is there a new cognitive dissonance thread?

[kickassangel]

if so, please link, i can't find it.

if not, i'd like to add some things

using personal experience to prove a point is not a great argument. we have to start with the bigger picture, then see personal experiences as a case study which exemplifies, but does not prove a point.

i'm not even sure that i view myself as a feminist. i view myself as someone who believes in equality (not just on male/female issues). the generalisations about feminism being a religion i find offensive, as they both ignore the patriarchal society we live in (and this assertion can be backed up by endless statistics & experiences), and assume that one particular viewpoint is religious.

is marxism a religion? what about other schools of thought?

feminism is a broad range of thought, and there will be changes and shifts within the arguments, just as there are in other sociological concepts. and there will be women who abuse, just as there are men who do so.

however, look at the structure of society, and it is impossible to say that it isn't patriarchal. just look at the possession of wealth, the media representation of people, the male/female ration in positions of power.

if it was as simple as some women 'not bothering' to push themselves forward, there would still be enough women to fill 50% of all key positions in society, and to hold 50% of the wealth, but that isn't what happens. so, it sin't due to a lack of women exerting themselves, it is due to the inherent sexism within society.

Have to say I didn't find that personally a difficulty, I did my degree and a masters and got enough experience under my belt to have my children and return without any difficulty (although I took fairly short maternity leaves) while my biological clock was not an issue (I had my children at what were then very average ages, 28 and 29). This had the added advantage that by the time they needed me, rather than a caregiver I was senior enough to work flexibly (as was my dh).

As individuals and as families many of us are able to work things out, or work out a trajectory for the future - for example I'd like to be a management consultant, but I don't want the extended travel that entails until my children are significantly older, as I watched my brother take this path and saw the problems it caused with his relationship with his son (other issues too, but I think not knowing each other terribly well didn't help).

Personally I think it's more about encouraging and enabling men to take time out and work flexibly so that this is more of the norm, with less discrimination against young women who are a risk because they might just get pregnant, and more acknowledgment that life happens outside of work too and that productivity is not about presenteeism. Where I live now people take time off for all sort of things (currently fishing, and soon it will be for skiing) and this is not looked down on.

The question of continuing education at a very reasonable cost or no cost for those who have taken a few years away from the formal workplace to care for children

Be hard to defend any system as fair that gives a discount for education if you CHOOSE to breed.

So men don't choose to breed?
Men are already completely redundant?

I have more faith than you, that's why I'm a feminist

Yes what a terrible idea. Lets not have any more children and leave the current generation to work forever as there will be no one to support them in their old age, pay pensions, care for them in hospitals, grow food etc etc

Because goodness knows having children is such a terrible thing to do.

Footlong I'll as you again, why are you spending your time on Mumsnet? The only people who use the term "breed" are the anti children brigade and this is a parenting site.

Why a religion?

Because it has a sacred text (Dworkin).

Because it has its mantras akin to prayers in other organised religions.

Because anyone who disagrees with the premise is "derailing", "a troll" etc, even if they do it strictly within the terms of the OP.

Because believers are allowed to ask questions of non believers but not vice versa.

Because a believer will defend a statistical survey with anecdote ("you are denying women's experiences") but if a non believer produces an anecdote, he/she will be told it has no validity.

Because believers will defend other believers against non believers, no matter whether the believer is clearly talking nonsense on a specific issue.

Because it reserves its greatest vitriol to those apostates who question the 2nd wave, hated even more than "the menz".

Because, actually getting back to the substance of the thread, it actually dictates to women what experiences they should or should not enjoy and uses a term from pyschology ("cognitive dissonance") to justify it.

All the above have so much in common with other organised religions. All religion is not bad but it is not in any sense rational, and it is crazy to pretend it is so.

Please challenge me on any of the above....on a logical basis, ESPECIALLY my last point which directly concerns the substance of the thread.

Nooka - Clearly you are wrong. I am not anti children and I use breeding as a word. (even one person is enough to make your statement factually incorrect). It is actually a scientific term for the proces. So find something else to be outraged about.
And you really are pushing things to the extreme when claiming that not giving education discounts to ex SAHM/SAHF will ruin the country like you are suggesting. Get the hyperbole under control.

Sakura - Oh dear.. yet again you make a silly error. I said nothing about genders, and neither did the person who originally suggeste the idea I disagree with. I dont care if it is SAHM, or SAHD, neither should get a education discount like the one proposed.

Larry - You have very little chance of your points being addressed.

Footlong I'll as you again, why are you spending your time on Mumsnet?

What I think you really mean is 'How dare you challenge my views?'

Well tough. I post because I believe what I am saying, and have just as much right to post as you, and I wont be bullied away by the likes of you.

Footlong,

I know, although there are a few who believe in the "2nd wave" who are actually keen to engage in interesting debate.

By the way, do you ever sleep?!

The financical compensation for childrearing etc has been moted many times, and hasn't it always been seen as unworkable (although that could of course be lack of will rather than anything else). I am with Nooka concerning the issue that we shouldn't just accept the status quo as if its the only way things can be. Surely as a species we are clever enough to find alternatives and make them work? But also have to agree with presentism which is very prevelant where I work (but only for the admin staff, academics can, apparently, be trusted to work from home )

Footlong,

"Breeding" is a pretty horrible word and does you no favours. I know you say it is scientifically correct and it is. However, its general association in English is with animals, not people. It is like saying a woman has been spayed when she has had a hysterectomy! Technically correct but still not very nice.

And I am afraid I am a breeder. It is a choice and my wife and I are happy to both live with the consequences. However, it is valid to ask what society is prepared to do to accommodate "breeders", particularly in the Western World today when there is a shortage of them and an ageing population.
So, it is not an invalid question for women to ask. On the other hand, what I dislike is the idea that there is some perfect solution and that the work/lifestyle compromise is something unique to women.

Dittany,

Why is it always so personal with you? "Vile"? And you can certainly ignore us. However, you cannot tell others to do so. They actually have something called "free will".

Of course, if they engage and enjoy entering into a polite discourse, they will be judged by you as unworthy of posting on your board.

Dittany,

I have always challenged the cabal of 4 or 5 on here who want the "feminism" area to be protected to go ahead and do so. Why not ask Mumsnet to password protect it and get an administrator (you volunteering?) to vet people?

To be honest, I think MN is a broader church than you and 4 or 5 others would like it to be and they are happy for people to post as long as they are debating the issue and not being personally abusive.

Larry if you want to have a proper discussion about how you think feminism is an irrational blind faith, start your own thread. This thread is about cognitive dissonance - (not what Larry thinks and doesn't know).

You know, behaviour like yours and footlong's really dismay me. It would appear that you can't see it but you are being very rude and dictatorial (as Sakura said - this is patriarchy in motion). Do you really think that you can demand that we stop our discussion in order to waste time with your silly, tedious,insulting, offensive and clichéd argument that feminism is a religion?

By saying 'on a logical basis' you are implying that we are not logical enough for you in our discussions - this is also clichéd (and rude).

Do you really think that by implying that you think we are all blindly following a movement that has no basis in reality (i.e. you think we are stupid and or mad) you are going to motivate us to want to exchange with you?

By saying feminism is a religion you are denying the real life experiences of women. Why should we engage with someone who doesn't listen? Why should we engage with someone who thinks they know more about our experiences than we ourselves do?

Larry, I, and no doubt most of the other feminists on this forum, have heard the 'feminism is a religion, its all dogma and they're all half wits with no logic' argument many, many, many times. It is a cliché - it is a tedious, disrespectful, offensive, silencing cliché. It is typical behaviour of an oblivious privileged person. If you don't want to try to lay your obliviousness at the door and have a little respect, why should I even listen to your demand that you dictate what I can and should discuss?

I don't want to talk about 'Larry thinks feminism is irrational' on this thread because it is:

a)Off topic. You are trying to impose your agenda on this thread. This thread is not called 'Let's educate Larry in feminism'.

b)Basic feminism - this thread is trying to be a bit more advanced than that.

c)Rude in so many ways - expressing your very low opinion of feminism and feminists is not a very good way to get us to want to see you as someone who wishes to participate in genuine, non-agended, discussion. I'm not on this thread in order to convince Larry that my politics are rational.

However what really dismays me about the dude behaviour on this thread is that by blundering in and acting like bulls in china shops whilst insulting the shopkeepers you spoil it for other men.

There are plenty of men who realise their privilege and have worked on their obliviousness with whom I have very rich exchanges about feminism. I'm not pissed off with your presence on this thread because you are men - but because you are stomping around acting like the worst kind of privileged dude. (Whilst claiming that the day of the privileged dude is over )

I can only imagine the outrage and mass pressing of the 'report' button if I described someone as vile on here. In fact I had something a lot less nasty reported and deleted.. gee if I could remember who did that? Can you remember Dittany?

The double standards involved just brilliantly illustrate Larrys point about a religion and intolerance.

Contempt for woman Dittany? No. I have contempt for some individuals (male and female), but def not woman as a group.

Larry if you want to have a proper discussion about how you think feminism is an irrational blind faith, start your own thread. This thread is about cognitive dissonance - (not what Larry thinks and doesn't know).

Beachcomber - Get over yourself. This threads entire first page has barely mentioned cognitive dissonance (and it hasnt got much better since).. but did we see you jumping in and telling them to get back on topic. Nooooo of course not. It is only when the topic goes in a direction you dont approve of, that you get twitchy. Oh and of course the ones you try to lecture.. just happen to be males. There is a co-incidence!

I don't know how dittany et al have the strength to continue going round in circles. What a shame this topic is treated with contempt by so many.

In the 80s we had women-only spaces which always seemed to be a bit OTT but I didn't know any men who had such fragile egos that they needed to barge in and be heard. Now I'm beginning to think they're a damned good idea.

Beachcomber.

Let me address your points.

"Larry if you want to have a proper discussion about how you think feminism is an irrational blind faith"

A brilliant piece of sophistry. I have never said feminism is about blind faith. I have said feminism as portrayed by Dworkin and her followers is. Not all feminists follow her views.

"Do you really think that by implying that you think we are all blindly following a movement that has no basis in reality (i.e. you think we are stupid and or mad) you are going to motivate us to want to exchange with you?"

See the above. I am not saying it has no basis in reality, merely saying that certain parts of it are up for debate and for those who are not prepared to think about it, it has become a religion.

"However what really dismays me about the dude behaviour on this thread"

Dude is an extraordinarily rude word in the context you use it. It is the equivalent of "silly little woman". Condescending.

"However what really dismays me about the dude behaviour on this thread is that by blundering in and acting like bulls in china shops whilst insulting the shopkeepers you spoil it for other men"

Shopkeepers....revealing. Who are the shopkeepers? You and Dittany?

Oh for goodness sake Larry. You are stuck in point scoring mode aren't you? I actually took the time to try to genuinely explain how offensive you are being because I thought you were being oblivious rather than being intentionally insulting.

Dude is feminist shorthand for a privileged person who is oblivious to their privilege and behaves in a superior and patriarchal manner. Which is exactly what you and footlong are doing. I am referring to you two and you two only so don't start any fantasies about my attitude to all men, ok. (Shit - here I am teaching Larry about feminism after all).

If you want to have discussion of a critical analysis of Dworkin - start a thread on the subject.

Oh and this;

"See the above. I am not saying it has no basis in reality, merely saying that certain parts of it are up for debate and for those who are not prepared to think about it, it has become a religion."

You have dictated that the existence of patriarchy is up for debate.

We don't want to debate it because we think it would be an utter waste of time because we experience the patriarchy all the time.

You are not listening (thereby acting like a dude - own it).

Insulting us because we don't want to discuss the fact that you don't know what patriarchy is, or how it manifests itself, is also dude behaviour.

Sheesh some men get really pissed off when women stand up to them and don't do what they are told, don't they?

Bit ironic (and dudely since we're the ones who should be pissed off for being insulted and dictated to in our own space..)

Have larry, footlong and pals ever started a thread? Let alone one on feminism?

Because maybe they should, since they have so many interesting points they want to discuss, and so many interesting ways in which they can educate us about religion, feminists' belief (or not) in Dworkin as a deity, cabals &c.

BTW is there a sophistry fan club? Never seen that used on MN before and here they both are wheeling it out - wondered if that was where they met.

"Why a religion? Because it has a sacred text (Dworkin)."

"I have never said feminism is about blind faith. I have said feminism as portrayed by Dworkin and her followers is. Not all feminists follow her views."

How do these two statements compute?

(Ooh I said compute. Is that naughty when I don't know how websites are made? Isn't there a digital gooseberry bush somewhere?)

I actually find you and some other on this forum very offensive as well Beachcomber.

It is truely interesting that Larry and I are getting accused of trying to control others, when in fact we are the ones being told where we should post.

You have dictated that the existence of patriarchy is up for debate.

And you have dictated that it is not.

Sheesh some men get really pissed off when women stand up to them and don't do what they are told, don't they?

Are you seriously trying to portray yourself as the victim here? How deluded could you be. I am not trying to tell you to do anything... and def not how and where you are allowed to post

Your anger is underdstandable, bullies dont like people who stand up to them.

BTW is there a sophistry fan club? Never seen that used on MN before and here they both are wheeling it out - wondered if that was where they met.

Because so many of the points made on here are pure sohistry... which tidily leads to cognitive dissonance within some feminists.

Footlong this is a feminist forum - the agenda here is discussing feminist issues.

I have dictated nothing - I have stated the obvious (with a feminist analysis of the position of patriarchy within feminist politics). No other feminist on the forum disagreed - indeed one poster said 'cheers for the clear explanation Beach').

You, also, are still stuck in dudely point scoring.

I'm not angry - I've seen this so many times, I don't get angry about it anymore. I get angry about the important stuff.

I will however say my piece - I will defend the feminist section from people who deny patriarchy, don't listen to women's experiences, suggest that we have fucked up childhoods, are irrational, hate men and are bullies for wanting to discuss our issues as women in a feminist space without being insulted, provoked and ridiculed.