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!

Also, consumerist/capitalist society is a damn good displacement activity for otherwise violent men ...

The "statistical" example in the OP is misleading/incorrect...

cadno, but can you imagine the reaction if it was suggested that the only way to improve society, to get rid of violence (and therefore having to use CD) would be to use drugs . . .

(on the other hand, one might argue that that's exactly what happens to women when their hormones/moods are altered by the pill or ADs.)

I am not convinced by this we need violent people to defend us business.

If an army turns up to invade my homeland and murder and rape me and my children, I am prepared to fight and shoot them. This does not require me to be a violent person in the rest of my life.

My family members who fought in WW2 are not violent, aggressive, alpha male types in general day to day life, quite the opposite in fact having seen the horrors of war.

And most war now is pressing buttons not physically fighting people.

Yes, ideally we teach/socialise our boy children - well, all our children - how to deal with their anger. And we have wise, calm leaders who negotiate to avoid any conflict.

Jeanne , I'm sorry, I realise I've completely derailed your original question, which was far more subtle and therefore went whoosh over my head

does CD cause pp to blame women for what is in fact men's violence to women?

I thought this sort of switching blame to the object (of anger in this case) rather than the subject was a common psychological thing? (technical term)

almondcakes, no I'm not convinced either. If anyone stops to think about it for 5 minutes, then of course it's not necessary.

I was just trying to pinpoint the reason we tell ourselves that we put up with violence in society. So it's just the line that's spun, either consciously or unconsciously.

cad - no, don't apologize! I'm just not sure how to explain it differently from the OP. It's a really common thing, though, it's not just feminist theory. Basically, it is when you manage to hold two mutually exclusive beliefs at once, without quite realizing that you're doing it.

It's not a deliberate 'self-delusion', you see - it's more insidious than that.

I don't believe men are naturally violent, and I don't think beta-blockers would stop male violence. I think it's much more socially conditioned than that. But I'm probably biased about beta blockers specifically, because I was on them for migraine and they made me feel peculiar.

bonsoir - um ... you may have misunderstood it, but I don't think it can be incorrect. Most rapes don't happen in dark alleyways.

what - so, you're saying that at some time, there was testosterone, and that caused humans to survive, because there was no law? Sorry, but I cannot see how that isn't a giant leap of faith. It's possible, but how would we know?

I think I am with buffy on this.

It must be both, Buffy - nature and nurture. I have wanted to chin someone in the past and managed to contain it. I am nothing special, so why have I been socialised differently?

I never hit my children, and yet for my parents it was always an option. So I have been exposed to what some might consider abuse, and yet never resorted to it myself because for me it was wrong. Hitting children is the act of a bully. Why didn't I internalise, and carry on the behaviour? I think class analysis falls short here, because members of the class (men) vary greatly in behaviour with no apparent rhyme or reason.

Cross post.

whatwould, it just got derailed. These things happen - it's fine.

I agree it's very common to transfer blame. What I am wondering is, is the frustration/cognitive stress of maintaining cognitive dissonance itself what makes men feel under attack, though?

I probably should have set my thoughts out earlier. But: women under patriarchy maintain cognitive dissonance, and most of us have personal experience of noticing we do so, and most of us can see why the fact that we do this, helps prop up patriarchy. Men maintain CD too, and people have suggested reasons why this, too, props up patriarchy.

Generally, people don't like anything that is cognitively stressful, right? We have all sorts of subconscious coping mechanisms to stop us from thinking about things we don't want to think about. Some of these cause us substantial problems (eg., people who've experienced trauma can blank it out, but then often seem to experience other memory issues, or get disturbed by the fact they can't remember the trauma properly).

I wonder if the cognitive dissonance men experience isn't doing something like this. A huge amount of our literature and culture seems to me to be designed to prompt men (and women) to think using cognitive dissonance. It prompts us into these thought patterns. Is it, then, possible to get rid of (some of) your cognitive dissonance, as a man, and to accept that women are basically human and so on, and still to struggle with that literature because it is prompting this cycle of stressful thought?

I'm really sorry that this thread hasn't been as clear as it could be, and thanks everyone.

yops, I would say that's precisely when class analysis is helpful.

You, or I, as individuals, might not fit the wider pattern, but if you were to study a large group of (say) people whose parents smacked them, you would be able to find patterns and see whether or not that behaviour instils other habits. (For the record, I have no idea whether smacking your kids is likely to make your kids into hitters.)

Men, as a group, are more violent than women. Individual men being gentle, and individual women being violent, don't prevent us from seeing that.

Or am I misunderstanding?

Yes, I think that too, buffy.

Ah, okay. My bad, as my kids say

Then I suppose class analysis is incomplete, rather than wrong. What if all the violent men had blue eyes? Or came from Norfolk? Or had higher levels of testosterone? Or a million other traits? I guess one you identify a group by a characteristic, unless that group overwhelmingly shares that trait, you need more analysis, and that has to go beyond a simple class of 'men'. Does that make more sense? Probably stating the bleedin' obvious.

I don't think it is stating the obvious, but I still don't think I feel comfortable agreeing.

Isn't that just another way of saying you don't really believe men as a group are violent? Or how do you define 'overwhelmingly'?

Jeanne - if the amount of time spent by British women alone in dark alleyways was exactly equal to the amount of time spent by British women alone with their male friends, you would be correct.

But since British women spend much much less time alone in dark alleyways than alone with their male friends, the fact that fewer rapes occur in dark alleyways is not at all surprising. However, we can say nothing at all from this information about the probability of a rape occurring when alone in a dark alleyway versus alone with a male friend.

Fair point. It's a useful tool, but a blunt one.

I don't think you understood me, bonsoir. I'm commenting on the fact people feel afraid of something - I'm not talking about how often they do it.

Even if I, personally, never walked through a dark alley in my life, I could still experience a disproportionate fear of doing so, because I hold cognitive dissonance about it. Do you see? It's not about the actual likelihood of something happening. It's about how you feel.

It's quite likely for me to be raped by a partner or person I know - but I just don't worry about it. It'd make me paranoid and terrified, so our brains just don't really work that way.

I have understood your OP as written perfectly, Jeanne!

Oh, good.

'. Is it, then, possible to get rid of (some of) your cognitive dissonance, as a man, and to accept that women are basically human and so on, and still to struggle with that literature because it is prompting this cycle of stressful thought?'

So enlightened men who are allies might 'fall off the wagon ' as it were by watching Total Recall (flippant)

Sorry, should have a ?

Yes, exactly!

And it's flippant, but sort of not, because I am thinking about popular fiction, and so on.

Can I try and clarify the class analysis point?

Is what Yop saying that if we agree that violence is exhibited far more frequently by men, then men as a class are violent.

BUT... yop is also saying we would also want to know if violence was more prevalent in particular types of men, or men that had been taught particular things, or men who had been exposed to certain situations. Because we would then be able to change the environment so less men become violent, leading to a drop in violence in the group.

So we might critique masculinity but in general, but also say some kinds are particularly dangerous. A bit like saying smoking is not good for you, but there are particular kinds of smoking that is worse.