All right. So this is going to be a little fluffy. But what do they have against fluff anyway? Fluff-bashing is what I call it. An untenable intolerance towards unpretentious columns. I like fluff. I mean, wouldn't you be inclined to skip over this page if all it offered day after boring day was column after boring column on why affirmative action should be continued, why Dole should be elected and why affirmative action should be discontinued?
It is pieces like Hanover-Cars-Aren't-Stopping-For-Me-Anymore and The-Adventures-Of-Mr. 4.0 that bring that much-needed dash of lightness to this otherwise ponderous page. Besides, it provides an interesting and informative insight into the workings of the minds of the featherbrains who constitute a considerable chunk of the Dartmouth student community.
To my mind, what is more worthy of concern is the pervasiveness of the American infatuation with everything European. Just the other day, a fellow named Lubin exhorted us in his column to become more formal in our social interactions and to refrain from addressing acquaintances, except those very close to us, by their first names. After perusing the column in vain for valid arguments, I hit upon the real message: We should be formal because those civilized Europeans are formal.
Mr. Lubin writes: "Mass usage of abbreviated names for adults is as a rule a foolish thing, the exceptions being royalty viewed nostalgically, viz., Good Queen Bess, and great-hearted persons who are unfortunately of dubious birth, viz., Tom Jones." Translated, it reads: "Mass usage of abbreviated names for adults is as a rule a foolish thing, the exceptions being (1) when the British do it and (2) when the British do it.
Almost as bad as the I-Went-To-France-And-They-Striked-And-I-Had-To-Walk-Forty-Miles-In-The-Rain-And-Oh-It-Was-So-Awesome article by another individual afflicted by Euro-mania.
Then there was the piece on how Europeans are all civilized because they are comfortable with their bodies because they are nude together a lot; unlike us backward Americans who hide our bodies behind clothes because we are eternally ashamed of it. I can never understand that. I can never understand how society will become better because no one will have complexes or eating disorders because people are comfortable with their bodies because they walk around nude.
I mean, won't exposing your body make you more conscious about it and force you to work harder on it? I know the only reason I'm comfortable with my body is the fact that I can hide it behind my clothes. If I had to walk around nude, I'd sure as hell head for the gym first.
Which, in a convoluted fashion, leads me to another thing I could never figure out. I fail to understand why being sexually attracted to a woman is nowadays considered objectification of women and therefore bad. Professor Mook, a self-proclaimed sexist, explains why he considers himself a sexist. A beautiful female physician walks into the room and he feels sexually attracted towards her and undresses her with his eyes. So he's a bad, evil, sexist prof. Give me a break! This is sexual attraction -- that wonderful entity without which we would not have been here and wouldn't have wanted to be anyway. Sexism is when a beautiful female physician walks into the room and you feel sexually attracted towards her and undress her with your eyes AND you think to yourself, "God, she must be dumb." But just being attracted to her body is sexism?
Perhaps what we need is a little perspective on things. It's too easy to get caught up in one idea and look at everything in light of it. Maybe that's why a liberal arts education is good for you. By introducing you to contradicting ideas, schools of thought, ways of life and ways of thinking, it forces you to see the problems in any set of ideas. So you embark on life sure about nothing and open to everything. That's the best way.
But then again, maybe not.
