Her identity as a woman really shouldn't be in question. That is her basic "assumption". I don't see where she expected an uber hero as a president but she delineated quite clearly why a woman would not want to be president.

She is incorrect in here assumptions. And of all people she should know better than to consider the holder of the job of US president and being some uber-hero above and over all others.

This was one of the times she was simply wrong and spoke on a very subjective basis.

Do you feel better now?

That is not what she said.

Then read what she wrote rather than speculate. The source has already been provided on this same page: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Whether or not you agree with it there is no place for the usual snide, gratuitous insults like "Just part of clay on the feet of Idol Rand".

She looked up to her husband.

HIllary doesn't have feminity if hero worship is involved. Look at who she chose for a husband.

Just google Ayn Rand + woman president

Great explanation. Now I understand what you are talking about. Please give me the citation to the quote (I think I own everything she ever wrote). Thank you.

Here is her answer inher own words.
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.

This does not mean that a feminine woman feels or projects hero-worship for any and every individual man; as human beings, many of them may, in fact, be her inferiors. Her worship is an abstract emotion for the metaphysical concept of masculinity as such—which she experiences fully and concretely only for the man she loves, but which colors her attitude toward all men. This does not mean that there is a romantic or sexual intention in her attitude toward all men; quite the contrary: the higher her view of masculinity, the more severely demanding her standards. It means that she never loses the awareness of her own sexual identity and theirs. It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother—or leader.

Ayn Rand was correct in suggesting that we have fallen pretty low when a woman candidate was a better choice than any male candidate that could be found (for a, historically, male oriented position). It's not much different than when Bruce Jenner was voted "Woman of The Year", or something like that. Were there no "true" women in the world, more qualified than him?

I'm not going to say that a woman could never be President...I'm merely saying that our current PC culture is not up to the task of selecting the "right" woman and we would likely end up with a very poor alternative, to be sure.

As I understand it, when Rand says “man qua man” she means “human.” You ask “Suppose you were a woman and as a woman you would look at man qua man how?” I translate as “Suppose you were a woman and as a woman how would you look at the human race?” In which case, I can’t answer since I am a male. But my reaction is: for purposes of president, the sexes are the same.

Then, changing the definition of “man,” you ask: “Would your view of man change if you were always in charge and the ultimate decision maker?” So, I substituted “human” for man, and then the question does not make sense to me. Then I use the definition of “man” as “male” and, sorry, it still does not make sense to me. Sorry to be so thick headed, and I am not playing games, I truly do not understand what you are trying to convey to me.

Your remaining questions: (1) Would you not want to see a vision of man as the best he could be? (2) Could you hold that vison if you knew you had to be the one in charge? (3) What would that do to your view of man and your view of a woman? and (4) The virtue of strength would you not want to see or provide it?

Again, sorry to be so thick headed, and I am not playing games, I truly do not understand what you are trying to convey to me. These questions seem to use the word “man” in more than one definition.

I am in Chile, and it is bedtime. If you respond, I will have to answer tomorrow.

Good night.

As CEO I look down from my superior position at Jan in the office next to mine who is going to come in and pound me when she reads this.

No I'm not saying that at all. A Commander in Chief is more than a CEO in regard to being a leader of the free world. Suppose you were a woman and as a woman you would look at man qua man how? Would your view of man change if you were always in charge and the ultimate decision maker? Would you not want to see a vision of man as the best he could be? Could you hold that vison if you knew you had to be the one in charge? What would that do to your view of man and your view of a woman? The virtue of strength would you not want to see or provide it?

I never thought of a CEO having to look down. I'll have to think about that, but my gut reaction is that is not a good way to manage an organization. We are talking about management as president. Admiring a a man (from a female perspective) to me is no different than admiring a woman vis-a-vis the job to be done. What I see from your comment, and I admit I may well be wrong, reveals you are saying a woman should respect, obey and submit to her male mate --- without regard to the context.

What I meant was that (unlike Rand, apparently) not all phenotypical females think of "their sex first . . . then whatever." And, some phenotypical females are male at the genetic level. Rand doesn't seem to have considered that (admitedly rare) possibility.

A Commander in Chief has to look down on all around which means there is no looking up. A woman should want to look up. Not in a subservient way but in a an admiring way. That isn't possible for a woman if she is is in
command. If you were a woman how would you feel if you had such a view of man that you could not admire a masculine person? Would you feel men were not adequate or would you feel that you would need to be the Amazon?

Of what relevance is that to my point? The individual does not get to chose those either.

Though rare, there are also XXY, XYY, etc. individuals. Also, phenotype does not always match genotype. Other characteristics can sometimes trump sex.

Not today!

Thank you. I often feel alone here.

American values does not keep women in second place...maybe not as much today due to perverse feminism, but we have in the past put women up on a peticle and "a good" women is just as important as a good man...each plays a role in that process. Only a pagan bicameral narcissist keeps a women barefoot and pregnant. (doesn't Japan, china, russia and muslims think that way) That's old testament thinking, which was not a religion, it was just history.

Maybe it's nitpicking for me to object to calling it "design". I call it adaptation.

I hear about athletes who are not built for their sport. We judge their success based on their performance in the sport, not the performance of people with similar features.