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!

People usually have a narrative "about life/the world that is a lot simpler than the complexities of reality. Coming up against a credible counter narrative is not an unusual occurrence. Whether or not you take on board the inherent difficulty of holding several slightly contradictory narratives in your consciousness is a function of intelligence and education, whether you are woman or man...

I can definitely see the minimising conflict aspect mentioned upthread. We can identify sexist, racist, homophobic behaviour etc when demonstrated or described at a remove from ourselves, but when confronted directly shy away from doing anything about it. So then we have to find an explanation for why we did nothing, which is when we scrabble for reasons why this particular instance wasn't really sexist/racist/homophobic, or why that person isn't that bad really. We have to justify our own behaviour in the face of bad behaviour. But that means that we must perceive a risk in the conflict (or is it the conflict itself that is the risk - the choice between conflict with another individual or conflict within ourselves and we choose the latter). And of course there can be big risks - violence, abuse, death. But also other things we also fear like ostracism, victimisation, ridicule, scorn (which likely fall under abuse but ykwim). I'm thinking here of course less of the example in the OP than of te things that Bertie is describing where we excuse someone else's behaviour. But actually it can apply to the example of putting aside the knowledge of how many male intimate partners abuse or kill women, because given how much emphasis is put on a woman "catching and holding" a man, that avoidance of conflict with societal approval is preferable to accepting the fact that it may be "safer" to be alone.

This is a bit longwinded and writing as I'm thinking so apologies if it reads badly or doesn't make sense, but I'm trying to say that perhaps society benefits from people holding conflicting thoughts because people want to be part of society and will (in general) unconsciously prioritise that above resolving the cognitive dissonance they might feel

I think that's a bit simplistic, bonsoir.

pet - no, that makes perfect sense, I think.

Well I crossed with everyone there!

Think about it, Jeanne: it's a lot easier than you seem to think!

Well, simplistic thought processes usually are easier. But that's the problem, isn't it?

I think you lot are making an absolute mountain out of a molehill!

I actually think the opposite of Bonsoir. People hold an internal narrative that is far more complex than the complexities of reality. People hold all manner of fantastical,imaginative, religious views - things to do with the psyche or whatever.

I mean, I'm an atheist. I still get really scared at night when walking the dogs that a demon will possess me.

I am looking into a lot of that, buffy - I've been reading Liz Kelly on rape, and a few others, which are absolutely not queer theory type stuff, and very, very rigorous.

But I still find it hard, because they're analysing real life, and real people, whereas I am doing it at a remove, because I'm interested in all of these narratives (not just actual fiction, but also rape myths which are stories). And that's quite hard to think about, or it is for me.

Good point, almond.

It is quite personal, though, isn't it? You're a bright person. Your internal narrative is going to be complex.

I have noticed this with buffy sometimes (excuse me being personal, but you're a good example). She sometimes ends up analysing her own posting style while she's posting about posting style. It's as if there are just more intersecting layers going on than most people have.

Night buffy. Thanks for the comments.

J, what about psychoanalysis by Orbach? That would look at discomfort.

Oh, that sounds great, yes. Orbach is one of those writers I've never read, and I have this vague feeling I know the gist of the popular bits that people talk about, you know? So I should get down to it properly.

I think this is important

"It's something I struggle to relate to, tbh. Because I do not expect the world or my reaction to it to make sense or be consistent."

yup me too (to an extent). And then put this way, the anger of cognitive dissonance seems like a massive enactment of, ahem, an "entitled" attitude. Like the people I know who are personally outraged when the weather forecast is wrong, like it was done to annoy them. Or the person I work with who keeps saying things like "no they can't have written that document" and when I say "how do you know?" she says "because if they had, they would have saved it here, and they haven't, because I have looked" and then she is offended when she finds they have written it, but saved it in a predictably (I think) lunatic place.

I shrug a lot about things happening in not the way that would have happened if the world was tightly scripted by a team of crack writers with full time continuity consultants. This failure to shrug is the problem. (i highhandedly decide.) Or in other words, "logic" is one of the things that a certain kind of person has just decided that they deserve, and a certain kind of misogynist has decided to hate women for "violating"

You know what, now I think about it, the one truly abusive relationship I have ever been in was with a man who constantly challenged any failure of "logic" in my behaviour as if I was in the dock and providing a dodgy alibi. "so why did you go to the off licence for the wine? When you had already been in the supermarket for the onions? Why didn't you just get them both in the supermarket? HM?!" I would make some pathetic answer like "I don't know" while he fumed about my presumed lover in the off licence.

There is some psychological theory that, contrary to popular belief, people do not alter their behaviour to fit their values as often as they alter their values to fit their behaviour. (if you feel the need to alter either). Eg - if you find yourself having to buy groceries on your credit card, you are less likely to think "debt is bad. I will eat nothing but broken biscuits this month" than "I used to think debt was bad, but I guess it is ok now I find myself buying groceries on credit". Or - there is a whole class of people who will just say "sure, debt is terrible" at the same time as they hand over their credit card

Sorry about the ramble. don't think I've added much

And then put this way, the anger of cognitive dissonance seems like a massive enactment of, ahem, an "entitled" attitude.

Yes! Absolutely. Which is why I wanted to talk about men/society, not just women. I am finding it really disturbing that I do think there is some thought process - call it what you like - that produces a sort of legitimized 'poor little me, I was tricked' kind of anger.

Your workmate sounds like people I know - people who always expect everyone else's thoughts/responses to be an open book to them.

Sorry about your abusive ex. That is really horrible. It's him acting as if he knows you better than you know yourself, isn't it? Which I do think is entitled and abusive. And I do think it's related in to this whole question of response and credibility.

Talking, yes, I recognise what you describe.

I again wish we had a regular who was a psychologist.

On the contrary, michaelangelo, that is v. interesting. I absolutely recognise your description of people who get angry when the world has continuity errors, and who cling to 'logic' when they actually mean what they feel and want.

I mean, pure maths and physics has intrinsic logic, but human situations don't, mostly, they're all about the people involved's conflicting desires and emotions. Pepple (often but not always men) who talk about logic all the time are only ever talking about their personal logic, not anyone else's, and what they are really saying is 'Wah! It's not how I want to be! How unfair!'

Me too, almond!

irene - yes, I agree. And people always assume if they mention logic, they must be being objective. To be fair, i know I do it myself.

Btw, Susie Orbach is worth reading, in my view - I find her prose can be a bit mannered but she is good on wanting and not-wanting at the same time, and how people construct an exterior that satisfies the needs of their interior.

Plus she is in a relationship with Jeanette Winterson which is pretty cool.

YYY. And when I have tried to explain everyday sexism to DH he is horrified - not at the sexism that he suddenly now sees, because he doesn't. He's horrified that I "see the world as such a hostile place". He is SO convinced that it's my field of vision which is wonky. (I realise I'm making him sound awful on here which he's not, he's fine and probably unconsciously feminist in his own interactions, just blind to stuff.)

On the subject of abuse, I know that the whole time I was with my ex I felt anxious, and I didn't really realise it until I left and it was gone. So weird. I think CD is a little bit like that. It definitely is a burden. It's like that fucking dress thing (the real reason I was mad earlier) - your brain can't just accept what is there because it's "seeing" two conflicting things at once, so it's working overtime trying to correct both of them into one thing which is acceptable for you to be able to process, rather than just reporting back that whatever you're seeing is what it is. You aren't aware of the process while it is happening, but it's draining.

Michaelangelo that is helpful/interesting to me. It's almost similar to gaslighting, what you describe. You are so right about people altering their values, as well. The more you do something, even if you feel horrified and awful the first time, the easier it becomes and the more you mentally excuse it. There is a LOT of evidence for this, if you're interested in sourcing it. (I don't know where to look right now, but have def read stuff about it. Informally, look at the sample-of-one social experiment where a woman decided to take up space on the tube.) I'm sure it's been linked to human atrocities such as the Holocaust etc and I would not be at all surprised if it is also a large part of abusive (or other MVAW) behaviours. They start with a faulty premise - this woman owes me sex/must agree with me/will shag around or leave if I don't keep a tight hold - and it starts with small gestures, arguments, justifications until he pushes himself too far, and, perhaps, is slightly shocked or guilty or remorseful that first time. But then nothing bad happens to him, and, well, he did feel pushed right to the edge. The next time it's easier, less of a big deal to cross that line, and he feels justified. Over time, the line moves, the actions which once shocked him become normal. The conclusion is full scale control, rape, assault, and/or murder. Yes, I think that even actively violent men suffer cognitive dissonance, unless they are psychopathic sadists, which is a tiny minority.

Oh. YES! Logic which is not actually logical. Drives me mad. When most people talk about logic they are talking about commonly held assumptions, which may be correct, but not always. Not actually looking at the situation logically. It's like they don't understand what logic actually is.

I loved psychology at A Level. I've been and done everything else since, I might take that back up again. I think I tend to lean towards sociology, though, because so much of what we do and think and say and do (again, because it's probably the most important as well as interesting) is cultural, socialised, does not happen in a vacuum which I think Psychology can sometimes be a bit guilty of leaning towards.

"there is some thought process - call it what you like - that produces a sort of legitimized 'poor little me, I was tricked' kind of anger. "

this is getting clearer and clearer.
What is at the heart of this anger is "it's always about me" so things not going your way are actually an insult, rather than a mere inconvenience. It's sort of as if: someone deciding to give the job to someone else (which is how the employers see it, and how the person who did get the job sees it) is actually, really, at heart, them deciding not to give the job to you.

So, stuff that just didn't work out, leads to "WHY ARE THEY DOING THIS TO MEEEEEEEE?"

And a classic case of things not working out, is women not choosing to make themseves available or amenable to men. (reminds me of this - I love Mallory Ortberg so much: "every woman must decide how not to sleep with Jonathan Franzen in her own way.")

(Tangent: this is familiar to me also as being-best-friends-with-an-extrovert-when-you-are-an-introvert tension, and dealing with the fact that they perceive you taking yourself away from them as an act of violence, whereas you perceive it as an act of neutrality and the previous 5 days you spent with them as an act of friendship and affection. They do not understand that they don't just get to get you whenever they want because they don't understand that every bit you give to them is a bit that costs something. Similarly I struggle to learn that it costs them something to be alone and they have come to rely on you as one of the presences that can stave off that awful possibility. Men on the other hand are more likely to just think they deserve it and not care what it costs)

(Tangent 2: I am always confused as an introvert and a woman by how much men hate us and want us, at the same time. I always think that if they hate us that much they should surely be quite happy when we take ourselves off, in whatever context. In some way they need us, there is something about women that is required for them to fully realise their masculinity, and it's not just about sex. Again, this is something that Mallory Ortberg totally gets and her whole series of "women in western art being [x]" is basically an extended riff on the ridiculous nature of this social emotional dependence. the only way to understand the depth of male rage is somehow to grasp that they really see themselves as diminished, as barely present or barely human or barely men without us doing the things they expect women to do, acting as the foil or the backdrop or the balm or the audience or the pawn, and our humanity is simply not recognised - not denied so much as not considered - in the same way I never ask myself if the glass of water wanted to be drunk)