It wasn't her sex that threw a wrench in conventional wisdom it was her message. She could have been a flying spaghetti monster and received the same reception because she challenged prevailing views by stirring up something fundamental in all people..

Actually, being female probably gave Rand an edge, as a female philosopher is rare. Women authors with real talent have been well received for the last couple of centuries.

It isn't so much prejudice that makes the appearance of women in professional life historically rare, but the biological fact that only women can bear children, which occupies a lot of time. Women with determination have been able to capture the reins of power in seemingly impossible situations. Hatshepsut seized the throne of ancient Egypt, in an era when only men were supposed to be the pharaoh, as one example. Sarah Breedlove, otherwise known as Madam C.J. Walker, daughter of a slave, was the first American female millionaire, as another.

I think Ayn Rand herself would have laughed at the idea she was hampered by her sex. She would have told you it was her unsettling message that upset people.

You are likely right. In the 50s and 60s being a woman writing a novel with strong philosophical underpinnings would have been, at best, considered pretentious, and something to mock. I admit that I am somewhat guilty of that because I published a graphic novel called "Elvius Shrugged" in which we stole the basic plot, but substituted show biz characters for the Atlas characters. John Galt was Elvis, and there were Frank Sinatra, as well as famous entertainers of the day. Unlike others, it was done with love and a tribute expressed directly to Rand. The last time I admitted to this, someone tore me a new one, But if you read it, you'll find that is a homage and not a http://parody.In any case, being a very old codger, I was a kid when the Fountainhead movie came out and I went to see it and bought a soft cover copy, mostly because the name of the author fascinated me. I had no idea she was a little Russian lady who spoke with an accent exactly like my grandpa's.

NO!...plain and simple.
Most people are not objective (religious or non religious)...makes no difference who or what suggests otherwise.

All of us here put no stock into whether the philosophy comes from a male or female.

I doubt it. Her message was just too unconventional for many people. (But I am amused by one comment at the radio station after Galt's speech, made, I think, by Ma Chalmers:"Women don't go for all that intellectual stuff. You can count on the women.")

For me it made no difference at all. The first time I heard of Ayn Rand people had told me that she was a witch and that was her philosophy and I was not interested until a woman friend of mine read one of her books and told me that wasn't true at all and referred me to one of her books. After reading one I purchased all that I could find and followed her work closely. I think if you are an objectivist or looking for such work it won't make any difference.
I think what makes her work difficult to accept is that most people have a view of altruism whether promoted by the state, their religion or their political party and this makes it very difficult for them to accept her work and reconcile what they already believe to be true.

Yeah, I don't think Ayn Rand's sex had anything to do with it either but in today's climate gender is the best way to get a discussion going.

My experience with Objectivists is that they are absolutists in that if something has been proven by empirical evidence, by observation, by reason then any fool should see it, agree and proceed accordingly without guidance. Only a few people are wired to do this naturally and due to the mental effort required, many would rather accept what others have concluded on faith. The problem is that we have to occupy this planet with everyone else and we are too few. Past civilizations have controlled the lazy, the uninformed and the stupid by coercion, either by scaring them or brute force.

Ayn Rand saw America with the principles of Representative Democracy and Capitalism as a beacon of reason and individual liberty. America seemed to be the hope for mankind and she provided a clear means to realizing that potential instead of falling into the abyss of altruism like most of the world. Unfortunately, she came to this conclusion on her own, by her own will and viewed anyone that could not accept her philosophy instantly in its entirety as a dolt and told them so.

The spokesmen for Objectivism that I follow are cut from the same cloth as Rand and are against anything that is not Objectivist purity. Incremental progress is hateful to them and they reject any notion of it. The enemy however thrives on every chip they can take no matter how small. Progressives want the state to regulate toothpicks as much as they want to regulate energy. It is all the same. Chip away freedom where ever it is found, no matter how big or small and it will all add up to complete control. Objectivists think big but are being killed by a thousand tiny cuts. Collectivism is a regression in human organization and was only able to coexist with individual freedom in hunter-gather societies. It takes external force to move anything into an unnatural state and to make modern society work under collectivism, the state must have total power and has to murder those it cannot control.

My premise is that we are in a life of death struggle and unless a movement emerges that can incrementally change the path we are on, all of the progress in the history of the modern world is in jeopardy. A movement requires a leader, a prophet, a teacher, communicator, a charismatic figure to inform and inspire the majority not just a few hard heads demanding overnight change.

I would say that AR acted very rationally and to the point, and not at all like a bimbo airhead woman, as was the "typical" woman of the time.

Her ideas met with the same hatred from the establishment as would be expected from any man. The establishment took her ideas seriously, which is why they hated her and demonized her work.

I think so. This is my personal opinion based on my life experiences. I think human beings are hard wired in such a way that the impact of her philosophy would have more if she had been a male. At the same time, any individual who can understand and embrace Objectivism could care less about the gender of the originator. Very interesting question, coaldigger. Good one

No one else could have put forth the philosophy of "Objectivism" other than Ayn Rand. It seems that being a woman made it even harder for most people to understand her books and philosophy.

Rand had a sense of pure season, and how to present it, that her male successors just don't project. Rand was first suggested to my by a male professor. I have never been one to pick a work by gender, despite college attempts to get me in woemn's studies, unsuccessfully. Ran, from the first reading made perfect sense. I had never heard life as it should be expressed so perfectly. What she said, was the essence of life as I had been taught to live it. She got it. I have met men who embraced her thought, and others who were scared to death by it. It was too hard for them, they were too weak. I don't think even a man could have soothed theri fears.

Either a yes or no answer is immaterial as the question allows for only an answer that would be a fallacy of relevancy as Ayn Rand was a woman. As such the premise cannot be tested.

I do not know the answer to this interesting question. I think it says something that people don't think of her as "a woman philosopher".

It seems to me people tell women sacrifice is a virtue more than they tell that to men. (That's just a feeling; I don't have evidence.) But if I'm right about that, Rand could be seen as "feminist" because she's an example of a woman who says she's putting her desires first.

"I think that one has to reject ... religion to accept Objectivism"

I agree, and I think that's why it will never be a mainstream philosophy.

"Female prophets..."

Not sure why this even becomes an issue. If you're going to denounce religion, you're going to denounce prophets as well - male or female - because the primary role of a prophet is as a spiritual leader who converses with the divine. Why cast Ayn Rand as a "prophet" in the first place? Doesn't make any sense to me...

"Brandon and Peikoff were too cerebral and competitive..."

Another reason why Objectivism will never be a mainstream philosophy. You can't fracture a movement and then expect it to stay together. There has to be clear and unambiguous leadership and I don't think that exists in Objectivism, whereas Buddhism has the Dalai Lama, Catholicism has the Pope, Marxism has Marx and Stalin and now Bernie Sanders, and the Democratic Party has George Soros and the Clintons (though the Obamas would love to steal that mantle). I would point out that probably the only reason Islam hasn't completely dominated the globe is because early on it fractured into Sunni and Shiite based on claims to leadership and authority which have had them at perpetual war for more than a millennia.