femininity vs heroine worship, why can’t the essence of masculinity be Options

[Guest_ElizabethLee_*]

Bill Bucko posted a must-read description of meeting AR; he then added a question;

During the question and answer period a diffident young woman respectfully questioned Miss Rand’s views on femininity.* Miss Rand nodded gently, acknowledging that the issue was not self-evident, and politely recommended, “Well ... think about it.”

..... She didn’t look like a world famous writer. She was as natural and unpretentious as could be, and seemed innocently, almost childishly happy to be meeting people who loved her books.

An earnest young man reached her side, and uttered some solemn words of thanks. She listened quietly, then nodded her head in acknowledgment when he was done. As far as I could guess, though, she seemed more comfortable with the more casual attitude of the majority of her fans, whose mood I think I could sum up as: “Hurray! Isn’t it fun that we get to meet each other? (And please could you autograph this for me, as a souvenir?)”

After a while the manager came and told Miss Rand it was time to close the building. “Oh, couldn’t we stay just a little while longer?” she smiled up at him, and he relented.

.... overheard her plans for the rest of the evening: she was going to ride back to New York on the Greyhound Bus, with her beloved husband Frank O’Connor at her side.
....we saw a warm, friendly, youthful old woman, with the innocence of a young girl. We saw a person who was delighted to see us, apparently at peace with herself and deeply happy.
....
Copyright © 1992 by Bill Bucko

* Rightfully so, I think. I believe Miss Rand’s unique psychological situation—knowing herself to be at the top of the “pyramid of ability,” having no one above her—coupled with her passionate need to look up and admire—may have led her mistakenly (though understandably) to elevate the status of men above women (in the limited respect in which she did do so). But if “the essence of femininity is hero worship,” as Miss Rand said, why can’t the essence of masculinity be ... heroine worship?
[right][snapback]241[/snapback][/right]

Bill, are you out there? do you still have the question? does anyone else?

I did think about this a lot, and came to the conclusion, yet again; AR was right.
I'd be happy to share thoughts if currently people have this question.

[Guest_ElizabethLee_*]

p.s. Charles Sures was a hero on many grounds, not just chivalry/nobless/courtesy. He was a renaissance man. Stephen perhaps has posted on his greatness.

[Guest_ElizabethLee_*]

hi Sarah!
I had a few thoughts about the productivity idea. I said men are more productive [for certain constant conditions]. I thought of men I've loved, equal me on some grounds therefore.

Of 7, 4 were not just more productive but [as the columnist Fred would say] catastrophically more productive. And the 3 were special cases;
FranciscoGuy; too young to evaluate
MFrenchman; put all his energies into athletics, an area which I personally couldn't judge productiveness. Note he was a medal-winner in his thing; maybe now with a similar man I'd evaluate differently.
WaterWalker; hadn't yet found his lifework.

[Guest_ElizabethLee_*]

grrr, not sure why I clicked done....

So Sarah, can you perhaps think of couples you respect and then compare their productivity?
I say not you because you might not want to reveal for yourself, esp. since you only recently found a real hero [so the # would be 1 perhaps].

Btw, in my unending quest for measurement, I thought of a funny one; #posts here! Obviously, a huge #factors affect desire to post and ability, etc, so these #'s would need corroboration. But I was amused and I hope you are too, by; So far, ratios;
561/118=4.75 Alex to Sarah's posts
3642/975=3.74 Stephen to Betsy Speicher's posts
[]other couples here?? [who joined the board on the same day]

I emphatically don't think these ladies are less heroic, merely less productive on -absolute- scales than their mates, in a highly silly non-essential measure. For Betsy, however, I'm pretty sure she'd agree that Stephen is also generally more productive in absolute terms.

Again, absolutes; not relative. Elephants vs Zebras have different scales.

And I'm sure I don't need to point out there are most likely a ton of men who would be below both Betsy and Sarah in absolute productivity.

[Stephen Speicher]

I feel like  a dork to say so, and maybe I'm all off base and need serious thought, but I don't feel hero worship for AR or any woman.[right][snapback]22280[/snapback][/right]

I see nothing dorkish in that. It makes perfect sense. Judging a person an heroic being is not the same as hero-worship. Though expressed towards a particular person, hero-worship stems from a source that goes beyond that person, a source more broad, more metaphysical in nature. As I understand the psychology of many women, that metaphysical source applies to manhood, not womanhood. None of which undercuts the heroic nature and stature of an Ayn Rand.

[Stephen Speicher]

Charles Sures was a hero on many grounds, not just chivalry/nobless/courtesy.  He was a renaissance man.  Stephen perhaps has posted on his greatness.[right][snapback]22283[/snapback][/right]

In addition to all that Charles had accomplished across his lifetime, in his last years he became fascinated with physics. Even though he lacked the formal training, the endless questions he asked were always penetrating, to the essence. He struggled and eventually grasped some physics principles that, to this day, others with some training still fail to comprehend.

[dondigitalia]

Judging a person an heroic being is not the same as hero-worship. Though expressed towards a  particular person, hero-worship stems from a source that goes beyond that person, a source more broad, more metaphysical in nature.[right][snapback]22298[/snapback][/right]

Maybe I don't understand what is meant by hero worship... What I had always referred to as hero worship was an extreme form of admiration, respect, and often gratitude. It's the way I view those whom I hold up on a pedestal, but it's always grounded in them specifically. This is clearly different than what you're talking about.

[dondigitalia]

If you could ask your roomie about surrender's effect on his sexual attraction I'd like to hear that.

I actually asked this question during our initial discussion, and the answer is interesting. For him, the element of surrender never touches sex. In regard to sex, it is always the woman who surrenders, and he says he'd find it to be an extreme turn-off to have it happen the other way. I won't embarrass him by sharing the details, but he told me about a time when a woman attempted to reverse things during sex, and he reversed them right back--immediately.

[Stephen Speicher]

Maybe I don't understand what is meant by hero worship...[right][snapback]22306[/snapback][/right]

I claim no expertise here. The context is femininity, and I am mostly relating my understanding of the feminine psychology as voiced by, at least, a number of Objectivist women. What I have learned from them seems quite sensible to me.

[dondigitalia]

I claim no expertise here. The context is femininity, and I am mostly relating my understanding of the feminine psychology as voiced by, at least, a number of Objectivist women. What I have learned from them seems quite sensible to me.
[right][snapback]22313[/snapback][/right]

Well, that's the thing. I don't see that "hero-worship," as I have used the term does apply only to manhood, and that leaves me wondering what the difference is between my usage and the one being talked about in this thread. I'm happy to adopt a different term for my concept for the sake of clarity, but the problem is that I don't really grasp your and Elizabeth's concept. Could I possibly get a definition from each of you?

[Stephen Speicher]

... but the problem is that I don't really grasp your and Elizabeth's concept. Could I possibly get a definition from each of you?[right][snapback]22318[/snapback][/right]

I have no formal definition. I have been operating on the characterizations given in a number of the preceding 289 posts in this thread, in other threads here on femininity, in private conversations with a number of Objectivist women, and in Miss Rand's sparse writings on the essence of femininity. Aside from the private conversations, I'm afraid you'll have to ponder through the rest.

[Guest_ElizabethLee_*]

...the element of surrender never touches sex. In regard to sex, it is always the woman who surrenders, and he says he'd find it to be an extreme turn-off to have it happen the other way. I won't embarrass him by sharing the details, but he told me about a time when a woman attempted to reverse things during sex, and he reversed them right back--immediately.
[right][snapback]22307[/snapback][/right]

LOL!!! Of course. Even the "shy" men or confused ones can suddenly spring to life in the bedroom [pun probably intended]

So we're in agreement, surrender exists for men, in fact is definitely beautiful whenever occurring [Dave, look forward to your 1st ], but is not sexual for men whereas is for women.

I'll write more, but a quick note.

I thought of a woman I hero worship! And it helps me name a big difficulty I experience with femininity. StarLady is an extremely competent, productive individual with a lovely way of interacting with people, the noblesse oblige, for lack of better word. I don't find her strikingly feminine, but not at all unfeminine. I think it could be highly significant that she is black; I do think there remains some prejudice towards blacks in various pockets of the world, and thus she probably knows what it feels like to be mistreated subtly.

AR I find exceedingly feminine [eg on Donahue], but lacking some of this active welcoming I really seek in people. NB; I couldn't even -talk- about these issues without her work! I feel like her life is my Industrial Revolution. Without the fact of her existence and experiences, I'd not even have the chance to think and integrate as I am and hope to. I'd be a cog.

So I think StarLady has the attributes of a "total" person in my book; respect for her sexuality, for others, and demonstrated abilities.

The difficulty with femininity is that letting a man lead can be on the passive side of things, whereas offering good hostessing is very active. I don't know many southern women, but southern belle is one aspect of femininity I think I like. They may be more active perhaps also, and join the active/receptive aspects, but it's really tough. At least for me, I need help!

An example is with some gentlemen, such as ItalianGuy [who of course wouldn't be suitable romantically but I still like the option of light flirtation and the chance to feel feminine, esp. this man, a really great guy]. He reacts the best to me when I let him talk talk talk. And I love to listen, especially to men . So it works out. But then when I pipe up, somehow I can't do it lightly enough. It seems to set him back and burst his bubble as it were. Maybe like a low-level intimidation. Btw, I never thought I was intimidating, but it turns out I have hidden ability in that area, LOL! I'd like to prevent that because I enjoy being with others when they feel comfy to express themselves fully.

Thoughts? For ex., Dave, have you been in a case like I describe?

And I also wanted to mention; I'd hero worship Francisco if he were IRL, but not Galt or Rearden or Roark. I know others disagree; as Stephen said, preference is certainly a part of this.

[Guest_ElizabethLee_*]

Maybe I don't understand what is meant by hero worship... What I had always referred to as hero worship was an extreme form of admiration, respect, and often gratitude. It's the way I view those whom I hold up on a pedestal, but it's always grounded in them specifically. This is clearly different than what you're talking about.
[right][snapback]22306[/snapback][/right]

So, Dave, Stephen and others, for you as men, is it true that the 2 are coextensive? Hero worship and admiration for heroism? So that at the top of the spectrum it's the same in kind still?

And other ladies, do we all agree that at the top of the pack there's a difference in kind?

[dondigitalia]

So, Dave, Stephen and others, for you as men, is it true that the 2 are coextensive?  Hero worship and admiration for heroism?  So that at the top of the spectrum it's the same in kind still?

For me, yes.

[dondigitalia]

Thoughts?  For ex., Dave, have you been in a case like I describe?[right][snapback]22335[/snapback][/right]

Yeah, but my reaction is probably vastly different from your guy. The whole point of converstaion, to me, is conflict--especially with a woman. It's just no fun to sit around and talk about how much we agree, or for me to talk and talk and talk, with only occasional, passive interjections from her. I actually prefer it when a woman is strong in conversation, interrupts me to disagree, holds strong ideas opposed to mine that she expresses with passion--provided she can actually back things up rationally, and doesn't just fly off the handle or get offended at every disagreement.

[Ed from OC]

Yeah, but my reaction is probably vastly different from your guy. The whole point of converstaion, to me, is conflict--especially with a woman. It's just no fun to sit around and talk about how much we agree, or for me to talk and talk and talk, with only occasional, passive interjections from her. I actually prefer it when a woman is strong in conversation, interrupts me to disagree, holds strong ideas opposed to mine that she expresses with passion--provided she can actually back things up rationally, and doesn't just fly off the handle or get offended at every disagreement.
[right][snapback]22339[/snapback][/right]

Exactly! Or, if she disagrees, pouts, folds her arms, and clams up. Yeesh.

[Stephen Speicher]

So, Dave, Stephen and others, for you as men, is it true that the 2 are coextensive?  Hero worship and admiration for heroism?  So that at the top of the spectrum it's the same in kind still?[right][snapback]22336[/snapback][/right]

For me, personally, yes, that has been my experience. However, I would not necessarily exclude experiencing towards a man the kind of hero-worship described by some women, though minus the sexual context.

[Betsy Speicher]

Yeah, but my reaction is probably vastly different from your guy. The whole point of conversation, to me, is conflict--especially with a woman. It's just no fun to sit around and talk about how much we agree, or for me to talk and talk and talk, with only occasional, passive interjections from her. I actually prefer it when a woman is strong in conversation, interrupts me to disagree, holds strong ideas opposed to mine that she expresses with passion--provided she can actually back things up rationally, and doesn't just fly off the handle or get offended at every disagreement.[right][snapback]22339[/snapback][/right]

Ayn Rand said "Man is the Conqueror. Woman is something that has to BE conquered."

Francisco said "The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer—because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement."

It seems Dave prefers "hard to conquer" women ... to his credit.

[Free Capitalist]

I thought it might be interesting to post this little passage that I have come upon recently. Everyone has heard about the Amazons of the ancient world -- the original feminists, the ultimate example of women who would submit to no man. Here's a story of an encounter between the very queen of such women, and Alexander the Great, the consummate conqueror in the metaphysical sense (the story takes place after many of his great battles and victories):

There was a race of Amazons, and they had a queen, Thalestris, who ruled all of the kingdom. She, fired with a desire to visit the king, came forth from the boundaries of her kingdom, and was at once given permission to see him. Having ordered the rest of her escort to halt, she came forward attended by three hundred women, and as soon as the king was in sight, she herself leaped down from the horse, carrying two lances in her right hand.

With fearless expression Thalestris gazed at him [...]. On being asked whether she wished to make any request, she did not hesitate to confess that she had come to share a bed with the king, her being worthy [of him], and persisted that he should not suffer her to go away disappointed in her hope. The passion of the woman compelled Alexander to remain. Thirteen days were spent in satisfying her desire. Then she went to her kingdom, and the king on to Parthiene.

Even the Queen of the Amazons could not resist

[Bold Standard]

I apologize if I'm making you repeat something you've already said in this thread, but this wasn't a response I had expected, and I'm a little confused about your exact meaning.

Is it your position that Ayn Rand's formulation that hero-worship is the essence of femininity is best understood as worshipping man as a hero as opposed to as a man? If so, I hadn't thought of it that way before and it certainly puts a new spin on the concept for me. In fact, I'm not sure at all what that would actually mean. Do you think Wynand was unaware or uninterested in Dominique's heroic attributes? Is it possible for specifically feminine attributes to be heroic or villainous, or is that only a valid description of masculine qualities? (I'm interested in other people's thoughts on this besides Stephen also-- point me back to specific posts where you've addressed these questions if need be, I've kind of skimmed a lot here. But not for lack of interest, just time.)

Would there be a difference between saying "Wynand worshipped [Dominique] as a woman, not as a hero," and "Wynand worshipped Dominique for her feminine qualities rather than her heroic ones," or are you using "woman" to mean something besides or beyond merely "feminine?"

I think the most significant thing is that Wynand worshipped her as a woman, not as a hero. Wynand actually came closer to hero-worship towards Roark.
[right][snapback]22114[/snapback][/right]