To be frustrated that people don't understand that individualism is not compatible with a collectivist mindset?

[User09678]

Which we need to solve most of our most critical and existential issues?

Surely your question should be why are sales jobs higher paid than ones helpful to society?

Or do you think we shouldn't educate or care for anyone else and sales are just more helpful?

Hmm. I smell a whiff of agenda, but here goes, my take on this based on personal experience and observation.

Women are expected to work to support themselves, fair enough. It's supposed to secure financial independence and autonomy. However, social conditioning is such that certain roles are considered more appropriate and attainable for women, despite progress. Paid caring and adminstrative roles are still considered traditionally women's work because they are seen as natural extensions of both women's nature and their experience at home. If women have siblings they have cared for, or elderly relatives, well they can "choose" to do that as paid work because it's a role that needs to be filled, but because of that attitude the pay is less, and these jobs are regarded as easier by the ignorant. Women may be seen as innately more nurturing and trustworthy. (See threads on this site where nurseries employing male staff are viewed with suspicion).

Many women don't actually have much "choice" in the job market as they will be juggling the responsibilities of home life, often caring for children, elderly relatives and supporting husbands and partners who are career focused (as manly men should be).

Fortunately these days women can choose to be more career focused. It requires sharp elbows, single mindedness and sacrifice of many aspects of family life, or even having one at all, and hats off to those who do forge that path and shine brightly. But many who go that route are still marginalised and sidelined in favour of men who don't bugger up HR by needing maternity leave or flexible hours around child care etc. Even though these things are enshrined in law, savvy employers will keep their profits in sight and find ways round it.

How many scientific breakthroughs / innivations have been celebrated with male names attached, only for it to be revealed in later years that some brilliant woman did all the leg work and had their hard work nicked at the finishing post?

I think asking the question "why don't women choose high paying jobs" is pretty disingenuous, because no individual can really choose that outcome entirely. They may hit a sweet spot through a combination of hard work, good luck, being in the right place at the right time etc. You may as well ask why doesn't everyone choose to become a millionaire? As if it's down to sheer force of will. Which it might be in some cases, but a proportion of wealthy people have got there through sheer ruthlessness and dodgy dealings, and there are a great many men and women who prefer not to trample over other people for the sake of pure avarice. I'd rather be poor with a relatively clear conscience than knowing people had suffered for my success.

It's extremely complicated, but thinking about it makes me wonder if women are conditioned to embrace collectivism and men to pursue individualism. Both sexes have biological impulses to procreate and the choice whether to do so, but a woman's choice and the consequences are broadly seen as hers, while men only have to shoulder the financial burden, which even then should be shared equally between a couple despite structural inequality.

Out of curiosity OP, what is your opinion of "evolutionary psychology" ?

And also your references to biotechnology and Catholicism make me wonder what your personal beliefs are, and how they tie into collectivism and individualism.... I'm very interested to know now.

"Or do you think we shouldn't educate or care for anyone else and sales are just more helpful?"

Yes, obviously I don't think we should educate or care for people.

Not read the whole thread yet but it's often individuals with unconventional ways of looking at things that drive the most innovation.

I don't have an agenda beyond trying to test positions that I currently hold, provisionally, pending further information/insight etc.

"I think asking the question "why don't women choose high paying jobs" is pretty disingenuous, because no individual can really choose that outcome entirely." - it might come across as disingenuous but it's not intended to be. I agree in large part womens work patterns are a result of the various trajectories associated with caring responsibilities. But, for so many girls and young women today, they don't have caring responsibilities and they have every opportunity to go into higher paying roles. They don't seem to appeal to girls in the way they do to boys. And I also don't think a feminism that wants women to be like men is woman centred in the slightest. I do think, in general, with many welcome exceptions, that woman will gravitate towards empathising/relational roles and men towards systematising roles. The clear answer to the pps question of "well, why don't we just pay carers more than car designers" is childlike in its naivety. The fact is that this labour is consuming, not producing. The economics just don't work. I don't think care work is best carried out by low paid workers. Ideally this wouldn't be paid work at all and would be carried out within the family. What particular aspect of evolutionary psychology do you want to know my opinion on? I believe human nature exists, and that it ends badly when we try and pretend otherwise.

Broadly speaking, do you buy into the idea that women are more suited to caring / supportive / nurturing roles due to their brains via evolution, ie hardwired, while men are more suited to innovative / physically demanding / higher risk / decision making roles?

And do you think society is falling apart because women have allowed themselves to be tricked into believing otherwise and nagged the menfolk into giving us "a chance", leading to the apparent mess we appear to be in?

( Just to confirm, I am not a fan of the regressive claptrap described above, in case you haven't guessed)

"Broadly speaking, do you buy into the idea that women are more suited to caring / supportive / nurturing roles due to their brains via evolution, ie hardwired, while men are more suited to innovative / physically demanding / higher risk / decision making roles?"

• yes. I said that in my previous post, but it's not quite as straight forward as you laid out. But broadly speaking, yes.

"And do you think society is falling apart because women have allowed themselves to be tricked into believing otherwise and nagged the menfolk into giving us "a chance", leading to the apparent mess we appear to be in?
( Just to confirm, I am not a fan of the regressive claptrap described above, in case you haven't guessed)"

• Not even remotely, what have I said in this thread that gave you that impression?

I agree with all these three comments, and many others here. Any society with enough resources can carry a few antisocial or freeloading members. But when that behaviour becomes widespread without any real penalty, as we’re seeing now, the dwindling number of public-spirited members can’t keep things working.

What used to be the Left is now engulfed by individualism, most notably identity politics including transgenderism. It has nothing to build a way forward on.

While the conversation has been great on this thread, I think straying into perceived and alleged sex based differences dilutes the exploration of individualism versus collectivism as political / philosophical / idealogical concepts.

Collectivism, in my opinion, should embrace equality of opportunity and there should be room for individual expression / pursuits within that, within an agreed moral / ethical / legal framework.

Collectivism that depends on both sexes agreeing to particular roles entirely dependent on what sex they are rather than ability or desire to fulfill those roles broadly speaking, and without even going near current gender wars, is not true collectivism if it means that there is built in inequality disadvantaging half the population based on their biology. Just as collectivism based on religion or strict adherence to any particular belief is not true collectivism if full participation in society is denied to those who do not share those beliefs but are otherwise willing to contribute.

Individualism within a collective is entirely possible if power is equally determined and shared to resolvebig picture issues equitably.

So women would still be doing all the care work - just not getting paid for it?

Many women don't actually have much "choice" in the job market as they will be juggling the responsibilities of home life, often caring for children, elderly relatives and supporting husbands and partners who are career focused (as manly men should be).

But ultimately it is a choice because nobody can force you to quit your job. Typically, we see posters on here saying things like "it made sense for me to be the one to go part time due to his higher earner power".

That's a perfectly understandable decision but it's effectively choosing quality of life and material gains over long term progress by reinforcing the accepted dynamic. When it comes to the crunch most people choose the option that benefits them/their family over the socially altruistic choice.

First of all, I am not in the UK. I am in Australia. So, my experience is based on here.

I applied for an entry level job that required no previous experience. It was working as a meter reader. It paid well. I never made it to a call back or an interview. However, this job was re-advertised for several months. My application had been unsuccessful and yet this job remained unfulfilled. I tried to reapply but was returned a message that you have previously applied and cannot reapply. I couldn’t think of a good reason why I couldn’t be given a fair go. At least an interview. The only thing that I can think of is that every single time I have seen a meter reader they have always been male. Make of that what you will.

People keep saying that on this thread. That collectivism can make room for individual opportunity - but it would be far more persuasive to those reading if examples could be provided. A collectivist society is more restrictive that a liberal one. Maybe it doesn't need to be, but I've yet to encounter any evidence to support a viable alternative that combines the two. I was hoping by page 7 someone would be able to put something weightier behind this proposition other than "it must be the case because I really really want it to be so"

I'm also wondering what you see as "our most critical and existential issues" in the OP? It's all very well posing a vague question and then criticising open answers with poster's opinions but you do seem to be expecting a certain 'correct' answer.

This sort of thing has historically been very bad for the church- look how how the Russian Church is going now - religion completely in the service of the state, and they have lost their credibility as a religious organization everywhere.

I agree with this.

Many of the people who want a high level of state intervention and services seem to prefer not to help people in their community directly. They don't want to be bothered with going to work at a soup kitchen, offering to help the neighbour talking to the people on their street or getting to know them. Collectivisation at the level of government is actually a way to maintain an individualistic lifestyle personally.

Fundamentally, I think this is ultimately less robust than a society where people feel an internal sense of duty to their local community.

In a way, the former, even though it is mediated by the state, is a market solution to social responsibility. Which is interesting, given the OP's mention of Distributism - one of the things the early Distributists like Belloc said was that socialism and capitalism are just mirror images, two sides of the same coin. Paying people to do the work of community cohesion is probably never going to be enough to produce a really livable and robust society. Because if people don't feel the interest and obligation to help their neighbours, simply by virtue of them being neighbours, why would they feel the need to spend their hard earned money on them, in the long term? They won't.

The thing is, this approach works with ANY system.

The ideal benign dictatorship, sure.

So why not - the ideal democracy - great!

The ideal communist regime - also great!

The problem is none of them will be ideal long term.

"Because if people don't feel the interest and obligation to help their neighbours, simply by virtue of them being neighbours, why would they feel the need to spend their hard earned money on them, in the long term? They won't."
This is, arguably, where we have been for the last few decades, with other less caring role wages outstripping care/education roles at pace. The lack of investment in structural change suggests it won't be on the list of priorities either. An interesting question is why men in power in particular won't recognise communities need caring roles more than a new car, for example. The way economics is currently structured rewards over indulgent spending, excess and polluting.

No a democracy enables us to peacefully remove someone bad - a dictatorship or communist regime less so - they require brute force (see syria) and even in cases like russia where a leader came to power who was willing to release the countries held capture in the ussr it was still possible for putin to come in and remove the thin veil of democracy that they had managed to get to and place himself as a dictator effectively.

I think this is actually just what MT had in mind, so not a "way back" as such?

What she was saying was that it's important to understand that when the state gives a benefit, that is possible because citizens work and pay into the state. It's not actually a faceless benefactor at all, it's real people. Her concern was that people forgot that it was real people providing benefits rather than a kind of abstract source of largess.

I think we do need to cooperate collectively to solve various problems, but such cooperation needs to be founded on the freedom of each individual. Forced cooperation incites opposition and rebellion and so is ineffective.

There's no shortcut to avoid having to make arguments and persuade people.

Arguments are often only as good as solutions that are offered alongside though.

Democracy is the least worst way of governing people with their consent. As long as they can see it's somehow the legitimate will of many.

Which is all fine and dandy until you start bring deeper issues into the mix. And begin enforcing "the majority" on "the totality".

And then we are back to square one.

At some point, some people realised that it's a total waste of time trying to get majority consent and they may as well ignore the masses and do what they want anyway.

The UK is probably closer to one end of that spectrum than another.

And people can have all the rights they like. Don't mean much when the Romans invade, to use a metaphor. Caesar wasn't stopped because of uncertain pronouns. Despite his reputation for linguistic accuracy.

A collectivist regime generally leads to the mass deaths of those who are individualistic. Collectivists don't tollerate non conformists.

Well a single death is a tragedy. A million is a statistic.