This way of looking at things is called collectivism. It’s the sort of philosophy that considers it okay to treat and individual according to the average experience of their group. For example, when someone points out that a woman can easily get help and a man is told to stop and consider his abuser’s needs, collectivism says “yeah but that man’s problem is smaller”.
Well, that’s the implication. That his problem is smaller than a woman’s problem would be.
It’s never actually said. Instead it’s described in terms of statistics and numbers. And these numbers describe the collective experience, not the individual experience.
OP is making a complaint from an individualist point of view: if a particular man is being abused, then that man faces significant obstacles in getting help.
Just because fewer men than women experience problem X, doesn’t mean that a man with problem X suffers less than a woman with problem X.
Dismissing the experience of the individual, or implying that it’s “bullshit” to highlight that individual experience (which is horrifying, as I know from being on one side of this issue, which is all the perspective I need to evaluate how horrible it feels and whether it’s okay).
People think the words collectivism and individualism map to:
Collectivism: considering others’ needs
or
Individualism: considering only one’s own needs
That’s not what those words mean. What they mean is:
Collectivism: Considering the needs of a group, and making ethical decisions based on group situation descriptors (such as statistics) and the implied sums of experience. Holding groups responsible, as a unit, for crimes. Recognizing groups, as a unit, for their accomplishments.
Individualism: Considering the needs of the individual, and making ethical decisions based on the individual’s situation (such as stories, relationships, health status, etc). Punishing or rewarding individuals for the actions they themselves committed.
But it’s not even a matter of policy primarily. It’s not like this policy is collectivist and that policy is individualist. Most prominently, these are lenses through which to view the world.
One of the dangers of collectivism is exactly this kind of reasoning (when collectivism is applied erroneously to individual policy or problem evaluation). Because more women experience X problem than men, we should prioritize the individual women’s problems over the individual man’s problems.
I am not accusing you of having said or implied the previous sentence
Now, collectivism isn’t bad or good. Individualism isn’t bad or good. The danger arises when one doesn’t distinguish between them. In the above italicized thought, for instance, a collective issue is used to make decisions about individual response. That’s not so good.
An example of good collectivist reasoning and ethics would be like: “After experimenting with different carbon tax rates, we have found that $65 per ton extracted results in the climate stabilizing”.
Collective problem, collective analysis (those atmospheric CO2 readings basically involve all of us), collective solution (a law, which applies to everyone in the group, i.e. all Earthers)
An example of good individualist reasoning and ethics would be like: “Mike is constantly yelled at by Susan. Almost every day, she goes off the handle and yells at him for hours. His health is suffering from this. Therefore we’re connecting Mike with a shelter and a social worker who’s going to help him learn that he’s too valuable to accept that treatment”
Collectivism, Individualism. Two lenses for looking at problems, just like physics and chemistry are two ways of looking at the world.
You had a very well reasoned and written response, and I disagree with virtually none of it. I just feel like posting emotionally provocative content like this hurts more than it helps, if it helps at all.
That being said I was citing statistics as a metric Google’s algorithm uses to return results. Everything you said fits into the “We need to educate ourselves” portion of my initial reply.
Holy fucking shit mate, I’m a social worker who works with people experiencing violence and fuck you highlighted the issue far better than I ever could. Thank you for giving me the tools to better explain myself when I need to.
This way of looking at things is called collectivism. It’s the sort of philosophy that considers it okay to treat and individual according to the average experience of their group. For example, when someone points out that a woman can easily get help and a man is told to stop and consider his abuser’s needs, collectivism says “yeah but that man’s problem is smaller”.
Well, that’s the implication. That his problem is smaller than a woman’s problem would be.
It’s never actually said. Instead it’s described in terms of statistics and numbers. And these numbers describe the collective experience, not the individual experience.
OP is making a complaint from an individualist point of view: if a particular man is being abused, then that man faces significant obstacles in getting help.
Just because fewer men than women experience problem X, doesn’t mean that a man with problem X suffers less than a woman with problem X.
Dismissing the experience of the individual, or implying that it’s “bullshit” to highlight that individual experience (which is horrifying, as I know from being on one side of this issue, which is all the perspective I need to evaluate how horrible it feels and whether it’s okay).
People think the words collectivism and individualism map to:
or
That’s not what those words mean. What they mean is:
But it’s not even a matter of policy primarily. It’s not like this policy is collectivist and that policy is individualist. Most prominently, these are lenses through which to view the world.
One of the dangers of collectivism is exactly this kind of reasoning (when collectivism is applied erroneously to individual policy or problem evaluation). Because more women experience X problem than men, we should prioritize the individual women’s problems over the individual man’s problems.
I am not accusing you of having said or implied the previous sentence
Now, collectivism isn’t bad or good. Individualism isn’t bad or good. The danger arises when one doesn’t distinguish between them. In the above italicized thought, for instance, a collective issue is used to make decisions about individual response. That’s not so good.
An example of good collectivist reasoning and ethics would be like: “After experimenting with different carbon tax rates, we have found that $65 per ton extracted results in the climate stabilizing”.
Collective problem, collective analysis (those atmospheric CO2 readings basically involve all of us), collective solution (a law, which applies to everyone in the group, i.e. all Earthers)
An example of good individualist reasoning and ethics would be like: “Mike is constantly yelled at by Susan. Almost every day, she goes off the handle and yells at him for hours. His health is suffering from this. Therefore we’re connecting Mike with a shelter and a social worker who’s going to help him learn that he’s too valuable to accept that treatment”
Collectivism, Individualism. Two lenses for looking at problems, just like physics and chemistry are two ways of looking at the world.
Excellent response and a good read.
Outstanding response and highly relevant username.
You had a very well reasoned and written response, and I disagree with virtually none of it. I just feel like posting emotionally provocative content like this hurts more than it helps, if it helps at all.
That being said I was citing statistics as a metric Google’s algorithm uses to return results. Everything you said fits into the “We need to educate ourselves” portion of my initial reply.
Holy fucking shit mate, I’m a social worker who works with people experiencing violence and fuck you highlighted the issue far better than I ever could. Thank you for giving me the tools to better explain myself when I need to.
deleted by creator