Something I have noticed about a lot of the protests and anger is the idea that the people involved want the power, but not the responsibility. I'll use women as my example, but I have spoken to others. I asked them if they knew all of the responsibilities men grow up with. The idea that paying for a wife and kids seemed kind of foreign and surprising to them. The job is so important to the male psyche that they often look at themselves as their job. So many women have been raised that the man pays for things, they don't understand the concept of balancing a budget, or how much a dinner costs.
I expect some maliciousness, but I also suspect the majority of people who are saying things have honestly never known about the responsibility and identifying with it. They haven't been told, and most people assume they have. The malicious are specifically making sure this information doesn't spread.
I also suspect the reason why is Men were trying to show kindness by praising women and denigrating themselves. This attempt to look at the greatness of the other can be very humble and good. It leads to problems when the reality isn't explained to the women involved.
Have you seen this pattern? What signs and ideas go along with it?
There are some 'true' collectives, but they are still typically rare.
Very close family units are a good example. Sometimes this can include tribal families or Clans. Size is a huge problem for such collectives because relating only on kinship as a collectivizing feature becomes very weak the larger your clan group gets (whether the racialists and ethno-nationalists understand this point or not).
Small religious sects, not whole religions but specific communities, may do this for one another because they've associated using a shared value system. These can grow wider than families, but because the collectivizing feature is still based off an idea, any loss of support for that idea breaks the collective. When things go wrong, they tend to become totalitarian.
For the most part, that's as big as genuine collectives can get without things beginning to really break: small, tight-knit communities.
The military is only good at getting close to true collectivism because they institutionalize that standard as ideal, push individualism as selfish and potentially damaging concept, and regularly let people leave. The military ends up having high turn-over, even among good individuals, because the collectivism is stifling. Even a small failure in leadership can destroy large segments of a collective, so your collective's leadership typically has to be excellent. Literally: "above reproach", which is also a nearly impossible task.
That's really the only way true collectivism can work at any larger scale than a close knit community: short, temporary, stints. Once again, this is based on the concept of an activated militia, which the military (particularly the US one) tends to idealize.
You, as an individual, can choose to temporarily collectivize to deal with a particular issue for a short period of time, and the damage will be minimal to moderate. Doing it for too long causes huge problems as people get resentful or damaged and demand the right to leave.
The bigger your true collective is, the smaller your time frame. The longer your time frame, the smaller your collective is... until you approach an infinite time frame with a collective of 1, at which point you are simply an individual again.
This would explain why some religions make sure to have small congregations. It keeps the group working together.
Very much so. It can also protect the integrity of the religion-at-large.
One of the reasons the US has never had a true religious war (outside of Mormon aggression, and a Christian split over slavery), despite founding multiple religions in it's own borders, is because the refusal to allow the government to regulate religion has turned it into a mostly free market. This means that no religion is allowed to coerce people to stay within the religion outside of basic bitch social pressure. It also means that congregants have the right to chose which religious community best suits their needs.
So, some religions will have many churches and small congregations that keep the religious community tight. And if there are any problems (like if a the priest gets replaced by a priest who's an asshole), the congregants can always chose to go to a new church (with less assholes). Or, if it's a tight enough community, they can always put social pressure on the priest to improve.