Her masculine energy was high. She understood that people aren't entitled to what they want or need, and that people have to therefore gain them. That is abundantly clear when she agrees that most aren't worthy of being loved, but they can become it.
I think what you detect is her true humanity, achieved through developing one's consciousness, versus the animal nature of most human beings. It's not masculine or feminine, it's human or animal. She chose to live as a human being.
People commenting are impressed by her no-nonsense, "tough" demeanor, but she makes no sense. Very interesting that her husband was a creative person, an actor who became an artist (according to Wikipedia) -- the opposite of the alpha ideal she describes. Excellent questions from Mike Wallace.
@@apokalypthoapokalypsys9573she wasnt strong, she was depandant on every man in her life, all left her, she ended up broke and miserable. She didnt make much money either
As long as you enter into a mutually beneficient contract with her, she will work with you. That's how Objectivism works. You can't expect others to do stuff for you for free.
@@apokalypthoapokalypsys9573 That's how objectivism is supposed to work but the contract is only valid as long as it benefits her and she will end it as soon as you're the only one to benefit from it. Because she fully expects you to treat her the same way if she gives you the opportunity to do so, contracts will be incredibly difficult to reach and will almost inevitably end in breach of contract. Contracts ought to be mutually beneficial but objectivism and other forms of ethical egoism in practice make contracts a zero sum game, IOW a form of deceit that will disadvantage one of the parties. Max Stirner realized that in 1844.
