– Welcome to those coming from Blawg Review Awards 2005.
For our reaction to winning the “Creative Law Blog” Award,
Nothing demonstrates the importance of cuteness in our
emotional lives and consumer habits quite as well as the
Christmas gift-opening ritual among an extended, multi-
generational family. “That’s so cute” and “Isn’t it-she-he
cute?” was repeated over and over last week in millions of
homes.
But that same ritual, along with the entire Holiday shop-
ping, gifting, and decorating experience, also seems to show
significant differences between the genders in reacting to the
Cuteness Factor. As I’ve opined on previous occasions,
“It’s cute” seems to be a sufficient reason for most women
to bring something home and for most men to want to smile
once and then leave it where they found it.
An article in today’s New York Times, “The Cute Factor” (by
Natalie Angier, Jan. 3, 2006), provides plenty of information
on what we deem to be cute: “practically anything remotely
resembling a human baby or a part thereof” — to wit, “bright
forward-facing eyes set low on a big round face, a pair of big
round ears, floppy limbs and a side-to-side, teeter-totter gait,
among many others.”
Jessie Cohen/via Reuters
The article also discusses why cute is important:
“Cute cues are those that indicate extreme youth,
vulnerability, harmlessness and need, scientists say,
and attending to them closely makes good Darwinian
sense. As a species whose youngest members are
so pathetically helpless they can’t lift their heads to
suckle without adult supervision, human beings must
be wired to respond quickly and gamely to any and all
signs of infantile desire.”
Therefore, “The greater the number of cute cues that an animal or
object happens to possess, or the more exaggerated the signals
may be, the louder and more italicized are the squeals provoked.”
The Times article notes that “Primal and widespread though the
taste for cute may be, researchers say it varies in strength and
significance across cultures and eras.” NYT appears to be too
Politically Correct, however, to suggest that the taste for cute also
varies in strength between the genders. Happily, I am not. That’s
probably because: (1) I just finished reading Marriane J. Legato, MD’s
Why Men Never Remember and Women Never Forget (2005), which
details the many differences in the male and female brains, bodies,
emotions, etc. (2) I’ve never known a male who collected Hummels.
And, more importantly, (3) For over 50 years, I have noticed that
girls and women say “Isn’t that cute?” far more than boys and
men do. Indeed, it seems to me that males almost never
initiate the topic of cuteness — unless they are trying to get on
the good side of a female.
This gender difference makes sense. The evolution and history
of our race have made it far more important and natural for mothers to
react to the needs of infants than the father. (I’m not endorsing these
gender roles, just pointing out reality.) If women were not more
attentive than men to the needs of children, the race would have
died out a long time ago.
The article mentions another aspect of The Cute Factor that also
seems likely to affect males more than females:
“Denis Dutton, a philosopher of art at the University of Can-
terbury in New Zealand, the rapidity and promiscuity of the
cute response makes the impulse suspect, readily overridden
by the angry sense that one is being exploited or deceived.
” ‘Cute cuts through all layers of meaning and says, Let’s not
worry about complexities, just love me,’ said Dr. Dutton, who
is writing a book about Darwinian aesthetics. ‘That’s where the
sense of cheapness can come from, and the feeling of being
manipulated or taken for a sucker that leads many to reject
cuteness as low or shallow’.”
Although I had never thought of it in quite this way, Dutton’s notion
resonates with me. Many other males would, I think, also see
themselves as having the “rational” fear of being manipulated by
cuteness (could it be because men can never be sure just who
fathered an infant and are thus reluctant to make a quick familial
commitment?). That is surely the male reaction to the advertisers
and product designers who, according to the article, “are forever
toying with cute cues to lend their merchandise instant appeal,
mixing and monkeying with the vocabulary of cute to keep the
message fresh and fetching.”
“SnowManBroom”
That’s as far out as I’m sticking my neck tonight. Your Comments
and insights are welcome, as always. Hate mail should be directed
at Prof. Yabut.
to the cat:
“that’s complete and
utter nonsense”
New Year’s …
recycling last year’s
resolutions
second day
of the New Year:
taxes arrive
January 3, 2006
cuteness engenders gender differences
Comments Off on cuteness engenders gender differences
Judge Murtha: too kind to lawyer-felons?
Early last week, we complained that Vermont U.S. District
Judge J. Garvan Murtha gave Anthony Doria, founder of the
Vermont Law School, only one month in prison, after
Doria pleaded guilty to tax evasion (relating to his spending
$115,000 on himself that he was entrusted to invest for a
woman in her 70’s.) Doria’s lawyer had argued this his
embarrassment was sufficient punishment.
Later that week, Judge Murtha had the chance to redeem
himself in an embezzlement case which I have been closely
watching since 1997, when I attempted to have the lawyers
disciplined for conduct that eventually led to the federal
charges. (see prior post) Unfortunately, Judge Murtha
let me — and thousands of injured “debt-reduction” clients —
down. The defendant is Howard Sinnott, now a disbarred
lawyer. As a Boston Globe article explained on Dec. 29, 2005:
“A former state representative and former chairman
of the Bennington Select Board was sentenced to
three months in prison for embezzling $860,000 from
clients of a debt-reduction business he operated.”
“Howard Sinnott, 55, also will have to serve three months
of home confinement after his release from prison.
“His sentencing was part of a larger series of federal cases
involving the Andrew F. Capoccia Law Centers of Albany,
N.Y., and the Law Centers of Consumer Protection, based
in Bennington. Capoccia has been convicted of 13 counts
of fraud and larceny, although he’s appealing. Capoccia in
2000 sold the Albany firm to Sinnott, who moved it to Vermont.
More than 2,700 former clients of the law firm that Capoccia
founded filed claims totaling more than $25.6 million against
the business.
“shark tiny gray”
Sinnott gets three months in jail for being one of the two major actors
in a complicated scheme to steal millions of dollars from people he
himself describes as “decent, hardworking people looking for an honest
way to resolve their debt issues.” [Bennington Banner, Dec. 30, 2005]
When the bar authorities in New York State finally woke up and stopped
the scheme (disbarring Andrew Capoccia for other activities), Sinnott,
who still had his law license, moved back to Vermont, where he attempted
to suck even more financially-troubled clients dry. [They required up-
front payment of 25% or more of the amount of savings they estimated
would be achieved by their “negotiating” for lower debt amounts with
creditors. Click here to learn more.]
Why only three months rather than thirty for forty? I certainly hope
that Judge Murtha — who was a Peace Corp volunteer in Columbia
prior to law school and served as a Public Defender as part of his
Prettyman Fellowship — was not swayed by the arguments of either
defense counsel or Sinnott himself.
Attorney Lisa B. Shelkrot came up with the usual defense gobbly-
gook, including:
“What stands out [in letters from prominent members of
the community] is his selflessness and commitment to
service.”
“It was a fear of destitution, not a high flying lifestyle … that
lead him to this.”
“emptypocketsS”
Sinnott had a “deeply and tragically” flawed personality.
“When his moral instincts told him to do one thing, he didn’t
follow through with it.” His vanity caused him to believe he
could fix a hopeless situation.
“Mr. Capoccia was a genius at exploiting those flaws … Mr.
Sinnott was a perfect mark for Mr. Capoccia.”
Even more embarrassing was Sinnott’s Opraesque mixture of self-pity
and confession. According to the Bennington Banner, he told the court:
[H]e wanted to quit many times because Capoccia was
“emotionally and mentally abusive,” but feared being unable
to find a job.
Sinnott also said an alcoholic father and stepfather, along with
the divorce of his parents when he was young, groomed him to
lack the self confidence and courage needed to stand up to
Capoccia. “My flaws with Mr. Capoccia’s personality combined to
make the perfect storm.”
Sinnott did, however, place the onus on himself, saying “Because of inse-
curity and financial desperation I went forward… I put the interests of myself
above those of the firm’s clients. I should have known better.” An article in
The Rutland Herald (Dec. 30, 2005), also states “Sinnott said his parents’
divorce when he was 6 years old may have led him to see in Capoccia a
mentor and role model he never had during his younger years.” That’s
touching, but Andrew Capoccia was already known for his questionable
practices when he (then 54) and Sinnott (then 47) started their debt-
reduction gimmick and started milking clients dry while ruining their
credit.[see our “blame bar counsel for Capoccia scandal”]
Judge Murtha had this to say to Sinnott about the lenient
sentence (per the Rutland Herald article):
“If you had not worked out an arrangement with the government
you would have faced a long time in prison,” Murtha said. “You
made the right decision to plead guilty and cooperate — it enables
me to impose a less severe sentence.”
Yes, pleading and cooperation normally lead to a “less severe” sentence,
but some would argue that 3 months is not the least bit severe. Sinnott
will be expected to pay $500,000 in restitution. The Bennington Banner
notes:
“When asked by the judge how he planned to pay the restitution,
Sinnott said he did not have a plan, but said he has considered
writing a book about his experience and designating the proceeds
to the victims. Sinnott said his last job was selling shoes at Sears.”
Howard Sinnott helped Andrew Capoccia hide money that could have
partially reimbursed their defrauded clients; he was also instrumental
in prolonging their debt-reduction scheme. Three months is scandalously
lenient. It also makes me very concerned that Judge Murtha may be
planning to give Andrew Capoccia a light sentence. The public already
believes that courts unfairly give lawyers who have fallen into felony far too
much sympathy. Judge Murtha seems to be proving them right.
through the open door . . .
her smile doesn’t forgive
all my sins
riding down
the metro escalator
snowflakes
Randy Brooks, from School’s Out (Press Here, 1999)
another argument unfolds the futon
pet store
nose prints
both sides
W.F. Owen from A New Resonance 2: Emerging Voices (2001)
credits – “pet store” – Frogpond XXIII:2 (2000)
“NoyabutsSN”
Comments Off on Judge Murtha: too kind to lawyer-felons?