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.

Sakura,

"However, even men who are the dregs of society have an advantage over the wealthiest woman, because of their sex".

Tell that to the gardener doing the work in a rich woman's garden or the masseur at a smart spa.

I have nothing to add just yet, I just wanted to say thank you to the posters contributing thoughtful, reasoned, informed theories on this topic. Very interesting.

the gardner will have a wife who he can lord it over, who will be doing a worse job than him. The class system benefits men. The wealthy woman's husband may visit prositutes- women of a less advantaged class. Either way, her wealth gives her a modicum of power over men of other classes.
But she is still a woman. UNder patriarchy, for example, if the gardener raped the rich woman in her own garden, she would not be believed in the court.

Larry this is basic feminism 101 stuff.

We are not here for the purpose of educating you in the basics of feminism (whilst you attempt to lecture us on female writers you don't appear to have read and refuse to answer questions about how you apply the definition of patriarchy).

This thread is not about you, your weak grasp of feminist analysis or how boys perform in schools.

Sakura I agree with your analysis of the why single men are unhappy and thought exactly that when you first posted the list, as no doubt the rest of the feminists on this thread did.

Larry why don't you start a new thread if you want those questions answered?

To me not being happy Sakura that isnt true at all. Im just saying in most marriages people comprimise and I unfortunately think your childhood has mixed up how you view men. Not your fault but it is very evident in your posts. I am sorry you feel that way.

actually, even more worrying is the life expectancy of married v single men & women.

married men live longer than single men.

single women live longer than married women.

obviously, there are a huge number of contributing factors, and the fact that people now live longer, often moving in & out of marriage/co-habting, and that there are more women who have children without getting married etc.

however, even now, it seems that getting married quite literally sucks the life out of women!! given that married couples often enjoy a better standard of living than their single counterparts, due to pooling of resources, then that is doubly condemning.

when i was younger my mum read a book called 'the history of sex' which was about sex relations throughout the ages. apparently, in many societies, monogamy was not an issue until there was an acquisition of property. then men needed to know that they were passing property on to their sons, and women became 'tied' to men & expected to remain faithful.

also, v early man didn't realise the link between sex & pregnancy. they believed that the gods favoured women with babies, or that nature impregnated them. again, monogamy was not expected.

it does seem that once men realised their role in procreation, and had something to hand down to their sons, it became imperative for them to claim ownership of that process, and women became reduced to property.

capitalism and patriarchy are v closely linked.

"An internet acquaintance of mine once wrote, ?The first big privilege which whites, males, people in upper economic classes, the able bodied, the straight (I think one or two of those will cover most of us) can work to alleviate is the privilege to be oblivious to privilege."

www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/

Base one when taking part in feminist discussions as a man is to at least attempt to get a handle on the idea that you have the privilege of being oblivious to privilege.

megonthemoon, I don't mind your representation of my work. I don't do the school run and look forward to time time when I can because having an excuse to converse with other adults in RL sounds like a treat

Back to cognitive dissonance, I think there might (still) be some confusion about what colditz was talking about in her OP.

Cognitive dissonance does NOT engage someone who is genuinely happy in an equal partnership

Cognitive dissonance does NOT engage someone who is angry because their partnership is unequal and who genuinely tries to resolve the situation.

Cognitive dissonance kicks in when the wife realizes (as I did) that her husband hasn't cleaned the toilet in five years, that he doesn't know how to use the washing machine, and he thinks it's acceptable to take off his shirt and leave it wherever it lands - and she excuses it rather than tries to change a situation that is unequal. She makes excuses like "well, he works hard at his WOH job and is tired" "I'm picking up after the kids, might as well do it all together" etc. She does this because she considers herself a strong, competent, smart woman who makes reasonable choices, when her actions are of someone who subverts their will to another person.

The men in these relationships are suffering from a certain level of cognitive dissonance too because not a one of them really thinks they are unfairly loading housework against their partner. DH absolutely, genuinely believes that he does an equal share of the housework and steadfastly maintained that position until I started making lists of the work I was doing. The husband chooses to believe that a) he really does do an equal share or b) his wife is just whining/hormonal/worn out because he considers himself a good husband who wouldn't "dump shitwork" on his wife, who he loves.

It's not people who don't know their own minds, it's people whose actions are at odds with their thoughts / statements. It's the reason you hear people in abusive relationships say that their abusive partner doesn't mean to hurt them.

Cognitive dissonance in the SAH partner absolutely BREEDS cognitive dissonance in the WOH partner because if they get no feedback that they are not doing an equal share of housework, they have no way of knowing how unequal it is without a certain amount of self-reflection that is rare in human beings of both genders.

I don't think anyone has said a certain amount of drudgery isn't required for everyday life, just that working for 8 hours outside the home on five out of seven days per week does not give one a get-out-of-drudgery-free card and when one partner treats the other as though it does, they will have a problem; fights over housework until the balance changes, divorce, or cognitive dissonance. All residents of a household need to share household tasks equally.

I think that maternity leave and the amount of care needed by a newborn sets a very early precedent in a relationship for the amount of kid-related work that gets taken on by the mother. It's hard to change those sorts of habits, especially if one has taken more than a month or two of maternity leave. That's my only explanation for why the balance of housework changes so dramatically after kids come along, even for couples who shared it relatively equally before.

I do believe that there is a preventable societal element, in the sense that individuals perpetuate an unfair balance of roles (ie, MILs telling H's that he's such and amazing contributer to household work because he changes a few nappies, since their husbands did none - well that's setting the bar pretty damn low); but there is also an inescapable societal element in that there is no getting around the fact that women are the ones who bear and BF newborns, so the onus of their care will inevitably fall more on women than men, especially in early years.

I suspect the best way around the whole issue is trying to address inequality in our own, individual lives and in a broader sense, fight society's attitudes that lead to domestic inequality (such as the concept that if a child is dirty/tatty/unfed it ought to reflect poorly on the mother even if they are presently in their father's care). There isn't a simple resolution, and I am quite sad for those who think there is.

also, I do wonder a little bit at the 'modern conveniences' as its own category of masking housework.

My mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother had washing machines (although the one my great grandmother had as a child was manual rather than electric - of course, great-grandpa had a helluva a lot less clothes that DH has). My mother and grandmother grew up with dishwashers. How many generations do we have to have a labor-saving device before it's just considered an element of life rather than something homemakers should be eternally grateful for? When he complains about his long commute should I tell DH how terribly spoilt he is since he can drive a car to work each day and doesn't have to walk or ride a horse - or would that just make me a dismissive asshole?

ok, i agree with all of that, but there are still many couples where not only does the wife take mat leave, but she then doesn't return to work, or goes part time. most often this is because she earns less already, even before the kids come along - how the hell does that happen?

even when women go into traditional male careers, they often don't earn as much as males with the same qualifications, they just don't (in general) climb the career ladder as high.

so although many couples would be able to tackle the issues within their own marriage, they still have to deal with the influence of the outside world. it's no good us having a fair & even share of housework, if women are still underachieving in the work place. but then, it is damn hard work to keep two ft job (not even high profile careers) and a family going. is there any way of achieving equality without wearing ourselves out?

perhaps more flexible working for men and women would go some way to help.

maren - your long post is what i agree with (don't disagree with the 2nd one either)

kickass, that is something that suddenly struck me, you're right, quite often the wife's salary is less than the husband's even before they have children.

Why is this? (Putting aside the obvious, sexism in the workplace, glass ceiling arguments just for a moment.) Is it because quite often women marry men a bit older than themselves, so he is already more established in his career and earning more? Is it because if women know they are planning to have children, they deliberately don't push as hard for that promotion or apply for that shit-hot job that they know they won't be able to do in 3 years because it's incompatible with the way they want to mother? Thinking about it, I'm now wondering if I slightly held myself back in my first career even before I had children, because at the back of my mind was the thought that if I got that job in Paris, it would just not be possible for me to spend any time with any future DC's and I knew before I had them, that I would want to spend as much time with them as possible? I doubt if many childless men are subconsciously constrained in that way, but I wonder if women are and that's one of the reasons why even before we start to have babies, we are losing ground to our male partners in the salary stakes? Just kicking an idea around here, I don't know if there's any truth in it?

kickassangel, I don't know the answer ('how the hell does that happen?' and 'is there any way of achieving equality without wearing ourselves out?').

Before becoming a SAHM I worked in a male-dominated field and the positions themselves didn't have any income disparity. I truly did make the same amount as my male colleagues. Where the sexism came in was the number of times rumors circulated that I had been given x promotion because I had slept with whomever OR when I was PG and had hyperemesis that I was just taking the piss and trying to get away with slacking and playing the pregnancy card to get away with it. Not once did I see a male colleague's hangover treated as dismissively as my pregnancy, but then, it is the sort of thing one needs to experience to fully appreciate I guess .

IM(admittedly limited to one field)E the male/female incomes started out level and became more disparate the longer a worker stayed in the industry. Also IME, the reasons were trifold: the women generally didn't pursue salary raises or promotions as aggressively as the men, the time women spent away from the office on mat leave counted against their careers (I work in telecommunications, so being away from work for ~6 months or so will require almost complete retraining) so they were behind the male colleagues who had started the same time as them, and finally that frequently a man was hired from outside the company when their only option was to promote a woman from within. Only one of those is, IMO, in itself sexist. The rest can be exploited by a sexist environment, but aren't sexist in and of themselves.

caveat: I was only the second woman at my company who got pregnant. There were three women in a team of 90 (the third had teenage children). All the men were either childless or had SAH wives, none were the primary caretakers of their kids. The company was a sexist environment not because it considered women lesser being, but because the lack of women meant it was never required to be anything else. Women who had a problem with it usually left the company rather than beat their heads against the company culture.

(wrt men aggressively pursuing raises and aggressively negotiating higher salaries; I suspect this is a byproduct of the systemic pressure men are under to provide for their families, even though that's not always the reason given)

I really do think that flexible working would go a very long way to lessen the gap between the experiences of working fathers and mothers (now way to compare to childless workers, but then, there's lots of things you give up when you have kids). At my old office both the mothers-of-small-children requested flexible working, either part-telecommuting or flexible hours, and both were denied requests and ended up quitting full stop (was actually seen as a way for management to push out the 'troublesome' mothers with all their frequent requests for accommodations). Neither of the female employees wanted time off to care for their children, they just needed the flexibility to be able to work around nursery hours. The company lost highly-trained hard-working individuals and the govt lost taxpayers. Oh well.

As for achieving equality without wearing ourselves out? No, I don't think so. Not in the current system. Something's always got to give. For me I would say the trick is that everybody has their somethings giving and not just one person

yes, i have no idea what the reasons are - but it is the case that most often, men are out-earning their partners before they have children. so when you combine the fact that women need to take some time off to have the baby (even if only a day or two), AND they are earning less, it is 'logical' that the woman should stand back from her career if the family are finding life hard with 2 working adults.

there are probably many factors which influence how men & women behave in the work place, and how they are treated.

and it is so hard to break out of the mold once you'e in it. now i'm a sahm, i find the idea of finding childcare for dd (both before & after school), and returning to ft work exhausting. i want to do it, but i know how hard it was before. i am thinking that the only way to cope is to get a cleaner & gardener. but then, i will be spending a large proportion of my earnings on 'outsourcing' - so why on earth bother?

as an aside - if you look at how much a childcarer & cleaner earn (both typically female jobs) compared with a gardener (male), the men earn more. yet, i would argue that they are equally laborious, with similar education levels required.

HB, that may be true in some cases, but not in mine. On the contrary I spent many frustrated years earning not much, on short term contracts, "between jobs" etc and at the back of my mind was a real (unacknowledged) sadness that I didn't seem to be able to get my work life into a shape that would make it possible for me to have children.

I am sure some of these problems were just because I was sloppy or bad at work or something but I have also had problems because:

I couldn't be promoted into the vacant mid-manager role because "we need a guy in here around all these hormones";
I couldn't have a pay rise because "The MD doesn't like clever young women, they annoy him"
I was asked to do a full time job for part time money and when I explained I couldn't make ends meet, asked why I didn't have a boyfriend to support me;
It was explained to me at interview that part of my role was to play up to the older partners who liked to flirt with the pretty girls;
I was given insecure contract work in a massive multinational corporation, whose staff were about a third like me on insecure contracts, and that third were all women.

These are just examples - I am sure none of this is unusual (for my age, although I hope some of it has become less common and might not have been experienced by younger women). But I don't think we need look too far for subtle emotional causes of self sabotage when stuff like this is pretty standard.

I am SO fucking proud of myself for having a permanent job which pays ok and also makes me eligible for statutory mat benefits. I really never thought it would happen, a lot, or even most of the time.

HerBeatitude, yes and yes. I think you've hit on a subconcious part of it.

In my career I did push hard for promotions and raises, and frequently had to deal with rumors of sleeping my way to the top for my trouble. No winning there I'm afraid

That's insiduous side of the question. When the workplace is such an unfriendly place to women (particularly new mothers) is it any wonder that they often make the decision to quit and become a SAHM if they can financially afford it? Seems the easier of the two.

This programme talked about some stuff about equal pay. I was muttering to myself about it not covering gender, and then it did near the end. A bit superficially imo but not too bad. (I would summarise it, but my memory is dreadful, and all I can recall now was women not asking for pay rises but it didn't just cover that else I would have muttered about blaming women for structural issues.)

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tq1vc

i used to be a teacher & even in such a female-dominated industry, there was a lot of inherent sexism. whilst personal experience does little more than highlighting a certain point, it was v noticeable that promotions went to men or single women more readily than to working mothers. that the working dad who wanted paternity leave was denied it & treated as some kind of parasite, to the extent that his teaching skills were questioned.

as i left, two positions became vacant in the school. both of these were just 'given' to men - no advertising, no interviews. it was just 'felt' that they were the logical person to take on the post. in both cases there were women who were better qualified, experienced & with better track records BUT - oh gosh, they had babies. the manager who made these decisions used to 'not hear' what women said to him - he'd just stare at them & then respond to the next thing said by a man.

i know that mine was an extreme case, but i do think that there is an issue with how some men react to women in the workplace - they just don't seem to actually respect them in the same way that they do men. this, of course, affects the way that women advance their careers. i know that there were two positions i went for that i didn't get because i'd had time off work to have a baby.

i also think that there is more pressure on men to climb the ladder, and it must be tough for men who don't want to.