As some regulars here know, a complaint that is made of today’s Objectivist movement is that it does not have much to say about certain topics, or does so only intermittently. This is partly due to the fact that Rand, for example, was not particularly interested in certain topics or only approached them in a particular way. A case in point might be the way in which the relative roles and status of men have changed considerably relative to women over the past half-century or so. (Given that Miss Rand died in 1982, however, she can hardly be blamed for not writing about developments that have accelerated over the past 30 years.)
Rand was not a clichéd “feminist” – as far as she was concerned she was interested only in individual rights, not specifically male or female rights. (Quite right, too.) She certainly did have a certain view about her “ideal Man” and had things to say and write about issues such as relations between the sexes. Her fictional character, Dagny Taggart, was an example of a successful businesswoman at a time when this was a pretty daring move for a novelist to make (the 1950s).
This preamble leads to me to the subject of a new book out by Dr Helen Smith (she is the wife of noted US blogger Glenn Reynolds, of Instapundit and Pajamas Media). Smith is a psychologist and has her own blog. http://pjmedia.com/drhelen/ Her book, “Men on Strike”, http://www.amazon.co.uk/books/... has a title with distinctly Randian undertones: she even refers to the nation of men “Going Galt”, of giving up on marriage, or certain careers, or fatherhood. And she explains that this sort of “striking” is not due to any immovable deficiencies of men but due to a changed set of conditions and incentives, rules and government policies that have combined to make life for the average American man a lot less easy. Needless to say, while certain legal and cultural issues will be different outside the US (I write from London in the UK), her arguments resonate beyond the US.
The consequences of a lopsided judicial system have been the way in which, in a dispute concerning paternity, men have been faced with having to pay for kids when, according to DNA checks, the kids are not even theirs. Fortunately, in Georgia and elsewhere, legislatures have started to change this thanks to pressure, but the situation for divorced couples remains very much biased in favour of women; the situation is so bad that many men refuse marriage for this reason.
Dr Smith notes other issues: more women than men go to higher education; men have much higher suicide rates than women; fewer men are getting married and bringing up children in the old-style nuclear family environment. Dads and men are often treated as the butt of jokes in adverts, films and “comedies” whereas no one would dream of doing the same in treating other groups in the same way. With more men dropping out of certain professions and jobs due to the anti-men pressures they see, Dr Smith argues, this will damage the wider economy and culture. What we need is a return to a genuine equality, based on recognition that men and women are different in ways and have their own strengths and weaknesses. If the situation worsens further, she says, and men refuse to work in traditional “manly” areas such as the military, emergency services and so on, wider society will suffer. And with fewer fathers around to guide their sons – a huge issue – and fewer male teachers to provide good role models for young boys in school – ditto – this will also prove a serious problem.
The book is not long and it is not stacked with vast amounts of academic studies, although Dr Smith does give a lot of useful web-links and books to peruse for those who want to learn more. She has done a fair amount of her own research also. What has done, in this passionately argued and thought-provoking book, is hopefully to have given this subject a much-needed jolt.
As Doug Bandler of this site likes to point out, Objectivists need to think a lot more about these sort of issues and how those who are turned on by Rand’s philosophy can add a specific element to them. Given the focus on the idea of Man as a heroic being who must use his reason to thrive and survive, I’d argue that Objectivists ought to have a great deal to say about this important issue. I can certainly recommend this book.