Fore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.com

More oxford books @ www.OxfordeBook.comFore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.com264LEGACIEScalls for government to redress discrimination, when it was not governmentitself that had created the problem. She wrote, “The notion that awoman’s place is in the home . . . is an ancient, primitive evil, supportedand perpetuated by women as much as, or more than, by men.” Whatinfuriated Rand the most was that feminism, as she saw it, was a claimbased on weakness, a rebellion “against strength as such, by those whoneither attempt nor intend to develop it.” Feminists elevated their genderabove their individuality and intelligence and then expected unearnedsuccess, to be enforced by government quotas and regulations. Rand wasalso withering in her personal scorn for feminists, “sloppy, bedraggled,unfocused females stomping down the streets.” 51 Feminists remindedher of Comrade Sonja, a brash, masculine Communist from We theLiving.In turn, Susan Brownmiller attacked Rand as “a traitor to her sex”in her feminist classic Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape.Brownmiller considered Rand alongside the psychologists HeleneDeutsch and Karen Horney as women who contributed to “the maleideology of rape.” She argued The Fountainhead’s infamous rape scene“romanticized” the rape victim through its depiction of Dominique,who reveled in Roark’s sexual attack on her. By portraying rape as“grand passion,” Rand cast an unrealistic patina over sexual violenceand furthered the dangerous idea that women desired to be raped. Theworst of it was that Rand could even convince other women that rapewas romantic. Brownmiller remembered, “The Fountainhead heated myvirgin blood more than 20 years ago and may still be performing thatservice for schoolgirls today.” 52 When she visited the library to check outRand’s novel Brownmiller was discouraged to find its pages fell open tothe rape scene, effectively indexed by other readers. Like the conservativesof National Review, Brownmiller recognized Rand’s work was bothappealing and ideologically dangerous.Similarly, a writer for Ms. magazine warned women against Rand’sinfluence, calling her work “fun-bad.” Ms. noted that Rand’s call to selfishnessand independence might justifiably appeal to women, who hadbeen taught to always place others before themselves. In reality, though,her work offered a seductive, destructive fantasy: “a strong dominantwomen who is subdued by an even stronger, more dominant male . . . theindependent woman who must, to preserve her integrity, capitulate to a