TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Ayn Rand's views on women

Go To

ManleighSabio Manly Fetish Fuel from Subspace Since: Jan, 2011
#26: Jan 22nd 2011 at 10:33:00 AM


This post was thumped by the Stick of Post Thumping

Leigh Sabio: Now available in Y-chromosome flavor!
Tzetze DUMB from a converted church in Venice, Italy Since: Jan, 2001
LeighSabio Mate Griffon To Mare from Love party! Since: Jan, 2001
Mate Griffon To Mare
#28: Jan 22nd 2011 at 5:54:14 PM

Well, did my sockpuppet kill the thread?

"All pain is a punishment, and every punishment is inflicted for love as much as for justice." — Joseph De Maistre.
LeighSabio Mate Griffon To Mare from Love party! Since: Jan, 2001
Mate Griffon To Mare
#31: Jan 22nd 2011 at 7:58:02 PM

Remind me never to post with a sockpuppet in a serious thread again.

"All pain is a punishment, and every punishment is inflicted for love as much as for justice." — Joseph De Maistre.
EnglishIvy Since: Aug, 2011
#32: Jan 22nd 2011 at 8:27:43 PM

Never post with a sockpuppet in a serious thread again.

GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#33: Jan 22nd 2011 at 11:21:15 PM

Isn't Ayn Rand that person who wrote that book in which she basically hand-holds you through a story to present the philosophy she likes?

JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#34: Jan 23rd 2011 at 1:07:52 AM

Not likes actually invented.

The problem with AR is that she seems to judge anything she thinks of as "wrong" as being "objectivly bad" hence homosexuality, communism and alturism being objectivly horrible.

TibetanFox Feels Good, Man from Death Continent Since: Oct, 2010
Feels Good, Man
#35: Jan 23rd 2011 at 3:45:57 AM

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.

JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#36: Jan 23rd 2011 at 5:00:33 AM

"Stop thinking like sheep" can shade rapidly into "think like sheep for me only "

LeighSabio Mate Griffon To Mare from Love party! Since: Jan, 2001
Mate Griffon To Mare
#37: Jan 23rd 2011 at 8:43:19 AM

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.

...

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.
Beholderess from Moscow Since: Jun, 2010
#38: Jan 23rd 2011 at 9:20:30 AM

"Stop thinking like sheep" can shade rapidly into "think like sheep for me only "
So true!

Oh no! Now I'm scared of turning into her!
Don't be. As long as you understand that your personal preference should not be a law for those who do not share it, you're more than ok.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common
neoYTPism Since: May, 2010
#39: Jan 23rd 2011 at 10:39:00 AM

"Ayn Rand was one of those women who thought that if she disparaged her own sex enough, she would get to be an honorary dude with all the rights and privileges due thereto." - Karalora

Would you regard men who disparage their own sex the same way?

BobbyG vigilantly taxonomish from England Since: Jan, 2001
vigilantly taxonomish
#40: Jan 23rd 2011 at 10:45:27 AM

^ Can't speak for Kara, but doesn't that kind of assume that women are privileged over men (a rather controversial view)?

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.

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 Staff
jewelleddragon Also known as Katz from Pasadena, CA Since: Apr, 2009
Also known as Katz
#41: Jan 23rd 2011 at 10:55:41 PM

JB: Truth.

Grain Only One Avatar from South Northwest Earth Since: Oct, 2009
Only One Avatar
#42: Jan 23rd 2011 at 11:17:45 PM

I'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!
BlackHumor Since: Jan, 2001
#43: Jan 24th 2011 at 2:24:35 PM

No, it's actually one of the strongest ways to criticize Ayn Rand.

What could be more hypocritical than saying "everyone should do what they want, except gays and women, they just suck?"

Tzetze DUMB from a converted church in Venice, Italy Since: Jan, 2001
DUMB
#44: Jan 24th 2011 at 2:26:10 PM

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.
jewelleddragon Also known as Katz from Pasadena, CA Since: Apr, 2009
Also known as Katz
#45: Jan 24th 2011 at 2:42:02 PM

It's hypocritical, but it actually makes good sense from Rand's perspective. Since there's such a strong undercurrent of you having value because you're better than other people, the more people you can disenfranchise with broad strokes, the more superior you can consider yourself.

BlackHumor Since: Jan, 2001
#46: Jan 24th 2011 at 6:18:28 PM

Yes, but then shouldn't she have hated men, instead?

I mean, there's no reason for a truly selfish person to hate their own gender. There's no reason for a person period to hate their own gender.

Filby Since: Jan, 2001
#47: Jan 25th 2011 at 4:56:50 AM

Since when did Ayn Rand have anything to do with reason?

TibetanFox Feels Good, Man from Death Continent Since: Oct, 2010
Feels Good, Man
#48: Jan 25th 2011 at 5:20:55 AM

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

breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#49: Jan 25th 2011 at 8:40:44 AM

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.

Kzickas Since: Apr, 2009
#50: Jan 25th 2011 at 9:16:25 AM

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


Total posts: 154
Top