I vote Duncan and Rashida Jones for most tolerable celebrity children, but I bet even they are fucking annoying in their own way.
Okay actually I don't vote them at all. I just wanted to pretend they were related for my own obscure purposes.
My friend went to high school with Sting's kids. Sounds like they were kinda fuck-ups.
My other friend smoked weed with the Gore daughters. They were a lot of fun, apparently.
I like this thread. I think I'll stay.
If Pericles couldn't raise good kids then virtue isn't teachable.
I went to school with Roger Maris's grandchildren.
My BFF got thrown out of [posh east coast prep school] with one of the RFK kids. For, you know, the reasons you'd expect. But a good guy, apparently.
I was a little surprised when I stopped paying attention to the Tigers for a while and Cecil Fielder was replaced by his son.
Is there a theme to this thread that I should be following?
Gawker is conflicted about the Brant Brothers.
My ex-wife was a celebrity kid. And fairly well fucked up by it too. She was pretty young when her parents divorced and she went with the non-celeb parent and experienced actual poverty when that parent lost their money from the settlement to some grifter. So she wasn't as fucked up as her older siblings were. Still pretty fucked up though. I wish I knew enough to steer well clear back in the day.
I went to school for a year with the actor Michael Shannon, who is in a number of movies as a creepy menacing thug. I know this because he looked familiar to me and I had a vague memory of maybe having been in school with him for a year, so after seeing him in a number of things in Broadway including an intimate little production of Our Town (god what an awful play) where he was sort of standing directly over me for a while, I went to see him in an intimate little production of Uncle Vanya on Saturday and he was smoking outside beforehand so I was like "did I go to school with you for a year?" and it turned out I did.
Wait, I guess this was about having gone to school with the children of famous people not semi-famous people themselves. But obvs I wanted to tell my story anyway.
Our Town (god what an awful play)
People don't say that often enough.
Children of nobelists are not obviously fucked up by it in my experience, although they act pretty darn privileged.
(My experiece consisting of two that I went to school with at different times.)
I may have mentioned this before, but my brother was almost a stand-in for Matthew Broderick. Apparently, they are the same size.
15: Show biz celebrity or another subspecies?
The most supercilious person I ever met was a middle-aged ex-disciple of the Dalai Lama, hanging out in Oxford being fawned over by grad students half his age. He made Rhodes Scholars seem unpretentious.
21: Show biz (I figured the clue was in the name I chose). And huge back in their heyday.
IME kids of famous people go to extremes -- positive and negative -- but with a pretty wide range. Certainly not all are screwed up by any measure. It's really hard for the little kids of famous people who are constantly followed by the paparazzi -- having seen this in person a few times it is super gross.
The Brandt Brothers aren't really celebrity kids, though. They are young gay socialites. Basically it is like the NYT profiling some beautiful Astor daughter in 1911, except that they're young gay men instead of pretty girls. Not sure what to make of that.
I maintain a mental list of attractive short celebrities.
Their mom is Stephanie Seymour though. She is a kinda/sorta celebrity, right?
You couldn't have the November Rain video without her!
Exactly. Does that scream "socialite"?
Mr. Rose screamed a great many things, but less than usual in that video.
Also, is the younger Brant child gay? I don't think we know that -- since he seems to think Mommie Dearest makes Joan Crawford fabulous, when it is obviously about the fabulousness of Faye Dunaway.
No, but these guys are profiled because they are extremely wealthy young people on the NY social scene. And bc they are doing that while being gay teens.
What growing obsession? I don't see any growing obsession here, apart from my growing obsession to see the Times' Mexican sugar daddy run out of money and watch the paper finally sink into fucking oblivion. The Style section pulls this kind of shit all the time. People are obsessed with the Brants! The home butter churning movement is gaining strength! Floppy disks are waging a minor comeback among the Williamsburg elite! SHOW ME SOME EVIDENCE.
+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
(No, but seriously. The older kid is out, not the younger. We have no idea what his scene is. Don't assume he's gay! Don't assume he's not!)
Fine, one of the two is an openly gay teen socialite, the other is an ambiguously possibly straight or gay teen socialite. That's still sort of interesting to the extent young socialites are interesting at all.
to the extent young socialites are interesting at all
Yes, this is the hangup.
Eleanor Roosevelt was plenty interesting, you sexists.
Would it help if I googled some pictures of Stephanie Seymour and stared at them for a while?
It's conceivable the Brant bros. may not be horribly obnoxious in real life, as teenagers go; what's bizarre is the way the NYT article is written.
"You hate 'Troop Beverly Hills,' but you love 'Cocktail?' " Harry countered. "You are a tacky European man!"
On the one hand, who says "You are a tacky European man"? (What does that even mean? Is it a 21st century variant on the accusation that someone's a 'Eurofag'?) On the other hand, the article is written to be as jaw-droppingly idiotic as possible, and it's unclear why. Maybe the writer couldn't hear it in the writing and thought the profile was awesome, or maybe he/she was actually trolling. Really weird.
I got everyone to sign this petition, even the ones who think Big Fun are tuneless tacky European men.
Children of nobelists are not obviously fucked up by it in my experience
My only experience here was with a grandchild of nobelists, whom I think we can all agree is gracious and charming.
My other friend smoked weed with the Gore daughters.
Ha! I recall hearing of friend of a friend who also got high with the Gore daughters.
The linked piece goes totally overboard in its disdain. We should be happy whenever a scion of the wealthy decides to become a pretentious art aficionado instead of yet another Patrick Bateman wannabe. In a few years these guys are going to bankroll the next Dia:Beacon museum.
I was in the cub scouts with William J. Brennan's grandson. When I first heard that, I wondered, who the fuck is William J. Brennan?
If figured what with using words like Übermenschen that the entire article was designed to say "hey look at these asswipes". Sort of a pisstake.
Maybe the writer couldn't hear it in the writing and thought the profile was awesome, or maybe he/she was actually trolling
That's the question with a really high percentage of Style section articles. Intentions utterly opaque. At least with Martha Stewart (as was discussed last week) you can appreciate the performance.
My ex-wife was a celebrity kid. And fairly well fucked up by it too.
I recently watched the documentary Becoming Chaz which I enjoyed much more than I expected and the most interesting parts are showing what life is like for the other party in a relationship with (a) a celebrity kid who is (b) transitioning to a new sex. The "human interest" elements of it were surprisingly interesting.
[I feel like I've been recommending a number of documentaries lately. If so it's because I've started checking out more DVDs from the local public library.]
I think "trolling" comes pretty close -- the point of the article is to infuriate and mystify just enough to promote people reading it. Which, of course, we all are.
I'm trying to think of how many "celebrity" children I know or have known reasonably well, i.e. we'd have . I think if you define "celebrity" fairly broadly, i.e. to include reasonably well recognized directors or TV actors, I come to around 25.
The blank space is "we'd have memories of significant conversations together. I tend to fill blank spaces with sex thoughts, so I'm just letting you know.
50: Yeah, sure. We all know what "I come to around 25" means.
41: Same nobelists, different grandchild in my case. Also not obviously fucked up.
Basically it is like the NYT profiling some beautiful Astor daughter in 1911, except that they're young gay men instead of pretty girls.
And it's not fucking 1911 any more.
On the other hand, the article is written to be as jaw-droppingly idiotic as possible, and it's unclear why.
Because it's in the NYT Style section.
47, 53.last: So I come to understand.
||
I just tore one of my students a new asshole on FB, for posting a meme about drug-testing welfare recipients. I don't know why this exactly set me off but I was white-hot with rage.
|>
I haven't had anything stronger than wine with Karenna Gore.
55: Not that I disagree on the main point, but why are you FB friends with students?
I went to high school with Mac/kenzie As/tin (he was a year ahead of me) but never really crossed paths with him. He seemed decent enough.
A friend of mine from hs dated Amy Carter in college. It's fair to assume they were smoking a lot, I think.
60: The same! (Although at school people mostly referred to him as "the little kid from 'The F/acts of Li/fe'".)
59: I'm waiting for someone to say they huffed glue with Jenna Bush. It seems like the next step here.
I went to high school with Lori Loughlin. I think she was a year ahead of me.
My mother is friends with one of Daniel B—rstin's sons, who is apparently a swell guy but kind of neurotic w/r/t his father.
Not that I disagree on the main point, but why are you FB friends with students?
A long time ago I decided just to keep my FB account professional and accept whichever friend requests came my way.
(To be ridiculous for a second, sometimes I think of my job as being on the front line of the war against conservatives, and facebook is a place where I can possibly influence young Texans who like me and haven't formed opinions on political topics yet.)
I know someone who went to Harvard because Natalie Portman was going there.
I wonder what became of them.
My FB account is basically people in Nebraska. I'm not sure why.
A friend of mine from hs dated Amy Carter in college. It's fair to assume they were smoking a lot, I think.
Amy's cousin (can't remember her name) was a counselor at my summer camp. On her first day there, she was (supposedly) shy and scared to be on her own, and one of the first parents took a look at her last name and boomed "Carter! Was your dad the president or the drunk?" Her dad was the drunk, and she burst into tears. Or so I was told.
Natalie got married and had a kid recently. I don't know how your friend is doing.
Surely the bigger question is why H-G's students are friending their professor. I realise this is Heebie U and all, but still.
I'm waiting for someone to say they huffed glue with Jenna Bush. It seems like the next step here.
Not quite but a fellow grad student in the same program I was in had her sister in his Intro to World Religions class. He noted that on the short answer part of a mid-term she left the term ahimsa blank.
62: I know somebody who was in her wedding but who doesn't really seem like the glue huffing type.
55: I have gone off on two high school friends on fb for posting that same thing.
62: I went to the restaurant where the Bush twins got busted for underage drinking in Austin, not long after the fact, and they have all these fun t-shirts, and I said to someone working there "are you going to make a shirt about the Bush twins getting busted?!" (very excitedly, with exclamation points) to which the response was "we would never do that."
73 cont'd: and in fact this person sort of stuffily defended her character against a bunch of east coast liberal-types making fun of her. Now works in finance, you will be shocked to learn.
Apparently it was an open secret around Austin that one of them had an abortion in high school.
Damn liberal types and their fun.
77: That is probably my favorite Onion headline ever.
48: If so it's because I've started checking out more DVDs from the local public library.
If not, does that mean you've been stealing the DVDs from the library, or just renting them from Netflix?
Also, I was a bridesmaid in Mollie Sugden's wedding.
I wonder if Heebie's FB friend would support mandatory drug testing of students who get student loans.
80: I included that point in my rant.
78: Me too! I don't think they've ever managed to top it.
Regarding Facebook I stand by my previously expressed opinion.
I guess in heebie-geebie's case there's at least a chance of influencing the students' thinking in a less pernicious direction.
Have you ever received any confirmatory feedback that you managed to make one of them less wingnutty?
Unsurprisingly, the link in 77 is blocked by the Department of the Interior. Luckily I can see from the url what it is.
Have you ever received any confirmatory feedback that you managed to make one of them less wingnutty?
Nope! But I've been un-friended by students.
"C minus!? I'm totally unfriending you."
I just read "C minus!" as "Cum in us!" What is wrong with me.
85: My only FB unfriending (that I'm aware of) came about because of that very drug-testing/foodstamps meme. My "friend" told me I was being naive, so I expressed myself in the language of experience.
Children of nobelists are not obviously fucked up by it in my experience
There were three that I know of in my college class. Only one was obviously fucked up. One I have mentioned before in this forum (more than once, in fact) in the context of a tedious boast.
... That sentence alone justifies every single conservative criticism that the Times exists with its head perpetually up its own ass. ...
That sort of criticism is more common from the left.
Good thing asses are bilaterally symmetrical.
93: Yes, that struck me as somewhat inaccurate as well. I thought the conservative complaint was that the Times was run by Jews and advocated giving too many special privileges to Blacks.
I become obsessed with things like DNA or old Valentino shows or the Qing dynasty. I have a love of opulence.
I've been unfriended lots on FB, most recently by my mom.
95: I don't know about the Jews part, but the Times is a hotbed of liberal bias, right? Buncha pointy-headed elitists trying to fool you with their fancy words. Like "DNA" and "Valentino" and "Qing dynasty".
Edith Wharton was a tacky European man!
Speaking of hating things in the Style section, I'm a guy getting married to a guy in September. He wants to submit our wedding to the NYTimes (who knows if they would even take it). But then I worry about whether being this open could cause problems (professionally, even though I'm mainly out to cow-orkers), or how ridiculous it would be to be profiled in the Times.
heebie, I went off on a student over the very same meme. We're having an extended (semi-polite) FB disagreement which has yet to taper off. She's a non-traditional student who I know for a fact has actually been on WIC and food stamps, so WTF.
101: Everyone loves playing "Hey I know that guy!" with the Times wedding announcements. Ignorant cow-orkers will be charmed!
I'd say it's totally your call. I wouldn't do it in a million years, but then I prefer keeping a low profile in general. It might be worth remembering that if the NYT does take it, it'll be googleable for the rest of your life. But if it's important to your partner ....
Ah, youth. Remember getting into those crazy kid things like the Qing Dynasty? Everyone wants to be Nurhachi when they grow up.
Thanks Moby (heh heh), and parsimon, and oudemia. I'm definitely conflicted. I'm not so worried about the cow-workers but whether it would cause problems in doing research/getting participants (the job). This is pretty unlikely. And do people who are really homophobic spend time scouring the Style section? I'm guessing no. One compelling point to do it raised by a friend was that it does normalize things to people to realize same-sex couples can and are getting married. I'm with parsimon in generally liking to keep a low profile.
On the other hand, a NYT announcement might be good for a certain kind of profession. It's like the Mother Of All Social Capital Leveraging Attempts (MOSCVA!!).
As for the question of only being "mostly out," you really should try to take advantage of what gay mafia still exists before you assimilationists dismantle it all.
Or, alternatively, it could just be a giant pain in the ass (I hear that the NYT makes you submit copies of all your diplomas and stuff) that gets you mocked by your peers. Post a link to it if it happens!
108: As for "mostly out" = I don't hide it, and as far as I know most folks know. Though I've been surprised when people don't know (I thought people were pretty gossipy about such things, and its not that hard to figure out). For what it's worth, I'm not a total assimilationist, in that I think marriage as an institution is all that its cracked up to be, but it sure as hell does piss me off that the federal and most state governments give the gays a separate set of rights. I'm also trying to figure out what I need the gay mafia for... I'm sure there are some things.
I've heard that the gay mafia is very handy if you plan to get an academic poetry gig. Why you would want an academic poetry gig, exercise reader etc.
And do people who are really homophobic spend time scouring the Style section?
Nah, people who are really homophobic avoid the Times like the plague! So I understand, anyway. But people do google you as a matter of course these days.
I fear that I sound like I'm advising staying sort-of closeted. I don't know what to say there: I wouldn't do it whether I'm straight or gay (just the low profile thing), but you're absolutely right that normalization of same-sex marriage is important.
Also, if you are hankering after press coverage in any way, it's not terribly hard to sell stories to Out Magazine. Or that's my understanding.
Seriously, the action that you are taking to normalize gay marriage is getting married. That will have the most resonance to people who know you, who get to experience in their personal lives the fact of you as married. These are not the people who need to read about you in the NYT. Lots of people are stepping up to "the gay couple in the NYT marriages column."
On the NYT, I say evaluate whether or not you want to be in the paper as you. In terms of how much it outs you, any ripples will be entirely forgotten by all in two months.
If the idea lights you up, go for it. If you can tolerate it and your fiance is dying to do it, go for it. Otherwise, don't do it.
115 gets it right. And congratulations! (throws confetti or rose petals, whatever is most pleasing)
101: Please go for it. Especially if you and I are FB friends. I have a rule that if I see someone I know in the Sunday Styles Wedding section, I am going to have a good week. And I don't think I've had anyone this year.
I submitted neither of my weddings. Both brides woulda gone along with it, but my enthusiasm wasn't quite high enough to overcome my laziness. I think we would have had a slim chance, but a real one. (Elite school, check; no famous parents; worked in politics, but local govt not in NYC, and in the case of Mrs. K-sky the first, in media but not in national or NYC.)
119: Clearly, pink sparkles and unicorns. (just kidding).
I also agree with 115, in fact, just having the term 'husband' to toss around will, I think, make (force?) me become lots more comfortable with talking being open about it during casual conversation.
And the advice in 118 is also very sensible. I vacillate between options 2 and 3, with just the slightest bit of ego tweak for option 1. He would like to do it, but told me that we absolutely don't have to unless I'm comfortable with the decision. (Which is good, because, that's the correct and awesome way to be, and because I would have been pissed -- I do what I want!!)
120: This is true. It used to be very regular and now I am aged out of it and it is bumming me out
120 and 122 live on another planet, but de gustibus.
121: I vacillate between options 2 and 3, with just the slightest bit of ego tweak for option 1.
So you're center-no, rather than center-yes. I'd take that as a sign. I guess you could check on how long you have to decide before you submit the announcement to the Times.
123.1: I'm on your planet, but the hemisphere where nobody sticks driftwood on the walls.
So you're center-no, rather than center-yes. I'd take that as a sign.
In contrast, my personal M.O. on things where I'm on the fence is to go for it.
Here's what I tell myself: It's like sitting down for a meal. When it's over, you can't taste it anymore and no one remembers it. So you might as well do the big crazy meal, because no matter how badly it goes, after a while you can't taste it anymore and no one remembers it.
120, 122: I am basically aged out of the straight weddings, but there are plenty of older gay couples who can only now get married. One couple I know was profiled in the "Vows" column earlier this year.
When it's over, you can't taste it anymore and no one remembers it.
You've never eaten at Arby's.
It's like you don't even remember the analogy ban, heebie.
I'd do the wedding announcement thing. If you're out, I don't think it particularly changes the odds than anyone who'd be negative about it knows you're gay. And it's the sort of thing that should be cheerful and pleasant but in practice is mostly done by twerps -- if you do it, everyone who knows and likes you gets the little lift k-sky and oudemia describe.
(Did anyone else have a weird reaction around the time five years or so ago when gay marriage started getting legal, when every time you looked at a gay couple, you had a sappy moment of "Aw, you can get married now!" It's worn off, but I had a really gooily sentimental reaction to gay couples for about a year there.)
130: Ah, I see. Ponies for unfogged members and friends/family. That goes in the advantages list.
And if I do end up deciding to go for it, of course, we probably won't be accepted [or worse: they decide to do the vows think instead]; I doubt that we're society enough to make the cut, so this might all be fretting over nothin'!
(Did anyone else have a weird reaction around the time five years or so ago when gay marriage started getting legal, when every time you looked at a gay couple, you had a sappy moment of "Aw, you can get married now!" It's worn off, but I had a really gooily sentimental reaction to gay couples for about a year there.)
When we went to get our marriage license city hall had a big banner with the text of Margaret Marshall's majority opinion from the Massachusetts decision. We were all like "aw, yay." And then we got to fill in the "gender" fields on the license application, and were like "aw, yay." It was really quite nice.
In NYS you get to fill in a gender field on the "one who just gave birth" section of the birth certificate. Is this standard?
115 gets it right. You're already doing your part in the War on the Institution of Marriage.
With all these new fields to enter, we're going to need longer punch cards.
139: Yeah, I was sort of thinking it wasn't but didn't want to assume.
The latest version of the U.S. passport application for minors has "parent" and "parent" in place of "mother" and "father". Yay, Hillary Clinton State Department!
That doesn't even increase the number of fields.
Unless it asks for the gender of each.
Or height. That would require at least three columns each.
I think you'll need more than three columns, then.
Let IBM's never to be surpassed machines show you how it can be done.
137: I agree we will be doing this going through it and being able to refer to ourselves as actually married (which really does seem both bizarre and awesome to me). What pisses me off is that we live in states that won't legally recognize it (NJ and PA)... yet anyway.
Just to be clear: I don't have any problem with people actually gay marrying each other. As long as they don't frighten the horses. Just opposed to the political outline of the whole business. Two, three, many gay marriages, that's my motto.
SO, congratulations Grover Cleveland & spouse. If I did not hate weddings in general so much, I would probably be moved to tears.
149: You've got the important part of marriage (living in different states) down.
Congratulations, Grover! Lee and I plan to marry when it becomes legally recognized where we live, which may be a day or two before hell freezes if we stay here. I'm big on the abolition of marriage, but prioritize Mara's chances to benefit from the pros of marriage. I will say that being a parent is very outing and that's been a good thing for me, which I hope your marriage will also be.
Contrary to everyone else who claims that all wll be forgotten, I'll say that the wedding announcement will show up high in the rankings whenver anyone googles you from here on out, so that's a factor if you think it's something worth worrying about. Neither of us would merit attention even in our local newspaper (though I should probably know whether it publishes gay wedding info and I don't even know that) and so this isn't something I've thought through on the personal/political scale.
I'll say that the wedding announcement will show up high in the rankings whenver anyone googles you from here on out...
I've slipped to the 81st mention in a google search for my name. Fucking other people with my name who aren't related to me, including the burglar.
I missed one. 56th. I still should apply myself.
Thorn is making me feel inferior. I'd go burgle something, but if I didn't get caught, it wouldn't boost my google ranking.
Ok, not really Thorn, but drunk googling.
I should have killed Hitler when that time machine was working.
I'm like 80% sure that was Hitler.
160: Did he have a cane and a bowler hat?
Did he take 25 minutes to die while singing "Bye Bye Love"?
158: I'm pretty sure you're not the kind of person I have to google for work and they're the sort of people who have NYT wedding listings, so I'm not an unbiased observer. You're the number one hit when I google "Moby Hick," though.
I do show up much better on PubMed than google these days.
Getting a disease named after you will do that.
Not that that's necessarily what happened.
Did anyone else have a weird reaction around the time five years or so ago when gay marriage started getting legal, when every time you looked at a gay couple, you had a sappy moment of "Aw, you can get married now!"
I lived 2 blocks from the Cambridge city hall when it first became legal here. The first couple of months, I would see same-sex couples all the time who were clearly on their way there to get married: dressed for a special occasion, looking excited and/or nervous, often with one or two people who were obviously accompanying the couple to something the couple was doing (as opposed to four people just going somewhere together). It was all "awww" all the time for a while there.
When we went to get our marriage license city hall had a big banner with the text of Margaret Marshall's majority opinion from the Massachusetts decision. We were all like "aw, yay." And then we got to fill in the "gender" fields on the license application, and were like "aw, yay." It was really quite nice.
I remember your mentioning this at the time and friends of mine got gay-married in MA not long after that, so I vaguely associate you and Blume with that wedding.
You also fill out the marriage license application for "Party A" and "Party B" instead of Bride and Groom. (Or is this the case in non-gay-marriage states now as well?)
If both parties are men, how do you decide which one gets to be Party A?
If both parties are men, how do you decide which one gets to be Party A?
Why would you only need to made that decision if both parties were men? If I were involved I'd suggest tossing a coin.
I was merely noting that people can apply their own sexism into any set of labels.
They should go with "Party Over Here" and "Party Over There".
It would be better if the parties were ordered by some kind of neutral criteria, like Party A is the one with the lowest IQ or the worst breath.
San Francisco does a "Party A" / "Party B" thing. Apparently the practice is still fairly new, though. My wife and I listed her name first (take that, patriarchy!) and managed to completely befuddle the sweet old woman who performed our service. She then insisted on pronouncing my wife's name as if I were in fact gay-marrying an elderly Jew.
I thought it was at least somewhat "aww"-worthy. My wife has since come around to the same view, I think.
