Via the New York Times:

Are women bad at setting goals for themselves — or setting themselves the wrong goals?

The standard I-want-to-lose-weight resolution of my female friends is indicative of a common misconception, and I am as guilty of it as any of the ambitious alpha-females I’ve come across in my generation. We were raised to believe that we could actually have it all: A stellar career, a happy family and time for a social life and that crucial workout.

Ambitious men tend to be more focused: They want that stellar career.

Heather McGregor, aka Mrs. Moneypenny, an entrepreneur, broadcaster and columnist at The Financial Times, has just published what might be described as a self-help book for would-be successful women titled “Mrs. Moneypenny’s Careers Advice for Ambitious Women.”

Asked recently to sum it up in a phrase, she said: “You can’t have it all.”

First, what the fuck is this mysterious “it all”? Sure, we could list a bunch of things that people, individually or in groups, might decide to lump into the two-word phrase: a career, a family, good health, a home, etc., and so on. But already, we’re on ridiculously shaky ground when we decide to pinpoint what that means for every living human who sets eyes on this article.

But “it all” seems to also mean=all the stuff that men have that women don’t seem to have, or aren’t as able to get, as easily. But why do we always, without fail, throw this “it all” rhetoric specifically at women, instead of looking at the possible reasons: the basic facts of inequality in the workplace, at home, and in the culture at large?

No one is asking groups that are more obviously prejudiced against why they don’t “have it all.” When was the last time you heard someone ask a Latino man, “hey, why don’t you have it all?” Or, when was the last time you read an article about how a gay couple “just can’t seem to have it all”? That question can answer itself: racism, homophobia, hate, discrimination in general, an unfriendly legislature, the list goes on.

Here’s a newsflash: the human condition is one of constant want. If asked on the street, most people would love to have “more,” of something they already want. We are not all toddling monoliths that can Hoover everything in mouth-range like a Stay Puft marshmallow man, so the idea that anyone in reality could “have it all,” man or woman, is a delusion. And whether or not that’s what the phrase literary translates to, it’s setting up every single person who prescribes to it for incredible failure.

To me, it seems that the image of juggling, and telling women they either should or shouldn’t hope for “it all” does nothing but distract everyone, and somehow makes women less equal. No one (or at least, far fewer people) asks a man who acquires all the conventionally impressive accomplishments how he “does it all.” He just fucking does what he likes, and has fewer barriers than women to do it. And guess what, he probably still wants a ton of other things he doesn’t have.

**Also, ten bucks to the first person who manufactures or finds me a t-shirt that says “I wanted to have it all, but all I got was this stupid t-shirt.”

So, which books are written by which former/current GOP Presidential hopeful?

Match the numbered book with the candidate. (Answer key below for cheaters)

Candidates:

A. Michele Bachmann

B. Herman Cain

C. Newt Gingrich

D. Ron Paul

E. Rick Perry

F. Mitt Romney

G. Rick Santorum

Books:

1. Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership, and the Olympic Games [A warm up, not a trick question, and not Jon Huntsman--he's written no books!]

2. Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Slashing Gas Prices and Solving Our Energy Crisis [Guzzle, guzzle, pocket Exxon donations, guzzle, guzzle.]

3. End the Fed [See what he did there? Clever, clever.]

4. It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good [Surprisingly, not Romney]

5. Never Call Retreat: Lee and Grant: The Final Victory [OMG 2 subtitles!]

6.The Ron Paul Family Cookbook [A trick question??]

7. Core of Conviction [Like, molten lava core, a crazy Midwestern core, or creamy Cadbury core?]

8. No Apology: The Case for American Greatness [America never apologizes.]

9. This is Herman Cain!: My Journey to the White House [A trick question? If you've forgotten your author, remember--look down at the title!]

10. On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scouts are Worth Fighting For [A memoir from Catholic prison, by Father O'Leary?]

11. Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington [I liked the other guy's Fed title better...]

12. They Think You’re Stupid [The literary equivalent of an "I'm with stupid" t-shirt]

13. 5 Principles for a Successful Life: From Our Family to Yours [Hint: Those principles didn't actually work for us!]

14. Rediscovering God in America: Reflections on the Role of Faith in Our Nation’s History and Future [Published by "Integrity House"?]

15. A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship [ZOOMFG, China, let's like lunch sometime, OK? Luv u!

1. F Romney

2. C Gingrich

3. D Paul

4. G Santorum

5. C Gingrich

6.D Paul [NOT a trick question, but what the hell are they eating?]

7. A Bachmann

8. F Romney

9. B Cain

10. E Perry

11.E Perry

12. B Cain

13.C Gingrich [with coauthor Jackie Gingrich Cushman, i.e. the first of his two ex-wives.]

The  other day, the NYTimes published an article about the “nuance” of the  one percent titled, “Among the Wealthiest One Percent, Many Variations.” Ostensibly, this article was meant to show the large differences between various members of this now-notorious and somewhat arbitrarily delineated group. Yes, some are doctors, others business owners, and still others trust fund babies now fully grown out of their tiny, choking hazard silver spoons. And some of those interviewed “feel” wealthier or less-wealthy, relative to their neighbors. But the whole point of the arbitrary, percentage delineation is to signify wealth in dollars, nothing else. To say they are various is not only beside any crucial point–it was never really a question. Anyone with any power of imagination could craft a fictional population of millionaires–and some of them, maybe many, would be worthy protagonists.

One such nuanced one-percenter interviewed the article had the following to say:

Dr. Chandok, the Lake Success oncologist, said that her husband, also a doctor, was still paying off his student loans. The couple has a nanny, but Dr. Chandok’s father-in-law does the shopping and cooking.

Dr. Chandok said she had never heard the Occupy Wall Street slogan “We are the 99 percent.” Two children and 11-hour workdays, she said, do not leave much time for politics.

But when the slogan was explained as a complaint against the wealthy’s growing share of income, she shook her head. “I spent four years in undergraduate school, four years in medical school, three years as a resident and three years as a fellow,” she said. “You have to look at the people who are complaining.”

…

….

“You have to look at the people who are complaining.”

….

….

…..

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

….

….

Of course, Dr. King had it right. And, sadly, in many respects, his children, this nation’s children, will be judged by many things before the content of their character. We can see this in the brash, bold, ignorant statement above. In one sense, this no-longer anonymous doctor from the Hamptons is trying to say, “yes, judge these people by their character–and judge me by my character, I work hard and have achieved many of my life’s goals through time and study and toil and sacrifice.” Her input and output in many ways cannot be denied. But somehow, King’s message has been lost on her. She has chosen to see only success as an accurate measure of content of character. She tells the world at large: stop complaining unless you live in the expensive house next door, because only then could you have struggled to success like I have.

…….

…..

Maybe she grew up in poverty. Maybe she learned her discipline for studiousness while surrounded by a phalanx of uncaring adults who did not encourage her, or actively undermined her accomplishments. Maybe she went to the library and studied on the weekends, because she found the public school system in her community lacking. Maybe, she took care of her younger siblings while her single mother was working two jobs just to support the family. Maybe she overcame sexual assault at home or at school. Maybe she was gay, and bullied. Maybe she was a victim of racism, but chose to persevere. And somehow, through all this, she is where she is now.

Maybe, just maybe all these things happened to her, because of the life she had no choice but to be born into. And yet, she overcame, overcame, overcame. She was a superhuman hero, and she got her degrees and accolades, despite all odds, and then her dream job. But, what if the economy had no more room for her? What if, straight out of college, her position was liquidated due to no fault of her own? What if many people just like her had the same fate befall them? And now, some other, older, financially successful woman, who by all appearances had an easier go of it so far, criticizes her and the movement she is now a part of?

….

…

Just as there are lazy millionaires who inherited their fortunes and still feel no effects from the current economic situation, there are many more who were told to play by America’s rules, work hard and keep their head down. Maybe some of them never wanted mansions. Maybe some just wanted to do a tiny bit better than their parents–a dream that had been attainable for most Americans for about the last fifty years, but has now slipped through our collective grasp like the faintest of pillow time whispers.

It seems easy to call out the ignorance and lack of nuance that exists in opinions like the woman’s above. And it would be easy to get angry and stay angry. Getting angry seems right, but to act on anger instead of on principle and with conviction and a mission seems misguided. As much as the Occupy movement gained attention by alienating a very select few and being inclusive to a disparaged majority, perhaps the next step would be to try to unite under one purpose and hope that those with narrower views listen to the stories of the crowd. A crowd of diverse backgrounds, experiences, and abilities to hope for the type of future they might deserve. Because it’s not that people in the one percent didn’t deserve to succeed in some ways. It’s not that they should immediately forfeit all their sometimes hard-earned money every time they Pass Go. It’s about fostering a culture where every person has the right to pursue happiness, and have a fairly equal shot at it, regardless of their background, race, sex, orientation, religion, etc.  It’s not that one person’s triumph or prosperity should be scolded, but that we should live in a way that encourages as many people as possible to succeed, not just a miniscule few–who while possibly varied and talented, are surely not the only ones, and certainly aren’t as varied as they could be.

“With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.”

So at 13 we’ll have our first drink together.

Somebody call me a shrink. Until then, Ima fix me a drink.

Y’all gon’ sit down, have a good time this reunion. And drink some wine like Communion.

I’m trippin’, this drink got me sayin’ a lot.

I was drinking earlier, now I’m driving.

I got two White Russians but we also need some drinks.

Grab a drink, grab a glass. After that I grab yo’ ass.

But after that, took pills, kissed an heiress. And woke up back in Paris.

May all of your pain be champagne.

Books M.Snowe read (i.e. that she remembers reading) in 2011, unranked, randomly listed, and without comment:

The Marriage Plot, Jeffrey Eugenides

The Virgin Suicides, Jeffrey Eugenides

A Game of Thrones, George R. R. Martin

A Clash of Kings, George R. R. Martin

A Storm of Swords, George R. R. Martin

Bossypants, Tina Fey

Cleopatra, Stacy Schiff

The Uncoupling, Meg Wolitzer

A Short History of Women, Kate Walbert

The Metropolis Case, Matthew Gallaway

Mission Street Food, Myint and Leibowitz

Slammerkin, Emma Donaghue

The Pursuit of Love, Nancy Mitford

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Rebecca Skloot

A Visit from the Goon Squad, Jennifer Egan

Anywhere but Here, Mona Simpson

The Collected Short Stories of Roald Dahl

Wonder Boys, Michael Chabon

Veronica, Mary Gaitskill

Foreign Bodies, Cynthia Ozick

Alice James: A Biography, Jean Strouse

The Dud Avocado, Elaine Dundy

Suggestions for 2012?

Recently, through a five-year old relative, M.Snowe found out about an “interactive” toy/book product for little ones called “Elf on the Shelf.” Perhaps this has existed for years, but it’s the first time I’ve seen it or heard of it. Here’s the Elf’s “story.”

So let me summarize: You read your kid the book about the Elf. You give the Elf a name, and then it magically acquires some sort of “Christmas Magic.” This Magic allows it to travel back to Santa every night, and REPORT BACK TO SANTA WHAT AN ASSHOLE YOUR KID IS. Also, if the child touches the Elf, they are warned it will LOSE ALL IT’S SPECIAL MAGIC and there will be no Christmas gifts. The Elf travels back to the owner’s house and magically appears in a different location in the morning.

Okay, so maybe these mind games aren’t on par with the Little Albert experiments or anything, but M.Snowe still finds it a bit perverse.

As with all perversities, let’s come up with some other, perhaps more adult-oriented, options:

JoePa on the Sofa–supposedly a nanny cam to make sure your babysitter isn’t feeling up your kids. (This toy was recalled a few months ago.)

Illegal on the Beagle–This underpaid worker disappears at night to take that job at the seven-eleven you wouldn’t condescend to take, even though your damned dog is totally starving.

Pepper Spray Cop on the Laptop– Every time you visit MoveOn.org, you’re basically asking for a capsicum shower.

Chupacabra on the Candelabra–I’m just saying, look up when you enter the room.

The Terminator on the ‘Frigerator–He’ll be back…for your Häagen-Dazs.

• A vampire baby eating another baby vampire
• John Boehner’s disembodied head
• A cogent, leftist argument against the human rights and constitutional violations that would necessarily accompany any passing of a “Personhood Amendment”
• A clone of Bella, except one with an actual personality and a will to fucking live
• A temperamental ferret
• A black swan
• A sobbing Twi-Mom
• A delicious Thanksgiving dinner
• A new, actually super, Super Committee
• Arya Stark, sword in hand
• More jobs?
• Buffy
• Some crazy shit out of a Goya painting
• Two free tickets to The Book of Mormon
• A signed, first edition copy of Bunnicula
• 283.5 Million Dollars

Good day, fair readers. A bittersweet day, alas.

The good news is, my review of Jeff Eugenides‘ The Marriage Plot is up on Hipster Book Club. Anyway, you should read that book, and then we should argue about it. It was a strange read for me, as I experienced two very different higher-learning literature departments–an undergrad program very much connected to tradition, the classics and old school interpretation, and a grad school committed to a strong knowledge of semiotics and deconstruction (personally, the deconstructionist arguments, while engaging thought experiments, felt more out of date than the classic lit. crit. thinkers of old, but msnowe digresses). Eugenides’ book is absolutely wonderful reading, and at the end, reader, I blush to admit to you that I got emotional, which is almost never the case. All that said, you should read it so we can talk/fight about it, because as much as I was engaged, I don’t feel like Madeleine (the main female character among two main male characters) got a fair femilady treatment. Let’s just say the book fails the Bechdel test. But damn, it was a good book. But, damn!

In other, sad news, Hipster Book Club is shuttering its online doors after this month. This  is very sad, indeed, especially for me, as I was just getting comfortable with the reading and reviewing and working with the wonderful editors. Do yourself a favor and check out the review archives on the site.

On to bigger and hopefully better things!

[Dana, possessed by "The Gatekeeper," answers the door]
Dana Barrett: Are you the Keymaster?
Dr. Peter Venkman: Not that I know of.
[She slams the door in his face. Venkman knocks again]
Dana Barrett: Are you the Keymaster?
Dr. Peter Venkman: Yes. Actually I’m a friend of his, he asked me to meet him here.

–Ghostbusters, 1984

“‘Good Evening, Sir, I am your Bunny, Marie. May I see the member’s key, please? Are you the keyholder or is this a borrowed key? Thank you. Now I’ll be happy to take your order.’ No deviation allowed. I wondered if the uniformity ever  bored the customers. ‘Is there anything else I can get you, Mr. Jones?’ ‘Thank you, Mr. Jones, come back and see us again.’ I was being programmed.”

–Gloria Steinem,”I Was a Playboy Bunny,” 1963

So…

Source: New Yorker

M.Snowe has a quiz for you all! You should definitely check out Ryan Lizza’s New Yorker piece on Michele Bachmann. The journalism is great, the conclusions are scary. If you were in any doubt about how insane some of her views are, please go read the piece to solidify your opinion. Also, Slate’s Double X Gabfest had some fun discussion about it and the Newsweek cover on their weekly podcast.

Lizza’s piece highlights a lot of the published works that either helped solidify Bachmann’s own political ideology, or works that she holds up as examples of said ideology (during speeches or on her campaign websites).

Below are a list of book titles or articles that Bachmann espouses mixed in with ones I made up. Obviously, a good quick google will give you the answers, but let’s be honest, that isn’t really what this is about, is it?

DID SHE READ IT?

1. –The Homosexual Revolution: End Time Abomination

2. –Taxes and Tea: Drowning in Liberal Swill

3. –Public School, Pubic Hair: How Mandatory Sex Ed. Destroys Childhood

4. –Atheism, Socialism, Legal Marijuana and The Beach Boys

5. –Communism, Hypnotism and The Beatles

6. –Biography of Robert E. Lee by J. Steven Wilkins

7. –Broadway and Glee: Counter-Culture Jihadis

8. –Christianity and the Constitution, by John Eidsmoe

9. –Dominionism: A Practical Guide (Though Technically You Won’t Need That as a God-Appointed Ruler of Earth)

10 –Everybody Poops…But Ronald Reagan

Answers below!

..

…

….

…..

……

……..

……….

………….

……………

……………….

…………………

……………………

…………………………

……………………………..

…………………………………..

…………………………………………

Real Bachmann-endorsed books: #’s 1, 5, 6, & 8

Fake stuff Bachmann would almost certainly endorse anyway: # 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10

Notes on the less-interesting/provocative-sounding titles:

In the Wilkins book,  he claims “most southerners strove to treat their slaves with respect and provide them with a sufficiency of goods for a comfortable, though–by modern standards–spare existence.”

In the Eidsmoe book, the text claims that the founders (John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams) “expressed their abhorrence for the institution of slavery,” as “many Christians did,”  but they didn’t free their slaves because of their inherent “Christian benevolence.” He goes on to explain it would’ve been hard economically and socially for the slaves to be free at that time, so freeing them would’ve been “inhumane and irresponsible.”