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.

Footlong,

I stopped posting on this board because I realised that "feminism" as written about by Dworkin is effectively a religion. Argument will not be tolerated as it is akin to making a logical argument against the literal resurrection.

Also (and this is fair enough) a lot of people question why those who do not fully embrace the concept of "the patriarchy" in the uk in 2010 are posting on a "feminist" board. I guess, as an agnostic religiously, I don't post on born again christian discussion boards.

The tenets of the religion are:

1/the patriarchy exists (the literal resurrection in christianity).

2/ The holy book is that of Andrea Dworkin, she has apostles, though I cannot name them.

3/ All previous feminists (those that doubt today's 2nd wave) are either senile or not "feminists" at all (Lessing, Atwood, Greer). This is equivalent to the old testament for some radical born again christians.

4/ You have to view all events through the lens of the patriarchy (you have to take Jesus into your heart and have faith).

5/ People without faith are doubters and should not be listened to. So, males, unless you accept the patriarchy and are only willing to debate on these terms, you are not welcome.

The "feminism" of Sakura is not the feminism of my Mother, my female friends etc (which is more like faithful but questioning C of E) but is the equivalent of a fire and brimstone preacher saying all those who do not accept the literal resurrection are going to hell. So, you and I, my friend, are going to be judged by Sakura et al and are going to the male equivalent of hell!

I have (mistakenly) joined debates on here without realising that.

SHame, Larry.

You have the privilege of believing patriarchy doesn't exist. I wish I had that privilege, but that would mean I was in denial.

If you are interested in feminism (as opposed to joining in with Footlongs intellectually insipid "Gotcha" games) then I implore you to read Sexual Politics, or anything by Greer and Dworkin. They are from the seventies.
Today'S feminists are weak liberals by comparison to your mother's generation.

Read Greer's recent writings then. She has realised that women (in fact, people, not just women) cannot have it all. I think your version of feminism is just another version of the "why can't I have it all" and " I should have it because I want it soooo much" of the "me, me, me" generation. It is the same as the X factor contestants who seriously believe that they are the 1/100,000 wannabees
who really, really, really deserve to win. It tries to dress itself in women vs men (and it is men, as much as you try to say that it is a misunderstanding, and "the patriarchy" and men are completely different).

Dworkin is the one who wrote the equivalent of "all sex is rape" but then, later, tried to deny she ever said that, through some very convoluted (though ultimately illogical) language. Even she realised she had gone too far.

I have asked you before, though, a key question. What would it take for you to agree that there was no longer a patriarchy in this country (not globally)? Unless there is a meaningful answer to that question, it is just a faith, like any other.

Yes, larry, I have read Greer's recent writings. And I agree with her.
Perhaps if you'd asked me my opinion instead of pontificating your own made up one of me you'd know that.

Patriarchy exists. The existence of patriarchy is the starting point for any feminist writings. You, ridiculing my lack of feminist knowledge, when yours is sorely lacking, and me not ridiculing you on yours, is probably the product of your patriarchal male privilege, for example

LOL at no global patriarchy. Take a look at a pic of the IMF or OECD conferences. HOnestly, Larry, you're digging yourself a hole

I agree Larry. It is like a new wave religion mixed with x-factor.
I genuinely believe there are plenty of feminists on this board who are open minded, however there are also a good number of bullies who shout down any differing opinion and misquote on purpose simply to enable thier own victim complex. And to make it worse, each person they succesfully hound away (just look at this thread) they take as a moral victory, it is rather sad.

I havent quit this board because I have never allowed myself to be bullied, and I dont intend to start now.

Sakura,

Why not answer my question in my last post? Are you not just playing a "gotcha" game with me if not?

"LOL at no global patriarchy. Take a look at a pic of the IMF or OECD conferences. HOnestly, Larry, you're digging yourself a hole"

Please READ my posts before responding. I have ALWAYS ACCEPTED a GLOBAL patriarchy. I know that 80% of the world is backward and repressive. Where on earth do you think that I have denied the global patriarchy. Please show me?

"The existence of patriarchy is the starting point for any feminist writings"

Can you reference this please? And not just via Dworkin or one of her acolytes? There are many feminists who believe the battle has been one in many first world countries today and it is time to move on (you know, the "senile" ones, such as Lessing, Atwood, Greer).

Also, regarding Dworkin, you're incorrect.
What actually happened was nobody understood her work, and thought she was saying things she wasn't because they didn't "get it". She spent the rest of her life trying to explain what she meant to people who refused to understand

Footlong,

But are you not an agonstic on a born-again-christian website. I do not like being bullied either, but I do respect people's religions. That is why I stopped engaging.

Sakura,

"What actually happened was nobody understood her work, and thought she was saying things she wasn't because they didn't "get it". She spent the rest of her life trying to explain what she meant to people who refused to understand"

Clearly a talented writer then!

Patriarchy is in motion on this thread. That is my reference. FOr example, women on MN try to have a conversation about topic A. A man turns up and tries to shift the convo to his own area of interest, while at the same time ridiculing the participants.

NOw imagine the reverse. If a woman did that to a group of men. They probably wouldn't notice she was even there, or maybe they'll call her sexist names or any number of misogynistic reactions. You wouldn'T know that because you've never been a woman in an all-male environment.

The fact that you refuse to accept my truth - as a woman- means that we live under patriarchy, because under patriarchy the male world-view is the status quo

"Clearly a talented writer then!"

Yes, like Focault, or Plato, or any of the other white males who have reams of books written by scholars attempting to explain what they meant. Ah, but it's different if you don't understand a male's work, isn't it

Sorry for it to be me who points it out again but Larry - you are talking bollocks.

Think.

And stop the flippant piss taking - it just makes you come across as someone who has no interest in exploring concepts which are difficult for them because they lack the imagination and critical thinking ability to step out of their own position of privilege.

This is what I mean about you, and folks like you, needing to take responsibly for their own education. You clearly do not understand much about feminism - otherwise why would you trot out the clichéd idea that feminism is similar to religion?

It's just a shortcut for claiming that feminism is not rational or born out of the real life experiences of so many women.

Religion is about 'blind faith'. Feminism is political and based on real life inequality. You appear confused on this.

I'm a feminist because when I was 13 years old a man shoved his hand between my legs on the Paris metro and fingered my vagina through my clothes. I needed to understand what had happened to me and started looking for answers. I read a book by a feminist and found some of the answers I needed.

I'm a feminist because some sad fuck thought he was entitled to sexually assault a child on public transport. I'm a feminist because worse happens to women every day in every country in the world. I'm a feminist because men like you and footlong don't actually give a fuck - to the point that you deny the existence of male dominance form a position of utter obliviousnesses.

I'm guessing neither of you have been penetrated by a stranger on public transport - lucky you. Why do you think that is?

Larry, you can't just assert that patriarchy no longer exists, you're going to have to convincingly argue your case - it just looks like blind faith and ignorance on your part otherwise I'm afraid. It is just a stupid argument to even attempt to make actually.

This thread might be a laugh to you and the other bloke - playing gotcha and taking the piss out of the brainwashed loony feminists. It isn't funny to me because I continue to be a feminist because I don't want my daughters to be fingered on trains. Get it?

"Patriarchy is in motion on this thread. That is my reference. FOr example, women on MN try to have a conversation about topic A. A man turns up and tries to shift the convo to his own area of interest, while at the same time ridiculing the participants"

I advised Footlong to cease posting. Again please read my posts.

I am currently posting as there are only about 3 of us here and you seem happy to engage with me. If others turn up, I will disappear again.

"The fact that you refuse to accept my truth - as a woman- means that we live under patriarchy, because under patriarchy the male world-view is the status quo"

The fact that I "refuse to accept your truth" means we disagree, not that I wish to dominate you! It can happen, even between 2 feminists. You refuse to accept my worldview as well. Does that mean we live in a matriarchal society.

Come on Sakura, you are clearly clever, engage with me properly. Answer the question I asked you re how will you decide that we are no longer in a matriarchal society here in the uk?

BEachcomber,

When I was about 12 a man of about 80 decided to stroke my penis through my trousers. So what? It tells me nothing about all men. It happens, there are some sad f*cks around, but it is a sad world where we take the bad specifics and apply it to the general.

Patriarchy doesn't exist?
If you've got a son and a daughter the chance of your son being falsely accused of rape is negligible. The chance of your daughter actually being raped is very high indeed. The chance of the police believing her is, again, negligible, as is the chance of it getting to court. IN court, the jury will believe a lot of rape myths, and might conclude she was asking for it. The rapist will not be convicted. Conviction rate is 6% for those that get to court.
Bottom line is, it's practically legal to rape someone.

Bottom bottom line is: if you have a son or a daughter you're going to be a lot more worried about your daughter.
But not walking about on the streets. THe majority of rapes are committed by someone the woman knows personally

Beachcomber,

I have argued my case. I was told I was not engaging on the "right" terms, I had no right to be here and that I should bone up on "feminism 101" before coming and "arrogantly" asserting my opinion on this board.

No-one wanted to engage with me logically. Hence, a religion.

larry, it was a man who did that to you. NOt a woman.

Get it yet?

Then I decided to keep on being a feminist because when I was 17 years old in my first job, I was sexually harassed by a 34 year old man.

Then in another job when I was about 21 I was sexually harassed my 50 year old boss who tried to assault me. His wife fired me for 'leading him on' before I got a chance to quit.

Then in the job after that the male boss repeatedly 'joked' that he would like to 'give me a good seeing to' in the wine cellar. What a wag, eh?

I could go on but I don't think I can be arsed to remember all the entitled knobbers I have come across in my life so far.

No doubt most of them were ignorant about what feminism really is and oblivious to their privilege too.

Yes, Larry - you were sexually assaulted by a man. A man who felt entitled.

Get it??

Most of us normalize this sort of behaviour and aren't really shocked by it - it is just 'men being men'.

Get it??

I'm glad for you that he didn't penetrate you in a public place.

Ok Beachcomber,

Fast forward to when I am a (shy) 19 year old. My (rather dodgy) uncle has a 40 (or so) year old GF. I am giving them a lift home, her in the front seat. Again she starts stroking me. I am highly embarrassed, have no idea what to do.

And, prior to meeting my lovely wife, I had a GF whom I would term pretty abusive. She tried to separate me from my family and told me that I was having sexual relations with all my platonic female friends, and tried to stop me seeing them. For some reason I saw her for the best part of 4 years, before finally seeing the light.

So, two personal bad experiences with women. Has not put me off women, though. I have a lovely wife and plenty of fantastic female friends.

Some people are nice, some are awful. However, I assure you it does not split by gender.

Okay, yes, feminism is a religion. Can you leave us alone now please. Go to the OTherkins website, or a muslim website, or any website whose fundamental belief is that patriarchy doesn't exist, and pester them instead.
SOmeone who goes around the internet on randomthreads telling people their religion doesn't exist is a loon

Jeez, what about a little religious tolerance in 2010

Yes, women are just as abusive as men (despite the fact 2 women a week are murdered by their male spouse and two men a week are NOT murdered by women) Yes, you're absolutely correct. Narrow escape there for you