The wonderful Charlotte Allen has really stirred the pot at National Review Online. She posted a short essay about her reactions to Newtown and what she said has gone viral and vicious. They are up to 1000+ mostly hateful comments at National Review and even the Esquire blog has gone after her. And the comments? Masterpieces of combox invective. Poor Charlotte actually tried to engage the Equire comments, even telling a highly personal account of her own sexual assault. They are having none of it! Read her post and make time for the comments
Friday, December 21, 2012, 2:28 PM
December 21st, 2012 | 3:01 pm
Read the article. I found some interesting and different insights. Read some of the comments. Wished I hadn’t.
December 21st, 2012 | 4:17 pm
There is a tipping point when balance is lost and we have reached that point in American life. I saw it in New York publishing, in law school, and elsewhere. It is not a good thing that women now dominate higher education. It is not a good thing when the only visible role models are almost exclusively women. It is not a good thing when half of all American births occur in a fatherless, maleless “family.”
And this bad thing is compounded by women shaped almost exclusively by doctrinaire feminism. Ms. Allen seems to understand this. It is not about intelligence or accomplishment. I for one have nothing but admiration for the struggles and achievements of American women over the past 300 years. There was a time when we expressed special gratitude for pioneer women, women and girls who worked the farms alongside men and boys, as well as the migrant and immigrant women who worked in the textile mills and factories to support their families. But also the women who dedicated their lives to marriage and family and children.
The women and children at Sandy Hook were left completely and totally defenseless. As with abortion and marriage, feminism has a lot to answer for. A lot.
December 21st, 2012 | 5:27 pm
I found Allen’s commentary dumb. But not any dumber than so many others that have been written recently. Dumb posts don’t justify hateful replies, however, meaning lack of civility. Just straightforward replies suffice.
I notice that basically no one asks who were the people that most contributed to Adam developing mental illness. I don’t see that question being asked for this case, nor for many others.
And there are many cases where a child develops mental illness (or many kinds of disturbances) mainly because of how they are treated by the parents. Sometimes it’s that plus other very negative environments, sometimes it’s other factors. The world does not lack for emotionally abusive parents who tell the entire world they love their kids and making sacrifices for them.
I noticed that the statement that Adam’s mother was “taking care” of her son alone went unchallenged. A woman who keeps her mentally disturbed son basically in seclusion, who is not a mental health professional, is doing what to her son? Probably only making whatever deep problems he has worsen.
Adam’s father simply abandoned the kid, when the latter already displayed serious problems. And the fact that the father did so makes me also think he may have contributed to a lot of the deep emotional issues Adam developed.
What to do with kids like these? A concerted response is needed. First, the kid needs to get not only “professional help”, but good professional help. Then you need a community or school structure that will help the kid. You need to reach out to them, to try to get them involved in good activities, with kind people, but who will also be able to set boundaries and limits in case of aggression. Cases need an individualized response, because two kids are not alike and don’t have the same problems.
Although there are individuals with good intentions out there, who may want to help a troubled kid in their school or neighborhood, we notice when a situation like this happens that most people only care for themselves and just want an “easy”solution to do away with the kid: drug the kid, put him away. They don’t care how much was abused or mistreated to become mentally ill. They don’t want to hold anyone responsible. And the kid is too disturbed to speak up for himself or to seek the help he needs.
December 21st, 2012 | 5:50 pm
An interesting take…written at the wrong time.
December 21st, 2012 | 6:46 pm
The vitriol is astounding. I was curious to see what Allen’s book is about, and found that the commenters followed her over to Amazon book reviews. What a shameful mob.
December 21st, 2012 | 7:22 pm
With respect, I do find fault with Ms. Allen’s article. Her arguments seems like another attempt in the long list of both left and right using the deaths of these children to make a political point. (Though I’m sure this wasn’t her goal, and that she is genuinely saddened by this tragedy, that article comes off as a political, below the belt punch. I think this is why it is generating so much vitriol.)
Elementary education has always been a field that has been female dominated. Having an elementary school full of women teachers is NOT a sign of a feminized culture. It is patently ridiculous to assume otherwise.
It is also ridiculous to imply that the women in this school just sat down and let a massacre take place because of a lack of inherent “male aggression.” The women in that school gave their lives to protect all the children that did survive! In this very same article, Ms. Allen cites the bravery of the principle who threw herself at the attacker, sacrificing herself for the children! What more could a man have done, besides throw more physical body mass at the attacker?
I do not know Ms. Allen, nor have a read her before. I am sure she is an intelligent, insightful writer and thinker. However, she deserves some criticism here.
I agree that we should lament the dregs through which the Internet’s free soapbox policy via comment threads has dragged the standards of public discourse. However, Ms. Allen does deserve reasonable, respectable criticism for this piece. Her arguments are dodgy, and her evidence lacking. This is a piece that is conservative solely for the sake of being conservative, and (inadvertently, perhaps) trivializes the self sacrifice of others in the process.
Articles like this are what drives the cliche of the conservative ideologue and makes it harder and harder to argue for reasonable conservative positions across the board. In short, this is exactly the type of stuff I expect from the National Review.
I hope First Things offers some criticism of this piece. A knee-jerk defense of a piece like this will only hurt the conservative cause.
December 21st, 2012 | 7:24 pm
On 5 November 2009 at Fort Hood, Major Hasan was able to launch a 10-minute attack that left 13 Army personnel dead. Since it seems unlikely that Fort Hood was a “feminized setting” back then, I can only conclude that an atrocious shooting can be carried out regardless of whether or not the setting is “feminized” (whatever that means).
On 9 December 2007, Jeanne Assam didn’t passively wait for a man to rescue her and her fellow parishioners at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. Instead, she shot Matthew Murray several times and ended his shooting spree. Just this Sunday, at a San Antonio movie theater, an unnamed female sheriff’s deputy “was able to corner [a] gunman in a restroom and shoot him multiple times before disarming and handcuffing him,” thus ending his attack:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php
Perhaps someone should explain to Charlotte Allen that (a) the mere presence of (imaginary) bucket-throwing male janitors or (imaginary) former football players will not necessarily serve you very well in situation where your adversary is armed with a rifle and a couple of handguns.
And (b) that female aggression can be a good thing, too.
December 21st, 2012 | 7:45 pm
Fair points, there are some weak arguments in Allen’s post. I wish there was some of that buried in the comments on her post. Maybe there is, but I ran out of patience searching for it.
December 21st, 2012 | 9:18 pm
I was taken aback by the responses to Charlotte Allen’s essay. Are we allowed to say, anymore, that a lot of people in Maycomb were glad Atticus Finch had a rifle and knew how to use it? Do we need to affirm that many women could have done the job equally well?
December 21st, 2012 | 9:22 pm
Why do people think that armed women counter-attacking is a rebuttal to her point about unarmed men counter-attacking? It was widespread in the noxious comments at NRO, but I didn’t expect to find it here.
The point of those who think guns ought to be more prevalent is exactly that; I suspect Charlotte Allen would agree. Guns allow women to fight men on an equal footing. But for unarmed combat, the average man has an enormous advantage over the average woman. If we’re going to legislate that certain areas in our society are to be kept clear of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, then it makes sense that to defend those areas most effectively without firearms would require men. There is an argument to be had about the costs versus the degree of the benefit and whether it makes more sense to have armed guards of some nature, but to say that her point about men is wrong because armed women do just as well is to argue a non sequitur.
All of her points may be controversial, but I hardly think they’re beyond the pale.
December 21st, 2012 | 11:27 pm
Heather,
“Adam” — you mean the adult sociopath who thought it would be a hoot to shoot six and seven year old children multiple times at close range with a military style weapon? Spare us the language of empathy and psychological mumbo jumbo about abandonment and neglect. This man (he was not a “kid”) was pure evil.
December 22nd, 2012 | 2:39 am
Publius: “Adam” — you mean the adult sociopath who thought it would be a hoot to shoot six and seven year old children multiple times at close range with a military style weapon?
Publius, please spare us your complete lack of knowledge on what Adam thought. You have no idea what he thought, what he felt, or what motive he had for doing anything in life.
” Spare us the language of empathy and psychological mumbo jumbo about abandonment and neglect. ”
Why should I? Because I am not evil enough to turn my back on kids who have been mistreated to the point where they develop mental illnesses? One does need to be a heartless human being to call for such an attitude.
Furthermore, one needs to be evil in order to guarantee impunity for people who mistreat kids to the point where the latter develop profound mental problems by never investigating any single case.
What factors most contributed for Adam to develop his mental illness? If we examine this question, what we will find in the answer is various factors, including a concert of very harmful adults (and maybe minors).
“This man (he was not a “kid”) was pure evil.”
As much as witches were in the 17th century. That’s why they burned them. Even 6 year olds were “pure evil” during the Inquisition. That’s why they would torture them to death. Jews too. They spared no “mumbo jumbo” at the time.
You have no idea who did what to Adam for 20 years to make him go on this shooting spree.
December 22nd, 2012 | 10:49 am
I found her comments to be quite uncontroversial. Can’t anybody now distinguish between a general truth and a universal truth? Also, the very presence of male authority figures dampens aggression in young men — or directs it to socially productive ends. That was one of the reasons why the nuns in my boyhood school could manage a classroom of 45 to 51 students (the range in my class over the course of six years). They were backed up by male authority. ALL of those children lived with their fathers at home. The priests — three of them — were across the street, and came into the building to teach religion to the older grades. The boys were distinguished from the girls by dress — the jackets and ties that signified, “You are like your fathers here.” The thing is, it’s hard to see things that DON’T happen — you have to be paying close attention to notice the borderline sociopathic boy who DOESN’T become a sociopath (I am thinking of one kid in high school now)… One thing that our current misery proves abundantly is that women do not make men out of boys.
December 22nd, 2012 | 3:55 pm
Much more civil comments here but still curious. Are there really that many people that believe not agreeing with them is cause for put downs? Perhaps those that argue that women can be just as aggressive with a gun as a man are saying the teachers should have been armed? Well then, say that. If not, then what is the point of your argument? Certainly the simple fact that men, on average, are bigger and stronger than women is not controversial. You can test it yourself with a measuring tape and a scale. The idea that women are, on average, as aggressive as men falls before the fact that all of the shooters so far have been men. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I maintain we are different just as we are both the same species.
December 22nd, 2012 | 5:06 pm
Heather,
The tears you are shedding for your “Adam” (amazing how you’ve been able to write two lengthy pieces on this massacre and never once mention the name of any of his innocent victims) and comparing him to victims of medieval pogroms and witch hunts is grotesque.
And to add to that obscenity the idea that we “have no idea who did what to Adam for 20 years to make him go on this shooting spree” is to ignore the fact that “Adam” chose to go on that shooting spree — save your tears for his 6 year old victims. I’ll give you their names if you’re at all interested.
December 22nd, 2012 | 10:27 pm
It’s pretty far from obvious that the greater strength of the average male compared to the average female would be relevant in the context of someone with access to ranged weapons like the ones used in the Sandy Hook massacre. Big muscular people can be killed by rifle fire as easily as small petite ones. Arguably, it’s easier to kill them–big people are, if nothing else, bigger targets.
December 23rd, 2012 | 7:35 am
Allen’s comments are certainly not the last word on Sandy Hook. They offer a reasonable perspective with which people can disagree. Nothing that Allen wrote justifies the vicious comments that people have made. My issue with Allen is that she views this event through the lens of her own agenda. I agree with her agenda. I just don’t think it offers a whole lot of insight into this particular incident.
December 23rd, 2012 | 2:18 pm
So Randy, are you advocating arming teachers? Are we helpless before shooters, except for more guns? Ever hear of movement and cover? Imagining a situation where nobody can win is not very helpful.
December 23rd, 2012 | 3:15 pm
Publius,
While I don’t believe I have ever agreed with Heather before, and probably never will again, we really don’t know what went on inside Adam Lanza’s head. While what he did is objectively and horrifically evil, determining his personal, moral culpability may be impossible. Given his upbringing and/or his brain chemistry, did he have a chance? Perhaps he was a truly evil person, or perhaps he was no more responsible for his actions than a wild animal. Only God knows these things for sure.
December 23rd, 2012 | 3:33 pm
Mike:
“So Randy, are you advocating arming teachers? Are we helpless before shooters, except for more guns? Ever hear of movement and cover? Imagining a situation where nobody can win is not very helpful.”
Advocating that people–husky 12 years old boys, men, whomever–run _towards_ people with firearms is profoundly foolish. That foolishness deserves to be called out on.
More seriously, some sort of gun control would be a good idea. Dave Brockington points out
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/12/the-only-thing-that-stops-a-bad-guy-with-a-gun-is-a-good-guy-with-a-gun-except-in-britain
that although rates of violent crime are significantly higher in Britain than in the United States, British homicide rates are three-quarters of American homicide rates. Limiting the presence tools which facilitate the escalation of disputes to the level of murder, and mass murder, would be a good thing to do.
December 24th, 2012 | 8:17 am
Sorry–for “three-quarters” read “one-quarter.” My bad.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact