This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Objectivism and homosexuality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
I can understand (don't necessarily agree) if someone wants to restore some of the material I cut in earlier edits, but I'm not clear on the objection to moving a statement made after Rand's death to the section titled, "After Rand's death". And pointing a wikilink for the article Objectivism (Ayn Rand) directly to that article instead of to a redirect seems to be the sort of thing that is entirely non-controversial. But for some reason it is being reverted. Some explanation would be appreciated. unsigned by User:RL0919
In the first section of this article (Ayn Rand), there are around a dozen statements made by Rand regarding the morality, the aesthetics, and the role of the government regarding homosexuality.
And then the second section (After Rand's death) begins with this sentence:
That's ambiguous about twelve times over! Which of the dozen statements in the first section did Peikoff "go on record" disagreeing with? Did he disagree with some of them and agree with others? If he disagreed with all of them, that would mean he thought that the government should make homosexual activities illegal, but should prevent corporations from discriminating against gay people. I find this very unlikely.
I'd like to see something much more specific. For example, Ayn Rand is quoted as saying that she found homosexuality disgusting. If this is the statement that Peikoff disagreed with, does that mean that Peikoff publicly stated that Ayn Rand did not really find homosexuality disgusting? Or, if he disagreed with her view that gay people have no "right to be protected from discrimination in the private sector", did he specify any limitations on what the government may do to prevent such discrimination? — Lawrence King ( talk) 05:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I followed the edit trail and found that this comment was added on 27 December 2006 by an editor who hasn't made any Wikipedia contributions since March 2009. [1] So I have rephrased the sentence to make it into a simple introduction to the paragraph. I have also removed the footnote, since it points to a web site where I can spend $12 to buy a 99-minute audio tape. Perhaps if I spent this money and played the tape, I might be able to learn exactly which "statement" of Rand's was disputed by Peikoff. But I just don't feel like doing that. (And btw, I don't think that this is a valid Wikipedia reference anyway.) — Lawrence King ( talk) 01:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a statement in the article about Ayn Rand's political views that says the following: "She endorsed rights that protect gays from discrimination by the government (such as apartheid), but rejected the right to be protected from discrimination in the private sector (such as employment discrimination)." There are three sources now attached to this sentence. The first one does not mention gay rights or homosexuality at all. The second one rejects "the notion that homosexuals should be prohibited from experiencing the joy of sex", but doesn't say anything about other types of discrimination, public or private. The third one is a 1998 essay on the subject by an Objectivist, so it may be relevant for the "After Rand's death" section, but doesn't attribute anything to Rand herself other than a general quote about the morality of altruism. Basically this sentence has no source. I've been marking these as "failed verification" in the hope that someone would come up with something, but at this point I think it just needs to be rewritten to say something that can be documented. -- RL0919 ( talk) 15:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Leonard Peikoff, Rands chosen intellectual and legal heir, argued in his podcast that there was nothing against homosexuality included in the philosophy Objectivism. He also claimed that Rand had a number of friends which she knew were homosexual and that she "certainly considered some of them objectivists"
Hopefully this information and the source, a link to the actual podcast, will not be removed from the article.
78.69.217.113 ( talk) 09:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I think there are some questions that go unanswered here. Considering statements (please refer to the podcast in question) made by Leonard Peikoff, a - sometimes even described as "rabid" - original objectivist and who was made the intellectual and legal heir by Ayn Rand herself, is it really accurate to suggest that we know what Rands position was on differing sexualities as such?
I think we might need to be a little more carefull not to use too wide a brush when describing her views in the article.
78.69.217.113 ( talk) 09:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
This entire article is confused, but perhaps more revealingly so in this section...
Rand stated on multiple accounts that a "man-worshipper" could equally well be a man and that it never suggested one persons superiority over oneself. A woman was supposed to be a "hero-worshiper" in specific, because "hero" is the male variant of the word, while heroine is the female variant. She was (stated in particular) not supposed to be commanded, suppressed, viewed or treated as inferior to men; Both intellectually and morally, she should be considered an equal to man and she should be independent.
The sexual attraction itself, for a "woman" qua "woman" (not a "lesbian woman" qua a "lesbian") should stem from the expressed sexual difference between her and the man; from the metaphysical concept of masculinity. This is not a strange homophobic or even "patriarchal" statement, but simply an explanation of heterosexuality and it's role in a heterosexual relationship - and it was done quite separated from the issues of "morality".
- aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/man-worship.html - aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/femininity.html
This is not to say that Rand was not still anti-homosexuality, I remain convinced that it was likely her personal opinion. But terminology should not be confused.
78.69.217.113 ( talk) 10:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. The POV is clearly biased, and the article author is interpreting Rand's ambiguous quotes in a manner that does not adhere to Wikipedia's standard of neutrality. Dm08plyr ( talk) 20:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The words spoken at Ford Hall contradict EVERY published exposition of Objectivist morality. Very likely, she was merely pandering. This ANOMOLOUS spoken expression was watered down in the same breath by her support of the decriminalization of homosexuality. In fact, her moral theory became an argument for activists, with great effect: Sexual orientation is not a simple matter of choice, and any moral judgement of orientation is invalid. This would evolve into the rallying cry "Baby, I was born this way" [1]
"Moral concepts, including 'right', 'good', and 'perfect,' are norms formulated to guide human choice. Such concepts can only refer to that which is within the power of choice" [2]
"The term 'objective,' let me stress here, does not apply to all values, but only to values chosen by man. The values that govern internal bodily functions...are outside the terminology..." [3]
"Sex is moral, it is an exalted pleasure, it is a profound value. Like happiness, therefore, sex is an end in itself; it is not necessarily a means to any further end, such as procreation." [4]
At worst, Rand views on homosexuality were AMBIVALENT. There are few instances of disapproval, and they cannot be logically supported by her standard of morality. The fact that she fearlessly and copiously wrote about sex and yet left no clear written condemnation of homosexuality speaks loudly on this.
Nick Carter, brother to her husband Frank O'Connor, was a very close friend and was also homosexual: "(quoting his niece, Mimi Sutton) 'Nick, with whom Ayn and Franck spent most of their free time...regarded her with a deep, affectionate esteem.' [5]
"[quoting Mimi Sutton, Nick's niece],'For a while, he lived with a young man, who I suppose was his lover. In those days, it was not something one could talk about; Ayn suspected that he was homosexual, and Frank did too, but it was never discussed. Nick would talk as if he were a ladies’ man, and one sensed the pain he felt at having to pretend." [6]
User:Fairthomas|Fairthomas]] ( talk) 17:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
References
>The full context of the quote from "Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice":
"Hypocrisy is to be man’s protector against his professed moral convictions. What does that do to his self-esteem?
And what of the victims who are insufficiently hypocritical?
What of the child who withdraws in terror into an autistic universe because he cannot cope with the ravings of parents who tell him that he is guilty by nature, that his body is evil, that thinking is sinful, that question asking is blasphemous, that doubting is depravity, and that he must obey the orders of a supernatural ghost because, if he doesn’t, he will burn forever in hell?
Or the daughter who collapses in guilt over the sin of not wanting to devote her life to caring for the ailing father who has given her cause to feel only hatred?
Or the adolescent who flees into homosexuality because he has been taught that sex is evil and that women are to be worshiped, but not desired?
Or the businessman...
Or the neurotic..."
>The full context of the quote from "The Disfranchisement of the Right":
"Yet a rightist is threatened with public opprobrium for a susp~c~on of an unproved association with a group that opposes the income tax and the U.N. Women's Lib joins a common front with lesbians and prostitutes, but its indi�vidual members are treated as respectable women. Yet a rightist is regarded as disreputable because the leader of an organization he may have addressed,later joined the John Birch Society.
> The full context of the quote from "The Age of Envy":
""The sex views professed by Women's Lib are so hideous that they cannot be discussed -- at least, not by me. To regard man as an enemy -- to regard women as combination matriarch and stevedore -- to surpass the futile sordidness of a class war by instituting a sex war -- to drag sex into politics and around the floor of smoke-filled back rooms, as a tool of the pressure group, jockeying for power -- to proclaim spiritual sisterhood with lesbians, and to swear eternal hostility to men -- is so repulsive a set of premises from so loathsome a sense of life that an accurate commentary would require the language I do not want to see in print"
Still much to correct, including the statement at Ford Hall, also ambivalent. https://youtube.com/3RTcz5LmeQM?si=cq_s9HxOBAbPGe_W&t=3783
And many citations are superfluous, likely in service of promoting book sales. Fairthomas ( talk) 23:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Objectivism and homosexuality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
I can understand (don't necessarily agree) if someone wants to restore some of the material I cut in earlier edits, but I'm not clear on the objection to moving a statement made after Rand's death to the section titled, "After Rand's death". And pointing a wikilink for the article Objectivism (Ayn Rand) directly to that article instead of to a redirect seems to be the sort of thing that is entirely non-controversial. But for some reason it is being reverted. Some explanation would be appreciated. unsigned by User:RL0919
In the first section of this article (Ayn Rand), there are around a dozen statements made by Rand regarding the morality, the aesthetics, and the role of the government regarding homosexuality.
And then the second section (After Rand's death) begins with this sentence:
That's ambiguous about twelve times over! Which of the dozen statements in the first section did Peikoff "go on record" disagreeing with? Did he disagree with some of them and agree with others? If he disagreed with all of them, that would mean he thought that the government should make homosexual activities illegal, but should prevent corporations from discriminating against gay people. I find this very unlikely.
I'd like to see something much more specific. For example, Ayn Rand is quoted as saying that she found homosexuality disgusting. If this is the statement that Peikoff disagreed with, does that mean that Peikoff publicly stated that Ayn Rand did not really find homosexuality disgusting? Or, if he disagreed with her view that gay people have no "right to be protected from discrimination in the private sector", did he specify any limitations on what the government may do to prevent such discrimination? — Lawrence King ( talk) 05:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I followed the edit trail and found that this comment was added on 27 December 2006 by an editor who hasn't made any Wikipedia contributions since March 2009. [1] So I have rephrased the sentence to make it into a simple introduction to the paragraph. I have also removed the footnote, since it points to a web site where I can spend $12 to buy a 99-minute audio tape. Perhaps if I spent this money and played the tape, I might be able to learn exactly which "statement" of Rand's was disputed by Peikoff. But I just don't feel like doing that. (And btw, I don't think that this is a valid Wikipedia reference anyway.) — Lawrence King ( talk) 01:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a statement in the article about Ayn Rand's political views that says the following: "She endorsed rights that protect gays from discrimination by the government (such as apartheid), but rejected the right to be protected from discrimination in the private sector (such as employment discrimination)." There are three sources now attached to this sentence. The first one does not mention gay rights or homosexuality at all. The second one rejects "the notion that homosexuals should be prohibited from experiencing the joy of sex", but doesn't say anything about other types of discrimination, public or private. The third one is a 1998 essay on the subject by an Objectivist, so it may be relevant for the "After Rand's death" section, but doesn't attribute anything to Rand herself other than a general quote about the morality of altruism. Basically this sentence has no source. I've been marking these as "failed verification" in the hope that someone would come up with something, but at this point I think it just needs to be rewritten to say something that can be documented. -- RL0919 ( talk) 15:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Leonard Peikoff, Rands chosen intellectual and legal heir, argued in his podcast that there was nothing against homosexuality included in the philosophy Objectivism. He also claimed that Rand had a number of friends which she knew were homosexual and that she "certainly considered some of them objectivists"
Hopefully this information and the source, a link to the actual podcast, will not be removed from the article.
78.69.217.113 ( talk) 09:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I think there are some questions that go unanswered here. Considering statements (please refer to the podcast in question) made by Leonard Peikoff, a - sometimes even described as "rabid" - original objectivist and who was made the intellectual and legal heir by Ayn Rand herself, is it really accurate to suggest that we know what Rands position was on differing sexualities as such?
I think we might need to be a little more carefull not to use too wide a brush when describing her views in the article.
78.69.217.113 ( talk) 09:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
This entire article is confused, but perhaps more revealingly so in this section...
Rand stated on multiple accounts that a "man-worshipper" could equally well be a man and that it never suggested one persons superiority over oneself. A woman was supposed to be a "hero-worshiper" in specific, because "hero" is the male variant of the word, while heroine is the female variant. She was (stated in particular) not supposed to be commanded, suppressed, viewed or treated as inferior to men; Both intellectually and morally, she should be considered an equal to man and she should be independent.
The sexual attraction itself, for a "woman" qua "woman" (not a "lesbian woman" qua a "lesbian") should stem from the expressed sexual difference between her and the man; from the metaphysical concept of masculinity. This is not a strange homophobic or even "patriarchal" statement, but simply an explanation of heterosexuality and it's role in a heterosexual relationship - and it was done quite separated from the issues of "morality".
- aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/man-worship.html - aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/femininity.html
This is not to say that Rand was not still anti-homosexuality, I remain convinced that it was likely her personal opinion. But terminology should not be confused.
78.69.217.113 ( talk) 10:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. The POV is clearly biased, and the article author is interpreting Rand's ambiguous quotes in a manner that does not adhere to Wikipedia's standard of neutrality. Dm08plyr ( talk) 20:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The words spoken at Ford Hall contradict EVERY published exposition of Objectivist morality. Very likely, she was merely pandering. This ANOMOLOUS spoken expression was watered down in the same breath by her support of the decriminalization of homosexuality. In fact, her moral theory became an argument for activists, with great effect: Sexual orientation is not a simple matter of choice, and any moral judgement of orientation is invalid. This would evolve into the rallying cry "Baby, I was born this way" [1]
"Moral concepts, including 'right', 'good', and 'perfect,' are norms formulated to guide human choice. Such concepts can only refer to that which is within the power of choice" [2]
"The term 'objective,' let me stress here, does not apply to all values, but only to values chosen by man. The values that govern internal bodily functions...are outside the terminology..." [3]
"Sex is moral, it is an exalted pleasure, it is a profound value. Like happiness, therefore, sex is an end in itself; it is not necessarily a means to any further end, such as procreation." [4]
At worst, Rand views on homosexuality were AMBIVALENT. There are few instances of disapproval, and they cannot be logically supported by her standard of morality. The fact that she fearlessly and copiously wrote about sex and yet left no clear written condemnation of homosexuality speaks loudly on this.
Nick Carter, brother to her husband Frank O'Connor, was a very close friend and was also homosexual: "(quoting his niece, Mimi Sutton) 'Nick, with whom Ayn and Franck spent most of their free time...regarded her with a deep, affectionate esteem.' [5]
"[quoting Mimi Sutton, Nick's niece],'For a while, he lived with a young man, who I suppose was his lover. In those days, it was not something one could talk about; Ayn suspected that he was homosexual, and Frank did too, but it was never discussed. Nick would talk as if he were a ladies’ man, and one sensed the pain he felt at having to pretend." [6]
User:Fairthomas|Fairthomas]] ( talk) 17:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
References
>The full context of the quote from "Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice":
"Hypocrisy is to be man’s protector against his professed moral convictions. What does that do to his self-esteem?
And what of the victims who are insufficiently hypocritical?
What of the child who withdraws in terror into an autistic universe because he cannot cope with the ravings of parents who tell him that he is guilty by nature, that his body is evil, that thinking is sinful, that question asking is blasphemous, that doubting is depravity, and that he must obey the orders of a supernatural ghost because, if he doesn’t, he will burn forever in hell?
Or the daughter who collapses in guilt over the sin of not wanting to devote her life to caring for the ailing father who has given her cause to feel only hatred?
Or the adolescent who flees into homosexuality because he has been taught that sex is evil and that women are to be worshiped, but not desired?
Or the businessman...
Or the neurotic..."
>The full context of the quote from "The Disfranchisement of the Right":
"Yet a rightist is threatened with public opprobrium for a susp~c~on of an unproved association with a group that opposes the income tax and the U.N. Women's Lib joins a common front with lesbians and prostitutes, but its indi�vidual members are treated as respectable women. Yet a rightist is regarded as disreputable because the leader of an organization he may have addressed,later joined the John Birch Society.
> The full context of the quote from "The Age of Envy":
""The sex views professed by Women's Lib are so hideous that they cannot be discussed -- at least, not by me. To regard man as an enemy -- to regard women as combination matriarch and stevedore -- to surpass the futile sordidness of a class war by instituting a sex war -- to drag sex into politics and around the floor of smoke-filled back rooms, as a tool of the pressure group, jockeying for power -- to proclaim spiritual sisterhood with lesbians, and to swear eternal hostility to men -- is so repulsive a set of premises from so loathsome a sense of life that an accurate commentary would require the language I do not want to see in print"
Still much to correct, including the statement at Ford Hall, also ambivalent. https://youtube.com/3RTcz5LmeQM?si=cq_s9HxOBAbPGe_W&t=3783
And many citations are superfluous, likely in service of promoting book sales. Fairthomas ( talk) 23:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)