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.

'I do think part of the problem is that women tend to marry a man who is established in his career, or they marry up. That's not good for equality. BUt it's like prostitution, studies show that a woman is more likely to move up the income scales by marriage than by work, because society is designed like that.'

Yep nothing stopping anyone from marrying a man who doesnt care about working and likes being at home with the kids. Most women wont do it though. If you did then the man would take over the childcare and household stuff and the woman would be free to work. The problem is most women want to be with their kids and dont want the dad to be the primary carer.

'And yes, I completely agree that once you are at home doing almost all the childcare and housework (even with a brilliant, but overworked husband), it becomes very hard to find the energy to get a new career, childminders etc.'

Well its not hard for the 1000s of mums like me who have to do it. They dont have a choice and get on with it. I think you put things in the way to going back to work. I know loads of mums that have had to go back to work after 6 weeks maternity leave as they cant afford not to. They have to sort all the childcarers out and still have their husband doing long hours and do all the housework. They cant afford nannies, cleaners, gardeners etc.

I cant have a child until my other one is at school because I am not allowed to bring 2 of my own to work at the same time. Thats a sacrifice I have had to make. Loads of mums I know have to do this in order to be able to have kids as they have to work to pay the bills. It is often about choices.

'I had my first miscarriage whilst on a business trip. Since travel was considered an essential part of the job, and the whole experience made it clear to me how incompatable such a career would be if there were any problems with future pregnancies/children'

As the recession is hit I know many of my friends who are still in the forces who have to go away for 4 and 6 months anytime from when their baby is 6 months. They cant leave as they are tied in to mortgages and their husbands arent well off.

Sunny, what is your point?
I am getting a little confused - you have lots to say about individuals' personal experience but I am struggling to draw out the argument from it all.

I am saying for some on here it has been to do with choices and I think they want the best of both worlds. They want to be with their kids but they want a fulfilling career and dont want it to be affected in anyway if they step of for years, have long maternity leave or go part time.

If you wanted to that bad you could marry a man that had little earning power but wanted to stay at home so that you could have minimal maternity leave and still work long hours. Except women generally will not marry 'below' them in social status.

There are ways in which you can stay at work and go away as many women do for way longer periods, for less financial gain and in definitely dont get to stay in hotels. Its usally more like a sandy tent in the middle of the desert for 6 months without their babies.

Filmbuffmums point of well its hard once you are at home doing the childcare and housework and your husband of working hard. Well yes it is hard but its not impossible if your career is that important.

I dont think if you do less hours and take lots of time out then it should be the same. It wouldnt be the same if a man took time out to look after his kids or took gap years. There are ways around this if you really dont want to leave work.

But "there are ways round things" is not the same as "everything is systemically fine and nothing could be better".

I am a feminist and I believe that there are systemic injustices against women which should be corrected. I believe this not because my life is terrible (far from it) nor because I have not found any ways of getting around any of life's problems (I have) but because I have seen and experienced and have had reliable reports of real injustice. I think things should change. You do not, is that right? If so, what do you have to gain from spending so much time arguing with those who do think things should change? If you are not interested, fine. But what do you possibly think you have to lose?

"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.

So you are basically saying that unless a man agrees with your version of feminism then they arent allowed to talk about feminism? Nice...."

No footlong that is not what I am saying at all - is it what you would like me to be saying so that you can brush it off and ignore it?

Male privilege is so ubiquitous and normalized that most of us don't even notice it most of the time. Inequality is a pervasive, ingrained, insidious aspect of culture, particularly in the realms of sex and race.

White people do not experience the racism that black people experience and therefore are (not surprisingly) less aware that such prejudice exists and are frequently oblivious to its far-reaching and all-encompassing manifestations.

Men do not experience the sexism that women experience (that is not to say that they do not experience any sexism) and are therefore less aware that such prejudice exists and are frequently oblivious to its far-reaching and all-encompassing manifestations.

Belonging to the higher status group within a prejudiced society offers one certain advantages - this situation is known as privilege. The state of privilege is normalized in an unequal society. This normalization often renders the state of privilege invisible to the person who benefits from it - they are oblivious to it. They just go with the flow of what they have always known and what they have always considered to be normal. A status quo which normalizes their privilege suits them.

The disadvantaged person is much more aware of the disparity in status and advantage because it affects them negatively, makes life hard or dangerous for them and is something they have to constantly resist, deal with, think about, defend themselves against and feel undermined by. They are often going against the flow. A status quo which normalizes their disadvantage and does not suit them is hard to constantly question and challenge.

For the privileged group to have a meaningful exchange with the disadvantaged group (about this state of inequality) the privileged group need to step out of the state of obliviousness and see that they have advantages (many of which they will not even be aware of) that the other group does not. One of the most effective ways to do this is to listen (with as open a mind as possible) to what the disadvantaged people are saying to you.

Only then can the privileged person start to understand what the disadvantaged person experiences and deals with due to their having less status in society than the privileged person.

Remaining in a state of obliviousness whilst declaring that the disadvantaged group; hate the advantaged group (they don't, they hate the disadvantage) or don't know what they are talking about in terms of their own disadvantage (that the privileged person is often oblivious to) is very common and no doubt very human.

What has been decribed above is not "agreeing with my version of feminsim" but something rather more complicated which can be applied to the politics of any group with a disparity of status ubiquitous enough to create an advantaged group and a disadvantaged group within society.

Let's look at the IT example on this thread.

A person from the privileged group says the disadvantaged group are under-represented in the field not because of inequality but because the disadvantaged group do not choose to enter that field - they self-select themselves out of it.

People from the disadvantaged group come along and say well my experience is that I was not encouraged to get the qualifications necessary to enter the field, was ignored in science class and encouraged to enter a caring profession. I managed to ignore all that and entered the field anyway - once there I experienced inequality and prejudice. Here are some examples of what I, and other disadvantaged people, experience. Things are so bad that many disadvantaged people leave the field of IT altogether.

Privileged person says "I don't believe you".

This is being oblivious to one's obliviousness - it is also a very common within privileged groups. (And glaringly obvious to the disadvantaged group)

Two men have come on here oblivious to their male privilege.

I've humoured Footlong long enough (Larry was okay, he backed off when he realised he didn'T know as much about feminism as he thought he did).

Footlong, you're arguments are predictable, we've heard them all before. You represent the norm, you represent anti-feminism.
If a woman blundered into a conversation a group of men were having, as ignorant about the topic as you are, she would have been ignored flat out, ridiculed or insulted. I have been patient with you, but it's getting embarrassing now, for you.
Either listen to the arguments on here, yes, I mean actually listen to a woman, or please go.

Footlong has been very insulting and offensive. He refuses to engage with the issue at all. Both he and sunny have stated that I hold the views I do because I had a fucked up childhood. I find it hurtful, so everytime I see their names my stomach sinks.

Sunny, Footlong, the entire world agrees with you that feminism isn't necessary. So can you please leave us alone to our delusions now. Either engage with the topic about cognitive dissonance or start your own thread about why feminism is uneccessary. Please

sunny, do you know what this topic is even about?

I am aware of what this topic is about and will go again now for the final time. Do you not think the reason most of the world disagrees with you is that it some of what is written is because of choices? Unless you have a child with SN then there are more often than not choices.

I personally do think your childhood has clouded your judgment of men as some women on this board differentiate between very priviledged men and the average man but you cant see this. You think that every man is priviledged and I found you have said a lot of very offensive statements towards men during this thread. If the statements had been reversed then there would of been outrage, and rightly so.

There are priviledged men at the top of society and of course there are idiot entitled men who expect women to do everything as there are idiot women who expect men to make a certain amount of money and wont help. That isnt the way the average man thinks though and I think it is very damaging to society to peddle that attitude, which is why the vast majority of the population disassociate themselves from modern feminism.

Sakura,

I backed off for another reason. It was not my knowledge of feminism or lack thereof. It was due to the fact a number of people here regarded the "feminist" section as closed and I can respect that.

I tend to just join interesting debates from the "most active" section and do not check where they are (relationships, feminism, AIBU etc). The OP framed her post as a question as to why a lot of people reject modern feminism. Clearly the post per se invites people with alternative perspectives. However, the posters here do not. So, I have withdrawn from anything in the "feminist" section and will not post in this area again.

There are a number of interesting issues brought up by the original poster which I believe to be more worthy of open debate though and am happy to continue the discussion in another forum.

NO, you are welcome to debate the topic. But remember you did ridicule me for my lack of knowledge about feminism, and then it transpired that you didn't know shit yourself. I, however, didn'T ridicule your lack of knowledge, when it was painfully obvious to me from the get-go that you didn'T know what you were talking about.The entire scenario was ridiculous.

Please do continue to post. Contrary to the (typically mundane) insult often hurled at feminists, they are not man-haters. They expect more of men than a non-feminist, that's true, they don't pander to men. But that shows they hold men to higher standards than non-feminists do. Take it as a compliment.

sunny, you don't know what you're talking about. You know nothing about my childhood. NOthing. I have four brothers, they are as working class as you can get. So stop embarrassing yourself.

My last post was to sunny's "You think that every man is priviledged" comment.
RIdiculous.

Sunny: what attitude is damaging to society?
In what way?
Is society perfect? Aren't there aspects of how it works that would benefit from being taken apart and put back together differently?

Yes, it would certainly change things if fewer women got on with things uncomplainingly, more women challenged how things work instead of individually finding "ways round things" (which involve being separated from small babies and putting up with it).
I don't see that change as necessarily bad, I see it as potentially very good.

I do not want to spend all my time with children, all my life. I don't want to have a career working with children just so I can look after my own, I am not suited to that kind of work and I have health problems that have led me to seek work which involves more sitting and thinking (which I am very good at and is very valuable to the companies I work for). I have never considered being in the military either as I am not cut out for that in more ways than I can even begin to list, but for a start I could just not physically cut it.

The limitations on the energy that I have to do more and more things, find more and more solutions that involve me working physically harder, don't make me unfit for life, unfit to be a mother, unfit to earn a salary, don't mean that I should abandon all thoughts of having a family and supporting myself and them. But it has sometimes seemed that way. I don't not deserve a family just because I can work 12 hour days, but not 16. I don't not deserve a job because I can be there for 10 hours a day, not 12. You seem to be implying that this is the case - that everyone should be like you.

Men don't have to be like you. Men don't not deserve a family if they can only work one job at a time.

yes I noticed that (ridiculous) comment as well, but there were so many on here I didn't know where to start. The programme is basically saying that, regardless of women's talent, innate intelligence, or competence, it's their fault they don't get paid as much as men

Sunny - when I refer to male privilege, I am talking about all men.

I am talking about the advantages all men have in a social, political and economic system which favours men as a group and awards this group higher status, more advantage and therefore privilege than women as a group.

Within this hierarchy there are other privileges and disadvantages related to other social constructions such as race, religion, class, etc.

A black male will experience both male privilege and race disadvantage at the same time.

A white poor male will experience male privilege and white privilege at the same time as experiencing class/economic disadvantage.

As a white middle class women, I experience white privilege, class privilege and female disadvantage all at the same time.

Black poor female children are generally considered to be the bottom of the advantage heap in current society with white, rich, able-bodied male adults being considered on top of the heap.

Larry and footlong - I often read a blog by a bloke who describes himself as a male feminist. He writes some pretty cool stuff about privilege (and child custody!) from a male perspective. He struggles with his obliviousness sometimes but at least he admits it. Here is a link to his blog - might be of interest to you as men who profess an interest in feminism.

From the entry linked to;

"When we say that we live in a patriarchical system, we're not saying that every single member of the class "men" have a set number of advantages over every single member of the class "women". When we talk about men having unearned privileges, that doesn't mean that no woman has any of these privileges, or that every man has all of them."

"It's not always easy to step back and examine why I'm reacting the way I am. It's not easy to have someone accuse me of exhibiting male privilege- there are times when I want to say "But I'm on your side!" I want to do the right thing, and being told that I'm missing doesn't feel good, and it can make me feel defensive. I work to get past that and to examine my feelings and thoughts, and I often find that the other person is right. I think that I come out ahead for it, but it's not always easy or fun to discover some element of privilege that you weren't aware you had."

Larry I genuinely think you might find this blog interesting because I think you just might be sincere. Please read and try to understand what he is saying about 'shutting up' sometimes in feminist spaces.

Oh and footlong - please read what he says about men who play 'Gotcha' and how it ruins things for sincere men and men who do have genuine issues such as battles with child custody and being drafted into the army.

yes, feminists have long-acknowledged that patriarchy screws a lot of men as well. But you have to acknowledge it's not women doing the screwing, it's males who hold greater sway over everyone. That's why I said sunny's post was ridiculous. The class system is a disaster for men, now more than every before. Men are going to destroy themselves. Masculinity is a topic someone like Larry should learn more about, in order to help men and women alike.

But then Footlong why should we take your word for it that women in IT are earning more than men in equivalent roles, because that certainly isn't my experience....