Let's talk about cognitive dissonance ...

[colditz]

My relationship with my children's father broke up because he lied about money and hit me, and I finally, after many years of misery, refused to tolerate it. But why did I tolerate it for as long as I did when I was miserable?

I believed that children need their parents to stay together and that I would not cope alone. The facts were that children do not need one parent to be abusing the other, and that my life would have been easier without him merrily fucking it up.

The stress caused by the gap between my own personal beliefs and the reality of my situation was causing an uncomfortable feeling, often described as cognitive dissonance.

Is this the reason that people who consider themselves fair minded nevertheless perpetuate an unfair system? Intelligent women who do all the housework and childcare 'because he goes to work' must see the difference between theirs and their husband's exhaustion levels - why do they accept it, and decide that 'going out to work is really hard' when they surely must remeber the time when they went out to work and had no home responsibilities as being a darned sight easier than the life they live now?

I think it's bcause cognitive dissonance is a very uncomfortable state of being, and if you cannot change your situation, you must change your way of thinking to bring it in line with your situation or suffer the misery of inner conflict.

Which brings me to the rejection of feminism.

Why do so many women reject feminism when it would clearly improve their lot to be treated fairly?

Is it because they cannot easily become fairly treated individuals, not without huge conflict and arguments in their home and at work, so they decide, unconsciously, to believe that they are already treated fairly? And therefore feminism is defunct in their minds.

Intersting.

OK, it's certainly true that a lot of jobs, such as waste disposal, low-level admin, shopfloor retail or whatever, are not much cop WRT emotional or intellecutal satisfaction. But the people who do them generally get their satisfactions from things other than work because they GET TIME OFF. The SAHM is supposed to find fulfilment in domestic work and childcare 24/7, with nothing else to divert her. That; why many women hate being SAHM.

Something that I think could help solve the problem of cognitive dissonance would be if society starts valuing and actually teaching the skills needed to successfully deal with other people. In school there is a huge emphasis on the three R's while many children (particularly boys IME) lack basic social skills. Boys tend to become angry and defensive when faced with any difficult interpersonal situation and rather than being taught a better way to deal with it, they are just punished which makes them even more angry and defensive.

Meanwhile girls, who tend to be people-pleasers (whether this is learnt or genetic I have no idea) learn to stay quiet and accept the status quo. I have so often ended up with a classroom of noisy disruptive boys and silent withdrawn girls.

The result is that adults enter relationships without the skills needed to successfully negotiate the many minefields of marriage. Therefore even the most well-meaning of men and women can find it difficult if not impossible to openly and honestly negotiate the basic details of their life without huge conflict or hurt feelings getting in the way. It always shocks me when people who are about to get married reveal that they have never discussed how many children they will have or whether one parent will stay at home if children do come along.

Joining your life to someone else's is a very difficult process and it's no wonder that so many people struggle. Without the skills to negotiate and reach agreement without horrendous arguments it's not surprising that so many couples revert to old well-worn roles and then silently seethe or convince themselves they're ok with it rather than actually deal with it.

Perhaps a more comprehensive programme of relationships education at school would help to deal with the problems described here by opening the eyes of both men and women before they get trapped in a rut?

I totally agree with you on the romantic love thing Lenin. It struck me when I was a student that people who were looking for a housemate were so picky - they didn't want someone who was messy, loud, obnoxious etc, and most people tried their best to negotiate an acceptable way of living together in terms of cleanliness, privacy etc.

However, when it came to partners it seemed that practicality went totally out of the window and people almost actively avoided analysing how well they would actually get on with a chosen partner if they had to live with them.

Romantic love is wonderful, and I certainly experienced that with my DH, but marriage is a partnership as well as a love bond and in that sense a businesslike attitude is important in some aspects of the relationship. Even if you're madly in love with someone you can't expect to just move into together or have kids together and for everything to fall into place. You're two different people with different backgrounds and expectations so it's necessary to lay your cards on the table quite explicitly right from the start. Like I was saying before it's always shocked me when I've read on forums or heard in RL that people haven't discussed the basic mechanics of how their life is going to work before they get married. The romance myth makes them think that this is somehow unromantic and that they should in some sense leap into marriage with faith and hope.

Again I think a comprehensive relationships programme is needed to open people's eyes to the kinds of conversations and negotiations they need to have with partners before they commit to them.

Brilliant post Kickassangel. I think sometimes men can be working and feel the pressure of having the family rely on them, being solely responsible for finances and often doing a job they dont like. In addition to not seeing a lot of the kids.

Where as the woman stays at home gets the fun and fulfilment of being at home but also boringness and lack of change that may come with that.

Both parties look at the other and think the other is having a whale of a time often without seeing how the other person feels. I think both parties get frustrated at the kids and the situation sometimes but I just see it as it isnt going to be forever and its all worth it. I think if people took the time to understand how the other feels and realise there is shit with both of them. (again I am coming from the perspective of people doing average jobs).

writerofdreams - I think we do need marriage and relationship education as I learnt caring, sharing and apprecition between 2 people through watching my parents who have an equal, fantastic relationship. People nowadays often havent experienced that growing up so dont know how to be in a marriage.

Was cognitive dissonance called doublethink in another era?

Very interesting thread. Recently I've been finding it helpful to use a strategy called 'Do I want this for my daughter?'.

So me staying at home for four mind-numbingly tedious years, not because I enjoy it, but because it's better for the children, that's fine.

But do I want this for my daughter? Hell, no. If she doesn't enjoy being a SAHM she should put her (putative) children in childcare and not feel guilty.

Likewise me staying in a marriage, not because I am happy, but because it's better for the children, that's fine.

But do I want this for my daughter? Hell, no. If she's unhappy she should leave and the kids will be better for it.

Adding the 'Do I want this for my daughter?' strategy to the 'What am I modelling to my children?' question can provoke a lightbulb moment...

Trubert: An excellent way of looking at it.

WRT Relationships Education, it would only work if it made it very clear that longterm heteromonogamy is NOT COMPULSORY and encouraged people to consider whether they want couplehood, heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, polyamory or lifelong celibacy as all of them are valid options.

I agree SGB, I would be in favour of education that focused more generally on how to deal with people in many different contexts, in terms of respecting other people's boundaries, negotiating difficult situations, expressing dissatisfaction with how you're being treated etc. I'm sure the vast majority of us have worked with someone (usually a manager unfortunately) who has no people skills whatsoever. So relationships training would be useful for the working world as well as children's personal life.

...'is she arguing for her own oppression or fighting for her right to freedom from the male gaze?' Surely the best way to accomplish freedom from the male gaze is to put blinkers on the men though?

A very thought-provoking OP.
I had two grannies, one of whom supervised the servants who did a lot of the work in her homes in both India and Ireland. She herself spent 'quality time' with the children (all 11 of them), and was much loved by all, and by her multitudes of grandchildren. She gardened, loved music, packed the family belongings for probably about 15 moves over the years, and decorated the same number of houses. She was a great cook, had travelled widely both before and after her marriage; a very interesting person. The other granny was a farm wife on a small farm in Ireland she 'married into' the farm, where an older couple and my grandfather already lived. The housework and childcare was shared by granny and the older aunt of my grandad's, and the farm chores were shared by the men. She had a lot of shy stories of carrying guns under her skirts during the 'Troubles', when she and my grandfather had met, and she was kindness personified in an old fashioned country way. No-one was run ragged in either house, except perhaps the nursery maids and the dairy hands in Granny No. 1's the men and women with the lowest status in other words.

I don't think any of them would have identified with the premise of cognitive dissonance, even though one probably never darned a sock in her life and the other one knitted socks for eight and darned them too, but I certainly would as circumstances nand opportunities have changed for women over the years, while by and large they haven't changed at all for men. In one of her more frustrated moments, my mum said that feminism had aimed at changing the wrong people in the wrong way -- she had no time for the sexual revolution that somehow got all caught up with feminism's more practical and more useful aspects as she saw them. Women and 'women's work' remain invisible for the most part, while status is accorded only to women who participate on the same playing field, albeit according to different rules, with the men.

'Is it because they cannot easily become fairly treated individuals, not without huge conflict and arguments in their home and at work, so they decide, unconsciously, to believe that they are already treated fairly? And therefore feminism is defunct in their minds.' Yes, I agree. Feminism needs to keep on plugging away, and tackle the people who need changing this time.

ok, so who are the people who need to change? i could blame my dh for not doing enough, or i can blame 'the system' that raised us both, leading us to this situation.

tackling an individual, or a group of individuals, will cause increased tension - people fight back & dig their heels in if they feel under attack.

tackling 'society' is just too vague and undirected.

even where individuals & groups work together to resolve the issues, there will be conflict and disagreement, which does not fit well with trying to have a personal & romantic relationship at the same time.

Realistically we probably have to focus on our own domestic setups.
From day one both working 40/however hours a week in whatever sphere, sharing waht's left over, and both accessing the same amount of disposible family income.

If that is your set up from the start, it will be easier to recognise imbalances if they occur.
And,of course, will be a good example to the children.

There's no getting around that really Lenin when children are small, but whatever of that there is shouldn't be belong to the WOHP by default.
Work is work, we have to start believing it ourselves or no one else will. Never mind society, equality begins at home.

How about tackling the fact that women are not paid to do domestic work in their own homes, and rely instead on the earning power of their partners for both current income and pensions later in life unless they wish to survive on whatever the government hands out in old age?

Work is work, and all work should be paid.

Wukter,do you mean everyone to have employment outside the home,or for both partners to clock the hours they work,at home and outside,to ensure that both are working for the same number of hours?

I can see an argument for the Government paying an allowance to people who care for children (or indeed dependent adults) but not for people who do housework. Because lots of people live alone, and therefore have to do their own housework, pay someone else to do it, or live in a tip.

As yet, in human history, no one seems to have found a way to make a happy and stable society function without a slave class. Most of the time, certainly in the western world, the slave class is women.

Well thats amzingly insulting to slaves both current and throughout history. But no wonder SOME posters get whipped into a lather with emotive and rubbish claims like that. I wish I had a magic little machine so I could transport you back in time and yuo could experience how slaves have really been treated throughout history.

Hyperbole loves this forum!

P.S And no you cant use my little machine to transport me anywhere, and I am not taking suggestions.

Trubert, the problem I have with your argument is that I come from a long line of WOHMs. True, they worked for financial reasons but the main reason they worked was a) so that their husbands couldn'T lord it over them, and b) because society treated them like pondlife for taking care of their own kids. I love taking care of my kids, so I don't want to run away to work to avoid it. I want to be given respect inside and outside my home because of the amazingly important work I do. I really think that if I'd continued being a bum-wiper in that psychiatric nursing home, I would get more respect from everyone. NOt saying bum-wipers shouldn't get respect. They should. BUt people say that SAHM are the bottom of the pile. Footlong has already called me lazy and spoilt because I'm not grateful I've got a washing machine

Why should I change myself to fit into a society that is inimical to women? Isn't it better if I work on educating people that men like Footlong aren't doing their wives a favour simply by being married to them.

Agree with everyone who said the media should stop peddling the Romantic love line to women. People fall in love but the chemical reaction lasts about 3 years max. Kids should be taught that, along with other possible co-habitation options.

WritersofDreams, I disagree that teaching children how to navigate marriage is the answer.

I think it would be better to teach kids to be realistic. You can choose a pragmatic marriage that will last (many arranged marriages go the distance) or a romantic marriage that will probably fizzle out. I chose a bit of both. I fell in love with DH, but looked at the practical side as well. I did not marry the love of my life because that would have been a disaster judging by our temperaments. DH and I are a good balance of yin and yang. 5 years is a long time for a marriage to last these days. We've done ok. BUt I can'T see myself being married forever. I've made lots of changes, but marriage just doesn't suit some women, especially feminist women.

listen, in a situation where the sahm has kids at school (or takne care of some other way), and is sufficiently well off to afford dishwashers, washing machine etc. then they are not working like a slave. however, where there are pre-school kids, the workload is way in excess of 40 hours per week, and ideally both parents need to be giving some input to make life bearable.

i think there are 2 factors, often from outside of the home, which go towards sahm (or dads) feeling so under valued. 1. that housing costs are so high that one salary is often not enough to enjoy a reasonable standard of living, so the family is perhaps struggling for money, or at least watching every penny. 2. the 'invisible' nature of the work means that it is often undervalued.

i freely admit that atm, i have quite an easy life. a lot of the 'work' i do in the house is not strictly necessary, but i dislike being idle, and don't like feeling that i take more than i give, so i do garden work & diy to keep me busy. if i didn't want to do it, it would make v little difference to our daily lifestyle & i could spend a couple of hours a day meeting friends and going to the gym.

that doesn't mean that the start and end of the day are any less hectic, but i would have to do some of that anyway, even with a ft job.

the problem is, that dh does very little (time wise we spend as much weekend time contributing, but not during the week.), and that has altered our relationship. i am now doing a 'job' which i don't enjoy all that much. how did we end up like this? because his job paid more, was the main support of the family, and therefore his job 'trumped' mine when decisions had to be made. i agreed to those decisions, willingly, but now i feel a little cast aside in my role as sahm. so yes, i would say i am aware of cognitive dissonance, but that i don't blame dh for it. i am as much to blame as him.

i think that one of the problems is that people see machines that help with housework, and think that it is easy, shouldn't take up much time. however, even modern lifestyles can create enough 'shitwork' to keep one person busy ft and more. for some reason we have just forgotten how much time/energy/emotion it takes to keep a family running well, and assume it's easy.

it's a bit like the people who think that computers can do anything, at the touch of a button. the machines only do what people make them do. marxist theory has a lot to say about how people would feel in the workplace once machines took over a lot of their work, and it appears to be happening at home too - people have the head space to think about their positions & to feel disgruntled about the lack of equality. but it's not worker against owner, it's wife against husband (mainly) so it affects our family lives too.

how do we fix that?

Footlong has already called me lazy and spoilt because I'm not grateful I've got a washing machine

No I didnt, I called you lazy because you stay at home all day, only do half the housework and farm your childcare out to others. From what I can tell yuou dont do much except plot against your husband and complain about men on MN. I didnt call YOU spoilt, I said 'some woman on this thread', and intentionally didnt name anyone. I also called my wife spoilt, and myself spoilt.
She wouldnt mind that, in fact we would laugh about it and acknowledge our good fortune compared to people of times past.

And before people get grumpy that I am judging her on a limited knowledge of her.. of course I am! But she called me sexist and other things and not a peep from anyone was heard. Goose/gander and all that.