11

Ayn Rand and the Kzinti

Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 4 months ago to Philosophy
40 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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.


All Comments

  • Posted by $ sjatkins 8 years, 4 months ago
    No one is infallible including Ayn Rand. This was an opinion from her sexual pyscho-epistemology and not from reason. That is all that needs to be said about it.

    She doesn't get to define what is true "for a rational woman" to that fine a degree.

    Another point is that she put the President on a pedestal imho far higher than the founders had in mind and with much more power. The US president is not a position of superior over other lesser beings of whatever gender. That is not what the role is supposed to be.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 4 months ago
    William, I differ with Rand about this. . and it makes
    most of my male friends uncomfortable. . I consider
    each of us a person trapped within a body. . I am a
    male person because that's the kind of body I'm in.
    my mind is genderless, if I operate it right, in my view.
    the best among us can handle power without having
    the gender of the body we're in ... interfere. . that's
    my view, and I'm stickin' to it;;; feel free to make it yours,
    as a radio personality here in town says it. -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 8 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Anything involving an act that would in any other context be prosecutable as assault, battery, and/or kidnap.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Watcher55 8 years, 4 months ago
    To use the wrong philosophical word but you'll know what I mean - on this point Ayn Rand was actually a pragmatist. Most people here would agree that she was a remarkable woman and one of the greatest philosophers. Did she therefore refuse to marry, being unable to find her intellectual superior? Did she therefore choose not to publish her philosophy due to the "excruciating psychological torture" of her position?

    No.

    So I am quite sure that if a truly great politician (yes, I write fiction) who was a woman came to her for advice on that matter and expressed similar arguments, her answer would be "If that's what you want, cost be damned: suck it up, Princess!"

    In fact her own marriage indicates the flaw in her argument. She is over-stating the business about being the ruler, and ignoring the fact that while a woman will usually want to look up to her man, she doesn't have to look up to everyone, and the President isn't God who rules over all in all things.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 8 years, 4 months ago
    Larry Niven's "Known Space" series.

    There are a lot of books in there. Three novels just on Ringworld. Many short stories collected together.

    Jigsaw Man (also all the other stories with Gil Hamilton) .... the future of Obamacare if we don't watch out.

    His books are very good, his collaborations with Jerry Pournelle are great too.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'll give you that because she said as much. bt back to kink. what's the definition? you need to read some wdonway to see the distinction :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I fail to see your point. Your example just reiterated pretty much what I said. As another example, the boss, be he CEO or President puts on the superhero costume until the workday is over. It could be for an hour or twelve hours. Unlike fictional supermen, this in no way gives him abilities that he doesn't already posses. With that knowledge, why should he be affected negatively, unless he's prone to depression or incompetence?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    For the first part go back and judge the article in the context of the time in which it was written. For the same result as to your last sentence ask anyone who has been a victim of overt racism or sexism - direct or reverse. Perhaps she and certainly I view your stance as 'twisted.' Especially since the women's movement imploded after turning their backs on their sisters in support of Clinton. The shame of that stain is still apparent and from the looks of things ready to be repeated..
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 8 years, 4 months ago
    When I read her article on a woman president, I could not see how she could think that way. I could not understand how she could make sexuality a primary aspect of her life and believe that it has anything to do with being POTUS. As animals, sexuality is important for the human specie's evolution and for pleasure, but is not something that one should allow to determine ones work ethics, Bill Clinton notwithstanding.
    After decades, I still cannot see how she could twist her view of womanhood that much. Her attitude was nearly as misdirected as one who defines his/her race as a defining factor in his/her life.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 8 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    As I've said, there is a difference between a leadership role and assuming that you are a superior being to all your subordinates. Your role requires that you make the final decision. Because of that role, the people who work under you in the hierarchy must accept that decision.

    Since it's football playoffs, let's use the quarterback. He is the leader of the team, he calls the plays (or at least can check into one). Does this mean he's the fastest runner, the best athlete? No, he's the quarterback. He can be as amazed as the rest of us at the athletic ability of one of the receivers. It doesn't matter who's the best athlete, he's still the quarterback and the receiver has to run the route he calls if he wants to get the ball.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Elizabeth I was not lacking in ability; she merely lived in a time where one of the rules was that if she married, her husband would become King and she would become just a wife. This perverse incentive had the predictable results: she stayed single all her life, and when she died the list of heirs was even shorter than it was when she became Queen.

    After her death the rules were changed, so that Victoria's (and Elizabeth II's) husband did not automatically become King. That seems to have worked out better.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 8 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    As I commented, there is a difference between organizational hierarchy and personal capabilities. The president may be the "leader of the free world", but he routinely deals with people who he can legitimately admire and respect. Scientists, military leaders, even sports figures -- if you are so inclined. Being able to win the presidency requires a special skill set but does not make you superior to everyone else. Any president who thinks so is going to make serious mistakes.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 4 months ago
    Wow, William, you are reading more into that paragraph than I ever considered. What I think you don't get, is what happens when anyone assumes a leadership role. When I owned a business that had 25 employees, I needed to become the leader, which meant the final authority. In my case, the enterprise could not be run as a democracy. As the "boss" I had to assume a superior to inferior relationship with the employees, not as people but as employees. I could take suggestions but never orders. As a matter of fact, the motto over my office was "No Problems, Only Solutions." The higher up the responsibility ladder you go, the more this relationship becomes stronger and more evident, until you reach the pinnacle, the most powerful man in the world. Obama is a perfect example of what happens when her description fails to illustrate the current President. As an aside, the President in his personal life can be the mild mannered Clark Kent, but the moment he assumes the mantle of President he must become Presidential, no matter how it affects his psyche. Better still, if he is grounded in excellent philosophical premises, what he must do would not affect him any more than the criticism of Howard Roark affected his work.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 8 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    We may safely infer, from The Fountainhead and AS, that Rand liked her sex rough. Which is to say, she would have liked a man to take her by force, or at least to use a certain amount of force on her during intimate relations.

    At the same time, she abominated homosexuality. The very notion ran completely counter to her notions of the roles of men and women in sexual relations.

    What a writer expresses in fiction, might not be what her real life is. But it is what she would like it to be, if she describes it in positive terms.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 8 years, 4 months ago
    I could kind of understand Ayn Rand's reasoning a-
    bout the Presidency, but such a woman would not
    necessarily have to deal with "inferiors" 24 hours a
    day; for instance, she herself was married, and, af-
    ter getting out of the office for the day, she could
    go to be with her husband, who was not under
    her authority. And also, she could deal with
    foreign visitors--foreign heads of state, ambas-
    sadors, etc. (Not that it would have been pos-
    sible, with her not being a "natural-born citizen",
    but that's a whole other issue).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Mamaemma 8 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's kinda hard to argue your point, when I can't think of a single beautiful liberal woman! Ever see the video set to "Who let the dogs out!" Laugh for the day
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 8 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I wonder how much of that is sexual dynamics and how much is just two people being able to cooperate. Many business partnerships fail as well as other types. Watching Simon and Garfunkle singing together not being able to look at each other is just sad.

    One thing about the traditional role is that it avoids having the debate over who is in charge. It wasn't just one way, the woman was traditionally in charge in the kitchen.

    I wonder if the increase in women participating in team sports will have an effect on this. One of the things that we get from team sports is the ability to set temporary roles of who is in charge.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 8 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I suspect in that case is was far more about liberal vs conservative rather than appearance. Had Sarah Palin been a liberal, she would be a saint by now.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by BeenThere 8 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    ".....giving me confidence I'd never have to worry about what she was really thinking."

    You betchum, Red Ryder!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    kink? what's the definition? anything not missionary? not between a man and a woman? I need more info.
    when you are that intellectually accomplished, wouldn't it be nice to let go and let someone else be in control -someone to let you rail and then soothe you-expressing that sexually seems perfectly normal. Also key here, what a writer expresses in a novel, is NOT what their real life is ( I guess I'll say in general). Unless the author specifically makes a statement to that affect. Joke: Lena Dunham, who in an autobiography claims all is true and turns out it's fiction :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 8 years, 4 months ago
    Nathaniel Branden said, toward the end of his "Benefits and Hazards" essay/speech, that he refused to accept at face value any declaration from a self-styled Objectivist that he could defend absolutely any thing Ayn Rand ever said, at any time. "The hell you can!" he said. Then he said: "This might seem a trivial example of what I mean, but it typifies the problem. I would love to see any Objectivist argue logically in favor of Ayn Rand's proposition that no rational woman would ever want to be President of the United States. That I found to be one of her more embarrassing lapses."

    I think we have to remember: Ayn Rand was into kink. She considered sexual relations to be the ultimate expression of dominance. And while she wouldn't recommend women hide their brains completely, she did hold that any woman seeks the man who can beat her at anything, and is willing to surrender herself to that man and only that man. And because the President of the United States is the most powerful person in the world...!

    If you think that's weird, ask how she would feel about when the James Bond production company decided that Bond should report to a female Head of The Firm.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo