I made a statement on my Facebook account some time ago. The statement sprung from wondering why Ayn Rand never had children, yet wrote something as profoundly inspiring as The Fountainhead – so much so that it would be accurate to say it has survival value.
The statement that came to me was that
“Man breathes life into the world, and woman breathes life into man”.
I will take the time to explore this statement today, and how the dots have become connected internally for me, in regards to how accurate I was in my original remark – yet was unable to fully explain the statement then, even to my own self.
To begin, Ayn stated throughout the course of her life that the purpose of her work was to depict the ideal man.
Take note of the italicized her in that sentence, because while Ayn was human, she was of the female gender.
While some of her critics state that Ayn was very masculine, I think, the exact opposite was true to the highest degree possible.
I am in fact convinced that Ayn’s achievements are the full expression of her sex’s specific potential.
Which is not to be confused with the eternal success and monumental human achievement of her written works, and in what they expressed on philosophical, moral, ethical, and other levels – profound advancements that we all benefit from today.
What I am referring to is the uniquely female, deeply feminine under current of her work – to depict the ideal man.
Her unparalleled passion for this depiction – rarely seen in human history — throughout her work and entire life, I think, is her most overlooked and grossly undervalued achievement, and correspondingly the greatest female achievement possible.
Primarily, and perhaps strictly female to this high of a degree, because she did psychologically what only women are capable of physically – producing life and giving birth to man.
And she did it on a scale never before seen in the form of her epic novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.
Ayn Rand breathed and continues to breathe life into every man willing and able to receive it (in the form of inspiration).
This is the true essence of the purpose she declared for her work, to depict the ideal man.
To depict is to breathe into. And every man has the potential to live congruently – to live his ideals.
This is why, I think, Ayn never chose to have children. Imagine how difficult it is to give physical birth to a child. Now think of doing that psychologically your entire life.
And doing it better than any woman before you ever has on so grand a scale – in such a way that the breath is permanent and ever lasting.
A legacy of the successful depiction of the ideal man.
The mental “click” I had today is that
“Man breathes life into the world, and woman breathes life into man.”
is the clearest example possible in our race of a complementary difference between the sexes.
It is the fountainhead complementary difference that I think, all others are subsequent of and stem from.
It is the core reason we have founding fathers of the American States and not founding mothers. Yet behind the founding fathers and their generation were the women who supported them absolutely and completely — mothers, wives, daughters, sisters, friends, and everything in between.
It is the same reason Rand’s heroes were primarily men.
It is the cardinal reason Rand was writing books about such men – who do in fact exist – and not out designing buildings and running steel mills herself.
Doing such things was not of higher importance and value to her than writing about such men and achievements – in an age when such men and achievements were and are, scorned and damned by the many.
This was a correct and proper judgment on her part – the same way it is not in a man’s best self interest to attempt to physically produce life.
A strange, but appropriate comparison.
On the reverse, the destruction of this complementary difference is a destruction of both ends. Feminism is a modern expression of such destructive force. Attributing human characteristics to one gender or the other – one that belongs to both, not one or the other – is another expression of this destructive force, as Hammer unknowingly points out here from David Deida.
Quoting both Hammer and David (who Hammer quotes)
“There is an assumption made by this statement that totally ignores the differences between men and women. That assumption is that a woman’s truth is the same as a man’s. That she is capable of making choices for herself now that will be predicated on how she will feel ten minutes from now. From The Way of the Superior Man, Chapter 16:
“Keeping your word” is a masculine trait, in men or women. A person with a feminine essence may not keep her word, yet it is not exactly “lying.” In the feminine reality, words and facts take a second place to emotions and the shifting moods of relationship.”
Integrity is not a masculine trait. It is a human trait equally practice-able by both sexes.
It should be noted, the best women I have ever known, are women of integrity. And I should add, this statement by David Deida is a confession that he believes love to be irrational.
To the contrary, love, and especially romantic love as noted by Nathaniel Branden, is and can only be fully rational*.
*You can’t love any one without a specific and conditional reason. To love without reason is to love unconditionally. To love unconditionally is to love “everyone”, and in the process, no one, because you are making your self incapable of loving any one person more than the next.
Just try saying to some one you love “I love you because you are no better and no worse than the next person, so it might as well be you”.
(This is an impossible contradiction that is an attempt to make the process of valuing, valueless. Valuing no one person more than the next is also an anti-reality half court shot at “equality as an absolute”).
David’s view is contradictory, as especially noted by “… may not keep her word, yet it is not exactly “lying”.”
Of course it is. In fact it is lying in the most exact sense possible. You literally couldn’t be lying any more than you would be in such a situation and course of action.
It should be noted, some thing being popular in parts of the world does not make it right — a la “conventional wisdom“.
On two separate notes concerning Hammer’s post, which are of relevance to this post, Hammer is actually reaffirming one of my primary points on “rape”.
I quote Hammer
“Before I begin though, I want to assert that Anthony is creating a false dichotomy between sexual assault and rape. These are one in the same, and to try to define rape as anything other than sexual assault is just plain wrong.”
What Hammer does not realize – hence the use of the world false – is that rape and sexual assault, are NOT one in the same at present (and that this is not mend-able).
As noted in the cartoon embeded in “In Defense of Rape”, the cartoon uses the word “rapist”, not “sexual assaultist”.
This is illustrated that way for a number of reasons. One of those reasons is specifically that rape has long been detached from it’s chain to sexual assault as a synonymous term (if there ever even was a significant one to begin with).
“Rape”, by today’s standards, is completely undefined — or in other words, is unlimited and can be attributed to almost any act conceivable. As noted in previous posts, it has devolved into a modern day version of calling someone a “witch”.
The problem is that the unrelenting vague usage of this term is abhorrently harmful to a free society, and your very survival and quality of life as a young man. It’s pillaging affects nearly every facet of your life, and especially in your relationships with women (and subsequently vice-versa).
The threat this poses in the 21st century cannot be understated.
If this wasn’t clear earlier, it may have been partially my fault. I will not apologize though. If you can’t run with the big dogs, speak up, catch up, or stay on the porch. I don’t force anyone to read this blog.
The second point I will make stems from a comment left on Hammer’s blog from Lance, who I have met, like, and think highly of.
“To be totally honest, I thought the post was a reach and intended to be imflammatory for the sake of controversy. I say this with utmost respect for Dream’s writing, because I’ve been a fan of his life hacking endeavors and blogging for awhile. “
While I hold no such opinion of Lance or his blog, I find the act, in and of itself, of acting inflammatory and “for the sake of controversy”, deplorable to the highest of degrees.
I would sooner stick a pencil in my eye. I live, write, and work for my own sake. I have no reason and no desire to live through others, and would take my own life before doing so.
Or in the words of James Galt ,
“I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
Such a thing is worse than death. It is the impossible compromise of evil and good existing in reality. It is worse than evil. It is anti-existence.
In summary of the original topic and points, my statement, that is of my own design, is the pinnacle expression of the complementary difference between the sexes.
“Man breathes life into the world, and woman breathes life into man.”
The intellectual – if you can call it that – glob of mindless feminism would have you destroy such a difference. Destroy because feminists seek to destroy everything, the same way collectivists seek to destroy man as the individual that he is.
Put more literally, the highest expression of femininity is to breathe life into man. Physically this is giving birth. Psychologically, as in Rand’s case, it was inspiring the ideal in men to surface in every man. It is up to such men to live the ideal which is possible to them.
Which is to say, the highest expression of masculinity, is to breathe life into the world, for your own reasons, and for your own sake.
“Behind every great man stands a great woman.”*
Ayn Rand stands behind us all — the men of the mind.
– Anthony Dream Johnson
*Ironically, this is an “adopted feminist slogan”. I find this highly amusing, yet also tragic, as another example of feminists adopting an idea that is the intellectual equivalent of a cyanide pill — in their corrupted use of it, as a complete rejection of the highest feminine expression possible.