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.

Lenin: "Why does it annoy people so much to point out that it is not all equal?"

This is a very interesting thread; and for the same reasons, it was always going to have be contentious: because of the very nature of what it's about - it's about saying that which can't be said, that which is not allowed to be said, or noticed, or acknowledged. Some of that always arises when you talk about feminism but in this case, it is the whole subject.
This can be a relief for some, but stressful for others.

The more I hear about Sunny's life, the more exhausted I feel by proxy. I was already thinking I couldn't do what she does and then she said she didn't get 2 weeks maternity leave! At two weeks I could barely walk down the road. But quite apart from that, I couldn't do what she does because I do not have the physical or emotional stamina to be so busy and never have any time to myself - by which I don't necessarily mean leisure time, I include time quietly working at a desk by myself in that category. I am glad she is so happy but there does seem to be an implication that we could all be so happy - but we don't all enjoy the same things. I have never been able to manage with no time off from being in the thick of family life, even as a child when none of it was my responsibility. Now I am lucky enough to be able to work for money in a way that suits me a little better and therefore can contribute to my family without being driven gradually mad, but I do wish that some people would acknowledge that women as much as men have different needs and attriibutes. I am very sorry that not all women or men can work within the scope of these personal attributes but it does seem that it's women more than men who have their needs swept under the carpet. (Not in my family though. On threads with people like Footlong I always think, "why do women live with men at all? Why don't they just all live in separatist camps?" and then I remember the lovely man at home)

Lenin, what do you mean about individual finances? Do you mean that couples should literally pay each other in cash - so if I ask DP to stay in on a Friday night so I can go out, I should transfer £x an hour to his account?

larry, cognitive dissonance is not dangerous it's a lifesaver. This thread is difficult, because people posting on it continuously ignore the fact that married men score happiest in all areas of well-being, followed by single women, then married women and finally, single men.
This has to be the base point when discussing cognitive dissonance.
So many women think there's something wrong with them if they're not happy in their marriage: their husband is happy, society tells them marriage is the route to happiness, it must be them, right?

Well... no, because when a trend exists, such as women's relative unhappiness in marriage compared to men's, and the fact that marriage is peddled to women as something that benefits them, you are going to get a lot of confused women who bury their feelings.
Only after they come accross feminist viewpoints, like some of the ones on this thread, can they analyze their marriage with fresh eyes.

Some people find the feminist analysis uncomfortable, and they do their damndest to shut it up. I don't understand why. Everybody else in the world, and on MN, agrees with them, they're saying nothing new. It's only feminist analysis that says marriage supports men and destroys women. We have the facts on our side.

I'm going to get shot for this, but I don'T think sunny is very happy. The people I know in happy marriages don't spend their time convincing others their marriage is happy

Totally agree with your viewpoint on cash Lenin.
And as for saving up for Maternity Leave - words fail.

Beachcomber,

For what it is worth I will reply to your patronising and personal questions, though I doubt you would do the same for me.

Firstly, what am I doing here? Is it a closed club with the admission criterion being the acceptance of a patriarchy here and now in the UK? Or is it an open church willing to hear all views? Last I looked in the OED, feminism is defined as advocacy of the rights of women, not accepting that we live in a patriarchal society.

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/aug/14/edinburghfestival2001.edinburghbookfestival2001

And there is a link you might like to peruse. It is Doris Lessing's, a feminist I most admire, view on why certain feminists feel it is alright to rubbish men all the time. A lot of women I know who consider themselves to be feminists would not recognise your definition of the word.

And as to your personal question as for what I am going to do for childcare when I go back to work. When I eventually do (and I am in no rush) my wife will look after our children most of the time but she will probably employ some part time help. We already have a cleaning lady, by the way. I have never considered my wife a skivvy.

I would say if you're pissed off in your marriage, you're not suffering from cognitive dissonance. You point out what's troubling you, you change it, or you divorce.

SOme marriages are genuinely happy, I believe it. BUt as I say this discussion must take place in the context of the sliding scale of happiness:

1. Married Men
2. Single women
3. Married women (more likely to be depressed)
4. Single Men (most likely to commit suicide)

larry, why do you need a cleaning lady? Is one woman just as good as another when it comes to doing the shitwork in your house?

As for your mansplaining of feminism, I make it a point only to take notice of feminists that men hate. If a man admires a feminist I'm not interested, because she's not doing her job

Sakura,

That is a weird one. Should I get a cleaning man instead or do you just object to paying people to do things you could do yourself? Is that not the point of money?

And, as for your last post including the delightful word "mansplaining", you have just confirmed what Doris Lessing, a very talented author and a feminist before you even knew that you were female, is saying in the link I posted.

Sakura, that's divisive.
raising women's status does nor mean knocking men's down.
Plenty of fairminded men admire feminist fgs.

no, you shouldn't get a cleaning man. You said you didn't treat your wife as a skivvy. Your proof? You hire someone to clean, thereby implying the shitwork is not yours.

, true wukter, I just can't bear mansplaining of feminism. Larry, read Sexual Politics and anything by Andrea Dworkin. They are the second wavers. Doris Lessing, whoever she is, wouldn'T exist if it wasn't for them.

Sakura,

Doris Lessing, whoever she is?! A feminist for 60 years who has won the Nobel prize for literature. "Handmaids Tale" ring a bell? I think Andrea Dworkin would not exist without Doris Lessing, not vice versa.

If you want to understand the movement you purport to represent so aggressively, maybe you should do some research.

Handmaids Tale was Margaret Atwood, acksherly

Oops. Apologies Wukter, you are right. Suitably put in my box....still, Wukter, I think you take my point.

ha ha ha Handmaid's Tale is Margaret Atwood.
Female novelists, all the same...?

(and of course there is a difference between a novelist who happens to be feminist, as a dentist or a firefighter or a teacher or a nurse might be, and a feminist writer)

laryy, are you going to answer the cleaning question? Do you hire someone because otherwise you'd have to do your own shitwork?

I'm not a feminist expert, but I'm a woman. And you're not. Which automatically gives me the upper hand when it comes to feminism. Yes, believe it or not, no matter whether you like it or not, women get the upper hand in this instance, by default of being women.
Read Sexual Politics

x-posted with wukter.

I hardly think Dworkin needed Lessing to formulate her ideas? Please Larry, don't be silly when you are lecturing other poeple about what they don't know. It's like comparing Marie Curie with Esther Lauder.

(Actually not really, I quite like Lessing, but they aren't even doing the same job)

Larry I asked you how you define this patriarchy which you claim is no longer in existence in the UK.

The feminist movement is concerned with the attainment of equal rights for women. Note - attainment of not maintaining of equal rights.

Ergo women do not currently have equal rights, ergo current situation is one of male dominance, ergo feminists are working from the premise that patriarchy exists.

The definition of patriarchy I gave above is from a mainstream on-line dictionary - it is not my definition.

"Literally ?rule by the father? but more generally it refers to a social situation where men are dominant over women in wealth, status and power. Patriarchy is associated with a set of ideas, a ?patriarchal ideology? that acts to explain and justify this dominance and attributes it to inherent natural differences between men and women."

If you think this definition is off the mark then tell me what is wrong with it.

There are lots of women sharing relevant details about their personal lives on this thread - me included. I'm sorry if you think it is offensive and personal for me to suggest you might to the same.

Feminist discussion spaces generally aren't 'open churches' actually. They are designed to be protected spaces where feminists can get on with discussing feminist issues without having to justify themselves and the existence of feminism every 20 seconds. Discussion, disagreement and airing of opposing views are all part and parcel - denying the existence of patriarchy generally isn't.

Oh look what has happened - we appear to be no longer to actually be discussing cognitive dissonance any-more and appear to be back in the groundhog day of justifying the existence of feminism (within a feminist discussion topic for feminists) to a man.