Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Does cognitive dissonance perpetuate misogyny, or just reflect it?

216 replies

JeanneDeMontbaston · 26/02/2015 08:45

Hi all.

I am aware the title is feminist jargon. By 'cognitive dissonance', I mean, that state where you subconsciously hold two incompatible views. Eg., you know perfectly well that, statistically, most rapes do not happen in dark alleyways, and yet, you feel more frightened there than with your random male friend.

As I understand it, holding a position of cognitive dissonance is tiring and stressful. I wondered if it actually makes us transfer blame onto women, so that we don't just hold these contradictory positions about gender, we actually absorb the idea they're somehow women's fault?

I am thinking this because I remember going through that stage (which I think a lot of women mention) of feeling, first, angry about feminism and angry that women were 'rocking the boat' by challenging all my dearly-held cognitive dissonances.

Now, it could be that cognitive dissonance is just a reaction to living in a misogynistic society. Or, it could be that there's something in cognitive dissonance itself, that pushes us to shift the blame onto the subject of the dissonance (ie., women/gender roles). What do you think?

NB - as you might tell from my tortured syntax, this is a research question I am working on. Please be gentle!

OP posts:
BuffytheThunderLizard · 27/02/2015 18:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
JeanneDeMontbaston · 27/02/2015 18:21

I don't think it is stating the obvious, but I still don't think I feel comfortable agreeing.

Isn't that just another way of saying you don't really believe men as a group are violent? Or how do you define 'overwhelmingly'?

OP posts:
Yops · 27/02/2015 18:17

Ah, okay. My bad, as my kids say Grin

Then I suppose class analysis is incomplete, rather than wrong. What if all the violent men had blue eyes? Or came from Norfolk? Or had higher levels of testosterone? Or a million other traits? I guess one you identify a group by a characteristic, unless that group overwhelmingly shares that trait, you need more analysis, and that has to go beyond a simple class of 'men'. Does that make more sense? Probably stating the bleedin' obvious.

Original poster
JeanneDeMontbaston · 27/02/2015 18:15

Yes, I think that too, buffy.

OP posts:
BuffytheThunderLizard · 27/02/2015 18:13

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
JeanneDeMontbaston · 27/02/2015 18:06

yops, I would say that's precisely when class analysis is helpful.

You, or I, as individuals, might not fit the wider pattern, but if you were to study a large group of (say) people whose parents smacked them, you would be able to find patterns and see whether or not that behaviour instils other habits. (For the record, I have no idea whether smacking your kids is likely to make your kids into hitters.)

Men, as a group, are more violent than women. Individual men being gentle, and individual women being violent, don't prevent us from seeing that.

Or am I misunderstanding?

OP posts:
Original poster
JeanneDeMontbaston · 27/02/2015 18:03

Cross post.

whatwould, it just got derailed. These things happen - it's fine.

I agree it's very common to transfer blame. What I am wondering is, is the frustration/cognitive stress of maintaining cognitive dissonance itself what makes men feel under attack, though?

I probably should have set my thoughts out earlier. But: women under patriarchy maintain cognitive dissonance, and most of us have personal experience of noticing we do so, and most of us can see why the fact that we do this, helps prop up patriarchy. Men maintain CD too, and people have suggested reasons why this, too, props up patriarchy.

Generally, people don't like anything that is cognitively stressful, right? We have all sorts of subconscious coping mechanisms to stop us from thinking about things we don't want to think about. Some of these cause us substantial problems (eg., people who've experienced trauma can blank it out, but then often seem to experience other memory issues, or get disturbed by the fact they can't remember the trauma properly).

I wonder if the cognitive dissonance men experience isn't doing something like this. A huge amount of our literature and culture seems to me to be designed to prompt men (and women) to think using cognitive dissonance. It prompts us into these thought patterns. Is it, then, possible to get rid of (some of) your cognitive dissonance, as a man, and to accept that women are basically human and so on, and still to struggle with that literature because it is prompting this cycle of stressful thought?

I'm really sorry that this thread hasn't been as clear as it could be, and thanks everyone.

OP posts:
Yops · 27/02/2015 17:59

It must be both, Buffy - nature and nurture. I have wanted to chin someone in the past and managed to contain it. I am nothing special, so why have I been socialised differently?

I never hit my children, and yet for my parents it was always an option. So I have been exposed to what some might consider abuse, and yet never resorted to it myself because for me it was wrong. Hitting children is the act of a bully. Why didn't I internalise, and carry on the behaviour? I think class analysis falls short here, because members of the class (men) vary greatly in behaviour with no apparent rhyme or reason.

Original poster
JeanneDeMontbaston · 27/02/2015 17:55

cad - no, don't apologize! I'm just not sure how to explain it differently from the OP. It's a really common thing, though, it's not just feminist theory. Basically, it is when you manage to hold two mutually exclusive beliefs at once, without quite realizing that you're doing it.

It's not a deliberate 'self-delusion', you see - it's more insidious than that.

I don't believe men are naturally violent, and I don't think beta-blockers would stop male violence. I think it's much more socially conditioned than that. But I'm probably biased about beta blockers specifically, because I was on them for migraine and they made me feel peculiar. Grin

bonsoir - um ... you may have misunderstood it, but I don't think it can be incorrect. Most rapes don't happen in dark alleyways.

what - so, you're saying that at some time, there was testosterone, and that caused humans to survive, because there was no law? Confused Sorry, but I cannot see how that isn't a giant leap of faith. It's possible, but how would we know?

I think I am with buffy on this.

OP posts:
WhatWouldFreddieDo · 27/02/2015 17:53

almondcakes, no I'm not convinced either. If anyone stops to think about it for 5 minutes, then of course it's not necessary.

I was just trying to pinpoint the reason we tell ourselves that we put up with violence in society. So it's just the line that's spun, either consciously or unconsciously.

WhatWouldFreddieDo · 27/02/2015 17:50

Yes, ideally we teach/socialise our boy children - well, all our children - how to deal with their anger. And we have wise, calm leaders who negotiate to avoid any conflict.

Jeanne , I'm sorry, I realise I've completely derailed your original question, which was far more subtle and therefore went whoosh over my head

does CD cause pp to blame women for what is in fact men's violence to women?

I thought this sort of switching blame to the object (of anger in this case) rather than the subject was a common psychological thing? (technical term)

almondcakes · 27/02/2015 17:48

I am not convinced by this we need violent people to defend us business.

If an army turns up to invade my homeland and murder and rape me and my children, I am prepared to fight and shoot them. This does not require me to be a violent person in the rest of my life.

My family members who fought in WW2 are not violent, aggressive, alpha male types in general day to day life, quite the opposite in fact having seen the horrors of war.

And most war now is pressing buttons not physically fighting people.

BuffytheThunderLizard · 27/02/2015 17:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WhatWouldFreddieDo · 27/02/2015 17:36

cadno, but can you imagine the reaction if it was suggested that the only way to improve society, to get rid of violence (and therefore having to use CD) would be to use drugs . . .

(on the other hand, one might argue that that's exactly what happens to women when their hormones/moods are altered by the pill or ADs.)

Bonsoir · 27/02/2015 17:30

The "statistical" example in the OP is misleading/incorrect...

WhatWouldFreddieDo · 27/02/2015 17:28

Also, consumerist/capitalist society is a damn good displacement activity for otherwise violent men ...

WhatWouldFreddieDo · 27/02/2015 17:27

So, pondering on this while stuck behind lorries and tractors, I thought, 'well, basically, testosterone and greed' - very reductionist, but not necessarily wrong.

Jeanne: 'I don't see how you can know human violence ... was essential to survival'

I honestly can't see how it wasn't. Just testosterone again, unchecked by law and order.

My point about our capitalist, consumerist society being the 'reason' might be better expressed as, 'This is the reason since 1945, when we decided world war was not a good thing'.

But it's based on the older, established reason, which is having to have violent people in our society (to use when we need defence) and having to have some method of containing them in times of peace.

cadno · 27/02/2015 16:42

Jeanne - No, I'm apologising as for not knowing what CD means - I suppose I could look it up - sheer laziness on my part.

As for fooling ourselves that we aren't violent - whether its to ourselves or other species - I don't see the point in such a self-delusion. Nor do I have a problem with the fact that human males are much more violent than females.
I believe that is down fundamentally to testosterone - It's found going back millions upon millions of years in our evolutionary past - apparently fish have version of it.

If society wants to curb male violence - I'd suggest doing so chemically -possibly beta-blockers ?? - they've worked for me in curbing my aggression. I think beta-blockers (at least the ones I'm one) interfere with the action of adrenaline - but I think there's a connection between the two hormones.

Too simplistic ? - I don't know, but it worked for me.

Original poster
JeanneDeMontbaston · 27/02/2015 15:27

cad - do you mean, you don't understand it how I put it in the OP? Or you don't agree with something along the way? Sorry, not nitpicking, just confused.

I don't see how you can know human violence - or at least this kind, where we're violent to each other but fool ourselves we're not - was essential to survival. I can believe we're meant to think that but (sorry!) I think that is cognitive dissonance itself.

yops - yes, I agree, the attitude to cheap clothes involves a bit of cognitive dissonance, that's true.

OP posts:
HouseWhereNobodyLives · 27/02/2015 15:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BreakingDad77 · 27/02/2015 15:15

But I was under the impression they commit as far as they can while still hopefully being able to walk away from the ruck.

Where as in our society you get some poor guy knocked out on the floor in a nightclub/on the street and people are stomping on him where he is no longer a threat.

HouseWhereNobodyLives · 27/02/2015 15:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

HouseWhereNobodyLives · 27/02/2015 15:06

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Yops · 27/02/2015 15:03

Well, anger is one of the things that leads to violence. The question is, why can some people rein in their temper and others cannot? It's incredibly complex. You can't predict it via intelligence, wealth, upbringing, class, physical capability or strength. You can't always predict it by gender, although it seems more prevalent in males of most species (I can only thank David Attenboro for that, I have no proof).

But violence is tolerated in our society, like it or not. You couldn't have most contact sports and material arts without it, or at least in it's milder form, aggression. Someone somewhere in our society has a use for it, so it perpetuates.

Because most of us would rather live our lives without violence, I guess CD is our psychological mechanism for dealing with a necessary evil. It's a bit like buying cheap clothes or coffee. If we thought about the exploitation that lead to cheap prices, we wouldn't make those purchases, so we have to dissociate ourselves from those thoughts.

TeiTetua · 27/02/2015 15:01

I claim there is something to be said for BertieBotts' husband's attitude. If she points out that he's condoning people's bad behaviour by saying "Oh he's a bit of a dinosaur, but he's a good bloke" and so forth, he might respond "You're always looking for trouble". You could say it's the avoidance of conflict--that by letting things pass, you're not getting into a confrontation with the person who's doing it. Certainly that makes it possible that there'll be trouble with someone else at some other time, but for him right now, he's preserved peace. He could even claim that the damage the "dinosaur" would do is hypothetical, but tackling him would be real conflict, right then and there, and they might never have a comfortable relationship again. So which is the more peaceful course of action?