cont'd ...

I actually enjoyed her novels and I feel that she has
some good points. However I found her philosophy
both unrealistic and extreme. (Rigid, judgemental,
emotionally stunted, socially alienated, deeply
pessimistic, and going nowhere).

We learn the meaning of
life not by acting out the lives of fictional
characters or swallowing the pre-digested conclusions of
another thinker, but rather by living our own lives,
making our own observations, having our own experiences,
making our own mistakes and coming to our own conclusions
in the fullness of time. While it can help to have a guide
in this journey - there are better guides to choose than
Ayn Rand.

Foxy: it is because it's the world that those on the political and extreme right have been moving towards for the last 30 years.

Where-as those that follow the Marxist/Socialist Leftist ideals where Big Government controls everything & dissention is dealt with by execution. The Left have been moving towards this Ideal for the last 100 years.

The results are Chalk & Cheese. Name a Marxist/Socialist/ Leftist Country where that style of Government has been a success. Other than Singapore.

Agreed some of Ann Rand's Ideals are extreme as well & I certainly would not want to live under a Government of her Ideals.

Let's forget the Politics & get back to the Gender Discussion.

Who is in favour of Gender neutral language? Show of hands. please.

Jayb, as long as we admit that words like 'fireman', policeman', 'chairman', and so on are NOUNS, and have NOTHING to do with GENDER, I am happy to leave things as they are.
It's incredible that these words have been around for so long and now some people with nothing better to do have decided, let's change words because 'they' feel incensed or God knows what they feel by the use of these words.
I'll tell you the way the 'real' world works.
If the MAJORITY of the people want certain words changed then we have a mandate.
If a few selfish, stupid, psychotics push an agenda, I'd say ignore them and have them institutionalised.
That being the case, No there is NO good or obvious reason to change anything.

Dear Jayb,

I am not advocating a Marxist/Socialist agenda.

What I was doing was -
merely trying to point out the sterile airless
terrain of Rand's philosophy - which I found
to be wildly emotional and having difficulty with
linear reasoning.

I deliberately chose the article from "The New Statesman,"
Because the mission of its award-winning writers and editors
is to analyse and explain the defining political, economic,
geopolitical and cultural events and ideas shaping and
changing the world today. It's a magazine that's read
across various platforms by opinion formers and decision
makers from all sectors - government, academia, foreign
policy establishments and think tanks, business and media
and the arts. I thought it may be of some value.

As for systems of government around the globe. I feel that
we're very fortunate in this country of ours - with what
we've got. It's not perfect - but we really can't complain.
It's certainly better than what the US currently has.

Foxy, you speak negatively about this person and her beliefs.
I don't completely agree with the little I have read, but have gained a much more detailed analysis of her and her philosophy since reading all the responses to and about her.
The overarching fact everyone ignores is that what she speaks is more truth than not.
The oversimplification of her message is evident in the majority of countries and people today.
For example, Aussies have a belief they truly uphold, and that is, 'I work to live, not live to work'.
Well this has a similar ring to it in other countries.
She is promoting the very thing I have said previously; giving a poor person a fish, he will only eat for that day.
Instead teach him how to fish, he will not go hungry again.
One of her messages is exactly that, 'get off your arse and do something'.
As for her many other messages, 'most' of them are a good thing.
I believe the tone of her message is for people to become motivated to take control of their own lives instead of sitting around doing nothing and living off others, charity or not.
How can you demonise that kind of advice?
Call me centre, right, don't care, it's not about me, it's about people taking responsibility for their own lives and future.
That's the real problem, not her for commenting on it and giving an opinion about it.
But as usual the looney left attack the person but not the message.
Even her detractors have to admit she is right, because if they did half of what she suggests, they would ALL be better off.
But no it's so much easier 'crackin open another tinny and turning up the footy', while some good and kind charitable person delivers a food basket to your home, for free.