HAHAHAHAH! That’s brilliant! It so accurately captures how mind-blowingly shitty Rand’s sentences are!
I’m a big fan of Bob the Angry Flower’s sequel: Atlas Shrugged 2, One Hour Later… http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif
Whenever I hear someone defend Rand with “but she’s such a good writer!” I want to puke on their shoes.
And like the perpetual motion machine in the original story would have done, eventually the laws of physics take over and it doesn’t work. How appropriate. Thanks for the link.
Rand appears to have an unusually large presence on this blog. Is that b/c libertarians/Objectivists have a greater tendency to comment on Feminist/Progressive blogs than other types of conservatives?
Oh, that is brilliant! /Rand fan in high school //Grew out of it, thanks be to the universe! Exactly the same here! Thank heavens for that Universe! đ
The Randian hatred here makes me feel like I’ve finally found my people. đ I went to school with techno-libertarians. It was… isolating.
Never could stand Rand; far too self-important, and as has been noted, a terrible writer. Thanks, Jill. I needed a good belly laugh.
Anyone who’s read Tobias Wolff’s novel, “Old School”, probably enjoyed the subtle, real-time jab he takes at Rand.
“She let out a rich, powerful moan, like the sound of a passing diesel train in the night. ” LOL RAND
This article was awesome. I went to school with techno-libertarians. It was⌠isolating. Is there anything on the planet more annoying than ideologically pure Libertarians? They all either seem to be 22 year old white male college students, or grouchy, socially awkward old white men.
Leave it to a “feminist” blog to slam one of the greatest female minds in our history. You know, Ayn Rand was and is an amazing example for women. She broke through the boy’s club in her era to become one of the most read female philosophers in recorded history. Ayn Rand had a love for capitalism because of the horrors she observed in her homeland of socialist Russia. Between Feministe and Feministing, I don’t have to leave my apartment to encounter female bashing- I can get it all day long on the internet by reading “feminist” blogs. By the way, the current financial failure has everything to do with the government’s intervention into the free market system. Also, capitalism is the only system of government that protects individual rights. In every other system, the government owns everything and allows individuals to have a distinct, limited amount of power. Also, I am a feminist capitalist. It is possible to be both.
Although I can’t defend her style, I am always surprised by the vehement anti-Rand sentiment on some of the Leftist blogs. Randians have always been stridently pro-choice and have taken great effort to oppose so called “personhood amendments”. You might check out: http://www.seculargovernment.us/ In addition, while Rand never addressed the issue to my knowledge, most Objectivists are in support of gay marriage and agree with the Left on many social issues. It is also counterproductive. While reproductive rights has a political component, for permanent advances to be reached, philosophical changes will need to occur in the culture at large. Alienated potential allies doesn’t appear as a good long term strategy.
Everyone knows that Rand and other libertarian or objectivist types are similar to the left on social issues. That’s not why anyone mocks them. It’s just easier now that anti-regulation politics are in a total shambles. Libertarianism is the new Communism — failed economic politics that only die-hards take seriously and are otherwise just the butt of jokes. A type of joke that I’ve observed a 25% rise in since the recent plummets on Wall Street. Watch for the trend to continue, especially as adolescents continue to play videogames like Bioshock and Bioshock 2, quoting the Ayn Rand parody character as saying things like “A MAN BUILDS… A LEECH EXPECTS A HANDOUT!!” I’m just waiting for the equivalent of “In Mother Russia, chair sits on you!” jokes.
Although I canât defend her style, I am always surprised by the vehement anti-Rand sentiment on some of the Leftist blogs. Randians have always been stridently pro-choice and have taken great effort to oppose so called âpersonhood amendmentsâ. That’s not really true. The LP ran the rabidly anti-choice and anti-gay Bob Barr for president. Ron Paul has voted against gay adoption; he’s against gays serving openly in the military; and for God’s sake, he doesn’t believe in Evolution or human-induced climate change. Libertarians are not universally pro-choice, some of them aren’t. And they’re definetly hostile to any sort of government funding for family planning. But, that’s not why Libertarians are mocked. Some of their social positions are pretty enlightened. But, Holly hit the nail on the head. It’s the slavish purity to the wonders and magic of the “free markets” that make them a laughing stock. There’s a reason so many libertarians are 20something, young white males. Its an ideology that can only be bred in a privileged and naive medium. I’ve asked Libertarians to name one single example of a nation-state on earth that successfully and equitably applies the Libertarian model, as espoused by american libertarians. There’s isn’t one. Because it doesn’t work, and people won’t stand for it.
You know, Ayn Rand was and is an amazing example for women. She broke through the boyâs club in her era to become one of the most read female philosophers in recorded history. And yet she minimizes rape in her works of fiction and says that the ultimate look of femininity is to be chained. Not all women are feminists and not all accomplished women should be cast as feminist icons. Margaret Thatcher broke some serious barriers, but I am not about to start holding her up as a beacon for the feminist movement.
Leave it to a âfeministâ blog to slam one of the greatest female minds in our history. ….. Ayn Rand had a love for capitalism because of the horrors she observed in her homeland of socialist Russia. I’m not buying it. Atlas Shrugged was written in 1957. Ayn Rand came to this country in 1926 at the age of 21. She lived in this country for 30 years, and presumably would have seen the results of the great depression and unfettered, unregulated capitalism run amuck. And yet she remained an extremist lassaize faire capitalist. I’m not buying that her childhood in Russia forced her to cling to an amoral code of lassaize faire capitalism and oligarchy. FDR was a capitalist, but at least he realized that the government had to balance the public good against the profit motive.
For Hades’ sake Unapologetic Feminist, Ayn Rand glorified rape in The Foundationhead, called herself a male chauvinist, and said that women should look up to men as heroes. She said that women shouldn’t bother with trying to become the President of the US, as she said it would be psychologically damaging to the woman, who is naturally inclined to look up to men. She was actually a strong opponent of the second-wave feminist movement. Couple that with her raging homophobia, and I’d say that she’s no feminist icon. Seriously? Get a fucking clue already. And yes, Rand was an AWFUL writer. She was the queen of the run-on sentence, and had her characters go off into pages-long monologues. It’s not anti-feminist to say that, or to criticize Rand’s philosophy.
@Peter At one point, there were no nation-states on the planet that had women as leaders, does that mean we should give up on ideals that don’t exist yet? Your argument is garbage. @Jill the author You do know that English was not Rand’s mother tongue right? Your obvious cultural insensitivity bordering on ethnic hatred is disturbing and provides an insight into your privileged world view. Would you dare to so mercilessly attack a Socialist author writing her books in English as a second language? Not bloody likely.
Sheelzebub, I have read a lot about Ayn Rand and I am aware of everything you have mentioned. She was a flawed woman and was wrong on many issues. However, she broke barriers for women with what she did. By becoming recognized and respected as a philosopher she broke into a club that was and still is completely male-dominated. She became an example of a woman with a sharp intellect that men had to take seriously. I am a Ph.D. scientist working in a male-dominated field. What field are you working in? Every day I work with men who think that women, as a group, are intellectually less capable. Any woman who breaks a glass ceiling to prove herself in a man’s world is a hero of mine. Also, Ayn Rand was a strong advocate of abortion rights. So, socially, she was right on some issues. She was also a product of her time and I think if she were alive today, she would hold more progressive views. However, regardless of her differing ideology, she absolutely changed the way that the world perceived women’s intellectual capacity- for the better!
Peter, Regarding your comments on Libertarians being pro-life and anti-gay… Did you know that there are a growing number of Democrats who are pro-life? In fact, during this most recent election there were many commercials paid for by the Democratic party in support of Democratic pro-life candidates. Also, you may not be aware of this, but the Democratic party failed to nominate the most qualified woman running for President in the history of the United States- Hillary Clinton. They also failed to produce a presidential ticket with at least one woman on it! They also nominated two guys who oppose gay marriage! Wow, the Democratic party is looking pretty anti-woman and anti-gay if you ask me. Personally, I do not affiliate myself with any party because I think they are all fatally flawed.
@Unapologetic Feminist I understand that, given your field, you want to have female role models like Ayn Rand who have broken through some enormous glass ceilings, but I think the whole “she was a product of her time” argument is a real intellectual cop-out. It basically says, “I don’t want to acknowledge your very valid criticisms, so I’m going to excuse Rand’s beliefs by citing the time period in which she was raised.” Furthermore, this argument ignores the facts that feminism as an intellectual and philosophical movement existed well before Rand’s time AND there certainly were more progressive women philosophers in Rand’s generation. Simone de Beauvoir is the obvious feminist example, but you could also argue in favor of Simone Weil’s philosophies being feminist. Hell, you could even look to Hannah Arendt (who criticized feminist
(sorry this posted twice! I accidentally hit send before I was done!) @Unapologetic Feminist I understand that, given your field, you want to have female role models like Ayn Rand who have broken through some enormous glass ceilings, but I think the whole âshe was a product of her timeâ argument is a real intellectual cop-out. It basically says, âI donât want to acknowledge your very valid criticisms, so Iâm going to excuse Randâs beliefs by citing the time period in which she was raised.â Furthermore, this argument ignores the facts that feminism as an intellectual and philosophical movement existed well before Randâs time AND there certainly were more progressive women philosophers in Randâs generation. Simone de Beauvoir is the obvious feminist example, but you could also argue in favor of Simone Weilâs philosophies being feminist. Hell, you could even look to Hannah Arendt who, even though she criticized feminism, never espoused the outright misogyny that Rand did.
Thatâs not really true. The LP ran the rabidly anti-choice and anti-gay Bob Barr for president… Objectivist isn’t synonymous with libertarian. I’m not aware of whether most objectivists are in fact good on abortion rights, but Ron Paul, Bob Barr and the LP aren’t objectivists by a long shot. Thereâs a reason so many libertarians are 20something, young white males. Its an ideology that can only be bred in a privileged and naive medium. Which is totally irrelevant to anything. Demographic data (if it’s even true that most libertarians are 20something young white males, is there any data gathering that has been done on this?) is useful for some things, but determining whether an ideology is closer to the truth than others is not one of them.
Ayn Rand is a poor role model for women. As for breaking a glass ceiling in the field of philosophy, she’s hardly taken seriously by academics. Greed and self-interest are the earmarks of Rand’s objectivism–about as feminist as Dick Cheney.
jill might mock ayn rand lovers, but that just cuts her out of a potential dating pool. take a look at TheAtlasphere.com, a match.com site for randians. here’s a profile of a guy women like jill will never be able to get: “You should contact me if you are a skinny woman. If your words are a meaningful progression of concepts rather than a series of vocalizations induced by your spinal cord for the purpose of complementing my tone of voice. If youâve seen the meatbot, the walking automaton, the pod-people, the dense, glazy-eyed substrate through which living organisms such as myself must escape to reach air and sunlight. If youâve realized that if speech is to be regarded as a cognitive function, technically they arenât speaking, and you donât have to listen.” via: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/rand-appeal.html
Was Martin Luther King pro-choice? Was Mahatma Ghandi a feminist? Is Barack Obama a supporter of gay marriage? Why should we completely ignore a thought leader just because s/he is not 100 percent correct? We must take her/him in context. This post exposes the absolutist thinking that cripples so many of the frequenters of this blog.
Was Martin Luther King pro-choice? Was Mahatma Ghandi a feminist? Is Barack Obama a supporter of gay marriage? Why should we completely ignore a thought leader just because s/he is not 100 percent correct? We must take her/him in context. I couldn’t disagree more. We’re not talking about gay marriage. Obama isn’t the most progressive on that issue. We’re talking about fundamental human values. Ayn Rand actively hated gays, and thought them demented and perverse. Has Obama ever indicated that his values hold that gays are basically subhuman? I’m not buying the argument that she was merely a product of her “times”. There were plenty of people, and women in particular, who were far more enlightened than her in the 50s and 60s. And she lived through the Great Depression, and yet still clung to the law of the jungle capitalism that is an affront to progressive people. Now, was Rand famous, ambitious, and did she accomplish a lot? Of course, but to me that’s no reason to hold her out as a righteous symbol of equality and egalitariansim. I find her to be appalling. Its true that broadly speaking some Libertarians and some Ayn Rand disciples may have enlightened social views. That’s not, in particular, why Libertarians are viewed as jokes. Its the whole lassaize faire capitalist system they hold out as their model for “freedom”. Freedom to them, largely, means extremely low taxes and property rights. The law of the jungle for everyone; free markets will work like magic; and any kind of social welfare or economic justice is for communists. Anyone who’s lived through the last 8 years, and stil thinks wholesale deregulation, lassaize faire capitalism, and the dismantling of environmental and social programs is a fantastic idea deserves all the scorn they get.
Was Martin Luther King pro-choice? Was Mahatma Ghandi a feminist? Is Barack Obama a supporter of gay marriage? Ahahaahahahahaa. This is too hilarious for the sheer backwardness and irony. Ayn Rand’s FUNDAMENTAL philosophies that set her apart from other thinkers are exactly what attract utter tools (c..f. personal ad above) to her work, and are exactly what everyone makes fun of for being pathological, one-dimensional, impractical and morally grotesque. I mean, go back and READ the link in the original post. It doesn’t get more targeted than that, regardless of what tangents were brought up later about Ayn Rand’s pro-choice politics. In fact, it was Rand zombies who brought up her “other” politics in her defense.
Out: Was Martin Luther King pro-choice? Was Mahatma Ghandi a feminist? Is Barack Obama a supporter of gay marriage? Why should we completely ignore a thought leader just because s/he is not 100 percent correct? We must take her/him in context. Well, I didn’t ignore you just because you can’t spell “Gandhi,” o Maker of Strawmen. I’m one of those good socialists, though. Unapologetic Feminist: Really, capitalism is the only system that protects the rights of individuals? Pray tell, how many rights do starving people have? How many rights do the people in entire nations exploited just so one country can enjoy the fruits of consumptive prosperity have? How many rights are guaranteed to those the “free market” devours because it provides no recourse for the oppressed to stand against the privileged, except for “voting with their wallets,” already empty? How is someone automatically “feminist” rather than feminist
“Anyone whoâs lived through the last 8 years, and stil thinks wholesale deregulation, lassaize faire capitalism, and the dismantling of environmental and social programs is a fantastic idea deserves all the scorn they get.” O please, this has to be one of the most privileged statements I’ve ever read. A pampered american living in one of the wealthiest nations in the world talking as if he just lived thru the cultural revolution, the ukrainian famine, or nehru’s license raj. you want libertarians to own their failure despite the role of fannie and freddie and the federal reserve in this crises? fine. i agree, it is annoying how ideologies dodge responsibility by claiming their purist system never existed. but then do randians get credit for america’s weatlh, innovation, and superpower status? why only blame them when things go wrong? And what of the other side. there are plenty of socialists on this board. do they have to own up to cuba’s police state, the poverty that was pre-thatcher great britain, the thuggish oppression of hugo chavez, or the orwellian world of n.Korea. why aren’t angela davis or simone de beavoir kicked out of the feminist movement for their sympathy with left-wing totalitarianism?
Sorry for the double post. Out: Was Martin Luther King pro-choice? Was Mahatma Ghandi a feminist? Is Barack Obama a supporter of gay marriage? Why should we completely ignore a thought leader just because s/he is not 100 percent correct? We must take her/him in context. Well, I didnât ignore you just because you canât spell âGandhi,â o Maker of Strawmen. Iâm one of those good socialists, though. Unapologetic Feminist: Really, capitalism is the only system that protects the rights of individuals? Pray tell, how many rights do starving people have? How many rights do the people in entire nations exploited just so one country can enjoy the fruits of consumptive prosperity have? How many rights are guaranteed to those the âfree marketâ devours because it provides no recourse for the oppressed to stand against the privileged, except for âvoting with their wallets,â already empty? How is someone automatically âfeministâ rather than feminist for criticizing Objectivism? Is it because a woman came up with it? Is it always anti-feminist to criticize the ideas of a woman? How many ways does a woman have to harm other women–or espouse the inferiority of women–before criticizing her isn’t a disqualifier for your feminism any more? Is the success of an individual woman always a victory for women on the whole? What if that women’s success is built on harm to other women? I mean, honestly, it was regulation that caused the financial market and economy to collapse? It was too many restrictions on what these Titans of Industry could have and do that made them do so much harm to others in their quest for obscene wealth? You espouse the success of Hillary Clinton, but what are your feelings on regulations to fight gender discrimination? How long would it have taken the Unfettered Free Market to give her the right to vote, let alone to apply her talents in law school and beyond? Seriously.
do randians get credit for americaâs weatlh, innovation, and superpower status? If you’re saying that a free market, a spirit of entrepreneurship, and incentives to innovate were partly or largely responsible for those things, sure fine, I can go along with that. But the idea that it was followers of Ayn Rand and only them who promoted those things — not any other kinds of supporters of free markets or innovation — is utterly laughable. Of course it wasn’t just Randites who supported the unregulated excesses either — there were a lots of other kinds of greedy, self-serving assholes out there — but the reason it’s easy to make fun of the Randites is because they demarcate an extreme of a certain kind of “A is GOOD, B is BAD” philosophy of excess. I don’t think it’s necessary to praise or “give credit” to someone who promotes a certain economic or political direction to excess, even if in moderation that direction can be a good thing. I think it’s necessary to mock them. I think the Internet is by and large a Great Invention of Mankind, and I also happily mock those who hold it up as the utopian solution to all of society’s problems or long for nothing more than to build a new world in Second Life. For the record, I definitely consider myself a free market capitalist. But I don’t worship at the altar of the free market or consider it a panacea — no sober economist who’s not driven by unsound interests would. And it’s not like socialism is entirely incompatible with free markets or innovation either — I mean, look at the network and mobile technology empire of Scandinavia. The philosophical monomania and juvenile cheerleading of Rand’s followers is what makes them laughingstocks, case closed.
O please, this has to be one of the most privileged statements Iâve ever read. A pampered american living in one of the wealthiest nations in the world talking as if he just lived thru the cultural revolution Calm down. This thread isn’t about me, or the ridiculous caricatures you create about me. do randians get credit for americaâs weatlh, innovation, and superpower status? why only blame them when things go wrong? They get no credit. The growth of a strong, vibrant middle class, and a relatively equitable society came about because of labor unions, the women’s movement, the civil rights movement, and the New Deal Kenynsians. Rand freak didn’t even exist until the late 1950. This country practiced Keynsian capitalism until the 1980s. The only ideology in america’s past that can be remotely linked to Rand worshippers, are the capitalists of the Guilded Age of the 19th century. And that wasn’t exactly a just, or equitable society. And there certainly wasn’t any vibrant middle class to speak of. And what of the other side. there are plenty of socialists on this board. do they have to own up to cubaâs police state, the poverty that was pre-thatcher great britain, the thuggish oppression of hugo chavez, or the orwellian world of n.Korea. This is the classic Libertarian strawman. Everyone who is a liberal, a progressive, or left of center, is just like Stalin, Mao, or Castro! Please. This strawman isn’t even worth a response. Left of center, and progressives are among the most successful capitalists on the planet. Case in point: Sweden, Finland, and Norway. Can you please point me to an actual example of a successful, and prosperous nation-state that employs the economic philosophy of Ayn Rand and american Libertarians? You can’t. Because Randian/Libertarian philosophy is just an exercise in mental masturbation, codified as a theoretical exercise on a coffee stained piece of paper. There are no actual examples of where it is employed successfully in the real world. And this is a trait that Libertarians share with Communists. There’s never any example of their philosophy actually working effectively in the real world. Which was kind of the point of this thread. Libertarians deserve to be mocked, because its a half baked philosophy that can’t work in the real world, and is worshipped by an exceedingly small, and predominantly white male subculture.
To Holly and the rest of the socialists on here: First of all, we have never had free market capitalism in this society. We have always had a mixed economy. Second of all, the current downfall of our economy is linked heavily to the government intervention into the markets, with the Community Reinvestment Act which forced banks to give loans to people who couldn’t afford mortgages. I don’t think people on this blog have a good understanding of economic theory. We can look at history and see that communist and socialist countries have had the WORST conditions for the people living there. In contrast, capitalist-leaning countries (because AGAIN no country has every had free market capitalism) have increased the standard of living the MOST for people not only in their countries, but around the globe. Capitalism is a convenient scapegoat for people who don’t understand economics. The truth though is you can thank capitalism for this blog, because it is the only system which encourages individual innovation. In socialist/communist countries there is no incentive to be innovative- that is why it has always failed. What socialist/communist countries can you think of that are beacons of individual rights and prosperity? Back to Ayn Rand… here is a list of why she rocks: 1. She was an athiest (unlike the referenced Hannah Arendt who was a Christian mystic). Abrahamic religion is the most influential source of sexism in our world today. Any person against Abrahamic religion is a friend of feminism. 2. She didn’t have kids and her career came first. 3. She completely broke out of gender stereotypes. 4. She spoke her mind with authority. 5. She spoke out for pursuing your individual passion, rather than living for another person. This is especially important as women have been imprisoned by the idea that they must buy into altruism and taking care of everyone else first. 6. She wrote books that were read by millions of people. 7. She abhorred hedonism and greed, despite what people on here say (most of whom I would wager haven’t even read her books). Holly- I think “Out” makes some good points and it seems intellectually small of you to resort to name-calling.
@Manju “why arenât angela davis or simone de beavoir kicked out of the feminist movement for their sympathy with left-wing totalitarianism?” I completely agree that self-proclaimed socialists/leftist thinkers should actively criticize the horrors that left-wing totalitarian governments inflicted on their people and the thinkers who endorsed them. I don’t think criticism means completely disavowing a particular thinker and their entire body of work. Correct me if I’m wrong, but given the context of this discussion, the way you phrased the sentence above seems to insinuate that you feel it is hypocritical that Ayn Rand has been “kicked out of the feminist movement” while Angela Davis & Simone de Beauvoir remain in the club. However, if we’re talking specifically about feminism, I think there is a huge difference between the disavowal of someone like, say Angela Davis, and the disavowal of someone like Ayn Rand. In spite of Angela Davis’s often frightening allegiance to communist ideology, she still created a revolutionary body of work that at its base aimed to empower women and women of color in particular. For this reason, I think it would be foolhardy for a feminist movement to completely dismiss her entire body of work. You cannot say the same thing of Ayn Rand. Whatever you think of her economic ideologies, I don’t think you can reasonably argue that her body of work has done anything to progress the women’s movement, and hence, I think it’s perfectly reasonable that her work be dismissed within the context of a feminist discussion.
Holly- I think âOutâ makes some good points and it seems intellectually small of you to resort to name-calling. Oh, guilty as charged. I don’t take this subject (objectivism and the greatness of Ayn Rand) seriously at all, and wouldn’t dream of doing so. It would be an insult to every other political philosopher. p.s. Go back and read the part where I mention that I’m a free-market capitalist.
The assertion that the government is largely responsible for the financial meltdown, is a last-ditch effort by “free market” extremists to dodge responsibility for failures of excessive free market theology….and it isn’t true: Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis WASHINGTON â As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail. Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006. Federal Reserve Board data show that: * More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions. * Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. * Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html I’m not in a position to say who “belongs” in the feminist movement, and I don’t think that’s what this thread was about. Angela Davis said some appalling things about communists. I’m not a good judge of who belongs in the feminist movement, and I wouldn’t presume to be a good judge. The thread was about the morality and complete ineffectiveness of free market extremism, and worshipping at the altar of lassaize faire capitalism. Trying to conflate american liberals with Stalin or Castor is just a weak strawman, that libertarians always toss out. I’ve never met a liberal who considered themselves a communist. Communists consider themselves communists. The most successful and egalitarian societies on earth are those that practice hybrid economies, which mix the practice of capitalism and social welfare. Liberals would point to Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, maybe even Canada as examples of relatively ideal progressive, left of center societies. Which countries to american Libertarians point to as a real world examples of their vision of extreme lassaize faire capitalism?
left-wing totalitarian governments Where are these left-wing (i.e. liberal,) governments you speak of? Thailand is more relaxed in some ways, but for instance their drug laws are decidedly not left leaning (liberal). Mexico has more liberal sexual and social laws, but is extremely unfriendly to indigenous and poor people, in lockstep with the wishes of US business interests. Remember, we’re unwashed left-wing liberals here. Fairness, and all that. It’s important to use the correct words when you speak.
Manju, do you really think the last 8 years have been a picnic for Americans? I know some people in New Orleans who might beg to differ.. just because you apparently don’t include in them in the past 8 years of America doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
“This is the classic Libertarian strawman. Everyone who is a liberal, a progressive, or left of center, is just like Stalin, Mao, or Castro!” Peter, notice how you replaced “socialist” with “liberal”, ignored the inclusion of “pre-thatcher great britain” then rail against your own strawman construction of my argument. If randians are asked to own the failure of a system that they don’t advocate, and one they are not responsible for by your own argument, simply because the system in question has many similarities with what they advocate, then shouldn’t socialists (and i don’t mean capitalists who want some social welfare like yourself and holly) also own failures far more serious than what we see in the US? i’ve seen many real socialists in the feminist blogesphere. renee comes to mind, a blogger over at alas features pics of lennin, one guest blogger here wrote to inform us that anyone who is a capitalist, presumably including you and holly, can’t be considered a feminist as well. maybe you mock them as well? i don’t know. just curious.
“The assertion that the government is largely responsible for the financial meltdown, is a last-ditch effort by âfree marketâ extremists to dodge responsibility for failures of excessive free market theologyâŚ.and it isnât true:” Peter: the stats you cite are highly parsed, cherrypicking certain years in an attempt to play down the role of government, specifically fannie and freddie. from the very article you cite: “Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent” Now 48 and 24 are astronomical %s for just 2 companies. You see, Fannie and Freddie are not regular companies, theyâre products of the New Deal and have evolved into government sponsored entities with almost unlimited borrowing power that essentially make the mortgage market and provided the bulk of liquidity for these subprime mortgages. Without this market, lenders would have to bear the risk themselves and ibankers would have to rely on private investors, like hedge funds, to take the risks off their books. and reducing the crises to subprime, although that was the trigger, is also problematic and an attempt to parse the facts in a way that singles our private companies, which is not to say they didn’t play a huge role. all properties were in a bubble, and bubbles are very dangerous, especailly since F&F insure the bulk of mortgages and the crash rocked thier LTV ratio making F&F arguably insolvable. F and F simply make the secondary mortgage market. they control trillions whereas the largest arb hedgefunds control around 30billionish. now, as the level headed realist here i think you can appreciate an attempt to not pigeonhole this crises into an ideological narrative (unregulated free markets led to this) by avoiding inconvenient facts. your asking libertarians to own a failure while realists like us somehow don’t have to answer to the inherit problems of our own system, one which you take credit for when things go right? what about the crony capitalism that leads to a bailout of rubin and citi, an inherent problem of a mixed economy? what about F&F’s lobbying of congress to prevent regulation that bush and mccain pushed for? why are randians asked to answer for this, not you, me or holly?
Oh- one other awesome thing about Ayn Rand is that you don’t just read her books in women’s studies classes, unlike most of the feminist authors mentioned on this blog. I wholeheartedly agree with Camille Paglia on this one issue- women should be writing books that are read by people in the sciences, in economics, in philosophy, in English- not just in women’s studies classes. If we don’t bust into the mainstream, we will remain a marginalized group in society at large.
@Unapologetic Feminist Can you really argue that Ayn Rand is widely taught at a university level? She is very much considered a joke in philosophy departments as various articles by scholars in the field (an article by David Sidorsky comes to mind) can attest. Similarly, she’s rarely taught in English university departments since her style of fiction is considered by many literary critics to be lacking in formal sophistication. I can’t say whether or not she’s taught in economics classes, but from my experience with both philosophy and literary departments I can tell you that her work is not highly regarded in the least. Granted, I am very critical of academia as an institution and I believe that many authors are dismissed by academics unfairly, but for the purpose of this argument, I don’t think your statement that she is widely taught really holds through. And who are these unnamed feminist authors you’re referencing? I can think of a number of important feminist thinkers and authors whose works are widely taught outside of Women’s Studies departments: Gloria Anzaldua (English, Spanish, American Culture departments, departments focused on the study of race & ethnicity), Catherine Mackinnon (law, political science, history), Judith Butler (philosophy, linguistics, comparative literature, American Culture, history, political science, Jewish Cultural Studies), bell hooks (sociology, history, American Culture, departments focused on the study of race & ethnicity), Andrea Smith (sociology, American Culture departments, history, departments focused on the study of race & ethnicity), Martha Nussbaum (philosophy), just to name a few.
really, y’all. Engaging intellectually with Randroids is just going to give you a headache. They say the same dumb, narcsissistic things over and over again. Beside, then you start thinking about all the harm that libertarian ideas have done to you and your family and your community and you get insane with anger and heartbreak and nobody wins. Let’s just laugh and move on.
Wow, I am so late to this party…but, I feel like adding my two cents anyway. Anyway, at risk of being banned from the house party…I own two Ayn Rand books! *gasp shock horror* I actually quite liked the novels – probably because I never mistook them for a fully formed philosophy. (Also, and semi ironically, I often quoted stuff from AS to a former employer, who seemed hell bent on punishing the competent.) There are gaping holes in the ideas of Objectivism (I’m leaving the capitalism aspect alone for a second.) I was actually going to blog about this for Racialicious, but my pop culture hook (the AS movie) has been shelved indefinitely. Having read Ayn Rand, I must say I am seriously disappointed with where her writing and the institute have taken their ideas. Dividing the world into the âcivilizedâ and the âsavagesâ Rand and her followers to this day hold some very Utopian ideals about society â namely that the rights of the individual usurp all else. This has led to some interesting balancing acts. From the Wiki Entry: Rand defended the right of businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, race, or any other criteria. Rand’s defenders argue that her opposition to government intervention to end private discrimination was motivated by her valuing individual rights above civil (due to a rejection of the concept of “collective rights”) and therefore her view did not constitute an endorsement of the morality of the prejudice per se. Rand argued that no one’s rights are violated by a private individual’s or organization’s refusal to deal with him, even if the reason is irrational. Rand did oppose ethnic and racial prejudice on moral grounds, in essays like “Racism” and “Global Balkanization,” while still arguing for the right of individuals and businesses to act on such prejudice without government intervention. She wrote, “Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism… [the notion] that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors,”[56] but also opposed governmental remedies for this problem: “Private racism is not a legal, but a moral issue â and can be fought only by private means, such as economic boycott or social ostracism.”[57] Racism is “crudely primitive” says Rand. And yet⌠Rand supported Israel during the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, which she saw as an attack on a government that supported individual rights: “The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it’s the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are.”[45] Objectivism is riddled with these cute little contradictions. What is also interesting to mention is that Rand’s ideals only work as long as people are inherently good – if everyone places a high amount of value on the benefits of a job well done, and if those who own businesses and innovate also provide fair wages and salaries to those that work with them. And, while I am no pessimist, that also strikes me as a bit of a stretch.
“They say the same dumb, narcsissistic things over and over again.” I don’t know, if Randians were to identify with a Greek god it wouldn’t be Narcissus…it would be Zeus.
What?? What about Atlas, that enduring symbol of how hard-working productive geniuses like the Randians have to hold up all of society for everyone else, like those wanton partying gods up on Olympus?
“What?? What about Atlas” o yeah. i think i botched an old woody allan joke, which goes something like this: “i’m not narcissistic, in fact if i were to identify with a greek god it wouldn’t be narcissus…it would be zeus”
UF, Ayn Rand breaking some barriers doesn’t make her views immune to criticism or satire. I have read a lot about Ayn Rand and I am aware of everything you have mentioned. She was a flawed woman and was wrong on many issues. However, she broke barriers for women with what she did. By becoming recognized and respected as a philosopher she broke into a club that was and still is completely male-dominated. She became an example of a woman with a sharp intellect that men had to take seriously. I am a Ph.D. scientist working in a male-dominated field. What field are you working in? Every day I work with men who think that women, as a group, are intellectually less capable. Any woman who breaks a glass ceiling to prove herself in a manâs world is a hero of mine. Everyday I work with and deal with men who think that women are less capable. So? Plenty of women have broken glass ceilings, but that doesn’t mean they are feminists. Rand was an outspoken anti-feminist by her own reckoning. Also, Ayn Rand was a strong advocate of abortion rights. So, socially, she was right on some issues. Sure. That doesn’t mean that I won’t point out that I find her philosophy completely wrong-headed and her views on male-female sexuality creepy. She was also a product of her time and I think if she were alive today, she would hold more progressive views. Not necessarily. Why do you think this? There are plenty of outspoken women today who do not hold progressive views at all. However, regardless of her differing ideology, she absolutely changed the way that the world perceived womenâs intellectual capacity- for the better! Except that isn’t under debate. Actually, nothing was under debate; this was a post linking to a post that lampooned her writing (which was frankly awful) and her Objectivist philosphy (which should be fine for people to disagree with, no?). Disagreeing with Rand’s philosophy or even lampooning it does not equal female bashing.
Sheezlebub, The fact that you said the following: ” Everyday I work with and deal with men who think that women are less capable. So? Plenty of women have broken glass ceilings, but that doesnât mean they are feminists.” shows me how incredibly naive you are. Seriously, what field do you work in? You don’t have a freaking clue what it is like to break a glass ceiling in a male-dominated field.
Sheezlebub, We celebrate every woman who breaks a glass ceiling and that IS my definition a feminist. What is your definition of a feminist?
“We celebrate every woman who breaks a glass ceiling and that IS my definition a feminist. What is your definition of a feminist?” way to be completely intellectually lazy! by your standard, all African-Americans should hold Alan Keyes up as a major figure of inspiration in their community, gay-hate notwithstanding (remember, he kicked hid daughter out & financially cut her off when she came out of the closet), never minding his hideous statements about the community of his birth. my sub-grouping, right or wrong!
Oh, good god, there’s misinformation all over this thread. Unapologetic Feminist, you’re the worst offender, but not the only one. First of all, Hannah Arendt a Christian mystic? WTF? Ahem. Arendt was a German-Jewish atheist philosopher who studied under Martin Heidegger. She fled the Nazis and settled in the US (She was influential in the New School for Social Research.). She was known to admire some Jewish mystical writing, but is known for her thoroughly secular political philosophy… And was never a “mystic” of any kind. Second, Ayn Rand is not considered to be a philosopher…by any other philosophers–and by no means a “great philosopher.” I think the great suckitude of Ayn Rand is probably…the only issue on which continental philosophers and analytic philosophers are in general agreement throughout the United States. She has never been taken seriously as a philosopher. She was an ideologue and hack novelist. Philosophers do not read her–not in this case because of sexism, but because objectivism is an impoverished theory and a waste of our time. That is all for now. Jesus.
here is why Rand can go suck a fuck. Have you ever tried DATING a Randian man ? The most annoying, exhausting and soul killing experience possible.