Every human society and culture will always have to grapple with balancing The Collective vs The Individual. There is plenty of good in both, but either extreme can be terrible.
I don't think we've quite got a handle on how to pragmatically balance both just yet.
The Collective is about family, duty, solidarity and so on. And it can be good for protecting women and children, preserving culture and tradition, fostering a sense of respect and loyalty to your country and your people.
However, too much adherence to The Collective will stifle The Individual. People suffer because their personal freedoms will always be disregarded in favour of the 'greater good'. How you dress, what you eat, who you marry, what choices are available to you etc are all controlled by religious institutions, parents and other 'elders' in society. This ends up hurting women and children because any abuse or suffering is ignored as long as The Collective remains in good standing.
The Individual is about self-actualisation - being able to pursue your personal dreams and desires, such as marrying someone of your choice, finding a career that interests and fulfills you, deciding whether you want to have children or not, dressing in a way that expresses your personal taste and so on.
However, too much adherence to The Individual will cause an atomisation of society. Every endeavour is about maximising personal freedom and choice and wealth, irrespective of how it impacts other people, especially women, children, elderly, poor etc. Any suggestion of even mildly curbing one's personal freedoms for the sake of The Collective is viewed as an egregious violation. The Individual must never be expected to sacrifice anything! The focus is always on freedoms and never about any responsibility.
Many Western democracies understood the failings of blind support for The Collective and western societies have improved by moving towards respect for The Individual.
Unfortunately, pendulums tend to swing from one extreme to the other, so for quite a few decades we have been indulging in blind fervour for The Individual.
The concept of 'human rights' has stopped being about people being persecuted or violently subjugated by the state, to things like rapists should be allowed to be in women's prisons because otherwise they are 'oppressed' and denied from being able to 'live their authentic life'.
The focus is exclusively on 'I should always be allowed to do whatever I want, however I want with no repercussions or restrictions.'
Issues like surrogacy are framed as wonderful expressions of individual fulfilment: 'I am entitled to children by whatever means possible.' instead of an attack on the collective: 'Women's bodies are being exploited, babies are treated as a commodity and their well-being is neglected by severing the mother-baby bond.'
If surrogacy is banned, a tiny proportion of individuals may be unable to easily purchase biological offspring at the expense of others. If we take a collective approach, this is unfortunate but acceptable, because women and children as a whole are ultimately not being devalued and exploited.
If we take an individual approach, this tiny proportion of people should be able to dictate and override any concerns because ultimately all that matters is their own personal fulfillment of their desires. Individuals should never be expected to face any denial of their wishes.
And this is where the heart of the tension lies: being denied from fulfilling any of our personal wishes is a horrible way to live, but should we expect to always have our personal wishes fulfilled?
And what happens when two different individual wishes clash? If a woman deeply wishes for a single-sex space or service to feel secure, and a man wishes to insert himself in that space or service because it makes him happy - what then?
People who favour The Individual will want to prioritise the man's happiness over the woman's sense of safety, especially if the man claims an 'oppressed minority' status. Because as I mentioned above, 'oppression' today in Western society is not about violent subjugation but the denial of personal desire.
Instead of blind, wholesale allegiance to The Individual or The Collective, we need to move towards a nuanced evaluation of issues and determining the threshold at which individual freedoms may be curbed for collective safeguarding and vice versa.
Some people are slowly starting to think about this. I haven't read her book yet, but I believe Mary Harrington deals with aspects of this in 'Feminism Against Progress'.