Women in Freethought; II
Presented by Barb Neumann, Instructor
About the Speaker
About the Event
Announcements
Meeting Minutes for January 12, 2000; #60.
Please note, if you have not already done so, that the new e-mail
address for the group contact is and the new
website for FAOWM is http://my.voyager.net/freethought as the former
ones will not remain for long.
We continued with our “tradition” of going to Applebees after the
meeting for libations & social time. Thanks to those who volunteered
to bring in refreshments for the close of our meetings. We do,
however, need more volunteers to continue this. So far, our next
meeting only (1/26) is covered. We need people to bring in snacks and
drinks for Feb. 9th & 23rd, March 8th & 22nd and April 12 & 26th. If
you can help with any of these times, contact Charles LaRue; (616)
458-2992, or e-mail to . Thank you!
The next 5 meeting topics are: “Internet Filtering @ Public Libraries”
moderated by Tim VanHaitsma; “Animal Rights” moderated by Simon
Hatley; “Buddhism” moderated by Steve Andersen; “Evolutionary
Psychology” moderated by Dr, Greg Miklashek, and “Evolution of Human
Sexuality” moderated by Dr. Carl Bajema. All will take place @ 7PM,
and, so far are scheduled for being presented @ the Wyoming Public
Library.
Jeff announced that we would be able to use a very accomodating space
& parking @ the Grand Rapids Community College for our meetings while
the Wyoming Library is being rebuilt. Dr, Greg Forbes is coordinating
this with us and we can begin meeting there, downtown Gr, anytime
between now and the end of April, which would allow FAOWM member
Forbes to show us around and get our foot in the door for access. Give
us feedback on when you would be comfortable relocating or if you have
any questions/ concerns.
A newly updated membership directory was made available. Any additions
or changes to it you may have, please send along to our e-mail
address.
We were recently contacted by a man who saw our group notice in the GR
Press, about giving a presentation on phrenology. Most of our
membership is likely to be skeptical of this generally discredited
psychological concept of reading character traits, etc. from the
cranial shapes of the subject. However, if there is sufficient
interest, we will consider it for a future topic.
It was mentioned, in humorous fashion, that Holland, MI is now safe
from one of its evil influences, with the removal of Harry Potter
books from access by schoolchildren.
——————————————————————————————————h3. Presentation
Our meeting topic was titled “Women in Freethought; II” moderated by
Barb Neumann. She was to have presented a discussion topic on Ayn Rand
@ an earlier meeting but an auto accident had prevented this. So she
focused on Rand’s philosophy and writings primarily for this meeting.
Ayn Rand (1905-1982) was born in St. Petersburg, Russia and came to
the US in 1926, where she worked as a screenwriter and scriptreader in
Hollywood. Her early novels included We The Living (‘36) and Anthem
(‘38). These dealt with dystopias & dictatorships as warnings against
monolithic sociopolitical systems (such as Fascism & Communism).
In The Fountainhead (‘43), she introduced her philosophy of
objectivism; or the pursuit of rational self-interest. She wrote of
the necessity for humans to understand and accept reality as the basis
for judgment & values, and encouraged people to live for themselves;
neither sacrificing their own goals for others, nor bending others’
wills to their own. Love, she felt, was achieved through personal
self-esteem.
Her magnum opus; Atlas Shrugged (‘57), was considered the search for
the perfect egoist. Both the Left & the Right decried her concepts;
the Left, due to her strong defense of unfettered capitalism, and the
Right for her resolute atheism. After Atlas Shrugged, she began
publishing The Objectivist Newsletter and became a lecturer on the
Objectivist philosophy she extolled. Her non-fiction in the ‘60’s
included The Virtue of Selfishness: A Concept of New Egoism and
Introduction to Objectivist Epitemology.
She once stated that her philosophy, in essence, was ”(t)he concept of
man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of
his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and
reason as his only absolute.” She believed one should perceive reality
for ones’ self, not “to create or invent it,” and to reject claims by
other groups or individuals of their reality. She considered herself a
Romantic Realist; romantic in the sense that she presented men as they
ought to be—and a realist in that they were placed in the here & now
and firmly grounded on the Earth. Her fictional characters were an end
unto themselves, not a means to other ends.
Barb passed out materials related to her interest in Rand and quipped
about her “mental bracelet” she wore with the letters “W.W.A.G.O.D.”
for What Would A Good Objectivist Do.
Her presentation generated a great deal of commentary. Regarding
altruism, she noted that a non-hypocritical version, Rand might say,
was one that helped you live; for your own rational self-interest—not to live for others. She quoted Rand in saying that “All good comes
out of the evil inclination.” Relationships, to be healthy, had to be
reciprocal- a give & take; mutually stimulating & satisfying.
We discussed the mothering instict and whether it denied this selfish
pursuit that Rand promoted. Richard Dawkins’ writings and other
evolutionary thought entered @ this point, regarding the unconscious
will to pass on one’s genetic legacy and care for this investment; the
toll in time and energy expenditure it takes during pregnancy,
birthing and care for babies and how this sets up a dichotomy between
male and female roles and strategies. A big factor, many believed, in
women historically having a less vibrant role in society was this
biological restraint of motherhood.
We talked about the changing roles of women, the biblical & historical
reasons for inequality in sex roles, what basis there was in the past
for these roles to emerge and the language & modelling we
unconsciously use to reinforce the status quo.
Religion was mentioned as the ultimate stabilizing force. Where there
is familiarity there is comfort. This was seen as possibly a
contributing factor in why there are such significant disparities,
statistically, between men & women in their religious beliefs- with
women far more likely to believe in the doctrines and dogmas of their
faith in general. Religion oppresses with one hand while it protects
women with the other. Women were the ones given the task of passing
along the societal norms, the memes, so to say and had, historically,
far less access to the outside world of discovery, disconfirming
information, disparate belief systems and education than men. All no
doubt, contributed to these differences in aptitudes and interests
seen.
Another interesting thought had to do with how it was with economic
privilege that women who made the bold boat- rocking impacts were able
to do so. And again, with wet-nurses, nannies, etc., these women were
relieved of the voracious consumption of their resources of time &
energy, due to childcare.
World War II was mentioned as one defining moment in women gaining a
foothold toward equal rights, with so many entering the paid workforce
then. We also discussed the pre- and post-industrial periods of
history and how they shaped the division of labor and what traditional
role concepts could survive a lessening need for the male contribution
to the relationship in modern times.
We discussed our personal experiences, raising sons and daughters,
changes seen, stereotypes blunted, and how what once was accepted is
no longer generally tolerated. Again, at this juncture, the biblical
assignment of second-class citizenry for women was talked about. The
book Woe Unto Women, The Bible Tells Me So was brought up then.
We ended by drifting into talk about the political aspects of Rand’s
anti-collectivism/anti-altruism (she saw totalitarianism & religion as
two sides of the same coin of altruism)/ pro-capitalistic ideas, what
problems can arise in either extreme of the continuum, and how her
concepts may lead to the Libertarian premise; and how that would
actually work. We talked of the notion of the US as a “kleptocracy”-
where whomever can hoard the most wins. The corrupting influence of
money in politics and information and how this is ultimate power, was
discussed. Without brakes to unfettered capitalism or a balance
between greed and societal good, it was mentioned, then ultimately
only one winner emerges. Rand felt that people should be the
best they could be, no matter their role. The other side is that when
some fail to do this, there is breakdown in the system.
recorder: Charles LaRue
