I don’t get this idea of having to have the state or society fulfill the need to be valued at all. Can you please explain further what you mean by that?
A group of people (e.g. organization, community, society, corporation, government, etc.) is capable of collectively attributing value.
People need to feel valued.
Therefore a group of people is capable of fulfilling people’s need to feel valued.
I’m not proposing a mandate, just a practical accounting.
But what do you mean in practicality? Something like equal rights or how much people are paid?
I think for example in certain jobs it’s mostly the pay that makes people feel not valued enough. When you have less money you can’t participate the same way as your neighbours or friends and then you feel left behind.
There’s more to how people express or feel value. For example, these are some virtues people seem to value: honor, respect, trust, accomplishment, pride, duty, loyalty.
Money is just one way an employer can convey value to their employees or a customer coveys value to a business. It may come as a shock, but outside of those relationships, money isn’t actually all that valuable.
Imagine someone being your friend just because you give them money… That’s what I mean.
Things like loyalty, honor, trust, accomplishment, etc. are happening in people themselves or in the personal relationships of individuals. How can a group of people give that to other people, when you don’t mean equal rights?
The one example I can think of are orders of merit. But these are obviously not things people need to thrive or experience feeling valued.
How can a group of people give that to other people, when you don’t mean equal rights?
Because the point of the post is mental health, not the merits of egalitarianism. I just wanted to point out that, for the gross majority of human history, men’s muscles and reproductive expendability were uniquely valuable traits. With automation and intellectual pursuits, those traits aren’t quite so necessary.
No, I’ve just read it a view times now (“society / people need to value men more”) and I don’t understand how that’s supposed to look like in concrete action.
Agreed; that’s the challenge. I don’t have a full answer, but I do know that it involves having something to work towards, not just something to fight against.
I don’t get this idea of having to have the state or society fulfill the need to be valued at all. Can you please explain further what you mean by that?
Didn’t mention the state, but it’s also relevant…
A group of people (e.g. organization, community, society, corporation, government, etc.) is capable of collectively attributing value. People need to feel valued. Therefore a group of people is capable of fulfilling people’s need to feel valued.
I’m not proposing a mandate, just a practical accounting.
But what do you mean in practicality? Something like equal rights or how much people are paid?
I think for example in certain jobs it’s mostly the pay that makes people feel not valued enough. When you have less money you can’t participate the same way as your neighbours or friends and then you feel left behind.
There’s more to how people express or feel value. For example, these are some virtues people seem to value: honor, respect, trust, accomplishment, pride, duty, loyalty.
Money is just one way an employer can convey value to their employees or a customer coveys value to a business. It may come as a shock, but outside of those relationships, money isn’t actually all that valuable.
Imagine someone being your friend just because you give them money… That’s what I mean.
Things like loyalty, honor, trust, accomplishment, etc. are happening in people themselves or in the personal relationships of individuals. How can a group of people give that to other people, when you don’t mean equal rights?
The one example I can think of are orders of merit. But these are obviously not things people need to thrive or experience feeling valued.
Because the point of the post is mental health, not the merits of egalitarianism. I just wanted to point out that, for the gross majority of human history, men’s muscles and reproductive expendability were uniquely valuable traits. With automation and intellectual pursuits, those traits aren’t quite so necessary.
Or am I misunderstanding?
No, I’ve just read it a view times now (“society / people need to value men more”) and I don’t understand how that’s supposed to look like in concrete action.
Agreed; that’s the challenge. I don’t have a full answer, but I do know that it involves having something to work towards, not just something to fight against.