I think there's something to what you're saying but the terms are slightly wrong. Individualism is ordinarily set in opposition to collectivism, but it's the bastardization of both that have created the problem.
On the one hand, social clubs have been evaporating. Bowling leagues, rotary clubs, ham radio clubs etc. They're fading, and this predates 2020. These things are compatible with individualism -- it's freedom of association. But in practice people aren't doing them as much anymore.
On the other hand, the bureaucratization of social assistance. If you need help you don't go to people in your community who already know your face and the specifics of your plight, you fill out a form on a computer and some algorithm decides whether you get a supermarket gift card.
Both of these trends are isolating but it's not because of where we put the trade off between individualism and collectivism, it's because we're doing both of them poorly.
I don't see how i could go to bowling league regularly and simultaneously keep full time job, be actual non absent parent for kids and maintain at least some relationship with extended family.
Bowling social clubs assume everyone has a lot of free time, does not have small kids or offloaded all kids care on partner.
Many working parents can find ~2 hours, once or twice a week - especially once the kids are old enough not to need constant supervision.
It's not like you're a bad parent if you're only reading them a bedtime story 5 days a week instead of 7.
Of course, there are still a lot of things competing for that discretionary time - exercise, or a job with a longer commute, or socialising, or working late, or professional development, or volunteering, or a hobby, or relaxing, or political engagement.
And hell, if you like that extra 2 evenings reading bedtime stories more than you like bowling, that's a completely valid choice too. Wouldn't have had kids if you didn't like that sort of thing, after all.
Those social clubs took considerably more time then 2 hours a week. The aspect of it was that only one partner participated, it is not like they would switch. If one partner was member, the other got less me time.
And the other aspect that you unappreciate is that they were not time for yourself not time she you get rest and get to do what you want. They over time are another social obligation. You need me time on top of that.
Also, bedtime story is like 10 minutes typically. That is not the issue. The issue is that your partner wants free time too, so the sort of free time you have gotta be split fairly.
> The issue is that your partner wants free time too, so the sort of free time you have gotta be split fairly.
Sure. So Mom helps with the homework on Mondays and Fridays, Dad helps with the homework on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and both parents help on Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday.
Maintaining a household really is at least a full time job. If you have a two income household, all that work still has to be done, so you go to work and then come home to a second job. Making the second job the full time job of the other person means each person now has an extra 20 hours a week. You could spend 10 hours a week at a social club and still be spending more time with your kids than you do now.
Meanwhile the money from the second job gets eaten up by commuting and childcare costs etc., and being thrust into a higher tax bracket, but also from having to outbid other two income households for artificially scarce housing in good school districts, which you can't avoid by not doing it yourself and so it's prisoner's dilemma. The two income trap is a real thing.
I think if you have small kids to look after, a partner to share this experience with, and extended family you keep a relationship with, - you have a beautiful life. Maybe just try to be more grateful, once the kids are a little older try to find an hour or two per week to hang out with friend.
No, I am assuming 40-45 hours not counting lunch and transport to/ from work.I am assuming you shop, eat dinner, take showers and sleep. I am assuming that you take kids outside, feed them half time, interact with them, take them from kindergarten, ensure homework is done and generally raise them.
I am assuming that sometimes you need to be alone and just rest too. You can't spend all the time in obligations only without your moods being affected.
With 60 hours a week, the above itself is limited. Even without bowling league, with that much working you don't do anything else, you are work only person basically.
You’re just saying you have other priorities that are higher than having a regular social engagement. That’s fine. If you don’t want to do anything other than work, keep up family ties, hang out with your children and spouse that’s fine. But other people feel they can do all of those to their satisfaction and have an ongoing social engagement.
But that is what I says - social clubs as social engagement means that you require your partner to do almost all childcare. Like, you monopolized free time for own fun.
Most of what you call other priorities does not disappear if you don't want to do it or prefer social. If you don't feel like doing it tonight, simply, someone else have more chores to do.
On the one hand, social clubs have been evaporating. Bowling leagues, rotary clubs, ham radio clubs etc. They're fading, and this predates 2020. These things are compatible with individualism -- it's freedom of association. But in practice people aren't doing them as much anymore.
On the other hand, the bureaucratization of social assistance. If you need help you don't go to people in your community who already know your face and the specifics of your plight, you fill out a form on a computer and some algorithm decides whether you get a supermarket gift card.
Both of these trends are isolating but it's not because of where we put the trade off between individualism and collectivism, it's because we're doing both of them poorly.