(Note : Contents of this post are merely my opinions, not facts or theories or accusations and should not be taken as such.)
When Ayn Rand was introduced as a topic in our Philosophy class, I had developed an instant dislike. A modern philosopher and a celebrated woman in her field, Rand represented , according to some, the voice of individualism, the ambassador for individual rights and a staunch believer of capitalism. And being a female philosopher holding her own in a field majorly dominated by men, she deserved respect.
Some people mistook her for an ardent feminist, or as they were called, a blue stocking. She was not. Clearly. And that's where my dislike took root. Not because she was not a feminist. Even I could not be bothered to take up that lost cause unless it suits me . And let him not cast the first stone, one who lives in a glass house. But, I disliked her, because Ayn Rand, despite her modernist, self serving, individualistic ideas, was a thorough chauvinist, a trait which I wonder if she even realized she had but a trait which effected her opinions and subsequently, theories, greatly.
I read and watched a few of her interviews for class. They were all illuminating. She was , undoubtedly a very interesting and forceful personality. One of her more controversial and enjoyable interview was the one with Phil Donahue, in 1979. Below is a transcribed excerpt from Ms Rand's Q and A session with the audience :
"Do you believe, there's gonna be a day, where, in the white house, there will be a female, as president?How would you feel about that?"
Rand : "I wouldn't vote for her."
-insert public outcry and dismay here-
"Would you not vote for her,because she was a woman, even if she were better qualified than any man?"
Rand : "If it falls that low, I might."I will tell you why....it is not to a women's best interest to rule man. It puts her in a very unhappy position.I don't believe, that any good woman would want that position."
The audience in that live studio had a similar outcome to the students in our class when the video was shown to us. Instant rejection and outrage. Even the Youtube comments were distinctly unflattering. Which made me want to know more about the person and understand why she made such strong statements, willfully inviting condemnation and ire on national television. Ayn Rand was no fool, after all.
Clarifications came from Rand herself, in her newsletter compilation turned book, "The Objectivist."
"For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship—the desire to look up to man. “To look up” does not mean dependence, obedience or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of strong character and independent value-judgments. A “clinging vine” type of woman is not an admirer, but an exploiter of men. Hero-worship is a demanding virtue: a woman has to be worthy of it and of the hero she worships. Intellectually and morally, i.e., as a human being, she has to be his equal; then the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack."[1]
It wasn't just ordinary chauvinism. It was chauvinism at its extreme. And it was chauvinism without any logical reason. So apparently, if there were two individuals, lets say, a man and a woman. And they are both endowed with the same superlative virtuous qualities, and the woman is the man's equal in any and all human virtue, she ought to still admire the man, based on his masculinity.
There is no winning this argument. Unless you grow a pair. If you know what I mean.
Rand's definition of the perfect woman also creeped up into her fictions. In both of her famous works, "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged", the lead males and females epitomize her ideals. The male protagonist invariably is the shining beacon of individualism, rising over the squalor of mediocrity and the sea of greed, politics, indifference and general lack of merit without a scratch. He has every larger than life merit to his name and grandiose ideas on how the world should be. Even his adversaries are all in awe of his superlative talents and conspicuously over- polished individuality.
Then we have the female lead. A strong personality and a perfect match for the hero as she matches him wit for wit -- thereby justifying why the hero picks her, of course. But just as the picking has commenced and the deed is done..literally....her personality deserts her faster than you can make a cup of instant noodles. Overnight, a strong woman is turned into a mopey mess who has lost all zeal for life and lives to periodically aid or thwart (depending on her mood swings now) the hero in his quest, all the while pining for a lost love that is apparently too good for her.
Obviously, by the end of the story said epitome of superlative goodness gets his way and the girl, with some invisible force funding for everything.
It seemed, the hero and his lady love were not just figments of Rand's imagination. They were different aspects of her personality. The hero was what she ideally hoped to be herself. The iron clad determination ,exemplary will power and firm control of emotions found in her protagonists were traits she not only admired but also cultivated in herself. The hero was who her platonic mind aspired to be. On the other hand, the heroine was a blend of power and dependence. Rand's romanticized notions of femininity adored the conservative ideals of life and tilted power balance between a man and a woman. The heroine was thus, who she wanted to be. Aspirations come from ideals, want comes from need. The rest is guesswork.
Ayn Rand is a staunch believer for individualism. She was also a romantic at heart. And thus her views, while non traditional, lacked the stability only an impartial observer could give. I think this is the reason none of her opinions got the validations of a proper theory.
Her peculiar thoughts on women kind of inspired me to look further....straight into her personal life, courtesy wikipedia and some other sheeznits. Despite belonging to a conservative era, Ms Rand followed her heart. And I say this mildly. Her life was the material for films. During her long and only marriage to Frank O' Connor, Rand had also been very close to long time friend and publicist Nathaniel Branden. The closeness was deemed less than appropriate on a number of levels. They were both married, and not to each other. And he was twenty five years her junior. Also, they were all family friends.
Consider the level of ardor, which would have compelled a strong woman in the very conservative fifties, to throw all caution to the winds and engage in an affair with her married family friend who was old enough to be her son.Knowing that such a move would disrupt four lives in the process. It goes without saying that the sense of compulsion that she felt in pursuing the affair, and also, the accompanying romantic notions may have also colored her philosophy. The affair lasted quite long, and with the knowledge of everyone involved (happily or otherwise).
I wonder what would have happened had she been a jilted lover instead. Would she have turned into a man-hating spinster? Have you heard of the saying, "The fox says, the grapes are too sour" ?
Ideally, for a philosopher's words to hold any merit, it is imperative that such a person be impartial so that while making verdicts on human behavior, he may look at his subjects from an outsider's point of view.
A certain level of detachment, is therefore required. Of course , not too detached that he does not even recognize the feelings in his subjects, let alone categorize them properly. And also, not so deeply involved like Rand, to be unable to distinguish between theories and personal choices.
Bah I could continue on this tirade for so long. I wish I did it when my paper was due -.- Maybe I will add moar to this post laters xD
