Maddow v. Cohen

Rachel Maddow and Richard Cohen, author of Coming Out Straight, a book being cited by proponents of the bill in Uganda to allow for the execution of gay people.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I am NOT Charlotte Simmons

I am currently about 5/7 through the enormous Tom Wolfe tome that is I am Charlotte Simmons, and while it is probably more...journalistically acceptable? to wait until I've finished the whole thing before writing my thoughts on it, I'm too impatient and my reactions are too strong. Which is, I guess, a good thing, this eliciting of strong response, but I'm not sure that's enough to calling it a good book. Because despite being highly readable, I also find it loathsome in many ways.

These two ways can be divided into the micro and the macro, so we'll start with the micro first: the actual character of Charlotte Simmons.

For those of you who don't know the book (it came out four years ago t much media attention, but I'm unsure how much it actually entered the collective consciousness), it tells the story of young Charlotte Simmons from the little mountain town of Sparta, North Carolina, coming to the prestigious (and fictitious) Ivy League Dupont University for her freshmen year of college. While the story focuses on Charlotte, we also follow tangentially a frat boy named Hoyt, a basketball player named Jojo and a brainiac named Adam. That's really all you need know.

Back to Charlotte. She, just like the book, bothers me on both a micro and macro level and, like my overall thoughts on the book, we'll start with the micro here, too. Wolfe, it seems, gave Charlotte a (population: 900) small town background so as to distance her as much as possible from the version of her generation she encounters at Dupont. This is probably smart from an authorial stand point because Tom Wolfe is a 70-something white man and also far outside the universe of the 20-something collegiate, so Charlotte's own discomfort and unfamiliarity can parallel his own and give him a way in. Fine. And, I have to say, I don't think that he does a bad job with it. Charlotte is obnoxious, to be sure, but that doesn't make her necessarily untrue. ..to a point.

Besides being small-town and gorgeous (and we'll address this later), Charlotte is also supposed to be a genius and former high school track star. These two things make the level of her naivete, in my mind, completely implausible because they take away the security blanket of small-town sheltering. We see through the book that, yes, she really is a genius. She knows pretty much everything about everything and has huge exposure to the world in terms of books. This shouldn't give her social skills, but it should give her the awareness that people are somewhat rough and tumble. And as for the track thing, it means she's been in contact with other teenagers, other high schools. That doesn't mean she shouldn't be overwhelmed by college life, but having a minor internal freak out because her roommate says the word "shit"? Really? You're telling me that four years of high school, during which she routinely was around other high schools (and therefore, other teenagers with varied upbringings) she never heard the word "shit"? I find that hard to believe. It's that level of doe-eyed innocence we're talking about, and I don't quite buy it.

Now before I get into the macro, I want to point out that I am sure most or all of what I'm about to say can be said about guys as well. I'm not trying to take up the "media expectations" banner for females alone. It's just that a) I am a girl and b) I'm particularly concerned about the female character (if I start writing about the males in the book, I'll wind up with a book of my own). So understand that all that is about to follow is written about girls, but not with the assumption that you guys don't deal with it, too. Okay? okay. The macro.

Charlotte, as previously mentioned, is supposed to be gorgeous. Fine, I can live with that. Why we can't have an average girl as a heroine, I don't know. Why we can't even have just a pretty girl instead of model-beautiful is also beyond me, but I guess it makes for good copy. But there are, according to this book, lots of model-beautiful girls on campus and certainly many, many attractive ones. And I'm guessing that, in this fictional world, a lot of those girls have vastly superior social skills to those of our Ms. Simmons, not to mention a better fashion sense (the Prairie-Home-Companion nature of her outfits is commented on repeatedly). So why why WHY does every single guy she meets fall for her? I get that a gorgeous girl, even one awkward and poorly dressed, can attract attention, but inspiring full-on pursuit? Fights? I don't buy that. I hate this idea of "the" girl, the one that everyone wants and has to have in some way and will stop at nothing to get. I accept those girls exist, but I don't accept that Charlotte Simmons is that kind of girl. She is prissy and self-righteous and awkward and whatever charms her "innocence" has is not enough, in my opinion, to overcome the impatience it seems anyone who meets her must eventually feel. And I could buy the one frat brother looking on her as a challenge, or a game, but not everyone she ever meets possessing a Y-chromosome. That's not real, not in the way Wolfe is presenting it.

And that's what bothers me. We hear a lot about the pressure put on girls to look a certain way by the media, and I think it's there, though I also think male reaction to the media is really what drives it home. Making Charlotte gorgeous feeds into this because it seems the only reason any guy wants her, really, is her looks, which serves the double purpose of saying a) guys will want you if you're hot and b) being hot excuses a multitude of personality flaws. Neither of which I like, but neither of which bother me as much as her personality, which is presented as somehow being attractive as well. She's annoying, she's obnoxious, she's self-righteous, painfully (neigh, stupidly) naive and she's weak-willed. Yet somehow, this is attractive? This is what I should want to be, because even though I hate it, the guys eat it up? Or this is what I can be, if only I'm really really hot? Either way, I hate the implication.

I was going to go on about the personality pressures put on girls, but I'm running out of steam and I haven't even gotten to why the book really bothers me. So, onto that.

As I think I mentioned, I'm finding the book highly readable. It's almost 700 pages and I've been blowing through it and, for all of my issues with the main character, I haven't been tempted to throw it across the room like with the Twilight series (no judgments, it was a cultural phenomenon, I had to stay up-to-date). And, I have to say, save for the aforementioned (I love that word) qualms about the plausibility of Charlotte herself, I find a lot of it to be quite accurate, save for one thing: the inevitability of it all. There is a driving sense that this is what happens at college, period, the end, no discussion. If you are 18 and female and going into freshmen year, you will become a tragic example of peer pressure gone awry, unless you instead become a slut or a militant loser. As for you boys, you will either be hot and have shit-for-brains and stone-for-heart OR be average looking and capable of having a conversation. There is no other alternative. And don't even think about doing homework or caring about anything besides getting laid or getting revenge on the guys that picked on you because you will be ridiculed and destroyed.

We are not like that, not all of us, and I absolutely resent the implication otherwise. That there is no other alternative, that this is how it is. My generation has more to offer than that. There's drinking, there's sex, but the pursuit of one or both doesn't come at the exclusion of everything else. We work for things, we care about things, we make connections based more on looks and one-upmanship, and that Wolfe doesn't show even an ounce of that is infuriating to me. When this books came out there was a lot of emphasis placed on how this is what was really going on on campuses these days. This i what your son or daughter was really up to, this was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And yes, it is true, but it's not the whole truth and it's not the last word, and I feel especially coming from an author such as Tom Wolfe it does get this aura of credibility and infallibility it just doesn't deserve. We are worth more than this book implies! The destruction of our souls, morals and ambitions is not inevitably linked with that college acceptance letter!

I'm sure there's more I want to say on this subject, but I'll let it rest for now. Have any of you read this book? Do you have thoughts? Am I totally overreacting, as I am wont to do? Talk me down.

Just a Little Bit of History Repeating

Am currently reading the (deservedly) much-lauded Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. Right now, we're in the 1850's, caught up in the explosively turbulent period leading up the Civil War, specifically the caning of Charles Sumner.

I always forget the caning of Charles Sumner, as, I'm sure, do most people. I'm an enthusiastic Civil Way buff and yet, if pressed to name senators from the period I would maybe, maybe be able to hit upon the name Henry Clay or Daniel Webster. Maybe. And certainly not both. Sumner is less a person and more of an event, and even that event is more a title, as if it were a one-act play. "The Caning of Sumner." It rolls off the tongue and is just as easily dismissed as being something distantly remote, but when you actually pause to think about it...what the hell. A United States senator beat a fellow senator almost to death on the floor of the Senate. That's extraordinary, that that could happen. That that did happen. But then Doris Kearn Goodwin goes on to describe the reaction:

"More ominous still was the reaction of the distinguished Richmond Whig, a professed opponent of extremism on sectional issues. 'We are rejoiced at this, ' the Whig proclaimed. 'The only regret we feel is, that Mr. Brooks did not employ a horsewhip or a cowhide upon his slanderous back, instead of a cane. We trust the ball may be kept in motion. Seward and others should catch it next.' The Petersburg [Virginian] Intelligencer sounded a similar theme. 'If thrashing is the only remedy by which the foul conduct of the Abolitionists can be controlled...it will be very well to give Seward a double dose at least every other day until it operates freely on his political bowels...his adroit demagoguism and damnable doctrines are infinitely more dangerous to the country than the coarse blackguardism of the perjured wretch, Sumner.' The antipodal reactions of North and South, David Donald notes, made it 'apparent that something dangerous was happening to the American union when the two sections no longer spoke the same language, but employed rival sets of cliches to describe the Brooks-Sumner affair.'"
- Team of Rivals: the Political genius of Abraham Lincoln, Doris Kearn Goodwin

I'm not saying that we, as a country, are on the brink of a Civil War like that of 1860. I'm not even sure we're necessarily on the brink of a culture war, though that seems more likely. I'm just saying that this idea of language and talking, on being quick to condemn the other side and trumpet your own no matter what either does...doesn't it all sound a bit familiar? And shouldn't we maybe be more aware of that familiarity?

My man, Shelby Foote, said that "Any understanding of this nation has to be based, and I mean really based, on an understanding of the Civil War. I believe that firmly. It defined us," and I tend to agree. It was such a defining moment in our history, a turning point really, and one we are in some ways still recovering from. But it's not enough to look at the aftermath; we need to keep in mind how we got there. I'm highly doubtful we'll ever get to the point again where states decide to sucede from the Union and, if they did, I'm not sure a war would be declared (really, would we miss Texas? If Alaska goes AWOL, would anyone notice?) but that kind of animosity towards your own fellow citizens I think we're more than capable of. In some ways, we might be there already.

I didn't mean for this to be a history blog, or a political blog or a blog where I endlessly rehash the ideas of speech and fairness and whatever else I've been going about since I started this. It just became a perfect storm...the recent incidents of poltical violence here, the ongoing turmoil in Iran and a book on the Civil War. They all feed into each other and therefore color my thoughts which then results in me musing over the ideas in 500-word mini essays on blogger.

I'm big on awareness these days. Awarness of how you sound, of how the other side thinks, of context, of responsibility. I'm wearing green today, and will probably be for awhile, not because I think it makes a difference to the Iranina protestors that I, emma, U.S. citizen temping in an office park, am wearing green, but because maybe someone will notice and ask me and then I'll explain about Iran and then they'll know something they didn't before and at least become aware of the situation. That's the only way I can think of to help right now, but I hope it's at least something.

Freedom Of

Citizens assemble with the sole goal of declaring that they disapprove of the course of government. To meddle in the government of society and to speak about it is the greatest business and, so to speak, the only pleasure America knows...
- Alexis de Tocqueville

As I continue to follow the news out of Iran, I am more and more grateful to our country and its founders for providing us with the freedom, security and relative stability that allows us to assemble and disapprove without the fear of beatings, shootings or arrests. I think we all take it for granted...I know I do. We are such a young country, and it took us awhile to get to a place where it's at least commonly held that all men (and women) are created equal, but that we did? That, for all the work we have yet to do, we have done so much? I think it's extraordinary.

But in the wake of all of this new found appreciation, there is also disappointment. We have the means to change our government. We have the opportunity to make our voices heard. And yet, we still turn to violence. To shoot an abortion doctor, an army recruiter, a museum crowd because that somehow seems like a better idea than any other alternative. Than using any of the vast freedom given to us or living up to the responsibility that comes with that freedom. It's abuse in the negative. Right now, in Iran, people are risking their lives so that they can have a voice, and yet, here, people would still prefer to silence the voice of others than make their own heard. It's a slap in the face of our Constiution, in my mind, besides being a horrifying display of hate.

Violence isn't the only abuse, though. We were given freedom of speech to air our greivances and engage each other in open debate, so that we could hold the government accountable as well as each other. So it saddens me when media pundits purposefully fan the flames of outrage and divisiveness for ratings. Besides lowering the tone of discussion on an issue and inciting people to the aformentioned violence, it ignores the higher and better purposes that can be achieved by sharing opinion. It's irresponsible, to say the least. But, however much I disagree with how it's used, it is their right, just as it is my right to talk about it here. It's not up to me to determine what is or is not fair game beyond voicing my thoughts on any given matter, and I think that's how it should be.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
-Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Tweeting the Resistance

Via Andrew Sullivan, here is a list of Tweeters out of Iran. I've spent most of the weekend trying to wrap my head around what's happening there, about what these people are both going through and the courage and conviction they are demonstrating.

I rag on America sometimes for being ridiculous and eating foods like marshmallow sweet potatoes, but seeing what's happening in Iran makes me realize just how lucky I am to live in a country where this situation is pretty much unimaginable to me.

How do we support these people? How do we show them they're not alone?

It's So Personal

In the wake of the murder of Dr. George Tiller, Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic began compiling stories and points of view regarding late-term abortions in a series he grouped under the heading It's So Personal.

There have been more posted since they were compiled into a collection, but I highly recommend reading them. I am die-hard pro-choice, but even so I never considered some of the questions and circumstances that faced these parents when they did or did not make the decision to abort. They're heart breaking and, as Sullivan so aptly describes, deeply personal. I don't know that they'll change opinions, but I see the potential these accounts have in opening minds, and for that reason alone I think people should look at them and encourage others to do so as well.

Consumption Philanthropy

This article, via Mike H., looks at the gains and costs (mostly the costs) of what the author calls "consumption philanthropy," the recent trend of contributing to charity through purchasing products associated with things like Product Red.

It's a lot to think about. I admit freely that I am a big fan of the idea of consumption philanthropy, but it's the first time I've thought about the costs. Things like decreased motivation to contribute to causes, be it through time and money, are somewhat obvious side effects. Others, like the "wrong" cause being highlighted or the consumption contributing to the problems trying to be solved, would never have crossed my mind.

I guess that's really what the article is about, the decreased engagement with the problems facing the world. While I recognize it as a bad thing, I don't know that it can be blamed on this practice alone (nor am I saying I think that's what Eikenberry is trying to say), and I don't know if I agree the costs outweigh the benefits.

Her scenario about the non-profit book fair is one I am guilty of, though my reticence to further contribute is usually on display at museums or historical sights where I've paid an exorbitant (to a struggling college graduate) entrance fee. However, her other examples are more specific, and, I think, less universal. I've never bought something I didn't need because it went to charity, a la a SpongeBob Pink Pants toy, and I don't shop at the Gap because of Product Red. I buy what I need from the places I already shop, the charitable association only swaying me when considering things of equal value in terms of need or desire.

I understand, is part of her point. Whatever I wind up contributing to charity is a result of my own, self-serving needs. It's consumer and desire driven, selfish at its core. But I would argue that whatever the motives, it doesn't negate the result, which is that projects in need of funding receive some. In a way, it's almost a trap. People with no charitable inclinations, no bigger picture idea are almost tricked into entering into a kind of "one world" community through virtue of the fact that they have a pocketbook and a taste for graphic t-shirts.

Eikenberry seems to have a view of the world that many people participating in consumption philanthropy would otherwise be writing checks and planting trees if only their do-gooder drive wasn't mollified by their pink-topped Yoplait, whereas I am am of the more cynical impression that, rather than replacing activism, the idea of consumption philanthropy stealthily foists it upon unsuspecting shopper, expanding the overall reach of charitable organizations. It's a question of which beget which, the consumption philanthropy increasing apathy or apathy leading to consumption philanthropy as a sneaky way to touch more people (even if they don't notice).

Furthermore, the qualms about who and what gets the money, are, I think some what besides the point. She cites the breast cancer funding specifically, pointing out how it's not as deadly to women as heart disease or other kinds of cancer, but I think that's a tricky road to go down. I think it's almost impossible to state conclusively that one charity is more worthy of attention than another, because the things they hope to fix or ease are so personal. You can show me statistics point to heart disease as a leading killer, but that's not going to change my predilection to donate to cancer funds as cancer has touched my life in a much more prevalent way. Alzheimer's isn't fatal, but the emotional toll can't be measured. Project Smile or Project Linus don't deal with medical issues at all, but I don't think that lessens their importance in terms of the impact they have on the people they touch.

I'm not saying she's not right about some of these things, and I certainly agree they need more thought and discussion. I'll probably go home tonight, re-read the article, and change my mind about half the things I just said. But I also don't think we should dismiss the positive effects of consumption philanthropy, and so thought I'd say so.