Ayn Rand was wrong when she said that, and she is still wrong now. The criterion for a job is 'the capability to perform that job'. Nothing else matters.

Jan

Do you have a link to her saying that? I'd like to see the context. Without knowing the previous, my thoughts are that it depends on the women. Margaret Thatcher surely had some brass ones, and was a rational thinker.

ooohhh, yuk. The video you posted is a problem for me, but I'm going to chalk it up to Ayn's perception of a majority of the women of her time, not something objectively correct. If a majority of women believe as they are brought up that men need to take care of them, they probably are not suited for this job, but there are clearly some excellent women leaders. Margret Thatcher among them.


WRT present candidates, I don't like Hillary for her positions, and I don't like Carly Fiorina because she has shown no ability to succeed. She made a mess of HP. Why would anyone giver her the US to lead, except that she is not Hillary?

Rand was a man-worshipper and a hero-worshipper. Her standards were just higher than those of women who fling themselves at rock stars and sports figures. Women choose to submit to men they see as outstanding, driven by their hormones to mate with the most superior specimens. No matter how romantically, intellectually or abstractly we try to categorize partner selection, most relationships between men and women have a sexual undercurrent. Men are generally less choosy, being willing to donate their sperm to all willing (and sometimes unwilling) candidates.

It is interesting to see how Rand conflates sexual surrender with abstaining from a position of authority over men.

There is a reason that women may not be appropriate for certain positions of power, such as the military. Women are the life givers and life nurturers. How does that fit with a role of sending men out to murder other men (and women and children)?

Or perhaps that would be the very best reason to put a woman in charge: put an end to all wars, killings and atrocities. Just look at how some of you talk about the brass balls of Thatcher. Yet the only excuse for men (the humans with balls intended for reproduction) to go out and kill other men is ostensibly to protect their own females and offspring, and to secure for their own the resources for a flourishing life, and the killing of others is excused because those others are seen as evil, or unnecessary, or as rivals.

Rand also did not approve of women's liberation. It is certainly admirable that she yearned for qualities in men that could be admired, and those with the highest standard of values would hook up with those of their own level, leaving, presumably, the lesser folk to each other's sex drives.

The royals of old, say, Queen Elizabeth the first, were wily users of their feminine wiles to keep foreign royal houses at bay with possible alliances, or marrying off their princesses to seal their peace treaties. Culturally females are trophies. We have a ways to go before we can give any female unqualified approval to make life-and-death decisions on our behalf. But if we can define a President as an administrative function, not as a queen bee, there is no reason a suitable female cannot perform that job. A woman president would not be a monolithic power. She would have hundreds of advisors, males and females, just as our male President has female advisors. Too bad so many of them try to compete against the males in degrees of brutality they accept as state craft.

I would happily vote for a woman candidate who promised to end all wars, bring all the troops home, deal with other nations through treaties, not threats, and form relations based on trading goods, not trading bullets. It is time for humans who value individuals and freedom and prosperity to eliminate the war meme from human relationships. If we don't stop it, enmities and all the evils that grow out of them will continue to escalate, and that is in no one's rational self-interest.

I don't see anyone running that's fit, honorable, or trustworthy enough for the job. The women that are running are looters and incompetent at business. (As are the men.)

This is where I also part company with Ms. R. I think her attitude toward women and politics is an inheritance from her Russian upbringing. Well...no one's perfect.

Although I am not a woman I can see that being a woman in this issue would make a difference. How one sees oneself and what kind of a position one can envision and its ramifications would reflect a decision to seek certain positions. I cannot see myself seeking the job of a nanny although I could do the job, I just wouldn't be comfortable with it if something else was available. Ayn Rand didn't say a woman couldn't do the job but was concerned with how she would feel about herself and the world if she had to.

To state flatly that women are unsuitable to serve as POTUS is a good argument starter but there are too many counter examples that challenge the validity of that position. Thatcher is one and Golda Maier is another. Character and strength are not the unique properties of the male gender.

Rand's position on this point has always bothered me. I don't see why a woman could not be President although I admit I don't see any on the horizon that I would vote for.

What is an OBJ?

I've always thought that AR's objection to there being a woman president was inconsistent with her literary work. She created the characters of Dagny Taggart, who was the operating vice-president of a transcontinental railroad and Kira Arguonova, who wanted to become an engineer and build bridges. Both of these jobs require that the woman have authority over men. So if she's creating stories depicting strong, intelligent women having authority over men, why stop short of saying a woman can be President of the United States?

I completely reject it. Judge people based on their own traits, not the traits of a group they belong to.

Ayn Rand did indeed say that. I read an essay in which she gave an explanation of her remark that she would not seek the job, nor vote for any woman who sought it.

It had nothing to do with lack of experience in military service or command.

It all had to do, believe it or not, with sex.

She took the position that no rational woman could derive any sexual satisfaction by being with a man less powerful than herself. And because the President of the United States would be the most powerful person in the world, any woman holding that job would never find a man to be her equal. Any relationship she had would necessarily reverse the usual roles of man and woman in bed.

So she said.

Now the best contrast I ever heard, were these lines by Mr. Aaron Sorkin for his play, "A Few Good Men"--or at least for the lines in his screenplay, as Jack Nicholson so brilliantly voiced them:

"There is nothing on this earth sexier...that a woman you have to salute in the morning. Promote 'em all, I say, because this is true. If you haven't gotten [f__o] from a superior officer, well, you're just letting the best things in life pass you by. Now my problem is, I happen to be a colonel. So I'll have to go on taking cold showers until they elect some [woman] President, heh, heh, heh."

I have to agree with AR and I do so from much the same rational basis as her. If there are those that 'veer from her tutelage' on this issue, they do so as the result of not following the pure rational logic of her philosophy. There are a few factual basis that have to be analyzed first before addressing the question of a woman being suited for President.

First of all is that women qua women are the inheritors of the genetics that have survived and won out through the evolutionary process of mankind, as are men the inheritors of their successful genetics. There is no inequality or inculcated trap in understanding those actualities or values offered by both, woman qua woman and man qua man. It is simple biology and evolution proofing. A woman fighting to be a man or to do a function better done by a man is by definition a woman that's unhappy with the fact of her femininity, her biology and inherited genetics. That is very close to the definition of a psychosis.

Next is AR's views of what a president in an Objectivist world should be and the proper role in an Objectivist government. By her definitions, that role is to lead a minimalist government dedicated to protecting and enforcing the individual and natural rights of citizens. And in such a position, the respect for that authority must be natural and accepted by those over which the president is in charge of and directs and supervises in enforcing retribution for violations of rights and to protect the country from outside attack.

The president must as well be able to represent the country to the rest of the world which includes many peoples with many different cultural backgrounds and histories, and work with a legislature and the courts and the states. While it may not be politically correct to say so, the facts of the world are that all of those others make decisions when dealing with others in equal positions based on perceptions of who holds the office of the president. Many will bring up Margaret Thatcher as an example of a woman that could do all of those things while they set aside that she really rode the coattails of Ronald Reagan in international affairs and also gained from the legislative acts of the UK.

Any argument used to try to convince me otherwise will have to first of all demonstrate how AR's reasoning and rationale is in error by addressing nearly her entire philosophy.

I don't agree with the concept, However if Hillary and dizzy lizzy are what is available, then I agree. If Carly F is the Repubs choice, I would vote for her just to vote against Hil. We need a good person male or female please.

She also wasn't living in the information age. We are in a different place in society than we were 40 years ago. Back then, women were mainly cooks and nurses in the military, now they have combat experience and have a more broad view. AR, thought, IMO, that the society that she wrote about in AS wouldn't come about for 100 years, and it was accomplished in less than half that time.

I would have to partly agree. There are women who just don't have the guts to be President -- I believe Sarah Palin showed this about herself by resigning as governor when slandered.

There are also some pretty tough women who do have what it takes. I agree with RMP that Lady Thatcher did.

But I'm not really afraid of either of those types in a crisis. No, what worries me is that a woman president like Hillary or DiFi will feel the need to prove she is tough by starting a war or committing an atrocity that doesn't need to happen.

I disagree with Rand on this point, and many others. Shermer wrote an interesting article, which is mostly (not completely) accurate in my view.

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/the-unlikeliest-cult-in-history/

I doubt there is any human being on this planet whose views I will 100% agree with.

I can think of a few woman who would be infinitely better than the Micky Mouse we now have! Hillary is certainly not among them. The POTUS does not need to do it all but he/she does need to select the right people for the inner circle and if you look now at who/what we have driving this train wreck there is little wonder why we are off the tracks.

lets just say the demo front runner is not suited whether or not there is another woman suited who knows.

I believe there are plenty of women capable. The only question is, would one that is capable please step forward and teach the present group of lackluster candidates a thing or three. The only thing in favor of her position was perhaps her recognition of the difficulties facing one at the time she expressed such a premise... when there was so much misogynistic antagonism. I believe men in the armed forces, are much more receptive to the idea of taking orders from a female commander in chief today if she demonstrated a strong, decisive will. Why not? It may have been a temporal condition, but I do not believe it should have been universal in her time and certainly it is less of a barrier today. I would happily vote for the right woman. I wonder what she would have to say about this today. We have had many fine examples around the world of strong women in high office.

But, it has some merit, if we agree men and women have different physical make ups, mental processes and even disregarding cultural imprinting. If women are different fundamentally from men, maybe there is some foundation for Ayn's opinion

Rand was expressing an opinion here. I disagree with her. Would I have agreed at the time 40 years ago? I don't know. Possibly.

I do find it disappointing that many objectivists disagree with one point of Rand's and then believe Objectivism itself has flaws. She based her beliefs on reality, and her reality was reflected in this opinion. Had she been asked the same question today, I'm sure her answer would be very different, because her reality would now include Margaret Thatcher. Even those who disagreed with Thatcher's politics (even violently), few deny her role as "Commander In Chief" was admirable in the Falklands conflict.

One needs to carefully read the article in question: in The Objectivist, 12/68. Here are excerpts:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/femininity.html