During the same general time-period when Ayn Rand was experiencing (wholly unwarranted) cultural visibility and influence, others were finally realizing the tremendous amount of hypocrisy involved in what the U.S. claimed to be, vs. what it actually was:
- In the “Jim Crow” Southern U.S., “Negroes” were effectively still enslaved — not de jure slavery (which would at least been too brazen to ignore), but rather De facto slavery — in that their purportedly “unalienable” rights were systematically abridged by the “Several States”, to create — and the enforce — what was essentially a caste system based on “race”.
Think about that. Think about the implications for such a nation-state, in terms of its commitment to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
2. At the same time, those unlucky enough to have been born female were recognizing the fact that the “traditional” gender-role perpetrated on them for centuries (IE: that of domestic drudges or breeding machines) was indefensible.
(Hint for “traditionalists”: if a “role” has to be ENFORCED, then it is unchosen. An “unchosen role’ necessarily involves the (attempted) DEHUMANIZATION of the victim.
Quite frankly, any honest observer cannot help but conclude that the primary issue with regimes such as the Taliban iis: they are willing to ENFORCE “traditional” social/political structures AT GUNPOINT if neccesary:
At any rate: there’s something deeply horrifying about the fact that (during the beginning stages of the Civil Rights and Women’s movement, Ayn Rand couldn’t be bothered to either speak on their behalf, or even comprehend why those movements were neccesary. (She was too busy enacting the “benevolent rape” scene from The Fountainhead with Nathaniel Branden, on a weekly basis.)
WORSE, she directly endorsed Barry Goldwater in 1964, during his presidential run.
Goldwater supported “Jim Crow” apartheid on “principle”, as a matter of “conscience”.