changing the norms first

 In Anderson’s account of women in the context of collective identity and individualism, she explains that women suffer material disadvantages regardless of which view we take. When placing women in positions as the rational egoist, they have a higher cost of exiting marriage due to the inherent barriers placed in front of them such as sex discrimination, access to education, etc. When considering their collective identity role within the family, there are expectations for them to be committed to harmful social norms and to always be altruistic. As a result, many women do not have conceptions of their abilities to choose as individuals. Not only are they supposed to accept a smaller share of family resources, but they are also supposed to believe that is what they deserve. However, Anderson states that women do not have to choose between conceiving of themselves as rational egoists versus as family members in oppressive commitments. As an alternative, women should seek employment outside the home. In doing so, this is supposed to 1) give wives a more salient income that is viewed as a productive contribution to household resources and allow wives to acquire a greater perceived claim to larger shares of those resources 2) put women in contact with diverse others who do not identify solely as family members and provide more opportunities outside the home as well as inspire women to take more critical stances on their domestic identity and commitments and 3) give women opportunities to acquire new identities besides their family-bound identities. 

While I agree that it is beneficial for women to be in the workplace, I would argue that Anderson does not place enough of an emphasis on the importance of first having norms changed (she brushes over this in one sentence). Without this key component, even when women enter the workforce, they do not receive equal pay when they are in the same positions as men, their ideas/contributions are not treated with equal weight, and the “diverse others” they would be put into contact with would not invite them to take more critical stances but would likely reinforce the stereotypes already in place. Just because they are in the workplace does not make them less susceptible to being mistreated, and just because they are making an income does not mean a husband will necessarily believe they deserve more of a share if they are not meeting their perceived roles of taking care of kids or attending to household responsibilities. Misogynistic views are prevalent in society and pervasive in all kinds of groups, and it is impossible to fully develop a self-conception as an individual when the groups a person is committed to also reflect those coercive unjust values.  

In the larger context of individual versus collective views, the problem with the collective seems to be the norms in place that encourage bad group behavior. Perhaps the norms of group identities in general need to be changed to be more inclusive and committed to equality of capability for individuals. While groups are intended to form due to similarity of traits, ideas, background, etc, in order for us to have successful simultaneous groups that encourage the development of self-identity, these groups need to value securing conditions for everyone and changing their misogynistic/_bad_ norms. Even so, ultimately there doesn't really appear to be a right way to think about what those "bad" norms or decisions are since they often have different impacts on different people/groups (ex the young person advocating for saving the environment versus the older person who prioritizes other things since they may not be alive when we see the full effects of our actions.) If the values of different groups will inevitably clash, is it even possible to truly have shared conceptions of humanity?