Don’t Be Outraged by this Teacher’s Dating Advice. Pass it On!
I like this and I think following these instructions would improve the culture 1000%...but of course...I'm just an ugly old fart.
I think even Rand would approve.
I think even Rand would approve.
tendency to put down or feel superior to the memes, behaviors or actions of past times...it's easy when you may think we know better now but those of those times did not know or ever thought the way we do now...I would call the change: sociological evolution.
any point in bothering with it at all. A lot of dressing
up, putting yourself in danger (if female), and a lot
of embarrassment.
was punished more severely than now, sometimes
even with death.--And perhaps people made differ-
ent assumptions on dates.--Still, it seems inadvis-
able. As to any "superiority", this is coming
from someone who never succeeded in the main
object of such social activity.
Always when looking back in history, we must understand the times and the mind set or brain set (which ever applies) of those times.
If you think about it, it really doesn't make much sense to feel superior, having knowledge, a way of thinking or a different sociological preference that those of the past had not.
(no accusations here) Just something to think about...with malice toward none.
be outrageously dumb, on the part of all parties. But then, it has been nearly always my practice to pay for my own ticket, food, etc. But I have
also, from a long time back, considered a human
female's getting into a car with a man she does
not really know to be idiocy, and downright dan-
gerous. Of course, meeting somebody some-
where would be different. When in Staunton, I
used to get into a car with a buddy of mine (no-
tice I said "buddy" and not "date"--we were friends and former co-workers) and we would go
see a ball game; tickets, as I recall were half a
buck.
I have no advice for people going on "dates"
(getting into someone's car), except not to do it in the first place. By the time I knew that the
guy was "safe", I knew that I was never going to
fall in love with this particular individual, though
he might be a good friend. So it doesn't make much difference to me.
Leave it to each individual to determine whether they're fulfilled or not.
I imagine a thought experiment where it's discovered that Asian people are better at engineering than European people. Right now we think the races evolved from the same line and probably don't have such big differences, but suppose we found we were wrong. Europeans as a group, in this scenario, are better at making interpersonal connections. Would this make it "perverted" if for some unknown reason I love doing engineering despite my race? People doing this theorizing would do better to focus on their own quest for happiness and stay out of mine.
I also do not agree with her that the presidency of the US is highest position in the US because I don't see human affairs as a hierarchy with one person on the top. I imagined the train tech who told Dagny about the motor plant had a life not covered in the book where he was at the absolute top of some other area of life, maybe restoring old model trains or something and he's a king of that corner of the Internet; who knows. If we must have a "highest" position in human affairs, maybe it should be the person who creates the most value for willing customers instead of someone at the top of public service. I don't think we need a "highest" person overall. I just disagree with her whole view on determining who should lead, what fulfills people, and high/low positions.
I invented it in a discussion with one of my teachers when I was studying machine shorthand (stenographer) in about 1970.
But I want royalties on the use of it!! LOL
Go Figure...funny thing...I really miss her Mind!
PS...we kept it a friendship.
Believe it or not...a girl told me that...
Like an old song..."you can't have one without the other".
Liberals, progressives and retards reject that reality...just like they reject everything else in existence.
I have never been able to change even though I have been sneered at for holding a door, walking on the outside, allowing ladies first and other quaint habits. I will say that I may seem condescending but I never raped a date or struck a female or anyone smaller/weaker than me. I don't even burp, fart or say the f word and I don't care if I seem like a dolt. I know who I am. I accept and like my role. I have no problem looking at the person in the mirror and am much too old to change. It helps that my wife of 54 years is cast in the old mold and she doesn't even care when people compare her to Donna Reed or call her Mrs. Cleaver.
But if you want to know: an interviewer once asked her what she would do as President of the United States. She said she would never seek the job, nor vote for any woman who did. She then described the kind of program she would like a (male) President to follow.
In the ensuing days, people asked her to explain herself. She did, thus: in any romantic relationship, the man leads--just as in the sexual act, the man controls and dictates. (I'm only telling you what she said.) So any woman would seek a man having a higher position in society than herself. The Presidency of the United States was, she believed, as high as you can get. A woman in that position could find no man in a higher position than herself. She would, therefore, hold herself unfulfilled.
That is to say, unless she were asexual or, as the French used to say, "inverted" in this regard. And nothing disgusted her so much as sexual inversion or perversion.
In The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden said, "I would love to hear an admirer of Rand argue logically that a woman should not aspire to be President of the United States. I found that one of her more embarrassing lapses."
You're saying she would advise individuals to act based on their group identity? This seems hard to imagine. Is there any reference to her writings or interviews where she expressed this?
Load more comments...