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.

Very interesting (and droll) posts about the military NickOfTime.

Tortoise you are on the money.

I'm finding one of the things that is liberating about examining cognitive dissonance is that I feel less pissed off and frustrated with DH and our situation. I'm able to see this as something much wider which I knew was there but haven't had a clear handle on up until now.

'kickassangel - cleaners and childcarers charge less because its easier work. There is not much physical strain, it doesnt involve being out in all weathers etc. ' (Sunny)

Another fine example of cognitive dissonance here.

I have personally never been as exhausted as when taking care of small children, doing massive amounts of housework. Physically and mentally and emotionally drained, without the time to even pick my nose from one end of the day to the other. This is why my military wife granny hired staff to take care of her home and children back when staff were cheap, while she did the button polishing and the dinner parties. Staff were cheap because they were (a) women and (b) doing women's work. This is why cleaners and childcare workers nowadays charge less too.

Yes I am sure that lot of typically female jobs get paid less because the role of women is valued less. A lot of jobs don't generate a marketable commodity. But the male job is often paid more. I think the example of cleaner v gardener exemplifies this well

Yes, I didn't understand Sunny's coment at all. Surely cleaning is very physical work?

?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."

Why shouldn't they want that?

Why shouldn't everyone in society, men and women, want that?

Most adults become parents. They also have to work, to earn a living and contribute to society. Surely we ought to be organising society so that we human beings, male and female, can do both properly? Why is that considered such an outrageous demand?

setting aside the emotional arguments, there is a very logical argument for equality.

1. it is for the benefit of society that children are born - no more children would be a major problem.

1. to do this as efficiently as possible, the childbearers should be able to do this without risk to their health, or the health of the children. therefore career breaks are a practical necessity. (the length of these will vary considerably, depending on the health of the childbearer & children involved.)

1. the childbearer has benefitted society, and should not be penalised for doing so, therefore they have the right to return to work after providing the children.

in fact, as the childbearer has helped society, perhaps they should be paid a bonus?

seriously, the only reason that this isn't how life is, is because of the inherent sexism within a patriarchal society.

NIckoftime "i wouldn't want the thanks tbh, it would remind me that someone is taking advantage and papering over the cracks."
OMG, bit of a lightbulb moment for me that. I never felt comfortable in the beginning of my marriage when DH used to thank me. I had a go at him about it, not quite understanding why myself, and he came out with the reasonable argument of "I never expected you to get angry at me for expressing gratitude". WHat could I say to that?

But what you're saying is true. THat's why I felt so uncomfortable with "thank you". NOw I'm okay, and it tends to be me thanking him more often than not; we do thank each other to show appreciation. BUt if it's one person doing all the thanking then it's papering over the cracks isn't it? The woman is supposed to do the shitwork out of love.

kickas "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?"

They'd feel redundant.

Men get a LOT out of the SAHM deal. A lot. That's another reason why they prefer SAH wives. It's a status symbol. The less a wife does, the more masculine a man can feel. So a woman who employs a nanny but doesn't work outside the home herself is the ultimate in male trophy status symbol. A SAHM is working for free, so is in fact a slave and invisible as NOT quite rightly pointed out, but for a man having a SAHW is a good ego boost.

Men whose wives work full time do less work around the house than those who have SAH wives, especially if the wife is the breadwinner. Because a man who supports a family with his income feels like a "man" and doesn't mind making concessions in the hosuework department. A man who feels emasculated by his wife's higher earning power (his problem BTW, not hers) will tend to do less because doing women's work would be a second blow to his masculinity.

So I just wanted to say that when men like Footlong come along saying his wife should be grateful to him and spoilt for complaining I do this in my head

Having said that, I think masculinity is bad for men. There are so many negative sides to masculinity for society. THis needs to be worked on, and I believe it is a branch of feminism. BUt the work on restructuring masculinity has to be done by men themselves.

regarding masculinity, I do think the division of labour has to end, because there is a pressure and burden on men to provide for their family in traditional cultures. I don'T want people to misunderstand what I'm saying. Being forced to continue in a job you hate in order to provide for your family is very constraining for men. That's capitalism more than anything. But remember, it's not women who have created patriarchy. If men-as-a-group wanted to change the status quo it wouldn'T last half a day.
But they seem to like it the way it is, which tells me men are getting a lot out of being a breadwinner for their family: they get power, a public voice, everything, really.

i was just thinking about the idea that men prefer a sahw. my dh doesn't, for both positive & negative reasons (positive, he likes to see me as an individual, negative, he doesn't want to work all his life while i stay home & enjoy myself).

so then i started thinking about it, and numerous times i've heard men say 'oh yes, i want dw to stay home if it makes her happy' & wondered why it grated so much - they sound like they're supporting their wife's decision. now i've just realised how smug some (not all) of them sound, as if they're saying 'look what i caught - a clever one who prefers staying home to serve the family'

i do know men who v much see their roles as being part of a family & that means that the shit work is shared - wife looks after the kids during the day, cleaning etc is done by both of them in the eve. that to me seems quite a reasonable attitude, but it is fairly rare.

Yes, I agree with your post.
I'm not saying all men want a SAHW. MAny want a shared partnership. The good ones would rather their wives work and be happy than stay at home miserable. BUt I wanted to counter Footlong's POV [actually, he served a purpose] that men are getting nothing out of the deal. The idea they get the upper hand because they earn money is nonsensical when you think of their alternative: a single divorcee, without a wife and children to support. The men like my father who lorded it over their wives because they believed were doing them a favour have the shock of their life when their wife begins to earn more than them. They prefer it the way it was before, because it benefits them in so many ways

I've never heard that POV before Sakura, thanks for articulating it so clearly.

I remember when my xp was a SAHD for a while and the benefits I got from that were quite considerable just in practical terms - the household timetable revolved around my work as DS was pre school, not going to toddler groups etc., so the whole schedule could be organised around me.

I hadn't before considered the even greater psychological and social status benefits men get from having a SAHP.

And hadn't been aware that men whose partners work full time do even less housework than those with a SAHP. Is that borne out by research?

I think the Patriarchy encourages the trophy wife idea - the SAHM who lunches and drinks coffee with her yummy mates whilst the (female) help get on with the shitwork. We're almost entering the realms of the harem here. One man has 3 or 4 women playing the supporting roles to his life (a wife, a cleaner, a nanny, possibly a MIL).

I am not saying this is what most or even many men want - I'm saying it is what the patriarchal/capitalist system encourages both sexes to see as a sign of achievement. More importantly we are bombarded with messages which tell us that, should we achieve this, we have achieved happinesses.

Ladies who lunch are 'lucky' right? (And plenty must have good old cognitive dissonance down a treat)

That they might be bored, frustrated, stifled, wasting their talents, economically dependant, lacking in power and control over their lives, etc. rarely gets mentioned.

I know there are lots of ladies who lunch who do a lot of important voluntary work. This however still puts them in a caring, supportive, selfless (very feminine) role (and they are still economically dependant).

yes, from reasearch. I've read it in various books and articles.

What you're saying about the timetable revolving around the working partner, I loathe that part. It took me a good few years to realise how much it depressed the hell out of me, to literally have to schedule myself to be "there" for DH when he got home from work, for what?
I'd rush back from my friend's house to make sure I was home around the same time he got back from work. It was awful.
I chatted to him about that, and he didn't even really notice the effort I was making. SO now I schedule my day around myself just like he does.

"That they might be bored, frustrated, stifled, wasting their talents, economically dependant, lacking in power and control over their lives, etc. rarely gets mentioned"

Yes, they self-medicate with shopping don't they, and the husband then gets to have a go at them about how much money they're spending, and how hard he works to support them, and she must think, what the hell is wrong with me.

Also as anyone who has been both a WOHM and a SAHM can testify, the balance in a relationship shifts when one partner is economically dependant on the other - no matter how careful/progressive/aware both partners are.

It is insidious. Also the partner who WOH often has never experienced the SAHP role so they don't really know much about it.

What they do know is that people who do it are considered 'lucky' - therefore it must be fun, easy, stress-less and engaging, right?

I spent 3 years as a SAHM and I got myself wound up in knots because of all the contradictions it presents. I was also very bored and probably slightly depressed (for which I blamed myself for not appreciating my 'luck').

"That they might be bored, frustrated, stifled, wasting their talents, economically dependant, lacking in power and control over their lives, etc. rarely gets mentioned"

Isn't this what The Feminine Mystique is/was basically about? The situation of women who were expected to give up paid work on marriage and find fulfillment in caring for their homes and families instead?

Glad this discussion is back on the rails again.

Off to cook lunch.

Just thinking now I work, even though I work from home, I don't do much in the house during the week.

Whereas before when I was a SAHM I did housestuff during the week, now we both do it at weekends.

Right now DH is hoovering after having looked after the children whilst I finished off some work.

This is the sort of thing I mean about the insidious nature of the shift in power/roles when women SAH.

I'm struggling with some of this at the moment.

I was a SAHM when the kids were little and I did everything around the house as well as look after the children.

Move forward several years - dh, who is a lot older than me, has taken early retirement and is now a SAHD. Of course, the children are at school full-time.

This does make my life much easier (obviously) as he does all the school stuff and the cooking. However, I am finding myself getting more and more angry at what I regard as his sub-standard housekeeping. I feel that he has enough time during the day to do the housework and that I shouldn't have to do anything in the evenings or weekends. Is this wrong? Have I just ended up like a man with a SAHM? How much is it reasonable for me to do?

Honestly, does having one parent at home naturally turn the other into some sort of tyrant? I find myself biting my tongue all the time at untidiness or dusty furniture or the kitchen not been quite right. Is this what men experience or do they not notice the dirt?

Yes, Pogles,
Then, Friedan wrote a sequal, The Second Stage, which was ridiculed in feminist circles at the time because she tried to point out that women were getting swept away by capitalism and male priorities wasn't what she had in mind when she wrote it. WOmen in the eighties were "caught in reaction" as she put it.
I think we've moved on from that, which is what I'm trying to navigate in my marriage: HOw to be a SAHM post-feminist-revolution, and is it possible for a woman raise her children herself without succumbing to oppression?

Caoihme, I think you are in the wrong. It's really hard being at home all day, stewing in your own juices. I can'T imagine what you'd think if you were married to me

The main issue is that the Stay at home parent is expected to do the shitwork AND the work they are doing is invisible. I think you and your husband should share the housework equally

oooops, just read that they are in school full-time. I'D say that makes it a little different. Maybe 60% him 40% you. Does he do all their lunches, organize the bits and bobs the children need?

Yes, Sakura, he does the lunches but he's not great at remembering what's needed on which day - you know the sort of thing I mean so I do have to either remind him that it's a no-uniform day (or whatever) or sort it out for him. He does do the washing and ironing (although I do my own stuff).

I do feel a bit bad, really, but I think I had it harder when I was a SAHM so maybe I'm punishing him or something?

I sometimes look at the dinner served up and think not very nice things - I'm making myself sound worse and worse, actually!!!!

But it is interesting to experience it as a woman on the other side of the fence. I do know what it is like to be the SAHP and I know what can be achieved in the hours available so I sometimes think, am I really expecting too much?

Anyway, don't want to derail an interesting discussion so I'm off to volunteer to make lunch (so I feel a bit less guilty ).

caoimhe yes don't be too hard on him. He does the washing and ironing. I'm not saying "Ah, bless, he's a man so what do you expect". I'm coming from the POV of just because someone earns the cash doesn't mean the other person has to do all the household stuff. And if he's retired, then he's got an income, presumably, so he's not a cocklodger, and he's done his time in the workplace