The question is this—Is man an ape or an angel? My Lord, I am on the side of the angels. I repudiate with indignation and abhorrence the contrary view, which is I believe, foreign to the conscience of humanity. – Benjamin Disraeli
Charles Darwin first proposed the theory of evolution via natural selection a little over 150 years ago, yet despite mountains of proof there are still huge numbers of insecure people who, like Disraeli, reject it out of hand because they are afraid of the implications of recognizing humans as a kind of animal, connected deeply to all other animals on Earth by the legacy we carry around in every cell of our bodies. These are people who are unable or unwilling to recognize their own worth as individuals, and therefore require some magical proclamation of uniqueness bestowed upon them by an authority figure. In a way, it’s the ultimate “victim politics”; none of us, these people believe, are worthy for ourselves, but rather only as members of a designated “special” group. They therefore fear and reject their own bodies, whose earthy needs such as food, elimination and sex are no less compelling than those of every other animal. But of those basic needs only one of them, sex, can be avoided without resulting in death; therefore it is the one which must be denied most vociferously by those who wish to believe themselves closer kin to the angels than the apes.
Not all those who deny the ape beneath our skins are members of traditional religions; as I pointed out in my column of one year ago today, neofeminists do the same thing due to their violent rejection of their own feminine biology. “Social construction of gender” is just a more subtle version of “scientific creationism”; it recognizes that sex differences in all other animals arise from instinct encoded in their DNA, yet denies that humans are subject to the same biochemical forces. Though some adherents of this catechism may also be creationists, most probably believe in some patchwork rationalization such as the myth that our large brains somehow make us “immune” to sexual and sex-role instincts (yet not immune to hunger, thirst, pain, fear, anger, love, sorrow, etc). In any case, the neofeminists teach that humans, unlike every other mammal, have no innate sexual or sex-role drives whatsoever, and that all these are bestowed through the mystic force known as “social construction”, breathed into our nostrils by the omnipotent Collective. The most deluded adherents of this cult believe in something like the Calvinist religious doctrine of predestination; once a person’s personality has been determined by the almighty Patriarchy (the collective entity which acts as both Devil and Demiurge in neofeminist myth), a “false consciousness” is established which only salvation through baptism in the Holy Spirit of Neofeminism can dispel. If any person believes her choices to be acts of free will, but she behaves in a manner at odds with neofeminist dogma, she is said to be suffering from “false consciousness” which renders her decisions equally false. Only actions wholly in accord with neofeminist teachings are “correct” and free of Patriarchal conditioning.
Sane, rational people understand that the mere fact of a biological drive does not compel a human (or even a dog) to act upon it; retrievers can be trained not to eat the game in their mouths, human men can suppress the urge to mate with an unwilling woman because they know it isn’t right, and I can suppress the urge to eat something right now because I want to lose two kilograms I allowed to accumulate over the holidays. But like all prohibitionists, neofeminists believe that moderation is evil and only a total ban on the particular “sin” with which they’re obsessed (in this case, male-initiated sex) is good. Any indulgence in an urge of the flesh is viewed as a triumph of the Dark Powers, a little taste of death to the “enlightened” consciousness. Fortunately, this sort of black-and-white morality isn’t the norm in the rightmost portion of the IQ bell curve; as any whore or stripper can attest, many of our clients are medical doctors, scientists, engineers and other highly intelligent men who recognize that sexual drives are natural, and indulging them won’t rot their brains or cause the collapse of civilization. Indeed, one man who is probably on nearly everyone’s list of the brainiest specimens of homo sapiens on the planet isn’t afraid to treat himself to commercial sex:
Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking spends a lot of time talking about the universe and what it might all mean but when…[he] isn’t talking to sold out crowds he can be seen spending his time in sex and strip clubs. The Daily Mail is reporting that the 70-year-old has visited various swinger clubs, sex clubs and strip clubs over the years including a Southern California swingers party which he was brought to by his nurses and assistants…he paid for private shows with various naked dancers at the Freedom Acres Club in Devore which he visited on a “handful of occasions”…While Cambridge officials deny that Hawking has made “regular” stops at strip and sex clubs they do admit that he visited a club “once a few years ago with friends while on a visit to California.”
Stringfellow’s Gentlemen’s Club in London Owner Peter Stringfellow told the Daily Mail that he actually had a chance to meet…Hawking at his club. “I remember asking him if he’d like to have a conversation with me about the universe, or if he’d just like to watch the girls. The answer was quite simply: ‘The girls’. “ So there you have it, when Stephen Hawking’s not busy trying to solve the mystery’s [sic] of our universe he’s doing what millions of other men do, he stares at naked women…
I think we can assume Hawking hires the occasional hooker as well; despite his paralysis he has been married twice and has three children. And I also think everyone can agree that neither sex nor ogling crumpet has damaged the great scientist’s intellectual capacity in the slightest; acknowledging the ape does no harm to the angel.
Hear, hear!
A corollary of this is something I’ve seen and heard from some women, mainly married mothers. It is the concept that a man is either a “good family man” (neutered, henpecked, devoted to his family, etc.) or he is an evil heathen – there is no middle ground. I always wondered, why can’t a man be some of both? Why can’t a man be a nuanced, complex individual?
I am having trouble putting my thoughts into words quickly right now, but I think readers will understand what I am saying.
Seems like the madonna/whore sterotype also applies to men on some level. There’s a proverb in Kambodcha:
“A man is like a nugget of gold. If he falls into the dirt, he can easily be cleaned. But a woman is like a piece of pure white cloth.”
Still, sexuality is seen as “dirt” for both.
Great for stephen! Great for the sweet ladies who have fun with him , also.
The neofems’ mania leads them to also attack sex-positive lesbians. They have such a narrow conception of sex – basically lying side by side and staring into each other’s eyes – that real lesbians become problematic to them. Thus, everyone else is a target for the neofem psychosis.
As for Stephen, can you see him – or any other intelligent person – swallowing the lie that sex work is violence against women? LOL, I think he would have a chuckle at such foolishness.
I seem to recall that Richard Feinman, the physicist, liked to hang out at a strip club in Pasadena.
Insert joke about “heavenly bodies” here.
The BBC here has had a second series of the re-imagined Sherlock, set in today’s London. Irene Aldler — “The Woman” — was in the first episode, only now as a domme. She said to Sherlock, “brainy is the new sexy”.
I think I would disagree with the notion that most Christian “creationists” shun the theory of evolution because they feel insecure and have a need to feel “elevated” above the animals. Certainly, this was a common belief when evolution was proposed by Darwin and was still predominate at the time of the Scopes Monkey Trial … but today not so much.
The problem today is a literal “conflict” with the Bible and the Book of Genesis. If you’re a fundamentalist, you pretty much believe in the literal word of the Bible – with all its strange and mystical tales. Soooo … if you are a “fundamentalist” … you have a natural conflict between what you consider to be the “Word of God” and the “Theory of Evolution”. One can’t be resolved with the other without one side giving a bit. I know quite a few of these people – and these people aren’t afraid of being “linked” with Gorillas – they believe in creationism because it’s the only way they can resolve the literal “Word of God”. They simply “blow off” all the evidence of evolution as being deliberate “temptations” planted to provide an excuse for weak believers to turn from the “Word of God”. It’s almost like the ultimate test for a fundamentalist – being unwavering in one’s belief in the “word” in spite of overwhelming physical evidence.
However, those who ARE NOT fundamentalist … have no problems “merging” the events of the Bible with Evolution. For them, the story of Adam and Eve can simply be a metaphor for a larger concept of man’s inherit sinfulness. I was “kind of” raised a Catholic – so I was never a “fundamentalist” and I can’t ever remember a nun or Priest talking about evolution one way or the other. My conclusions then, were that God used evolution as a means to create man and I saw no conflicts here whatsoever. Now, after travelling all over the world and experiencing other religions (particularly Hinduism and Buddhism), I’m not so sure I consider myself to be Christian any longer – but I do believe in some kind of supreme being, which I’m still searching for.
And, I believe in evolution.
So just to clarify here – it’s really more of a conflict for “fundamentalist” Christians than it is for “moderate” ones. In fact, the whole story of Adam and Eve … in the Garden … influences so much of fundamentalist thinking and culture and rules for the proper behavior of men and women. Eve was “created” by God from one of Adam’s ribs – ergo, Eve is inferior to Adam and Adam is closer to God. This is common fundamentalist thinking but it’s not for the non-fundamentalist groups of Christians who more often view men and women as equals (though not the same).
Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Ludwig van Beethoven, Benjamin Franklin, J.S. Bach: the more intelligent you are, the stronger your sex drive. Hell, Brahms use to make ends meet by playing piano in a bordello. If you don’t satisfy that drive, all of the drives–including the drive to create–become constipated.
So what’s the excuse for mine? 😛
Too many oysters?
LOL! I love fried oysters but I don’t eat them much!
I think it has something to do with heavy weightlifting. On my deadlifting days (Tuesdays and Fridays) … it “kicks in” about four hours after I leave the gym. I can’t really think about ANYTHING else!
This morning I had a class and sat next to this 28 year old red head. She was a bit heavy, but still gorgeous and I just pestered her to death with my charm! She was really responsive too with her gazes and giggling! Problem though, with hitting on younger women – is you never know if the response is serious, or just a “put on” because she doesn’t believe you’ll actually have the nerve to jump the age gap! 😛
Whatever – it’s good to be ALIVE!! 😀
Sorry, I do flippant much too well.
I do agree with your assessment vis-a-vis the difference between fudamentalist Christianity and real Christian faith. John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Bishop Emeritus of Newark NJ, is about the only one who those Christians who don’t believe you have to leave your brain at the door in church have speaking for us. He has also given the strongest argument for Jesus’s marriage to Mary Magdalene. (See Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism for more on this subject.)
Yes, we fundamentalists must be rescued (eyeroll). The fundamentalists that don’t see evolution as a spiritual threat or a threat of any kind need to be talked about here. I’m 1 of these people. No one can take your beliefs out of your mind and heart. Evolution doesn’t change the teachings in the Bible about how to live, how to treat each other, etc. It doesn’t take away salvation through Jesus. It’s very sad to me that some Christians see evolution as such a “threat”. So much time is spent on it when that time could be used helping those truly in need. Really sad. I see it like the Muslims who believe that certain things in the world will literally take their Muslim beliefs out of their minds and hearts. St. Paul knew this and spoke about it: he said that not even death will separate us from God. I love that and it’s proof of Paul’s constant optimism (but, I thought he was really gay, was against ANY sex at ALL TIMES and always in a bad mood? lol…eyeroll) and never giving up on his beliefs no matter what persecution came his way (and he got a lot of it from ###***). To those who are interested in the whole Jesus was married thing: do you know that there’s some politicians/very rich people/those who have power from stuff besides money/political office that are convinced that they’re from the union of Jesus/Mary Magadalene? Because of this, they’re convinced they’re “chosen” and “above” (gag) the rest of us. What a bunch of ###*** snobs. Isn’t this just GREAT? These people literally think they have the “right” to rule over the rest of us because they claim to be literally descended from Jesus. Disgusting. I’m convinced the whole Jesus was married thing is another distraction from way more important issues just like the endless evolution debate. There’s other besides Spong who don’t “check their minds at the door”. I’m so sick of that stereotype towards fundamentalists I could scream my head off. 2 others are: RC Sproul and Francis Schaeffer (hope I spelled that right). Yes, Schaeffer is dead, but his books are still popular (and deserve to be). Personally, I have no use for Spong. I’ve read at least 1 of his books. And because I have no use for him doesn’t mean I think no one else should read his stuff, etc. I’m convinced most of what he writes about is stuff he WISHES was real (the Jesus marriage thing is 1 of them), a big distraction from more important things and more fuel for endless debating that people love to do instead of taking action (i.e., they love talking and never say anything about doing anything besides talking. I’ve read up on the whole Jesus marriage thing (on both sides of the debate) and some of the radio shows I listen to regularly have had guests on talking about it and I’m thankful I found these shows. So I’ve looked at both sides of the issue (and not just casually) and am not convinced of it at all.
It’s like the stereotype of Southerners as racist hicks: most are not, but the ones who are make sure that everybody knows it, and they always make sure everybody knows how southern they are while they’re at it. So a lot of people get the idea that that’s just how Southerners are.
Most Christians aren’t the brain-dead weirdos that the stereotype would have us believe, but the ones who are make sure everybody knows it, and they always make sure everybody knows that it’s because of their (brand of) Christianity while they’re at it. So a lot of people get the idea that that’s just how Christians (and fundamentalists in particular) are.
That’s a fascinating premise; can you link to additional articles/research about it?
Or could it be a chicken and egg thing, where possibly some of the drive for the creativity and intellectual pursuit is driven by re-directing a strong sex drive?
I will be happy to, but please give me a week or so. I just finished writing a 7000+ word article for OpEdNews “Making Sex a Crime,” (http://www.opednews.com/articles/Making-Sex-a-Crime-by-Richard-Girard-120324-103.html), which included some 100MB of research, and I need to rest a bit.
I just finished reading “Making Sex a Crime,” and I can recommend it to others here.
Thank you.
Initial research seems to assert the opposite of my claim that there is a relationship between high IQ an a strong sex drive. There is a study of MIT undergrads who seem to indulge not only in less sex, but even less masturbation than their contemporaries.
However, this study relies upon questionable methodology, as well as a very small and not necessarily representative sample. The reports on the incidence of masturbation at MIT compared to normal statistics (95% of US men and 70% of women masturbate, while the number given is only 68% of men and 20% of women at MIT), makes the rest of the study appear highly questionable.
Maggie McNeill’s article “Ape and Angel” points out the instance of Stephen Hawking and his interest in the nude female form in spite of his extreme disability from ALS. Robin Williams in his one man show “Live at the Met” (1986), described the brain as “the greatest sex organ of them all.” Sex is at its best—at least in my opinion—when it includes lots of imagination, and is not simply “wham, bam, thank you, ma’am.”
If the less intelligent have more sex at certain points in their lives than the highly intelligent—and I cannot find any sort of long term study on the matter—I suspect it is because intelligent individuals sublimate their libido (to use a lovely old Freudian term) into other areas of their lives, such as the struggle for material success. Imagination permits the intelligent individual to redirect their libido into mental fantasy, or other pursuits, something the less intelligent do not have as ready an ability to do.
Sometimes intelligence at the level of genius takes a very odd turn in terms of sexuality. Often times, famous philosophers and scientists in history have so repressed their libido that they have died virgins. Plato, Newton, Pascal, Kant, Mendel, Kierkegaard, Mill, Carlyle, Thoreau and Nietzsche, are all examples of this phenomenon. Artists on the others hand, Lord Byron, Rimbaud, and Franz Liszt for example, tend to take the other extreme, where precocity and genius walk hand in hand.
So I must admit, it is more of a feeling than a demonstrable fact (although in part confirmed by the escapades of Feynman and Hawking, among others), based upon years of watching my fellow nerds who seem extremely horny, but who have found other outlets for their libido, usually due to shyness or social ineptitude. But the studies to the contrary are questionable in both methodology and sample size. As I stated in my OpEdNews article “Making Sex a Crime,” “I believe that most Americans have never had an honest and frank discussion about sex and its real effect on their own, their children’s, or their community’s lives, even with their spouses.” I think that this is a perfect example of that problem.
I hope you find this helpful.
Of course, it could simply be that if you spend a lot of time focussed on academic research, business, manual labour or childcare, you have *less time free* for sexuality.
Complex lives = less free time.
An excellent point. Sublimation of one’s sex drive has been known of for millennia.
Huh. I happened to suggest this as a possibility to a girlfriend of mine over a decade ago, and it bugged her so much that when I met her incidentally years later she taunted me about it.
And here you’re saying I was right all along? Though my line of reasoning was a bit different…
I sure would like the link to that article, anyway.
In medical school many years ago, there was a small coterie of fundamentalists. When evolution came up they would sit at the front with crossed arms and scowls on their faces. They did say that they didn’t believe a word of it, but if it came up in the exams they would give the answer that was expected.
Incidentally, another reason that medics might like strip clubs is the chance to see some normal anatomy 😉
The social construction of gender was invoked politically far more often to dispute assumptions that there are things women should not be allowed to do (too delicate, too emotional, should not be allowed to vote or pilot airliners) than to argue somehow there are no sex roles. Sex is anatomical to be sure and men can’t give birth anymore than women can serve as sperm donors. But gender is a phenomenon for which we have to make enormous allowance for socialization processes. There is nothing magical about this. Parents start imposing gender upon their children even before they are born. As a scientist myself, I am not inclined to sweep away fifty years of data confirming 1) similarities between sexes 2) differences between sexes and 3) the social constructions of gender — just because I am irritated with some of feminism.
I think you are wrong Maggie to believe that men and women have naturally distinct role-pattern behaviours. Janet Shibley Hyde has made a meta-analysis of all reports about differences between men and women. She found that there are hardly any differences in behaviour between men and women in general, except in the areas of aggression, masturbation and porn use. She calls it the gender similarities hypothesis.
I think the radfems aren’t so wrong after all!!!!
Cross-cultural and cross-species studies say you’re wrong; behaviors derived from social conditioning should vary in isolated cultures and in other primate species, but most sex differences don’t. Hyde is politically motivated; she is a self-described feminist and her hypothesis (which, BTB, I find unconvincing) doesn’t even attempt to explain observed gender disparities in a great many areas she didn’t bother to study, such as art and innovation. She basically looked for a way she could crunch the numbers to make men and women look more alike than they actually are; using her methodology would “demonstrate” that there isn’t much difference between men and women’s body size and shape, which I think we can agree is incorrect.
Here’s a short (and think reasonably comprehensible to the lay reader) critique of Hyde’s methodology. Its conclusion:
Men and Women ARE different. I’ve commented on this before based on my time as the Command Master Chief of an Aegis Cruiser. 360 people on the crew – about 20 percent women. It would have been a great field study for a intern psychologist – but you’d have to do the job for three years to get a lot of the nuances.
Navy philosophy is … no gender differences or gender roles, treat them all the same. This didn’t seem right to me and so I deviated from the book and allowed the men and women to work in jobs that they felt comfortable in – and excelled at.
It worked, because we were consistently rated one of the most combat ready ships in the fleet (Battle E the last two years of my three year tour there). The bottom line is … men and women have different strengths and weaknesses … if you allow the pieces to fall into place naturally – you’ll find those strengths and weaknesses balance themselves out. And the people will be MUCH happier. Trust me on this … women don’t have a problem with men being assigned to fight a fire – and men don’t have a problem with trusting their lives to the women to keep track of their movements and life support systems in and out of the fire zone.
Maggie, Laura has asked me to contact her directly, so could you please forward me her e-mail address to my e-mail to contact her directly. Thank you.
Speaking of world-renowned physicists, I have a feeling you’d like Richard Feynman:
“At Caltech, he used a nude/topless bar as an office away from his usual office, making sketches or writing physics equations on paper placemats. When the county officials tried to close the place, all visitors except Feynman refused to testify in favor of the bar, fearing that their families or patrons would learn about their visits. Only Feynman accepted, and in court, he affirmed that the bar was a public need, stating that craftsmen, technicians, engineers, common workers “and a physics professor” frequented the establishment.”
Feynman was one of the first to write about the possibility of nanotechnology, though he didn’t call it that.
Neo-feminists have been profiting from sex hysteria for a long time, so they have a vested interest in not admitting they have been wrong all along.
In the 1970s authors like Susan Brownsmiller and Ellen Bass* rightly drew modern attention to rape and child sexual abuse, but then exploited those issues to promote what is essentially the primitive Good vs. Evil view of the world.
A practical solution might be to help neofeminists save face – admit they were wrong and need to change direction, but without accusations of evil motives or stupidity.
* See my Amazon review “Claims of Shame and Blame” of Ellen Bass and Laura Davis “The Courage to Heal: A Guide for Women Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse.”
Absolutely. I just published an article at OpEdNews called”Making Sex Illegal,” which discusses the whole fearful reaction of the radical right and neofeminists (or as I call them Extreme Feminists) who are being used by the right to advance the right’s anti-woman, anti-minority, anti- anyone who isn’t a rich white male agenda. These folks have been, and are playing a very deep game, like Kasparov playing chess. Unfortunately, the neofeminists, in their arrogance, will not admit they are being used.
Unless the “Patriarchy” was implemented and maintained by a group of space aliens, along with the principles of “social construction of gender”, you would reasonably expect that some (major) race/culture somewhere on Earth, sometime during human history, would have established truly different norms for social and sexual behaviour with regard to men and women.
But members of every known civilisation have demonstrated the same basic traits, likes, and dislikes. Even in societies which were matriarchies, women behaved recognisably like women, and men, men.
I’m certain the military and governments around the word would be delighted to find a way to imprint patterns of behaviour on children that would be totally impossible to reverse. The technology would be more valuable than any nuclear or biotech secret known to man (or woman).
You have obviously not read enough anthropology. Start with Rianne Eisler’s “The Chalice and the Blade,” and Nickie Robert’s “Whores in History.” Then read some of the studies on the relationship between lack of intimacy and violence in society, as well as the articles In “Nature” in the late 90’s and early 2000’s about democracy (and equality) being the natural order of things in most animal species (Thom Hartmann mentions them in his book, “What Would Jefferson Do?”) Then get back to us.
Eisler’s work is feminist propaganda based on very dubious interpretations of skimpy (non-documentary) archaeological evidence and the writings of other discredited writers.
Democracy in it’s purest form is nothing but the oppression of minority views by the majority, and in no way implies equality.
Wolves and other canines are not democratic (equal). Great apes are not democratic. Baboons are not democratic. Bees and ants are not democratic. Horses are not democratic. Territorial predators are definitely not democratic.
And since this is Maggie’s blog, who is this “us” that I have to get back to?
I have neither the inclination nor time to get into a long on-line argument, so I will leave the last word (however many they may be) to you and will not be responding any further.
As with most right wingers, you run in hide rather than risk having your precious world-view threatened. Good riddance, I expected nothing better.
So you “know” for his post he’s “automatically” a right-winger? Incredible! I call this “Internet diagnosis”. It’s like a medical doctor saying a person has a disease when he didn’t even do a physical exam because the person says “I have ____ symptom”. V.W. Singer was very tactful towards you and that was great. He (from what I remember V.W. is man…if I’m wrong please correct me) didn’t use swear words and/or any other abusive terms. It’s really fair to just write off a person (“good riddance”) that easily. Really sad. Yes, those “right wingers” have no good traits EVER…you can’t expect anything good from them.
Sorry…from his post…not “for his post”.
Actually, that “right-wing” post of Signer’s sounded a little lefty to me. But since most people are not pure “left-wingers” or pure “right-wingers,” I’m hesitant to call somebody either based on one post.
Unless, you know, it’s a post saying, “All you north-by-north-east-wingers SUCK!!!” Them I feel I’m pretty justified in identifying the poster as a south-by-south-west-winger.
Real quick, though: I do recommend What Would Jefferson Do, by Thom Hartman. Good reading.
1. His manner of dismissal of Rianne Eisler’s book. Of course there is no documentary evidence, writing was not invented until the end of the matriarchal period. There is however substantial archaeological and anthropological evidence to support her contentions. He takes the attitude of most authoritarian conservatives that whatever he disagrees with is unsubstantiated by his reckoning.
2.His commentary on democracy is the commentary that every crypto-fascist from Socrates (see I.F. Stone’s The Trial of Socrates) to Ayn Rand has taken on the subject for 24 centuries. I will simply state what Jefferson stated in a letter to Isaac Tiffany in 1816: Democracy is the purest form of a republic, it is simply impractical beyond the size of a township.
3. His very unwillingness to engage in open debate is common on the right. Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly do not debate, they shout down their opposition, or if they cannot, they try and ignore them, e.g., Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz.
4. The dominance in large cats is not what he thinks. If the lioness is not satisfied during coitus by the male, he gets the crap beat out of him by her and the other females. Read Thom Hartmann’s “What Would Jefferson Do?” for the exact location of the articles in Nature magazine where the democracy of animals is discussed.
5. I never said right wingers have no good traits ever. I led off with “As with most right wingers.” MOST, not all.
6. Take some time and read my articles for the past few years on OpEdNews.com, starting with the “Ghost of Ancient Hellas.” You will discover that I don’t just shoot my mouth of randomly.
http://www.opednews.com/author/author149.html
For people who like links. You’ve written over a hundred, so I don’t think somebody should have to read all of them to know enough about you to make a decision. Still, I already read “Making Sex a Crime,” so I think I’ll go ahead and read “The Ghost of Ancient Hellas” (which is a good title, for starters).
I have never heard anything about Ayn Rand that makes me like her. I’ve heard plenty that makes me not like her. I don’t talk about it here though, because
a) I know she has fans and I don’t want to come off as a troll, which I likely would because
b) I haven’t read HER actual books, and so should keep my comments to a minimum about her.
I probably should bite the bullet and read her, though, because everybody and his brother quotes her like she’s Saint frikkin’ Mark or something.
Any Rand is a fanatic’s dream. She glorifies the talented people, the ‘stars’, and spends multiple pages explaining why others are jealous of them and attempt to bring them down. When what we should do is just let those stars shine, baby.
The last chapters of Atlas Shrugged are like torture. She spends a 100 pages telling us -all the stuff that she already tole us- AGAIN. Because her readers are stupid, not special stars, see. It’s conversion by sheer repetitive brain washing. You (finally!) finish the book and walk around in a daze for an hour or two, mindlessly repeating, “Who is John Galt?” before you snap out of it. Some NEVER do.
Sorta like Scientology, but fewer aliens. Oh, and it costs less, unless you count the pain and suffering.
I’ve added Ayn Rand: In Her Own Words to my Netflix queue. It seems to be favorable to her, so I’m doing my duty to learn and not just from members of the “I Hate Ayn Club.” It’s far down the list, because I’ve added a bunch of other stuff already (like Thor and Fantastic Planet*), but if any cute girls want to watch it with me, I’d move it up the queue. Laura, Tracy? Wait, Tracy isn’t here. I’ll ask her.
* They’ve sent me THAT three times already, and each time the disk has been defective. If it is again, I think I’ll just break the damn thing, pay for it, and see if they replace it like they should have already. GGGGRRRR!!!!
The WONDERFUL Ayn Rand who said arrogant self-centeredness is so great. Look down your nose at those “below you” (gag)…take self-indulgence and not giving a ###*** about anyone else to an art form. Who cares about others? The goal is to be totally self-indulgent and ###*** everyone else. 1 of the most vicious, arrogant, mercenary SNOBS I’ve ever read about in my life. It literally makes me feel nauseated. It contributes to 1 of the biggest problems in the world: what I call “me-world”. Who cares about anyone else? It’s all ME, ME, ME! Who cares about helping anyone, especially those TRASH poor people? They need to be put in lines when they pick up their benefits. Like animals in a zoo. A sideshow of the poor! Don’t help people because then they’ll just get WORSE. Cut off help and then they’ll be fine and so will everyone else. Everything will BE FIXED INSTANTLY! If you ever need help you’re WEAK. You need to keep your SNOB NOSE in the air at all times. This SNOB’S wonderful philosophy (or whatever you want to call it) has made things worse in the world because of the self-indulgence, arrogance and heartlessness it promotes.
So… do you want to watch the DVD with me?
Actually, I wrote a series of three articles on Ayn Rand for OpEdNews, starting with “Contra Rand,” and I agree with you completely. She claims to be a fan of Aristotle and Niezsche, yet I have strong doubts that she ever studied either seriously. And I agrre with Sailor Barsoom: Trying to wade through all 108 articles (and 4 diary entries) is not anything I would wish upon any but my most ardent fans, especially because I repeat information in later articles or refer to the earlier ones. That is the reason I suggested a start of “The Ghost of Ancient Hellas,” although thinking about it I think I might go back to “The Tao of Government,” on its own, simply because it started my more serious political writing.
I did read “The Ghost of Ancient Hellas,” and did a lot of nodding. So you’re two for two, with me at least. I’ll give “The Tao of Government” a try, but not right now, because I have to write a grocery list right now.
thank you so much.
You deserve a LOT of credit on this. I’m NOT being sarcastic. Instead of doing what I call “hiding in silence” (I LOVE that reaction when people are confronted online and off…gag) you have the decency and courtesy to answer. You also answer without swear words and/or other verbal abuse along with TACT and RESTRAINT. Thank you. The fact that you made the effort to type “most, not all” (which only takes a few seconds) is great also. I’m so glad you make that effort instead of taking the easy way out with WONDERFUL blanket statements like: cops are ###***; politicians are ###***, etc., along with never saying anything good about whole groups of people. THANK YOU. This is a big deal online and off. I’ve typed the words “some not all” literally 100’s of times online and will keep doing that because I learned quick when getting involved in various things online that this ###*** is rampant. It’s applies to some groups I’m in: non-whore women who aren’t sexually conservative, fundamentalist Christians (also fundamentalist Christians that are gay, bisexual, etc.) and the surviving family members and/friends of murder victims. I’ll be glad to check out your writing. I write some also and had a piece published (not self-published) a while back. I have some unpublished stuff I can share also if you’re interested. THANK YOU AGAIN for not “hiding in silence” (easy way out) and answering me nicely. Take care.
Above reply was to Richard Girard.
Laura-Thank you from the bottom of my heart–and I am very serious about this. I appreciate that you have noticed the difference that i endeavor to make with my writings an my answers. To have this recognized by a stranger has nearly brought me to tears. Thank you once again,
May the Christ watch over and protect you and yours,
sincerely, Richard Girard
Dear Richard Girard, you’re welcome! It’s always wonderful to see people online who don’t just “hide in silence” when challenged and instead put down reasons for what they think that aren’t just out of their own minds. Plus you did that without arrogant, crude, abusive words, etc., and instead used tact and restraint. I’ve looked at some of your writings and my view is this: please keep up the great work! May Christ bless you also! I have a question for you about your writing but don’t want to ask it on here. If you like you can contact me on e-mail. Maggie will be glad to give you that info. Take care.
Oh I don’t worry about such things Laura, You may e-mail me directly at freegirard@juno.com.
“the neofeminists teach that humans, unlike every other mammal, have no innate sexual or sex-role drives whatsoever, and that all these are bestowed through the mystic force known as “social construction”, breathed into our nostrils by the omnipotent Collective.”
And this is what morons they are. I can still remember my hormones cutting in when I was 12. It was in the break between primary school and high school. In primary school I didn’t like girls much. I didn’t want to be around them. I didn’t want to talk to them. I found them stupid, boring, irritating, obnoxious, puny, weak and not the least bit interesting. I kissed on on a dare when I was 11 and nearly threw up. I thought the boys who liked girls were complete idiots because there was nothing there to like.
Come my 12th birthday it was like someone threw a switch in me. The hormones were turned on. Suddenly girls were the most interesting and intriguing thing I had ever seen in my life. I kid you not…this happened almost overnight. Apparently the social constructionists got to me, eh?
It is like the old woody allen joke of needing the eggs.
Yes. We must always remember whwn arguing with morons that it is we who are most likely to end up looking stupid.
Never argue, always inform.
When I was seven,* I thought girls were yucky too. Except when I didn’t. I would probably have slugged another boy who tried to say that I had, or ever would have, a girlfriend. But there was a girl in my neighborhood I liked to “play naughty” with. Was she my girlfriend? She was older,** and today a girl her age might be in legal trouble for such things.***
We had to stop when we got caught. We got caught because I tried to take things further.
* I think I was seven. I could have been as young as six, or as old as almost-nine.
** I think of her as fourteen, but she might have been as young as almost-twelve, or as old as sixteen.
*** Girls aren’t as likely to have The Law come down on them for this as when the sexes are the other way around. Today, I suspect that the seven year old boy might be in bigger trouble than the fourteen year old girl because, you know, guys are predatory monsters.
Maggie,
just in case you want to post it. My fav#1 and I were talking one day after we had decided to go our separate ways. I was just talking a bit how disappointed I was that she had decided no and that I really could not be bothered to try and find another woman because they are FAR too much trouble for precious little in return.
She looked at me and said “You know, it would be much easier for you to find a partner if you just turned gay.”
I laughed my arse off at the comment. It was really funny to me. Sure, SHE finds men somewhat attractive but I don’t. I guess those social constructionists did a good job on me that I can not “just turn gay”! LOL!!
My favorite example of False Consciousness has to be the one thrown out by Amanda Marcotte. Confronted with the fact that some 40% of women are pro-life, she responded that the stupid ninnies didn’t understand what pro-Life meant. Seriously (http://tinyurl.com/6lljq4).
Maggie, by the way, the discussion on this article is how you get a blog to sttart taking off. I hope that this is the beginning of a very positive future for the Honest Courtesan.
Thank you, Richard; I do think it’s going rather well. 🙂
I’m sorry if my eye is twitching, but… was there a basis for this? Did he have some huge audience he was going to bring in? Did he?
Not knowing this, that comment just seems not a tiny bit patronizing, bordering on audacious.
I believe I found it in one of the books or web sites I listed as sources in my follow-up article, “Rebel With a Cause.” You can find it here:http://www.opednews.com/articles/Rebel-with-a-Cause-by-Richard-Girard-120417-309.html
Otherwise would require me trying to find the book myself.