Why the hate on Ayn Rand?

[HansMustermann]

So it's butt-ironic, then, that rape is the most common fantasy of women, even if they have actually been raped? And before someone says, "Evidence?", go google it you lazy sods.

A fantasy is invariably a sanitized thing, and if ever played out, it's played out in a safe setting. Ask for example the kind of nerds LARPing medieval fantasies would actually like someone to stab at them with a real sharp sword.

So she included it as an attempt at erotica. People react negatively to it, just like they do to studies that show rape is a common fantasy. "He took her with the authority of ownership," is how she put it, IIRC.

People react negatively at her rationalizing it as "rape by engraved invitation." I think you'll find that even women with such fantasies, don't actually agree that something a woman can wear or do constitutes "engraved invitation" to be raped.

But, anyway, nice strawman. I guess it beats actually addressing the point, huh?

Now why would an intelligent woman try to play the meme game and say, "nope, nope!" like many lesser intellects around here and the world do?

Oooh, anything you disagree with is "meme game" and "lesser intellects". Man, we sure haven't heard that before from, oh, I dunno, half the butthurt Rand fanboys before But I guess just throwing "lesser intellects" around works better than trying to form a coherent logic inference.

Tell me.

Why would anyone want to act like in your strawman? Well, not many would. Now come back when you can address reality instead of reducing it to a "playing the meme game" strawman.

As for economics, she essentially had the correct answer -- why the West produced more and more. She gave rationale as to why that was, which was, in slightly more modern terms, removing the punishing, slowing burden of much of the state, which drags the economy simply by being so large and intrusive.

Except for the part where she is wrong, and actually the fastest growth happened when that "state burden" increased.

E.g., taking the data from here: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/steckel.standard.living.us Actually you'll notice that that the growth rates in the increasingly big government period of the late 20'th century are vastly larger than those in, say, 1870 during the small-government laissez-faire times.

E.g., taking the GDP pro capita in individual years, from, say here: http://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/usgdp/result.php ... actually says funnier things. Between 1900 and 1930, decidedly non-keynesian years, the GDP pro capita in 2000 dollars rose from $4,921 to $6,418. But ok, the depression was already kicking in, let's take the $7,099 peak from 1929 instead. That's a total rise of about 40% in 30 years, and that was already pretty much a bubble that burst in 1929. But in only 8 years of the New Deal, from 1933 to 1941 the same indicator rose from $5,056 to $9,079, or roughly by 80%. In a comparable 30 year interval, from 1950 to 1980, that indicator approximately _doubled_.

So exactly where is that burden of big government and advantage of laissez faire? Other than in Rand's postulates, that is? The actual numbers show the exact opposite of that.

Basically, sorry, wake me up when you can actually base such claims on actual numbers, not on just having to rationalize Rand's BS. Just postulating something as proven doesn't make it so, any more than it does for quantum crystal chi and other woowoo.

Julian Simon said much the same thing, except from a point of research, theory, and prediction, which came true.

Oh, so you can quote another guy who postulates the exact opposite than what the numbers actually show, so it must be true

To all you detractors, I submit you are the crackpots. You are the ones following the unproven disproven belief that big government, rather than, at best, riding herd on the power of freedom-based capitalism, is the cause and greatness of the west.

Oooh, first "lesser intellects", now "crackpots" too. Whatever will we do?

No, dearie, seeing that you're the one posting counter-factual postulates as absolute truth... maybe you should look in the mirror? Or actually support all those postulates. Just being condescending doesn't make you right.

When Julian Simon says that the core of his theory, that economic freedom correlates to the fastest gains in productivity and quality of life, as actually measured, and that that "isn't even debated among economists anymore," is he wrong? And that was 20+ years ago.

... except, for, you know, all those from other schools of economics than the right-winger lobby tanks. Again, just postulating something as "isn't even debated" doesn't actually make it true.

Also, I wonder why you have to fall back to some claims from 20+ years ago, if it's not even debated? Shouldn't it still not be even debated if true? Oh, right, because that quote was in the heyday of supply-side Reaganomics, which turned out to not have worked that way. So, you just have to look at a time before such idiocies were disproven to sound like you have a point? Heh.

Stare into the mirror, my friends. You see a quasi-religious woo believer right there. You are exactly at the same point, God surely must exist! Most certainly!

Take your own advice, crackpot.

 

[HansMustermann]

A common-sense sociopath. But that's probably not what you're after.



Note these things come from her notes, not published (by her) works, AFAIK. Hence there is no context aside from the crude juxtaposition to this horrific act.

She saw mass outrage to one singleton event, and noted it's power, probably considering its use as a tool by politicians as well as the knowing and deliberate complicity by the population itself with the population joyously participating in the indignation.

1. When you say "probably", you're just introducing your own fantasy elements. Point out exactly which politicians were using it as a tool, and point out where in the text it says so.

Because what she immediately afterwards actually says there is something entirely different. Her indignation is strictly at all those boring average people daring to judge someone like Hickman. There is no mention of politicians or anything in the actual text.

2. Complicity of the population... in what? 'Cause they sure as heck didn't cooperate with Hickman.

 

[Igopogo]

What's often struck me when I run into Rand followers is that they seem to have a fantasy version of themselves as better the rest of society. It seems to be a philosophy that appeals to smart loners who equate happiness or survival with resources. They tend to miss the major role that being a part of society plays in happiness & survival, probably due to growing up being social outsiders.

 

[blutoski]

Side note: having just re-read "Beggars in Spain", I was thinking that those Yagaists seem awfully like cleaned-up Randroids. Looks as if there might have been something to that

I remember thinking that, myself.

I think Kress was trying to represent that type of view in a negative light.

Her other works seem more progressive.

I give her credit for predicting the corporate manufacture of doubt that has grown up around AGW in Brain Rose.

Sorry if that's off topic.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Gawain commits a minor but significant sin, for which he berates himself.

On the other hand, he gets to fight Sean Connery dressed as a Christmas tree.

 

[blutoski]

Why are Rand supporters uniformly such abrasive, dismissive, nasty people? Honestly, you can read a hundred such threads and all philosophy aside, the Rand proponents are the ones being nasty on a purely personal level, as in the post above.

Not sure what the deal is there.

I'm not a big fan, myself, but I've revised my opinion regarding generalizing behavior of her advocates/fans.

Having met quite a few in person - rather than just on the internet where almost everybody's a dick - I think this may be a specific subclass of her fans, rather than a description of the whole group.

Having said that... I think there is a big overlap of Randians and skeptics is that is caused by these worldviews' shared attraction to PDs like OCPD and NPD, and also some autism spectrum.

 

[blutoski]

What's often struck me when I run into Rand followers is that they seem to have a fantasy version of themselves as better the rest of society.

This is the NPD aspect I mention in my immediately previous post.

It seems to be a philosophy that appeals to smart loners who equate happiness or survival with resources. They tend to miss the major role that being a part of society plays in happiness & survival, probably due to growing up being social outsiders.

They may not be loners. I suspect the majority are quite social. We only detect the loners, as they are the ones with malfunctioning social filters because they're so baffling.

To be frank: it's the socially competent ones that are actually dangerous.
One of them ran the Fed, for example.

 

[TimCallahan]

S . . . (snippet)

As for economics, she essentially had the correct answer -- why the West produced more and more. She gave rationale as to why that was, which was, in slightly more modern terms, removing the punishing, slowing burden of much of the state, which drags the economy simply by being so large and intrusive.

Julian Simon said much the same thing, except from a point of research, theory, and prediction, which came true.


To all you detractors, I submit you are the crackpots. You are the ones following the unproven disproven belief that big government, rather than, at best, riding herd on the power of freedom-based capitalism, is the cause and greatness of the west.

When Julian Simon says that the core of his theory, that economic freedom correlates to the fastest gains in productivity and quality of life, as actually measured, and that that "isn't even debated among economists anymore," is he wrong? And that was 20+ years ago. . . .

Actually, the nations that seem to be doing the best have mixed economies, with capitalist incentives and socialist supports. I suggest that pragmatism works better than ideology when it comes to money (along with most everything else). Ayn Rand was an ideologue, no more and no less than Chair man Mao.

 

[Cactus Wren]

What's often struck me when I run into Rand followers is that they seem to have a fantasy version of themselves as better the rest of society. It seems to be a philosophy that appeals to smart loners who equate happiness or survival with resources. They tend to miss the major role that being a part of society plays in happiness & survival, probably due to growing up being social outsiders.

From Stuff Geeks Love: Geeks LOVE Libertarianism!

Since many geeks are unable to care about or even imagine the existence of the feelings of anyone other than themselves, the fact that Libertarianism ignores the unpleasant reality that we live in a society that requires certain things to function is not a problem to them. As far as geeks are concerned, society is lost anyway since it refuses to respect the geeks as the superior members. (The collapse of society is perfectly fine with the geek since it would allow him to act out his post-apocalyptic fantasies in which he would be a dune-buggy driving, grenade launching warlord, in defiance of all the evidence that demonstrates a more probable outcome.)

(Yeah, yeah, I know, Randism and Libertarianism are Not The Same Thing, but the thought pattern is identical.)

 

[HansMustermann]

TBH, I'm not even that sure of the correlation with geeks per se.

I'm a geek, for example, and I'm very much left wing. Mom is a very nerdy gal, and never got out of the college belief that Marxism is right, not to mention that that happened at an economics college too. And generally, I still joke that she'd be the perfect D&D paladin. I have geeky friends -- and I mean of the caliber of arguing BSD vs Linux, because even Linux is mainstream crap for brainwashed fanboys for one of them -- who were decrying the shift away from the left in German politics lately.

I think it's more like we're over-represented in all idealistic solutions, many of which might indeed miss the subtleties of human behviour and social games. But not just the right wing ones. You'll equally find a lot of geeks in socialist anarchy movements and whatnot.

 

[HansMustermann]

From Stuff Geeks Love: Geeks LOVE Libertarianism!

Since many geeks are unable to care about or even imagine the existence of the feelings of anyone other than themselves, the fact that Libertarianism ignores the unpleasant reality that we live in a society that requires certain things to function is not a problem to them. As far as geeks are concerned, society is lost anyway since it refuses to respect the geeks as the superior members. (The collapse of society is perfectly fine with the geek since it would allow him to act out his post-apocalyptic fantasies in which he would be a dune-buggy driving, grenade launching warlord, in defiance of all the evidence that demonstrates a more probable outcome.)

(Yeah, yeah, I know, Randism and Libertarianism are Not The Same Thing, but the thought pattern is identical.)

Actually, what is described there ("unable to care about or even imagine the existence of the feelings of anyone other than themselves") is not a "geek", but pretty much the definition of APD (Antisocial Personality Disorder), a.k.a., sociopathy. When you add all the traits that would be needed so being a dune-buggy-riding, grenade-chucking warlord seems actually preferable to an office job, you may even have an outright psychopath.

And, sure, _some_ nerds are sociopaths. And for example Asperger's has a very high co-morbidity rate with one or more of pretty much all personality disorders in the DSM, including the APD described there.

But a whole lot don't. Even among aspies, a lot got stuff like OCPD or OCD instead.

I don't think it's entirely fair to generalize that over every geek, just because the APD minority is so rabidly vocal.

 

[Mister Agenda]

No, no, it's okay, geeks are mostly sociopaths, don't mess up the shiny new box Cactus Wren gave me 'specially for them, please.

 

[bozman]

It's mostly the "y" in her first name that turned me off to the possibility of reading any of her books.

Presumptuous witch.

 

[TimCallahan]

So it's butt-ironic, then, that rape is the most common fantasy of women, even if they have actually been raped? And before someone says, "Evidence?", go google it you lazy sods.
So she included it as an attempt at erotica. People react negatively to it, just like they do to studies that show rape is a common fantasy. "He took her with the authority of ownership," is how she put it, IIRC. . . . /QUOTE]

Well, I did google it. The response I got was rather equivocal. Rape fantasies are fairly common, but by no means the most common. Also, fantasy rape is more like being ravaged, i.e. the whole point is being out of control, carried away, etc. Other common female fantasies, according to the sites I visited involved having sex with a stranger, outdoors, being exhibitionistic and threesomes. The common themes were, not surprisingly, being sexually adventurous, daring and being out of control.

I would agree that Rand's rapes were more on the line of fantasy than the coarse, brutal and degrading reality of actual rape, which IIRC, usually involves a gratuitous level of violence.

 

[The True Scotsman]

Sometimes there are some things on this forum that I just don't get. One of them is the hate and ridicule on Ayn Rand. I don't know that much about her other than she was a famous author who wrote some seminal works that made her stand out from the crowd.

I tried to read Atlas Shrugged in high school as an assignment but got bored, skimmed through enough to get a C on a book report. From Wiki-ing her she seemed to be famous for the philosophy of Objectivism.

Objectivism is a philosophy created by the Russian-American philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand (1905–1982). Objectivism holds that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest, that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure laissez faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform man's widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that he can comprehend and to which he can respond emotionally.

So what's all the fuss about?

Most of what she believe I don't have a problem with (like A is A, there are no gods, etc), though I don't see any original conclusions in these areas. One of the few conclusions that I may have a problems with is her morality of selfishness. I find it hard to know what she means for the most part. She attempts to clarify what she means by defining an antithesis "altruism", but in that attempt she comes to a definition of altruism which seems unlikely that anyone or very few would or could ever follow. From that point, it comes to a system where you should act selfishly by helping others when it serve your needs or your wants or when you would feel badly if you didn't help them, which is basically always, unless you have an abnormal system of preferences (note: I'm using abnormal, not as a pejorative, but to mean not the norm). So, my basic opinion of Ayn Rand is that she doesn't really have anything of significance to offer. I'd say she is not worth making a fuss about in a negative or positive way.

 

[A Lurker]

Well, I did google it. The response I got was rather equivocal. Rape fantasies are fairly common, but by no means the most common. Also, fantasy rape is more like being ravaged, i.e. the whole point is being out of control, carried away, etc. Other common female fantasies, according to the sites I visited involved having sex with a stranger, outdoors, being exhibitionistic and threesomes. The common themes were, not surprisingly, being sexually adventurous, daring and being out of control.

I would agree that Rand's rapes were more on the line of fantasy than the coarse, brutal and degrading reality of actual rape, which IIRC, usually involves a gratuitous level of violence.

As someone who has found every single female partner I've had has had some sort of domination fetish, been active on the BDSM scene, and yes acted out rape fantasies I'd just like to say myself... Beerina is still full of rubbish. Because the Swinging scene has even greater numbers of people involved, and is a much more common desire; Casual sex with no consequences? That's a consistent theme to almost everyone's fantasies, what ever they are... And furthermore, Ann Summers shifts more tens of thousands more vibrators every year than restraints (and those restraints tend to be joke presents or for one night of "oh we're so naughty" experimentation). You have to be extremely self centred to be unaware of this; there's an entire world getting off to things which have absolutely nothing to do with what Beerina, or I have experienced.

What's worse is Rand's literature, and the Reardon-esque persona Beerina wants to portray isn't even accurate to the real experiences of the smaller subset of the kind of person who has rape fantasies. The only way it can work is in what is known as "Domming from the Bottom", that is the one who submits still has final say, either from prior informed consent or subtle hints during the act that indicate what is desired. Yes, every now and then just coming home, throwing her over a futon and saying "I take what I want NOW" can be extremely hot for both ... but only when she has been secretly fantasizing about that before hand too... in other words, it's a happy coincidence of desires. But if she hasn't been thinking such, and there's no system of safe words, traffic light codes or what not to indicate that it's welcomed then, then it is just as likely to be domestic abuse, or outright rape instead. And that, it shouldn't need to be pointed out, is a criminal act for a damn good reason. (I use "her" here because that parallels the Atlas Shrugs gender situation, and my own experiences are hetero too; but the issues are applicable to any power-imbalanced relationship)

And that's situation is even more complicated by the fact that she don't know who is coming through the door herself; In Rand's world, it's this powerful, world shaking captain of Industry who struggles to always keep his attitudes purer than pure. And who wouldn't want to just be taken by such a Titan, eh?! Phwoar! In real life though... what may be coming through the door is actually Beerina, who has had a rough day at the Red Lobster, and is feeling angry, and everyone at the JREF laughed at his tiny little Object... ivism, and right now he just wants to hit something. And when that first slap to the face comes, is... is this erotica, or is it abuse again? Fair to Beerina to put his name there? Maybe not, but the point is that description is much closer to the reality of life for most people. In real life, there are very, very few Objectivists or Libertarians with any real power or societal worth; if they had any, they'd be Conservatives & Republicans instead. No... the reality is, you date a guy who gives off an air of restrained violence, he's not likely to be engaged in creative revolutionary destruction, be he is going to be capable of lots of acts of petty domestic violence instead; and yes he's soooo macho when he fights other men, but it'll just be in some squabble in a backstreet pub somewhere; and maybe he's more prone to be hitting you later too whilst still drunk...

All those partners I'd mentioned who were into rape fantasy? They'd all been sexually assaulted or raped because when they were younger, they'd been unable to judge yet who was actually safe to play with. And some people never do learn... on either side of the power divide.

And that, to me, is why Beerina & Rand are just so full of horsehockey. There's no awareness of reality. No acknowledgement of the vital safeguards which keep such erotica both safe and fun; because a true "Man" is one who, even when the restraints are on his partner, is still bound by restraints imposed by that partner's well being in his actions. But Randian fantasy has no care at all about the destructive consequences for other sentient, emotional beings when these ridiculous ideological fetishes are applied to real people... Ayn Rand's disasterous, dysfunctional, appalling private life isn't a side issue, it's the whole point, it's objectively the consequence of this belief system. It would sooner set the world on fire than accept that maybe, just maybe your little fetishes aren't the dominant force you'd like it to be.

Which brings me nicely to my last point for now, one very famous response to Rand: Bob The Angry Flower.

 

[HansMustermann]

Just to make it clear, the rape scene we're talking about is this:

She tried to tear herself away from him. The effort broke against his arms that had not felt it. Her fists beat against his shoulders, against his face. He moved one hand, took her two wrists and pinned them behind her, under his arm, wrenching her shoulder blades.…She fell back against the dressing table, she stood crouching, her hands clasping the edge behind her, her eyes wide, colorless, shapeless in terror. He was laughing. There was the movement of laughter on his face, but no sound.…Then he approached. He lifted her without effort. She let her teeth sink into his hand and felt blood on the tip of her tongue. He pulled her head back and he forced her mouth open against his.​

Even the author says terror.

We're not talking about fulfilling a woman's secret fantasies, or it being hot for both. We're talking an actual fight, and the author has the female terrorized there.

I don't know about y'all, but for me being paralysed with sheer terror is not an erotic thing. Some degree of domination in a consensual encounter, sure, I can see how some people would like that. Terror, nope, is something else. It's something hard wired to not mean "let's hang around and explore the fun parts."

Let's roll that bit around in the head. As the author, Rand is the puppet master. She could have made her character think, say or feel anything that made the point she was trying to make. If she wanted it to be hot for both, she was free to make her character display that kind of emotion.

The setup isn't of an erotic fantasy or RP kinda thing, it's a flat out description of brutal rape, very much unwanted by the victim, and very much a psychological trauma.

ETA: and very much in line with the kind of psychopaths taking whatever they want, and unequipped to understand why someone else's feelings matter, that Rand was admiring as Real Men in her journals all along. It's not an erotic fantasy, it's a psychopathy fantasy.

ETA: and I still find it horribly offensive to state that anything imaginable could constitute "engraved invitation" for _that_. You can't get a much clearer case of blaming the victim, and essentially the same blame that's thrown in the face of rape victims everywhere.

 

[marplots]

Hans, could be just poor writing skills. That snippet seemed very clunky.

Curious. Was English her first language?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Hans, could be just poor writing skills. That snippet seemed very clunky.

Curious. Was English her first language?

You wouldn't believe it if you read her stuff, but I think it was.

 

[Darat]

Hans, could be just poor writing skills. That snippet seemed very clunky.

Curious. Was English her first language?

Don't know but I can assure you that the sample quoted above is par for the course for her writing, indeed it's not as bad as most of it.