Newtown Gun Control Advocacy

The Connecticut State Legislature has passed and the governor has signed a new gun control bill designed to ensure that the Newtown massacre can never happen again.

To promote the gun control cause 60 Minutes is going to air interviews with the parents of the slain children. These parents will be stating, to an absolute certainty, that if Adam Lanza had not had access to magazines that held thirty bullets he would not have killed as many children.

In the time it would have taken him to reload ten-bullet magazines some of the children would have been able to run away.

It’s a counterfactual like another.

But, let’s try another counterfactual. Before the Newtown massacre the Connecticut State Legislature voted down legislation that would have made it easier to commit people like Adam Lanza to psychiatric institutions against their will. If they had voted for the bill and if the governor had signed it, Adam Lanza’s mother would have been able to have him committed.

If the Connecticut State Legislature had done its job, Adam Lanza would have been receiving psychiatric treatment and all of the slain women and children of Newtown would still be alive.

It’s another counterfactual, one that you will probably not hear on 60 Minutes.

The Amanda Marcotte School of Relationships

It doesn’t take too much to send Amanda Marcotte into an ideological tizzy. Recently, the debate provoked by Susan Patton’s suggestion that women should marry young did the trick.

As a notable feminist scold, a woman who was fired from the John Edwards campaign for rhetorical overreach, Marcotte defends the faith fiercely.

In her first defense of delayed marriage Marcotte resorted to a lame ad hominem argument: namely, that Patton was trying to play matchmaker for her Princetonian sons.

Marcotte wrote:

With that in mind, I'm guessing her sons are pretty embarrassed right now. Mothers have been embarrassing their sons since time immemorial by declaring that any woman should be happy to have a man so fine, but most mothers have the common sense to keep that sentiment inside the walls of their home. Dressing it up as concern for women's wellbeing and running it in a university's paper, however, takes cheek-pinching offspring-humiliation to another level entirely.

Everyone ought to know that ad hominem arguments are the first recourse of the feeble minded. They do not merit a response.

Since her first foray did not seem to impress too many people, Marcotte doubled down. When Slate’s Double X blog posted Julia Shaw's column about what it was like to marry young, Marcotte reached back to find a way to persuade young women to avoid marriage.

She came up with this:

Watching conservatives desperately try to bully women into younger marriage with a couple of promises and a whole lot of threats is highly entertaining but clearly not persuasive.

The underscored phrase refers to Marcotte’s first ad hominem attack on Patton. Nuf said.

Most of the women who are advising in favor of early marriage do not identify themselves as either liberals or conservatives. If you have been following the debate on this blog and elsewhere you will note that Patton et al. have not been manifesting any desperation, either.

It would be more fair to say that Marcotte has cornered the market in desperation. I am not suggesting that she is or is not desperate to get married. Reports suggest that she has a male "partner."

Marcotte continues:

Women marry later because it makes sense given their own career aspirations. Even many of those pushing the ideological argument for young marriage, like Megan McArdle, tend, when it comes to their own lives, to opt out of the pressure to be young divorcees martyred for the cause.

Or course, Megan McArdle, who wrote an eminently intelligent essay on the topic, never said that marrying young meant divorcing young. And where did Marcotte get the idea that marrying young would lead to martyrdom “for the cause.”

Marrying young is not a cause. Feminism is a cause. If a woman sacrifices her chance to marry and/or to have children because feminism told her to do it, she has effectively martyred herself for the cause.

While some women have questioned whether a woman who is trying to care for a toddler or two during her peak earning years is doing the best by her career, Patton’s argument emphasized biology and the marital marketplace.

Marcotte concludes with this gem:

I’m glad young marriage is working out for [Julia] Shaw, but for the majority of women, dating and cohabitating until they’re more sure is working out just fine. If he's good enough to marry, he'll still be around when you're ready to make that leap.

Let’s be charitable and say that everyone but Marcotte knows that deferring marriage and childrearing is not working out “just fine” for very many women. It’s working out well for reproductive endocrinologists, but not for very many women.

If it was working out so well, we would not be having a national discussion about Susan Patton’s column.

Marcotte’s last sentence deserves an award. I consider it a sign of desperation when the best you can come up with is a piece of arrant nonsense that insults the intelligence of young women.

In  Marcotte's alternative universe, a man who is “good enough to marry” will naturally defer to the wishes of a young feminist who has decided that career must come before family.

And what does Marcotte mean by “good enough.” Doesn’t that make it sound like she is settling? Is Marcotte suggesting that a woman who defers marriage will have to settle?

If a man is eminently marriageable, but is being strung along by a feminist, other women will notice. If they notice, they will naturally want to compete for his affections. Do you really believe that another woman will not be able to win him over, especially when her competition has attended the Amanda Marcotte School of Relationships?

If he’s good enough to marry, he will have a choice. If he waits around while she lives her feminism, he will be suffering a degree of self-abnegation that will ultimately make him bad husband material. 

Executive Incompetence

Today, we nominate Time Magazine columnist Joe Klein for the Now They Tell Us Award.

Klein reports that the Obama administration has been failing at the task of governance. Taxing President Obama with incompetence Klein explains that, under his leadership, the government has failed at implementing programs.

Considering that Barack Obama came to the presidency without any executive experience, this should surprise no one. It would be a better world if media stars had pointed out Obama’s incompetence when we could have done something about it.

Anyway, Klein points out correctly that the Kathleen Sebelius-led Department of Health and Human Services is not up to the job of implementing Obamacare.

Klein reports on its manifest incompetence:

Let me try to understand this: the key incentive for small businesses to support Obamacare was that they would be able to shop for the best deals in health care superstores — called exchanges. The Administration has had three years to set up these exchanges. It has failed to do so.

This is a really bad sign. There will be those who argue that it’s not the Administration’s fault. It’s the fault of the 33 states that have refused to set up their own exchanges. Nonsense. Where was the contingency planning? There certainly are models, after all — the federal government’s own health-benefits plan (FEHBP) operates markets that exist in all 50 states. So does Medicare Advantage. But now, the Obama Administration has announced that it won’t have the exchanges ready in time, that small businesses will be offered one choice for the time being — for a year, at least.

Since Obamacare is the president’s signature accomplishment, making it work must be a top priority. It is altogether possible, as some have suggested, that it will become Obama’s Iraq War.

Since the Republican Party was hurt by its failure to conduct a successful military operation, it makes sense that the big government Democratic Party would be undermined by its failure to run the government.

In Klein’s words:

But, as a Democrat — as someone who believes in activist government — he has a vested interest in seeing that federal programs actually work efficiently. I don’t see much evidence that this is anywhere near the top of his priorities.

It is not just about Obamacare. Klein expands the list:

But we are now seeing weekly examples of this Administration’s inability to govern. Just a few weeks ago, I reported on the failure of the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs to come up with a unified electronic health care records system. There has also been the studied inattention to the myriad ineffective job-training programs scattered through the bureaucracy. There have been the oblique and belated efforts to reform Head Start, a $7 billion program that a study conducted by its own bureaucracy — the Department of Health and Human Services — has found nearly worthless. The list is endless.

Of course, it isn’t news that the Head Start program is worthless. And yet, it is impossible to criticize because it is so easy to demagogue. What politician wants to take a stand against helping young children to learn?

One doubts that Republicans are going to heed his counsel, but Klein's advice makes sense. Instead of trying to shrink the government they should emphasize making it work better. Of course, a government that works better would more easily shed worthless and inefficient programs. 

When Not to Apologize

Are there times when it is better not to apologize? If apology is supposed to make you feel better, how can it happen that some people feel better for not apologizing?

A recent research report has addressed these complex issues.

The study is better than most, but still we should clarify some of the presuppositions.

I am struck, for example, that the studies fail to distinguish between shame and guilt. By attaching apology to guilt, thus to criminal acts, the researchers confuse breaking laws with failing to honor commitments.

One may apologize for committing a crime, but a pledge to change your ways will normally not undo the damage you did when you burned your neighbor’s house down.

One feels shame for being late for an appointment. Normally, one apologizes for the failing. One feels a lesser degree of shame for using the wrong dinner fork, but it is not necessary to apologize. It is sufficient to use the correct fork. The gesture might have caused offense, but since it was most likely caused by ignorance of proper table manners, apology is uncalled for

Strictly speaking, apology is associated with shame, not guilt.

Of course, some people apologize all the time, whether they are in the right or the wrong, while others rarely apologize at all, even if they are egregiously in the wrong.

You should apologize when your own behavior causes a moral injury. The apology aims to undo the harm done by declaring your action unintentional and by promising never to do it again.

Yet, you do not need to apologize every time someone takes offense. When you are dealing with someone who is hypersensitive and prone to grievance, your actions might not be the proximate cause of his hurt feelings. You do not need to apologize for someone else’s thin skin.

Human nature being what it is, some people abuse the ritual of apology because they like to see other people squirm.

Apologizing is not supposed to make you feel good. When Japanese businessmen apologize for their bad leadership they do enjoy the experience. They do not feel cleansed; they feel humbled.

Apology should always be accompanied by an act of self-abnegation. Since the sanction of shame is ostracism, people who apologize often resign from their positions. The act ought not to make them feel better.

Second, the study points out correctly that we should not overlook the important role an apology serves for the victim of a slight or even of a trauma.

If someone offends you and does not apologize he is signifying that his offensive act or gesture was a meaningful expression of his intentions toward you. If someone steps on your foot and does not apologize you will see his action as an aggression, a prelude to further aggression.

Assuming that the person in question is someone you know and not just a face in a crowd, you will have reason to be angry with him.

But note the following: it has surely happened that you are feeling angry with someone for not having apologized after offending you. You have surely noticed that when the person does apologize his gesture will often cause your anger to dissipate.

As a rule, you are obliged to forgive someone who apologizes sincerely.

Thus, the cure for anger is not to expose it on the public square but to elicit an apology from the person who has offended you.

This assumes that the trauma is mental, not physical, that we are dealing with an offense, not with physical abuse. An assault that leaves a scar is not so easily undone.

Marrying Young

It seems like it was only yesterday that the media was abuzz with chatter about Sheryl Sandberg’s new feminist manifesto, Lean In.

Sandberg is obviously a marketing genius. After all, she entitled her book with a word that would be irresistible to women: lean. As in Lean Cuisine.

Sandberg’s book is still topping off the Amazon best seller list, but the center of conversational gravity has now shifted to Susan Patton’s advice to young women at Princeton: marry young.

Apparently, it’s an idea whose time has come. Or better, has come back.

Megan McArdle sums it up well:

That said, while I wouldn't have said it exactly the way she chose, I think Susan Patton is basically right: people should be looking to get married as early as possible.  

I say this as someone who married late, and since I wouldn't want to have married anyone except my husband, I'm glad I waited.  But as a general rule, you should err on the side of marrying early.  By which I mean not that you should marry whoever happens to be around when you turn 22, but that you should be willing to recognize, at the age of 22, that you've found someone you want to marry.  Right now, most Princeton students don't think that way.  They think there's something weird about committing at 22.  And if they try to commit, their friends and parents will warn them off.  

McArdle emphasizes that the culture, in the person of friends, parents and media scolds warns women off marrying young. It tells them that it’s strange, abnormal and retrograde. It tells them that they will become domestic slaves and miss out on all the fun. It ensures them that they will be more attractive if they are more self-sufficient. It promises that when they are older and wiser they will make a wiser choice of a husband.

No one tells them that ten years of failed relationships and hookups is not going to enhance their judgment. No one tells them that women who choose to defer marriage will spend their college years and twenties protecting themselves from marriage by getting involved with the kinds of men they would never marry. And no one tells them what Patton tells them: when it comes to the dating market, aging is not a woman’s friend.

Also, as I have emphasized, it’s far easier for a couple to build a life together than to merge two independent lives.

The brouhaha over Patton’s advice does not only suggest that it has struck a nerve, but also that it articulates a message that had hitherto been condemned and repressed.

You might think that people who marry young do not necessarily have the happiest marriages, and there is some truth to the observation. On the other hand, we live in a culture where everyone looks down at you if you marry young and where, if you marry before the rest of your cohort,  your single friends, consumed by envy, will never cease to remind you of all the thrills you are missing

For offering young women a real choice, Susan Patton has provoked a conversation and has offered young women a new choice.

She has been excoriated in some segments of the media, but has been praised in many others. Some women who married later, women like Megan McArdle have supported Patton, declaring that they would happily have foregone the agony of extended singledom.

And then there’s the case of Julia Shaw.

Yesterday, the DoubleX blog at Slate published Shaw’s account of her marriage. She married when she was 23. Her husband was 25.

Shaw offers a realistic portrayal of the agony and the ecstasy of her marriage. She does not gloss over the problems, and does not sound as though she is trying to sell something.

Shaw shows the good and the bad of going through bad times and good as young marrieds.

Marrying young deepens the sense of being connected because it allows couples to build a life together. It militates against the common notion that what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours. When people marry later they have built their fortunes separately and thus have a much more proprietary feeling toward their possessions.

It’s also worth pointing out that the article appeared on the Slate DoubleX blog. This blog has tended to promote writers who have a feminist perspective. Its writers have been happy to support the hooking up culture. With an occasional exception most of its writers hew to the feminist party line.

Thus, it matters that DoubleX has giving pride of place to a life choice that counters the received feminist wisdom and the dominant cultural bias.

Surely, Susan Patton will soon be signing a new book deal. Let's hope that Julia Shaw is too.

When You Reject Good Advice

Is it easier to give or to take?

To clarify: is it easier to give or to take advice?

Some people have trouble giving advice. They might fear that by offering an opinion they are disrespecting the recipient.

Then, if the recipient takes the advice, the giver will have to assume some measure of responsibility for the outcome. Most people are not very good at being responsible for their own behavior.

Also, they might hesitate to give advice because they lack confidence in their judgment.

And then there’s the larger problem. Let’s say that you are sufficiently old and wise to have some good advice to offer. The chances are good that you will be happy to give it to those who ask for it. By Adam Grant’s idea you will then become a giver. (See yesterday's post.)

But then, you are going to have to face this thorny problem: more than a few people will simply refuse to take good advice. It doesn’t even matter that the advice is excellent, to the point and clearly superior to all other solutions. Some people will simply reject it because it did not spring forth from the depths of their soul.

Harvard Professor Francesca Gino was so intrigued by the problem that she wrote a book about it. It’s title: Sidetracked. In it she asks why people sabotage themselves by failing to act in their own best interest when the course of action was recommended by someone else.

Gino notes correctly that successful people are very good at taking advice. They want to make the best decisions and therefore they seek out the best advice.

They do not take all the advice that is offered, but they never rely on just their own judgment, or better, on their gut.

Gino lists some of the reasons people do not take advice.

First, of course, is false pride, which we now call self-esteem. Some people are so insecure about their position and their competence that they dread being exposed as frauds. They come to believe that if they take advice that can only mean that they are incompetent.

Funnily enough, their refusal to take advice tends to confirm the fact that they are incompetent.

Second, Gino shows that it’s easier to take advice when you trust other people. If you are  angry and distrust others, if you feel that no one wants what is good for you, you will be less likely to trust their advice.

On the other hand if you see people as your friends, if you believe that they want what is best for you, you will be more likely to take advice.

This also suggests that people who refuse to take advice do not want to be beholden to their advisors. They do not want their decision-making to be part of a social transaction; they prefer not to owe anything to anyone.

But then, there’s a rub. If you are feeling anxious and insecure you are more likely to take advice, but you are also more likely to take bad advice.

While it is wrong never to take advice it is also wrong to take all of the advice that is offered.

Taking advice involves knowing which advice to take and which advice to reject.

People who are anxious tend to take whatever advice is offered.

Psychology Today summarizes her idea:

Disturbingly, anxiety lowers our self-confidence which causes us to discount our own judgment even when the only alternative is listening to advisors with a clear conflict of interest.  

We decide which advice to take by evaluating the source and by thinking through the ramifications and the potential outcomes. When we are anxious we are more interested in avoiding a trauma than in successfully completing a task.

Susan Patton Threatens the Hookup Culture

By now everyone knows about Susan Patton. A Princeton graduate herself, mother of two sons, one a Princeton graduate and one a Princeton undergraduate, Patton had the temerity to offer some advice to Princeton coeds in a letter to the Daily Princetonian.

Had the reaction to the letter not crashed the paper’s website, I would link it.

Her advice went viral. True believing feminists were horrified. They threw themselves into such high dudgeon that you thought they had seen a witch.

If you had ever been tempted to believe that contemporary feminism is about giving women the freedom to choose the way they conduct their lives, this episode will hopefully cure you.

If demonstration were needed, the Patton kerfuffle shows unmistakably that feminism wants to dictate the way women live their lives. In less flattering terms, they want to own young women’s lives.

Feminists are happy to allow young women to participate in all manner of self-destructive behavior as long as they do not commit  the greatest crime against the feminism. That would be: marrying young.

Patton addressed herself to the daughters she never had and told them that their years at Princeton were a golden opportunity to snag a great husband. To her mind, Princeton men were great husband material. Nearly all of them are available.

A bright and nubile young coed should take advantage of the fact that the younger she is the more choice she will have. Thus,  the younger she is the more power she has in the dating marketplace.

Suggesting that as women age the pool of eligible men shrinks, Patton recommends that these women make Princeton a happy husband hunting ground.

Patton chose to express herself because she was disturbed to see young women receiving only one message about a proper life plan. They are receive the message that their feminist masters want them to receive.

She explained her reasoning in The Huffington Post:

I sincerely feel that too much focus has been placed on encouraging young women only to achieve professionally. I understand that this can be seen as retrogressive, but for those women who aspire to what used to be thought of as a traditional life with home and family, there is almost no ink addressing personal fulfillment outside of the workplace. Specifically, finding lifelong friends and the right partner with whom to share a life and raise a family.

Obviously, feminists flew into a frenzy. They have no tolerance for anyone who would try to loosen their control over young women.

Writing on Gawker, Caity Weaver launched an intemperate rant. I assume that she wanted to show that being a feminist means kissing sobriety goodbye.

For those young women who might be tempted to follow Patton’s advice, Weaver labeled it: “batshit crazy and extremely offensive. Also, embarrassing!”

That means that if you bring it up in polite conversation with a feminist you are risking your life. She is warning you that if you voice such opinions you will be subjected to mindless abuse and eventual ostracism.

For reasons that it needs to explain, feminism is severely threatened by the notion that young women in college should approach dating from the perspective of finding a mate. Are they worried that a new sense of purposeful dating would threaten the hookup culture.

Now that we know what feminists find offensive, let’s take another look at what feminists do not find offensive.

A while back I commented on a piece that philosophy professor Nancy Bauer wrote for the New York Times.

Bauer described the alternative to the Patton approach:

Visit an American college campus on a Monday morning and you’ll find any number of amazingly ambitious and talented young women wielding their brain power, determined not to let anything — including a relationship with some needy, dependent man — get in their way.  Come back on a party night, and you’ll find many of these same girls (they stopped calling themselves “women” years ago) wielding their sexual power, dressed as provocatively as they dare, matching the guys drink for drink — and then hook-up for hook-up.

I’m sure they are making their parents proud. In case you missed the point, Bauer continued:

When they’re on their knees in front of a worked-up guy they just met at a party, they genuinely do feel powerful — sadistic, even.  After all, though they don’t stand up and walk away, they in principle could.  But the morning after, students routinely tell me, they are vulnerable to what I’ve come to call the “hook-up hangover.”  They’ll see the guy in the quad and cringe.  Or they’ll find themselves wishing in vain for more — if not for a prince (or a vampire, maybe) to sweep them off their feet, at least for the guy actually to have programmed their number into his cell phone the night before.  When the text doesn’t come, it’s off to the next party.

Feminism has succeeded in keeping women on their knees. It has duped them into thinking providing sexual services for “worked-up” guys they just met makes them powerful.

You can see why feminists are so upset with Susan Patton.