xtcian

1. I disagree. In fact, I think that men at that age tend to be pretty in touch with what they want from moment to moment, but don't tend to want things that women want them to want, which may be where this myth about them being indecisive originates.

2. I want to disagree with this, but every time I talk to political conservatives, or hear them speak on television, it always seems to come down to what they want, what they won't pay for, what's best for their personal situation, what's best for the U.S. before anyone else. I think conservatives exhibit empathy in their own lives, but not as a part of their political beliefs.

3. I think most folks are fairly allergic to being told what to do. We like advice, but we like having control over the final decision.

1. Men know what they want RIGHT NOW. They're not good at processing changing desires, desires when they conflict with those of others, or people telling them that their wants are not valid.

2. Though I disagree with most of them, I sincerely believe that most political conservatives believe in their heart that they're doing good and care about doing so. They're simply out of touch with reality.

3. Most folks want someone else to lead them in the direction that they'd naturally go without direction. It reinforces their stance and gives them someone other than themselves to blame if it goes wrong.

1. It depends. If the basis for comparison is single American women in their 20's and 30's, then the men are no more or less damaged than the women. If the basis for comparison is, for example, male horses in their 20's and 30's, then the answer is overwhelmingly yes.

2. It depends. If you're a liberal, the answer is yes. If you're a conservative, the answer is no. (I maintain that it is unfair for liberal professors to grade testtaking students on the basis of their political beliefs.)

3. It depends. We want to be told what to do if we don't know what to do. If the person doing the telling is a parent, though, such telling will automatically instill the opposite desire in the child.

1) I think younger men know what they want but are poor communicators. I think they believe shared experiences are a framework for communication; unfortunately not everyone has the same shared experiences.
2) I think they tire of the government bailing people out of any misfortune as the government is an inefficent supplier of services (on this point they are correct). They want this to be done privately (read more efficent) but the disconnect is there is not enough private support.
3) I think people want only minimal choice; A or B. Today's world is too complicated for our 18th century DNA and it is comforting to us to have simplicity. I think people want a choice that is good; not just a choice (like Bush-Kerry). k

I maintain that it totally fair for liberal professors to grade testtaking students Claudia and Kevin on the basis of their not following the '2 sentence or less' rule.

I kid, I kid.

1. Disagree --- I'm not entirely sure where this is coming from (I assume you're referring to relationships?); I think most men in that age group have a relatively good idea what they want. That said, I didn't really know what I wanted in relationship until I was around 24-25.

2. I definitely agree with this --- it's been my experience that most conservatives don't know (or perhaps more importantly, don't care) what it's like to be poor, black, and/or underprivileged. They are focused on what's best for them, and seem to believe that anyone who isn't successful in America is either lazy or stupid, or both.

3. Mostly disagree --- I think most people prefer to make decisions for themselves, but we are increasingly becoming overwhelmed by too many choices* (Kevin made a good point about minimal choice). Yet, those same people would really protest if they knew those choices were being taken from them.

* I get the questionable content warning when I paste the link, but there's an interesting article on this...
Quickly summarizing from memory: a display table of jams in a grocery store makes more sales if they offer a few flavors than if they offer a whole bunch. The thinking being that with only 3 or 4 choices, people try them all and pick their favorite, but with too many choices, they just skip it entirely so they won't be overwhelmed by the decision. I know I broke the two-sentences rule, but this footnote should not count in my grade. :)

Here's the link (let's see if this works):

Start with columbia dot edu and add the following: /~ss957/whenchoice

followed by a dot html

Off the top of my head, and not reading the other responses:

1. Disagree: They are not damaged, but unfortunately, the majority of them (not all) need security at a slower rate than women do, so they lack the incentive to settle down with one person as soon as women would like them to. If women didn't have to deal with a ticking clock regarding a) getting pregnant, and b) the fact that a lot of the nicest men who DO settle early are snagged by more beautiful and better-positioned women, they would be able to wait a little longer before worrying about that inevitable need for permanent coupling.

2. Agree: I never hear conservatives giving any lip service to the complicated situations that people find themselves in, and the need for government to help the neediest folks get a boost. There are conservatives who say that they DO care about the poor or sick, but rather than trying to come up with a health care system that insures everyone, they only say that churches should be able to donate to those who need help.

3. Agree - It's a lot easier to compete and excel when you've got structure and boundaries than when you're given freedom to do whatever the hell you want. Maybe that's why people, upon reaching adulthood, pine for their childhood years, and not the other way around.

(Disclaimer: If giving myself more than 30 seconds to think about these, I might well talk myself out of them.)

1.If "I am the most important " is the brain talk , then " the world will not give me what I want " is also an important question to question.

2.Political " power " usually stems from financial "power( and all that confidence (?) stuff it entails)finance has nothing to do with being human......therefore lack of being human does not = empathy.. you are just a cheeky chimp.

3.we all die.....there is really no free will...we just got spoilt

1. I didn't even read the other 2 questions because I wanted to answer this one so much. I have a feeling that my answer will be contentious, and yes I'm coming off the mountain of a breakup that has left me gasping for air, but here goes. I'm so passionate and confused about this issue my grammar is probably going to be ubersucky.

I believe there to be a crisis going on with the EGOS of men. This may seems archaic as we are well past the feminist movement, but I still think there are psychological/anthropological ramifications of the fact that as women are getting stronger and want a companion and a partner instead of a provider, many men have no idea what there place should be. So they flail into uselessness and crisis, not knowing who they are or what they are. They crave the attention of weak/crazy/slutty girls in order to feel ok about themselves ('above' than the girls) and to bolster their egos from the outside because they don't know what they are inside. It's preposterous and damaging and my female friends and I are at a total, complete loss. Many of us cannot find anyone who believes in himself enough to just be a kind human without crippling ego issues. We've all got some confidence issues, sure. But there aren't any insidious, terrified, groundless feelings of worthlessness from which we have literally no idea who we are. The guys I'm talking about hate themselves. They fear themselves and what they are, and fear others will find out about the nothing they think they are (which of course they're not nothing - they're wonderful people who have just lost all sense of self). When you hate yourself so much, you become philosophically incapable of loving someone else.

HALLELUJAH HOLY SHIT WHERE'S THE TYLENOL.

It will surprise no one on this blog that I disagree with statement #2. It's nothing more than a lazy excuse some liberals use to avoid having to consider the possibility that conservative principles may actually acheive stated goals better than their own (security, elimination of poverty, racial equality and justice, etc.). I'm posting from my phone right now so I won't look up the link, but Stanford did a study last year showing that people who self-identify as conservatives give more to charity than those who self-identify as liberals. That tends to argue against the lack of empathy line. It also tells me that conservatives give their own money away while liberals prefer to give away other people's (via the welfare state.)

1) Only a few times in history have men, particularly young men, been given the societal pass to follow the choices they have now. Without the turmoil of a historical era or crisis, the way they naturally think and solve problems will express itself as flailing chaos.

2) True Libertarian Conservatism (or Classic Liberalism) requires the participation of a highly educated and actualized population. The goals of the modern conservative agenda run contrary to this notion, with empathy requiring far more societal and personal awareness than is allowed in the platform of the neoconservative movement.

3) At the individual level, free will is one of our most desirable ideals. As social animals, our current constraints far overwhelm our basic instincts and require that we choose the path of least resistance and capitulate to any easier choice, even if minor study can show that it would be detrimental.

Matt, it's an interesting point of view.

I find that I side with the liberals even though the things I hold most dear are the things that conservatives constantly tout, the welfare of my family, the rights of my countrymen, a just and successful foreign policy that creates a safe America and a government who's role is as limited as possible.

I am shocked that my present state of mind has become what it has, even my strong support of gun ownership and my sense that the right to an abortion is something worth discussing, on top of my sense that we have a responsibility to use our military to further justice in the world.

The only problem is, the more conservative my mindset gets, the more I am utterly appalled by the current administration, and the more I realize that the progressive platform is our only hope of making my personal goals a reality.

The short-hand attacks that the left and the right throw at each other are there because of lazy thinking. You say we prefer a welfare state... it's just a stupid thing to say. People who go to church are more likely to identify as conservative, and everyone who goes to church tithes, so they give more to charity, to assume that they donate their time to the local drug abuse shelter is a really lazy leap in logic.

We want the same things, especially since both you and Ian LOVE to talk shit. But it's interesting that you actually want the same things that "liberals" want, you just think there's a better way of doing it. I agree, weirdly, in the opposite way.

1. Agree. Men at that age know what they want in the same way an adolescent does -- immediate gratification and fun. But they start getting increasingly irritable because immediate gratification is unfulfilling and they don't know how to properly become responsible adults.

2. Agree, sorta. I think that conservatives can be very nice people, but CONSERVATISM is essentially a nostalgic point of view, and isn't interested in expanding the sphere of what individuals need to be empathetic about. So conservatives believe in helping out their communities, but sometimes that definition of community is too out of date to include Haitians or gays or what-have-you.

3. Agree-ish. People don't want to be slaves, but you know that quote that always gets falsely attributed to Nelson Mandela (I mean, he said it, but didn't write it), about how we're not afraid of being powerless, but rather we're more afraid that we're powerful beyond all imagining? I keep that in my wallet. People are afraid of taking responsibility for their own lives, with the consequence that we cede control to others so we can shrug our shoulders and bitch about it.

i'm not sure if it's cheating to peek at the other answers, so i've scrolled down to just post, but i can't wait to read what others have said.

1.
Agree! I have a theory about this (which ties into my book, The Art of Wooing) and I believe that it stems from the optimism that created educational messages of "in America, you can be whatever you want to if you just work hard enough"...this has done tremendous damage to a generation that is now perennially disappointed, as they've realized that there are some things which simply cannot be achieved via hard work alone - it takes government, family, neighbors, culture, etc.

2. I'm about to make some ridiculously sweeping un-PC statements, but it's how I feel, dammit.
I want to agree, but I'm just not sure - I think the wealthy conservatives lack empathy, but it also might be that they simply prioritize their needs over their ability to empathize. The less fortunate conservatives, well, I don't think they necessarily lack empathy either - I think they're just less aware of the impact they can have, the way that voting and lawmaking work, and perhaps, since fundamentalist thinking is antithetical to the abstraction that empathy requires, they just can't get there.

3. No way, Jose! I believe that IF we had our basic needs taken care of, we'd be thrilled with free will and absolutely into exercising it. BUT I also believe that when you are bone tired, trying to feed yourself and a family, and need to just hold onto a job for healthcare, free will becomes a luxury, and it's easier to have someone tell you how to survive.

two slight adjustments - the context for my answer to #1 via example, if you're not a particularly attractive young man, working hard won't get you shit. and if you're from a bi-racial family, working hard won't make you white, and it won't make you black. and so the platitudes about being able to achieve, find love, fit in all become a slap in the face when you realize that life is tough.

KATIE - not trying to self-promote, just empathizing, check this out:

www.theartofwooing.com

and hang in there!

Does a $100 gift certificate count as a piece of Americana?

(damn, just disqualified myself)

Tchotchkes! Now we are talking!

Unfortunately, I don't have much to add as far as answers.

1. I have been married for 14 years and am so far removed from and disinterested in the issues of single men in their 20s and 30s. . . that I have no comment. I vote for damaged. Aren't we all in one form or another?

2. Nah, conservatives are no more or less empathetic than liberals. They just focus their empathy on groups/subjects that are different from the groups/subjects with which the liberals deign to empathize.

3. I don't like to be told what to do. Never have. Never will. So I vote for free will.

Can I have a California tchotchke, please?

Ian - have you been reading about Bruce Ivins and how he thought the Kappas had a fatwa against him?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-anthrax-investigation-sorority,0,4756859.story

A UNC Kappa who was a student of his while he was a graduate student in Chapel Hill was in the paper. . . her interview was interesting, but I could not find the link.

Sean, whether liberals want to call their wealth redistribution policies a welfare state or not, that's what it amounts to. I'm not surprised that the conservative portion of you is appalled at the Bush administration. GWB isn't a conservative.

Also, while I never made the leaps of logic you allege, I believe Christian conservatives as a whole donate even more of their time to helping the less fortunate than their money.

Have a good weekend, everyone.

Can I just ditto LFMD and say she can have my tchotch-whatever? I agree with her and I don't need more crap.

Oh, and the Ivins thing is so bizarre - the Kappa house he supposedly broke into was UNC's. He did a post-doc here. Isn't that strange to think that horrible anthrax outbreak was organized by a lunatic with a UNC connection?!

Katie, of course I agree with a lot of this. We've talked about it a lot.

Also, regarding #2:

Remembering the way Cornell West put the problem in RACE MATTERS: Conservatives care too much about personal responsibility, liberals care to much about the effects of society. So given a particular social problem, say poverty, both sides might have equal amounts of empathy, yet the liberal will blame big societal problems for the reason people are broke, the conservative will blame the individual who is broke for not finding a way to get unbroke.

To West's credit, he thinks the answer is somewhere in the middle, but it does seem like this might explain the reason why liberals perceive conservatives as being without compassion.

I won't have time to post, or even read xtcian for 'nother week or so, but I felt compelled to say that I wholeheartedly disagree with #2.

And I agree with part of Matt's post: "It's nothing more than a lazy excuse some liberals use...."

Although not this part: "...to avoid having to consider the possibility that conservative principles may actually acheive stated goals better than their own (security, elimination of poverty, racial equality and justice, etc.)"