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.

Sunny said;

"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."

See this is exactly what I mean about understanding the nature of privilege.

Feminism does not compare the outcomes for women with SN children and women with NT children.

Feminism examines the different outcomes for male parents of both sets of children and female parents of both sets of children. The outcome is generally that the man will have more and better choices and will have been told all his life that this is his due. The woman will have fewer and more difficult choices and will have been told all her life that this is her role, nature, duty and what she wants from life.

Which brings us nicely back to.........drum-roll......cognitive dissonance!

I do keep trying Sakura

I don't read Footlong's posts anymore. Inchlong, more like it.

Oh FFS. I've spent the day reading this entire thread.

I am one of the wooly liberal, please-everyone, change-can-be-effected-from-within what-about-the-menz feminists around here. I am the fucking poster child for "play nice and be rewarded with equality", what with the shared childcare and shared breadwinning and total comformity to the beauty standard. I LIKE housework!

And YET I have read enough to know that it is not worth engaging Footlong and Larry on this, and I don't know why anyone is. Jesus fucking Christ, guys, the definitive of privilege is getting to define the terms of the debate, which is exactly what's happening here.

Right, so, back to cognitive dissonance. Really appreciating marenmj's posts on this; and (terrifyingly) marenmj, your account accords with that of my mother, who became a computer programmer in the 70s when it was a rarefied job. She stuck with it and became very successful, but it was definitely despite the same barriers you talk about.

Ooh, I have been saving up things to say and haven't said any of them yet. Let me break this up.

Footlong you are trying to exert male privilege and sense of entitlement and superiority on a bunch of women who see though you and see through the system which has told you it is ok for you to behave this way.

You are fooling no-one here. This is a feminist space - your tedious male entitlement, 'you shut up and listen to me ladies or else' bullshit doesn't work here. It makes you a figure of derision and ridicule. (Well it would apart from your nasty posts to Sakura which are full of the sort of male aggression that women know only too well and find unacceptable). As Sakura says we know your version inside out and upside fucking down - that is why feminists prefer nonfeminists to butt out when they are trying to have an interesting, useful, mutually respectful exchange about something that actually means something real to us in every aspect of our lives.

nice post, tortoise.

Ahem, and FL's post got deleted while I was posting. Wonderful.

Quattro asked, way back when, why it is that women don't recognise the inequality in their relationship and act on it. And I know she left the thread, and I know several people posted eloquently about their relationships, but can I give a non-relationship example? Not that this isn't a feminist issue, but because it might resonate with people differently?

I just got fired from a job I've hated for two years. I was more and more miserable, to the point where I've just been diagnosed with mild depression, and it's clear to me that the job caused the depression not vice versa. And for a long time, I've known something was wrong, that I wasn't happy, wasn't performing well, was starting to exhbit anxiety/depression traits (retching in the mornings, comfort eating, libido loss, etc etc etc). The more I hated it the less I did and the more I hated it.

So it was very easy to say to myself, I hate this because I'm no good at it, I should try harder.

But the thing is I've been good at every other job i've ever had. This firm headhunted me because of my reputation, and two other firms headhunted me at the same time. My last firm offered me more money to stay and has offered me my job back/a more senior job twice since then. I am clearly not just imcompetent at my career.

But it's been so hard to see. Society says suck it up, anyone can do any job if they need the money. My firm aren't known as bullies, they have a decent reputation. So of course, I thought/think it's my failing.

Faced with that conundrum, what do you do? You know you're unhappy and you didn't used to be. Everything and everyone is telling you how lucky you are to be in your situation. So is it you, or is it the situation? What you know is the former, what everyone else knows is the latter, they're incompatible. It's all very well to believe in yourself, but does anyone think it's wise to believe in yourself to the exclusion of all societal norms?

It's great to have faith in yourself, and all, but we look to norms to regulate behaviour all the time. Am I bringing up my children alright or am I too lenient or too strict? What do other people expect of two-year-olds? What will other women be wearing at this party? AIBU is filled with posters looking to gauge the societal norm.

That's fine when it starts from a place of equality. The patriarchy isn't. So you can't look to society to tell you what's fair in marriage, it's the lodestone of inequality. When society tells you that you can't expect men to see dirt (but all artists are men), can't expect men to empathise with your feelings (but all great writers are men, and women aren't funny), can't expect men to care about/even notice clothes (but a short skirt will send them into an uncontrollable frenzy), of course there's cognitive dissonance. There can't not be. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

"The patriarchy isn't. So you can't look to society to tell you what's fair in marriage"

Exactly. So you can only compare your marriage to your husband's , not other women's. That's the only way to gauge whether your marriage is okay or not.

off topic: I also think that [bear with me] living in the modern world compounds the problems. I don'T think humans have evolved to make as many choices and decisions that they have to every day in modern society just to survive and get through the day. I think depression is part of the fact we have lost contact with nature. BUt being a woman adds on a million other pressures.

X posts Avril, your capitalism post dovetails with my modern world post

Oh! That is something else I have meant to say (should've taken notes):

The advances in domestic technology have NOT decreased female labour. They have always been accompanied by an increase in cleanliness standards. The amount of housework done by women has decreased only marginally over the last century, and most of the decrease is connected to longer WOH hours not technological increase. The 50s, which saw the most significant leaps in time-saving devices, was also the time where women put in the most hours in the house. So you can take your "women are spoilt, why, you should be hand-beating your smalls" crap and shove it, frankly. Or better yet, read a book or two (they're those small things with all the pages and no pictures, it's an acquired taste) and learn something.

tortoiseonthehalfshell, really good posts.

I have found your work example enlightening, particularly

"So is it you, or is it the situation? What you know is the former, what everyone else knows is the latter, they're incompatible. It's all very well to believe in yourself, but does anyone think it's wise to believe in yourself to the exclusion of all societal norms?".

Those specific unsettling questions really can take their heavy toll on a person's well-being.

The marriage-related posts of other posters also contain so many things I recognise around me. The marriage benefit hierarchy that Sakura has been mentioning rings true in my experience for so many people I know. There's quite a bit about that particular ranking in Susan Faludi's book "Backlash" by the way, and how the patriarchy does its damnedest to present married women as the ideal and the happiest group, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Beachcomer and others - some really good and useful explanations of patriarchy etc.

Really interesting thread!

Thanks.

I always find the stereotype idea of women trying to trap men into marriage as hugely insulting. for that reason i find stag nights/hen nights etc completely distasteful.

when i tried to discuss this with some male friends (years ago, in our twenties) they said it was good for men to bond. i suggested a night out for whites only, and was told it was different. the difference i see is that racism is, generally, found repulsive by the majority of society (even if they don't live up to their beliefs), but sexism is seen as ok.

in fact, it is justified - men need their 'male bonding' time.

now, i love my female friends, we have a great time together, but i would hate to think that we are living in a world with 'separate but equal' sexes. oh, no, wait, we are.

Tortoise good post...I constantly beat myself up in similar ways...

I find the notion of the engagement ring insulting. The woman showing it off like she's just been bought, comparing it to the size of her friends'. WOmen I know in real life are not like that, but I could be wrong. It's a male fantasy, isn't it- all the movies and everything showing women who are so thrilled that he asked her to marry him. IRL, it's always the men who want to hurry up and get married.

I mean I know that the women I know personally are not like that. THat they weren't grateful to be married. They felt sucked in more than anything. The media portrays it all so different to the reality, like Vesuvia was saying. Is it any suprise cognitive dissonance kicks in when you realise you're not having the time of your life in marriage

sunny, i find your military musings interesting, if a little confusing in this context. having served myself for 16 years, with dh still serving, i'm still struggling to make sense of what you say.

when i was military, before the children were at school, (i have 3, including one with cerebral palsy) we employed a nanny. her contract had to be very carefully written, for obvious reasons - she was 'live out', but had to be available for 'live in' if dh or i were sent on ops, courses, meetings whatever. she had to carry out daily/ more frequent therapy/ attend appts etc. it was an interesting exercise in putting a financial valuation on the work of a sahm tbh. how much shitwork is it appropriate to write into a contract - and what should one offer to pay applicants if you actually want any applicants...

anyway, we did this twice. since leaving the military (i left almost exactly a year ago, finally) i have, of course, taken up the nanny contract myself, for free. (i am also currently working 'p/t' (9-3) in a very low wage earning job, which thankfully allows me to interact with adults, if not make my fortune.)

women in the military, ime, are treated differently to men (i'm old enough to have had to sign a piece of paper when i joined to say if i got pg or married i would leave - although admittedly this hard won battle has now been won) and in insidious ways that makes you 'feel' equal (hey, i'm here aren't i?) but utterly excluded/ derided if you look carefully. or even look actually. or read the damn sexual harassment surveys that they churn out as if they were a success story, when the numbers tell a different version. nice spin, guys.

anyway - since taking on my nanny's job (with my tongue in my cheek - i have actually been a sahm for lengthy periods before/ between nannys) without pay, i've experienced the other side of the military coin - that of the accompanying spouse. not only do you get the 8-5 (i wish) grind, but the 'instant disappearing spouse' makeover on a regular basis. no-one asks you if you have any other plans for the next six months, no-one asks you if you wanted a career (clearly not as you married someone in the military), no-one asks you if you mind getting shitwork outside of the home as that's the only thing available in the middle of camp bumblefuck even if you do (the horror) want to work outside the home, and everyone thinks it's perfectly normal for your husband to disappear on (offical) alcohol binges whilst you stay at home with the kids and polish his buttons. and no-one thanks you. i wouldn't want the thanks tbh, it would remind me that someone is taking advantage and papering over the cracks.

i'm fascinated. i'm invisible now, whereas before i was visible but derided. i can't decide which is worse or why i accept/ed either.

well, back to cognitive dissonance, eh. 'get me, i'm a woman in a man's world', v 'creating the perfect famileeeee' in a world where the 'men rool, ok'. as a servicewoman i was told i could only change the institution from within (so please stay, nick - you're a very valuable member of our team - even if we make quips about kitchen sinks and have naked ubertotty pinned all over the office). my family isn't 'perfect' (because apparently this would involve me giving up my pitiful job (i have been told i'm 'letting the side down' by another wife) and cleaning and polishing for my zillions of dinner parties so that my husbands career would advance), and my frustration levels build daily. no matter how much my dh does (and he does a lot) i am aghast at the inequalities that women have internalised and canonised. and the way that perfectly reasonable and rational men have also unquestioningly accepted this inequality as the status quo. for people they love. because women love working 24/7 ('feeding/ settling crying children is my job because dh goes to work - simper') for the darling children.

cognitive dissonance is a bitch.

anyway, i'm rambling.

gotta go to work.

sakura - that's like military partners having to be married so that they can get a house and live with the father of their children... oh, and so that they'd tell her if he died in action.

(very recently you are now allowed to co-habit. how very modern...)

the thing is, i like the company of men, both romantically & platonically. so, i want to build close relationships with men. but how do i do that without too many compromises? some are necessary, of course (not just because of marriage, but the demands of adulthood), but where do we draw the line?

there are men who are very 'clued into' the issue of equality, but they are fairly rare. so how much compromise is ok? and what do you do if you feel it's too much?

if you suffer cognitive dissonance in your job, you can change jobs. but if you suffer it in your marriage, it has far greater repercussions. so does society take on this issue (like the US did about racism) & attempt to bring about social change, or do we each fight our own little corner, or do we just put & shut up for the sake of the children?

i know that some feminists argue strongly that 'the family' is an ideal held out to us (men & women) because it benefits society and is a great means of social control. and there is a lot of truth in that, but families do also benefit the individuals. not just men, but as a woman, i want that community living, people coming & going, i want children & i want a man. i want all of those things AND i want some independence and equality within my relationships.

i know that there won't be an equal relationship between me & dd whilst she's still a child, but with other adults i expect it. however, for some reason, society seems to think i'm wrong if i demand it.

NickOfTime wrote - "i am aghast at the inequalities that women have internalised and canonised. and the way that perfectly reasonable and rational men have also unquestioningly accepted this inequality as the status quo. for people they love. because women love working 24/7 ('feeding/ settling crying children is my job because dh goes to work - simper') for the darling children."

That is just exactly it! That's my take on it too. Thanks for helping, now I can see it written down like that.

well, in real life, there are some changes going on & i may be heading towards being a single mum. it is making me re-evaluate everything. a month ago, i was desperate to keep the family together, now i am thinking there have to be some changes if things will continue between me & dh.

and my attitude to certain jobs has changed. i don't enjoy housework/gardening or diy much. i didn't like that i was spending so much time doing it. BUT now i am thinking that if this house becomes mine, then doing those things is helping towards my future - keeping the house looking good, so that it can sell well if we need to sell it, is investing for myself. i don't enjoy doing those jobs any more, but i do feel more motivated.

i wonder how men (where there's a sahm & kids) feel about their work if they were suddenly able to keep all the money that they earn?

i do think that some of the issues are to do with the inherent selfishness of people, and that some of the resentment is just coming to terms with the responsibilities we take on as adults. that clearly doesn't explain the disparity between men & women, but i do think we need to examine how realistic some of our ideals are.

kickassangel wrote - "how much compromise is ok?"

I think it would probably be "less than too much". (Not intended to be flippant). I have made that deliberately vague because I think it fits in with the whole uncertainty/questioning/unawareness thing going on with cognitive dissonance.

I'd set any compromise level to one that, at a minimum, gave me the best possible chance of maintaining my self-esteem, happiness and sanity.

Kickass, well, the single men I know don't take home the same as the married men, because they have to do their own shopping, cleaning, cooking, etc. My brother is 30 to my 32, and single, and he owns his own home and is pretty domestic, but he still eats out, hires a cleaner, and if he stays out at night he makes up for it in the morning. Married men have someone else to dust around the corners of their lives.

But apart from that, your question appears to suggest that married men "lose" something by having to support their family. They don't have families for altruistic reasons any more than women do. Men hav families for personal fulfillment, which costs money the same way every life choice does. What an odd thing, to say that well, I do the shitwork but he has to spend money.