is objectivly better than not smoking. Anyone who does not smoke is therefore being irrational and by point 1 immoral.)
-Therefore everyone should be rugged and supremely rational individualists who act and think like Ayn Rand in every way
edited 25th Jan '11 9:16:50 AM by Kzickas

Leigh Sabio: Now available in Y-chromosome flavor!This post was thumped by the Stick of Post Thumping