Ayn Rand and the Kzinti
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.
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.
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.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
.
.
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
.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jan
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).
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.
You betchum, Red Ryder!
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 :)
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.
Load more comments...