A mon tour d'être sadique

Pour votre plus grand déplaisir, et dans la plus parfaite inutilité je vous fais partager à ma grande joie deux de mes écrits sur des sujets passionnants. Je serai reconnaissante à toute personne lisant au moins les deux premières lignes, bien consciente que personne, excepté mon beau père gaga (pardon robert lol) n'ira plus loin. A tout ceux qui me rappellent chaque jour ma chance d'être ici: bonne lecture.

1) What are some modern examples of interior provision to maintain a separation of powers?

Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (Argued: April 23, 1986 - Decided: July 7, 1986) declared The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, also called the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, unconstitutional because it represented an usurpation of executive power by Congress. This act, setting a maximum deficit amount for federal spending and giving the budget-cutting authority to the comptroller general, gave to the Congress the power to terminate the US Comptroller General for different reasons such: « inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance ». After the proclamation of this law, the representative Mike Synar and eleven other members of Congress claimed to the U.S. District Court forthe District of Columbia this act was unconstitutional.

According to the constitution, the Congress doesn’t possess the executive power and can not delegate this power to one of his agent, such as the Comptroller General. The reason why the CG is an agent of the Congress is that the Congress can remove him. Under this act the CG had the power to interpret a law enacted by the Congress, which is the essence of executive power, and the budget cutting authority. That is why the Court declared it unconstitutional and claimed that it was a violation of the separation of power.

 This case could be linked with the INS v Chadha case: in both cases law affirms that the Congress can not execute law (or delegate this power), and that its powers are limited by the constitution. (see art. I. section 8).

2) Charlotte Temple (Of S. Rowson) a non feminist novel.

According to Rowson, Charlotte Temple was first written for the « fair sex ». So, a question has to be raised: is this book a piece of feminist literature, written by a woman for women, or is it a book supporting the patriarchal and traditional system? This question is primordial, cause this novel was, in fact, read by a large part of the society, and could have influenced it: according to Mr. Elias Nason, Charlotte Temple « has stolen its way alike into the stud of the divine and into the workshop of the mechanic; into the parlor of the accomplished lady and the bedchamber of her waiting-maid into the log hut on the extreme borders of modern civilization and into the forecastle of the whale ship on the lonely ocean. It has bee read by the gray-bearded professor after hi divine Plato; by the beardless clerk after balancing his accounts by night; by the traveler waiting for his next conveyance at the village inn; by the schoolgirl stealthily in her sea It has beguiled the workman in his hut a night in the deep solitudes of the forest; it has cheated the farmer's son of many an hour while poring over its fascinating pages, seated around the broken spinning-wheel in the old attic; it has drawn tears from the miner's eye in the dim twilight of his subterranean galley it has unlocked the secret sympathies of the veteran soldier in his tent before the day of battle », and so could have contribute to the reproduction of patriarchal system, or the liberation of women in the New World.
  If Charlotte Temple has often been seen as a feminist novel, it is in fact a very conservative piece of literature.
  Indeed, this book, influenced by puritan view, is clearly a moral life conduct book for women. Moreover the relations between women, and their role in society, are viewed as totally unproductive or useless. To conclude, this book has contribute to reproduce the traditional view of weak and submissive women.

  If this book could have been seen as an « help » for young women to survive in a dangerous world with seducers, hypocrites and false friends, it is indeed a severe reminder of what could happen to women if they disobey. Rowson pretended to help « the young and thoughtless of the fair sex » (in the preface), to protect these « vulnerable young women from the pain of social rejection » . Instead she shows us how women are totally rejected from American society, how rebel girls are punished, and by her vocabulary (« thoughtless », « vulnerable »…) maintains women in traditional stereotypes. Rowson doesn’t only warn women against the « various and unexpected evils […] [which] attend young and unprotected women in their first entrance into life », she totally stigmatizes women in their role of « weak creature ». She is condescending too with her reader, which she expects to be women, calling them: « dear girls ». She accused too the youth to be driven by pleasure, which will cause their failure (« the mind of youth catches at promised pleasure, and innocent by nature it thinks not of the dangers»). Pleasure here is describe as « vain illusion » which drive to « thousand follies, errors and […] vices ». It is clearly associate with the fallen women, which have preferred the pleasure to the duty.With her emphatic moralism and melodramatic vocabulary, the author, and so the women, are put in the sensibly sphere, not in sense one. Moreover, instead of just warning women; Charlotte Temple became a « life guide », for a good conduct, giving a lot of moral advices to follow: « listen not the voice of love, unless sanctioned by paternal approbation », « pray for fortitude to resist the impulse of inclination » and less direct advices, said by characters themselves: « my mother has often told me, I should never read a letter given me by a young man without first giving it to her » (which shows too that the only authority a woman can have is on her own daughter)… S. Rowson herself seems to give this aim to her book: « I may have children of my own […] to whom this recital may be of use […] and to your own children […] » too. Rowson describes too the principles of women life: « Humility, Filial Piety, Conjugal Affection », « Religion », and « Patience ». One can noticed that the simple fact that women, and not young boys, have to be warn shows the weakness of the « fair sex » . The author has probably been influenced by the social background of her times, dominated by a rigid moral code, and severe punishments for whom rebel against it.
  Moreover it seems that Rowson wants us to remember the duty of piety showing that women without faith are going to be punished: for example one can notice that she quotes the Pope, in chapter XXI, showing the importance of faith: « Teach me to feel another’s woe, to hid the fault I see, that mercy I to other show, that mercy show me ». This sentence sounds like a warn to women reading these lines. And at the beginning, Rowson introduces La Rue as a girl who had defied « moral and religious duty », and the reader can see what her punishment is: death. Parker also suggests that in Charlotte Temple, Rowson reminds us the virtue of « responsible marriage » : the only woman who has had a « responsible marriage » is Mrs. Beauchamps, who is the only woman too who doesn’t become crazy or dead. The duty has to be more important than everything: as said Charlotte « how shall I rejoice in this triumph or reason over inclination! », « I will sacrifice love to duty ».

Rowson emphasize also the idea of incapacity of women, describing their relations. She pretends wanting to show women should take care of each other. For example she clearly approves of Mrs. Beauchamp's behavior toward Charlotte. But it is significant that Mrs. Beauchamp is herself married: a married woman can help other women, who, without husband are totally lost, but Charlotte, unmarried, is unable to take care of someone, even of her child. Moreover, reading this book, one can see that the fact women can take care of each other is an illusion. In fact, since the beginning, the reader can see women are unable to take care of other women: the first example is the failure of Mme Dupont in the education of Charlotte. And some women relationships are based on hypocrisies: if Charlotte though Melle Larue (described since the beginning -Chapter VI- as an « intriguing teacher ») wanted to take care of her, in fact she is the one who provokes her failure, playing a big role in Charlotte’s seduction. Charlotte, in her letter, affirms: « under the mask of friendship [LaRue] drew me on to ruin ». During all this book, one can see the traditional conflict between « Conflict of Love and Duty », which imply that women have to chose between both. Worse, in this book, we can notice that some women, especially Charlotte, but at the end Melle Larue too, cannot even take care of themselves. The only time which a relation between women is fructuous, is when Mrs. Beauchamp helped Charlotte to write a letter. Here, once again, the virtuous married women helps the poor fallen girl. But one can see that in this relation, the submissive position of women is affirmed once again: if the reader can for once hear a women voice, he’s forced to listen to a very submissive and complaining one: in fact Charlotte write in a very submissive and pathetic way. For example she wonders: « will my once kind, my ever beloved mother, deign to receive a letter from her guilty but repentant child »…
  This piece of literature paints women as weak, seduced so easily (like Charlotte) or attracted only by power and money (like LaRue). And one can notice too that without money women are totally lost and don’t even think to work. For example when Charlotte is warned that she will have to leave the house, she does not think that she could work to earn money. And Before this warning she had not even though she will need money to pay the loan. The proposition of the farmer’s wife to help Charlotte earning money shows too, once again, the inability of women: « go to the barracks and work for a morsel of bread, wash and mend the soldiers cloaths, an cook their victuals ». Without money, Charlotte is forced to live at the lower class house, and Melle Larue, unable too to find a financial solution, to live in the street. The determinism of women condition is described with such a cynicism too: in fact Melle Larue (Mrs. TheStreet) really seems to have been predisposed to her end (in the street). But if almost all women failed, one can notice a « degree of failure », in fact this novel is not only an anti-feminist one, but an anti-French too. In fact, if Charlotte is the symbol of virtuous fallen women, Melle Larue represents the vice, a girl who « had eloped from a convent with a young officer, and on coming to England, had lived with several different men in open defiance of all moral and religious duties ». And whereas during all the book we are told following our heart is being foolish, for the French Melle LaRue, being foolish is to be « a little prude ». It not only shows the way some women, especially French women, are said to behave, but it shows to the naivety of some of them: Mme Du Pont trusted this kind of woman to educate young girls of her school. The education of women, limited to learn « music and Italian », totally failed.

  So, one can really say that a traditional view of woman as a helpless victim, who must have the support of her parents and her husband is imposed. For example one can see the importance of parental support and approbation in Charlotte letter: Charlotte begs here the pardon of her mother and her protection for her child and asks her parents to « let a tear of pity and pardon fall to [her] memory ». With the quite complete and long description of the parents of Charlotte during the novel, one can see to their importance in a girl story. Moreover the contrast between so perfect and lovely parents and the « poor Charlotte » emphasizes the failure of this girl. Henry Temple is showed as a Hero who has liberated M. Eldridge and his daughter, and Lucy is painted as the perfect angel and as submissive in her « duty of wife » . Charlotte describes them as « the fondest parents that ever girl had », her « dear friend of [her] soul », her « kind guardians of [her] infancy » in a letter in which she accused herself of being « guilty » « ingrate », and « forgetful of her duty  ». Her mother too is very submissive to her father, with filial respect: she said for example: « daily are my prayer offered to heaven that our lives may terminate at the same instant, and one grave receive us both ». The dependence of women to men are visible during all the story: women abandoned by their lover became crazy or/and are promised to an early death (like Charlotte or LaRue). But worse, in this book, no women, even Julia Franklin know an « happy end »… Except Mrs. Beauchamps, who shows that to be happy, or at least not punished, women have to be submissive twice to the patriarchal system: first with their father (« listen not the voice of love, unless sanctioned by paternal approbation ») then with their husband. The importance of patriarchic system is seen too in the lack of self-esteem Charlotte has: she doesn’t exist, but through Montraville. The need of being submissive is shown trough Montraville and Belcour: they are both British soldiers sent to the New World to fight against rebels. It is interesting to see that Charlotte is a « rebel », and that Belcour and Montraville repressed her, both causing her death. Her death is a total stigmatization of women with illicit sexual union: « when once a woman has forgot the respect due to herself by yielding to the solicitations of illicit love, they lose all their consequence, even I the eyes of the man whose art has betrayed them, and for whose sake they have sacrificed every valuable consideration ». The death of Charlotte illustrates that the fallen woman is a fatal disease, a poison, that society has to eradicate. The song from in song from Oliver Goldsmith, The Vicar of Wakefield (1766) summarizes quite well the general idea of this book:

« When lovely woman stoops to folly,
And finds too late that men betray,
What charm can sooth her melancholy,
What art can wash her guilt away?
The only art her guilt to cover,
To hide her shame from every eye,
To give repentance to her lover,
And wring his bosom--is to die. »

Patricia Parker said: « Rowson lived during a crucial period in our nation's history, as it turned from provincial colony to pre-industrial nation. She herself strongly identified with the political objectives of the new republic and came to consider herself American despite her British birth, as she lived most of her life in this country. Her writings reflect an increasing concern with freedom and democratic principles, both politically and sexually. ». If the vocabulary of rebellion and liberation is very present in this book, as the political language, the liberation of sexuality is affirmed only for men: the only man Charlotte ever loved is Montraville, whereas Montraville seduced Charlotte and Julia. Belcour too is sexually liberated, seducing LaRue and trying to seduce Charlotte. Concerning the « political objectives of the new republic » we can see that Mrs. Beauchamps hopes Charlotte to become a « good citizen » but instead the  « poor girl » died, showing that women are brutally excluded from this New World. If this New world is about freedom, democracy and sexual and political liberties, this is only true for male. There is no place for women, no (social) space for them in America.

  To concluded, Charlotte Temple, really appears as a non feminist (and anti-French) novel: It remains girls the importance of duty, of faith, of submission, and gives examples of punishment for women who try to disobey: abandon, craziness or death. It is interesting too to see that the punishment keeps on with the illegitimate child: Montraville never take care of Charlotte’s daughter and even Charlotte can not recognize her child when she was born. And later, the punishment keeps on, with the impossibility of Lucy to get married with the only man she has ever loved: her half brother. This novel shows too that girls are unable to work, to manage by their own and to take care of each other, or to have a social space, especially on the New world. The failure of their education and their lack of sense are quite obvious. This book also revels the vices of some women, attracted by money, being unfaithful or rebels. Rowson doesn’t forget to describe the model women have to follow: the Angel Lucy, or the submissive wife Beauchamps. Only two opportunities appear in this book for women: being obedient or dying.