Does cognitive dissonance perpetuate misogyny, or just reflect it?

[JeanneDeMontbaston]

Hi all.

I am aware the title is feminist jargon. By 'cognitive dissonance', I mean, that state where you subconsciously hold two incompatible views. Eg., you know perfectly well that, statistically, most rapes do not happen in dark alleyways, and yet, you feel more frightened there than with your random male friend.

As I understand it, holding a position of cognitive dissonance is tiring and stressful. I wondered if it actually makes us transfer blame onto women, so that we don't just hold these contradictory positions about gender, we actually absorb the idea they're somehow women's fault?

I am thinking this because I remember going through that stage (which I think a lot of women mention) of feeling, first, angry about feminism and angry that women were 'rocking the boat' by challenging all my dearly-held cognitive dissonances.

Now, it could be that cognitive dissonance is just a reaction to living in a misogynistic society. Or, it could be that there's something in cognitive dissonance itself, that pushes us to shift the blame onto the subject of the dissonance (ie., women/gender roles). What do you think?

NB - as you might tell from my tortured syntax, this is a research question I am working on. Please be gentle!

That's an interesting thought, Buffy. Connects up with the resurgence of a certain type of very individualistic liberal feminism - so long as I have a personal narrative in which I'm triumphing in the face of a sexist system, then everything's fine. That equality means being able to point to a few examples of women succeeding against the odds, rather than drawing attention to the fact that statistically most do worse than their nearest male equivalents (once you've corrected for class, education, race, etc. - NB that's not to detract from the point being made on the woc thread that for a woc, often the biggest gap is between them and a white person of either sex, not between them and a man of the same ethnicity).

Well, they're mostly medieval, sorry. Predictably. But I think Buffy would be a good example. The structure of the last couple of seasons requires us to believe Spike is evil, and did try to rape her, but also to believe that he is The Flawed Hero, and did it because he loves her. The narrative is trying to get us to accept that cognitive dissonance - not just the male or female characters in it, but the narrative itself.

buffy - yes, i can believe that could be true, without having yet taken the time to think through examples. I think you're right about that pre-emptive 'but not me' issue. I must think through more how that changes things.

I think we are encouraged (modern day) to buy into this idea that group identity is stable and establishment-related, and oppressive or boring. And I am not convinced this is true.

Fascinating example. I find it interesting how you've framed it (haven't seen the season, so not sure how much is your gloss and how much is inherent in the narrative, if there is such a thing as inherent in the narrative). In terms of doing a bad thing and being a good person, as Buffy - perhaps that should be "our Buffy" to distinguish her from the character under discussion - put it, that might work if you'd framed it as evil and tried to rape her but flawed hero because he was, I dunno, suffering from PTSD (effectively the tragic narrative of Sunset Song, in which the man does rape his wife while on leave from the trenches, goes back, realises what he's done, deserts to try to find his way home to make amends and is shot) or did so while under the influence of some massive supernatural struggle between his vampire side and human side.

But your "did it because he loves her" sounds like the programme makers were invested in a particular rape myth (in which case I'd have expected more of Joss Whedon) and are inviting the audience to come along for the ride and engage in a piece of cognitive dissonance ("even though I, the viewer, know that rape is about exerting power and forced subjugation, not about sexual attraction, my successful suspension of disbelief and entrance inside the fictional world will only work if I pretend that in this instance it's about overwhelming sexual attraction and passion.") Does that make sense as an analysis? I feel like I'm not being very clear about this one.

It's a very interesting question. Friends raved to me about the Thomas Covenanter books, but I put the first one down after about 3 chapters when it became apparent that the hero started out the books as a rapist and I was being expected to believe in his eventual redemption.

Not quite - it's not at that level.

We are supposed to believe that, when we watch Buffy, we're questioning whether a bad person can do a good thing, or vice versa.

But in fact, the narrative itself is manipulating us. Because it's fiction - we're not given the tools to judge any of the characters as we would a real person. We have to accept that the narrative is deliberately designed to make us come to a particular interpretation.

Of course, you can watch (say) Buffy and think 'nope, not convinced, I just think he's a creepy rapist and, by the way, don't like blond men'. But you would also, I think, realize that the story is intended for you to see him as a credible hero/anti-hero/love interest. That is what I think enforces cognitive dissonance.

People like Joss Whedon seem very invested in the idea they've not written any kind of manipulative fiction, they're just interested in exploring characters or (as the Game of Thrones folk would argue), giving a sense of how these horrible events might feel.

Sorry, my last was to Buffy.

lurcio - yes, I had the same response to those books, though a long time ago so I forget the details.

Your analysis is perfect. And that's what I find so manipulative.

YY to "the narrative itself is manipulating us." Even as a bad writer, I am aware of the fact that I am setting the structure up in such a way as to direct the reader's responses. In some ways, part of being a bad writer is that this is probably all too painfully obvious to the reader - the scaffolding is visible. With a really good writer, the scaffolding is hidden inside the building and this can lead to immense cognitive dissonance.

Actually I think the Spike/Ewan in Sunset Song comparison is an interesting one. For me, what makes Grassic Gibbon not a sexist is that no attempt is ever made to minimise the rape, to explain it away as "normal sex gone to the extreme". It is horrible for Chris to experience, and horrible for Ewan later when he regains his sanity and realises what he has done.

In contrast, the Spike narrative is the age-old trope of "well, you wanted sex to be passionate, didn't you? This is just what happens when the passion gets too strong." Rather than sympathising with the idea that a person who is trying to be decent just gets stretched to breaking point, we're instead being asked to buy into the excuse of the person who feels no remorse. So instead of "Oh god, what I did was terrible, even though at the time I was stretched to breaking point for other reasons" we're being given "Was what I did really so terrible? Or was this a temptation any decent person would have succumbed to?"

The rape in the Thomas Covenant books was supposed to be - um, he started off as a victim himself. And he wasn't one who felt no remorse.

In the case of not walking anywhere alone (or at least after dark), aren't the consequences of that - the limitations on your freedom, on what you can do, where you can go, who you can see, and the psychological consequences of that so severe, that going out and doing it anyway is rewarding despite the sense of fear and policing you associate with it?

almond, do you think that is the consequence for men? I thought generally, men actually are in more danger on the dark street than at home, but they (and we as a society) don't think so.

buffy - oh, yes, I watch it as escapism too.

I don't think the rape is excused either - but you're talking on the level of characters. They don't forgive him. That makes it very easy for us, as viewers, because if we continue to enjoy watching, and especially if we still feel any sympathy with him as a character/love interest, we get to say 'oh, but it's ok. The characters still blame him'. And we forget it's a fiction, not real life, so the characters forgiving or not forgiving him are all part of the structure of it.

Jeanne, I don't think it is the same as the sense of freedom women can get, because men are generally not policed about it to begin with.

I can remember it being one of the first feminist things I read when I got an internet connection. Some woman talking about how annoyed she was when men offered to walk her home, and them making out she was some kind of crazy person for wanting to walk alone.

She was talking about the serious damage it did to how she felt about herself and society, if she were to accept that she was not free to walk around where she lived and worked.

I had never really thought about benevolent sexism before, and it was massively liberating for me to think, no, I am not being chaperoned. I will go where I want because this is my society too. I am not giving up and sitting in my house.

I don't think most men are going to experience that feeling of liberation because most men are not policed to begin with.

Sorry, that was a bit rambly.

No, not rambly at all - I think I was just a little bit confused by your earlier post as I thought you were talking about men, and I think you were actually talking about women?

I totally agree about benevolent sexism. I can see why cognitive dissonance serves society quite nicely in making women feel nervous of things that aren't threats, while accepting things that (statistically) are.

I'm less clear what men get out of cognitive dissonance. I'm getting there, though.

They could feel even more like blameless good guys if they discarded the inconvenient knowledge of the truth, though. If they just believed (eg) that rape genuinely does only happen in dark alleys. Yet even the most MRA-type men on here rarely seem to go for that, have you noticed?

They don't say 'ah, but actually, rape like that is a huge issue which is covered up by feminist statistics - I know a dozen women raped like that'. Which is the approach they could take to all sorts of things, isn't it?

They accept that the rape myth is a rape myth, but they focus on saying 'yes, but even if it's statistically rare, it's not impossible so I will keep worrying about my wife/daughter'. Right?

Yes, I was talking about women.

I think I have been exposed to a lot of cognitive dissonance about the exceptional woman, from both women and men.

So people saying to me that they, or me, or both of us, or if they are a man, that man's wife, are somehow an exception to the class woman.

So when they say how terrible and vile women are (in whatever way), it is actually a compliment because we as the exceptional woman are so much better than that.

But of course it does include us. And it is cognitive dissonance to think that any woman has the power to absent herself from the class women.

Yes, I agree with all of that.

"Benevolent sexism" can all too easily become male ownership of women. Eg the 'being walked home' lark is saying "You're safe as long as you clearly have a male owner". I noticed that back when I was young as the first thing an older groomer asked was 'where are your male owners' and I was assumed to be protected from such people as long as I was in the company of my younger brother. It was humiliating.

The worry is legitimate though, anyone can find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Oh, they absolutely do that, buffy.

What I'm curious is why (even when they're doing that), they do seem to maintain something I'd identify as cognitive dissonance. I'm wondering if that's part of the reason they are so angry (as others have speculated too, upthread).

I don't see that it is odd to think men (or women) might simultaneously maintain cognitive dissonance, and argue against what we'd regard as reality - because when has it ever been easy to establish, objectively, what 'reality' is?

gib - yes, the worry is legitimate, but the form it takes is disturbing (which I think is what you're saying!).

I think the worry of attack is real and acceptable to hold, surely? What I resent is the implication that I am a person (well let's face it, a woman) who is a. not capable of making her own decisions about risk and b. whose freedom is worth so little that the consequences of removing my right to walk around independently doesn't really need to be considered.

I have mixed feelings about security. I currently stay in my office after everyone else has gone home. Most nights the security guards (who I don't really know, and it could be one of many) use their keys to open my office door to check on me. I know there is an essential practical element that they need to know if someone is in the building, and that part of the point of there being security guards is to make my life more secure. But I don't feel more secure. I feel like men appear in my office late at night.

So maybe I need more cognitive dissonance. Maybe if I was here going, oh but the big strong man is visiting to protect me, and visualised them as not just security guards being practical, but also believed they were my protectors because they were men, I would feel more secure.

Or alternatively, maybe what needs to be questioned is not my feelings about these men, but why all the security staff are male.

Huh!

Yeah, I got to the end of that and laughed. That's it, isn't it - why are the guards male?

But anyway. I do agree with what you are saying about women and cognitive dissonance.

I just want to get my mind around why cognitive dissonance might perpetuate/reflect misogyny in the wider context. Maybe I'm not being very clear, or maybe I'm asking something mind-numbingly simple that only seems complex to me because I've been staring at it for too long.