Below are two comments from a reader and my responses. The picture above is included primarily because it very clearly expresses what I have been saying over multiple posts now : stop chasing.
The second comment set has more to do with chasing than the first comment set, but both should prove insightful.
From Random Indian (source)
Hey Anthony. I’ve commented here before under a few different user names (that I’ve since forgot). I’d like to address a few points.
You state that woman looking up to man is the natural state of womanhood but offer no scientific evidence to back up this claim.
Your point about chasing. If we observe much of the animal kingdom its the males who display (peacocking) and the females who choose amongst the males displaying. The Mystery Method is based on this premise. In modern human society this has been reversed. The females are doing the displaying, replacing the colorful feathers of the male peacock with colorful makeup and clothing, in order to attract the human males, who then choose which females to approach, who then themselves are subject to a reverse selection process when the females then accept or reject their advances.
I guess I’m lucky because my culture does away with chasing on both sides because our families arrange our marriages for us, but we do have ultimate veto power. In other words, we are not forced, if after getting to know the person we do not like him/her, we are free to reject the proposal and then our families will line someone else up for us to meet.
I’m not saying its a perfect system, but it does away with much of the anxiety, heartbreak and general mess I see in the modern western dating scene.
Interesting you bring up Ayn Rand. What disturbed me greatly about The Fountainhead was the rape scenario, following which the vicim fell in love with the criminal who committed the crime against her. I felt this gave a particular insight into Ayn’s inner psychology, which presumably would have been quite dark. That such a criminal would be portrayed as a “hero” of any sort is also disturbing. People may say, “its just a novel” but what authors choose to write about often reflects their values. Ayn positioned herself as a champion for individual rights and freedoms and that she would portray someone who so blatantly trespassed on the freedom and rights of another sovereign individual as some sort of “hero” of any sort flies in the face of her “philosophy” in this readers opinion.
Interesting point here is that I’ve known many immigrants from India (my own family members included) to jump on the Objectivist bandwagon after reading Ayn’s books. This makes sense when you understand how very structured the life of the average India is. We are a very family oriented people and our culture is very vocal in what it expects from us, despite our government being so chaotic and inept. The cultural download is very strong in us. The arranged marriage system reflects that as the marriages are not just randomly arranged but very carefully planned according to the similar socio-economic backgrounds of the two familes coming together, and make no mistake about it – it is two entire families being wed, not just two individuals.
So it makes sense that Objectivism and the emphasis on the individual would look very attractive to someone whom their entire life has done most things that their family expects of them such as pursuing a certain career to marrying a certain type of person, etc. But even with all the Objectivist and individualist talk emanating from their mouths, they ALWAYS fall back on our Indian family system and culture which is evidence in their career choices, marriage choices and general lifestyle. It is this which has made us the “model minority” and most successful SES group in the United States today.
Here’s a qoute from Ayn which I disagree with, “if man is to progress, he must reject the morality of altruism”.
I’ve progressed greatly from acts of altruism. Some of my own and some expected of me culturally and familialy. I’ve helped friends in need (my own choice) who later blossomed on their own and in turn helped me in my pursuits. The return help was not at all expected. I helped them because I genuinely wanted to and it makes me happy to be of service to people I value.
On the other hand it is expected that members of Indian families will help each other, and like a good Indian, I have helped family members, some purely out of personal choice and others purely out of a sense of duty. In both cases I also progressed. Again, this is one of the reasons Indians do so well economically in the United States, we help each other climb the ladder.
Hey Random Indian
Thanks for commenting. In the interest of producing the best comment and maintaining a blog I love, I am going to answer your question very bluntly. In tandem, I believe being this honest is also how you show someone respect.
In responding to your comment I am going to run though it chronologically. I won’t quote, but it should be obvious to what specifically I am responding to.
I stated no such thing. You took something I said and restated it in a way that fit your interpretation, which was an incorrect one. I stated that looking up to man, in concept and in flesh, is the essence of femininity. This is not an automatic, natural process, which is what your comment implies. It is absolutely not the default state of “womanhood”, a word I did not and do not use. The essence of femininity is something women have to actively work towards and for. It is earned, not arbitrarily gifted.
When you say “scientific evidence” you display a clear misunderstanding of the word because this post was philosophical in nature. Philosophy is not just “a science”, it is the fundamental science of reality and of man’s relationship to it. It is the science that precedes all others. In this sense, I absolutely discussed and provided basic evidence. You didn’t recognize an ounce of it because you are ignorant of philosophy being a science in the first place. Science to you has been reduced strictly to statistics, biology, and so on.
Human beings are infinitely different from all other animals known to man. We are the only animals who posses a volitional consciousness and the capacity to think in multiple levels of abstraction. Studying or citing the behavioral psychology of animals is less than meaningless in the context of this discussion and post, it is detrimental to further and genuine intellectual discussion. The psychology of instinct driven animals has no place in the psychology of human beings. The two have nothing to do with each other.
I find it abhorrent and bizarre that you find yourself fortunate to be arbitrarily arranged into an intimate relationship with another human being. It’s insulting to the concepts and the potentials for human joy they represent, especially in regards to romantic love. The veto power you mention is insignificant. The problem is the performance of the practice in the first place, and anyone giving remote credit to it’s validity.
There was no criminal act of rape in The Fountainhead. Your comment reveals a profound ignorance both of the concept rape, its criminal implications, as well as of the novel The Fountainhead. Dominique Francon wanted to be ‘raped’ in The Fountainhead, was perfectly aware of it, and thoroughly enjoyed it. Rape in The Fountainhead was, in a context you would understand, more akin to being “ravaged”. Rape on the other hand is an often misused word that in a criminal context means physically and violently assaulting someone in a sexual manner.
The physical assault is the (primary), the sexual aspect is (secondary). The importance of this order cannot be stressed enough, nor can it’s implications into rape law today (disastrous when ignored, which is often).
Re Indian culture, I believe you are very confused on what Objectivism and individualism truly mean. Being a strongly “family oriented” culture is no more individualistic than being a “society oriented” culture because they both replace the basic unit of society — individual human beings — with *groups* of individuals, and therefore remove the individual from the equation entirely. The number of people in a particular group is irrelevant. Collectivism is collectivism whether you make the base unit of society 5 people or 500 million.
The individual is 1 and he is supreme in both spirit and politics.
Collectivism with a family slant is no less dangerous and harmful than State inspired collectivism, race inspired collectivism, etc. And all lead to total collapse because they fundamentally and diametrically oppose the reality of human beings on this earth *as the individuals that they are, always have been, and always will be*.
I would challenge you to define success, because I really doubt you understand the meaning of the term on a grand scale if you’re talking about how successful one minority is compared to another.
You cannot just “disagree” with that quote. Absolutely rejecting altruism is one of the cruxes of everything she *ever* wrote. She rightly despised the morality of altruism. By what you’ve written here you are an altruist, although at the same time you are clearly confused.
Benevolence is not altruism. Genuine benevolence is in fact (often) a sign of high self-esteem.
Altruism is sacrificing higher values for lower values. It is the covering of moral depravity in the guise of helping others, becuase you haven’t a clue what to do with your life. It is the attempt to live through others and have your very existence validated by their needs. It is the moral enslavement of man to his brothers.
It is any sense of duty to any one but yourself and to things you’ve chosen [edit: *by free will, and voluntary ***guilt free*** consent].
It is the attempt to make service to others a virtue.
Altruism makes benevolence impossible, and turns free men into slaves.
Another comment from Random Indian (source)
“Best thing you could do to de-attract an unattractive woman from you is to chase her.”
Next time an unattractive woman hits on you, reciprocate it by flirting, ask for her number then follow up with a phone call asking for a date. I guarantee you she will NOT be “de-attracted”.
If you behave towards her in a way that is authentically similar to how you would act towards a woman you are strongly attracted to, not only will it de-attract her, it will do so shockingly fast, regardless of all other factors. You don’t understand this because you lack the ability to envision how this would play out in real life in addition to lacking the conceptual map of why this happens in the first place.
After approaching more women by the age of 22 than most men will in a lifetime, and having the faculty to connect these ideas into something philosophically coherent, I can tell you definitively that this is in fact how things work, whether your like it and agree with it, or not.
Women cannot and do not fundamentally admire men who sacrifice their masculinity, to the lowest bidder, for the potential of sex. It’s both antithetical and insulting to women at the same time.