In case you're unfamiliar with cognitive dissonance, let me save you the Google-Wiki time...
Cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment. The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychologyproposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions or adding new ones to create consistency. An example of this would be the conflict between wanting to smoke and knowing that smoking is unhealthy; a person may try to change their feelings about the odds that they will actually suffer the consequences, or they might add the consonant element that the smoking is worth short term benefits.
Smoking is a common example of cognitive dissonance because it is widely accepted that cigarettes can cause lung cancer, and smokers must reconcile their habit with the desire to live long and healthy lives. In terms of the theory, the desire to live a long life is dissonant with the activity of doing something that will most likely shorten one's life. The tension produced by these contradictory ideas can be reduced by any number of changes in cognitions and behaviors, including quitting smoking, denying the evidence linking smoking to lung cancer, or justifying one's smoking. For example, smokers could rationalize their behavior by concluding that only a few smokers become ill, that it only happens to very heavy smokers, or that if smoking does not kill them, something else will.
This case of dissonance could also be interpreted in terms of a threat to the self-concept. The thought, "I am increasing my risk of lung cancer" can be dissonant with the self-related belief, "I am a smart, reasonable person who makes good decisions." Because it is often easier to make excuses or pass judgment than it is to change behavior or values, cognitive dissonance research contributes to the abundance of evidence in social psychology that humans are not always rational beings.
So basically cognitive dissonance is how we make ourselves feel better about making bad decisions, or how we justify our decision making skills in general really.
I am relating this to the Battle of the Sexes discussion (and yes, we are still on the topic of emasculating men), because I was given a perfect example from "The Guru" AKA Steve Santagati (I hope you don't mind me calling you that OR quoting you for that matter).
"You're opinions may not EMASCULATE a strong man but they are emasculating in nature. Strong men, such as myself are turned off only because women who do not play the role of a woman causes cognitive dissonance. Just as it would seeing a man in a dress. There are, however, some fundamental changes that have confused things and I understand the dichotomy that now exists between the Feminine and the Empowered woman. Good news, you can have both. Be aware that our bio behavioral imperatives run the sex and mating engine and we are slaves to the force. i.e. I hunt you, you be sexy. You can initiate with some ballsy statement showing your confidence but then you have to back off. Cat and mouse."
With this concept and inspiration in mind, instead of smoking and lung cancer, I changed the wiki example to terms of hunting versus being hunted and being feminine versus being a perceivable strong woman.
WIKI QUOTE:
Smoking is a common example of cognitive dissonance because it is widely accepted that cigarettes can cause lung cancer, and smokers must reconcile their habit with the desire to live long and healthy lives. In terms of the theory, the desire to live a long life is dissonant with the activity of doing something that will most likely shorten one's life.
TRANSLATION:
Being the huntress is a common example of cognitive dissonance because it is widely accepted that men should be the hunter/woman the hunted; and stronger, more confident women must reconcile their habit of doing so with the desire to be hunted and acting more feminine. In terms of the theory, the desire to be hunted and treated like a lady is dissonant with the activity of doing something that will most likely have the opposite effect.
Make sense?
Honestly, I first read this and thought about the common rhetoric among women who get their spouses or significant others to do things they want them to do by making them think it's their idea. As long as you don't appear to be the hunter instead of the hunted, then the man can still be a man and you are still the woman. I would venture to say that it is widely accepted knowledge that men make the first move and women decide whether or not they are having sex at the end of the night.
(Although I hate putting it in hunting terms, I'm just going to go with it for consistency sake.)
For example, you(the female) are sitting at the bar with a friend(also female). You spy across the bar a man you are attracted to and you (as a single adult female) decide you would like to take him home at the end of the night. You tell your friend. The next thing you do is make sure to make eye contact with him. You may laugh, you may toss your hair, you do something to get his attention and/or cross his line of vision. You have to put yourself in the path of the hunter and act as prey if you want to be captured. This is the initiating contact part. It is then the man's job as the hunter to actually wake up, pick up his rifle, and shoot. A deer doesn't run up to a hunter screaming, "Please shoot me!" You have to wait. He waits for you to be in just the right position at just the right time, then he shoots. So while you are actually using your cunning feminine skills to give him the opportunity, he still has to be the one to take it. If you appear confident in your feminine skills, he is more likely to notice and come over and take the opportunity you have presented and buy you a drink.
So in theory, although it was first your idea, you made him come to you while being both feminine and confident.
What does that have to do with cognitive dissonance? Well, often times, I feel as though we, for example, in the case of the hunt, give men our numbers without making them ask for it. It's not that they don't want it, they just are too scared to ask for it, or haven't figured out how to ask for it, so we just go for it. In exchange, he gives you his number. We see this as being confident because we are making the first move. But in reality, we have just taken away an opportunity for the man to be the man and do what men should do. If he actually calls us, then we are reassured that we did the right thing. However, as is often the case, when he doesn't call, we then write it off as him being too scared to make a move period. But in reality, you gave up your number first, so he probably thinks you're the type that would call first and is waiting on you to make yet another move. You have set up a bad precedent for the whole situation from the get go.