Thread: A Message to Women From a Man:

You Are Not "Crazy"
Posted: 9/12/11 04:34 PM ET

You're so sensitive. You're so emotional. You're defensive. You're overreacting. Calm down. Relax. Stop freaking out! You're crazy! I was just joking, don't you have a sense of humor? You're so dramatic. Just get over it already!

Sound familiar?

If you're a woman, it probably does.

Do you ever hear any of these comments from your spouse, partner, boss, friends, colleagues, or relatives after you have expressed frustration, sadness, or anger about something they have done or said?

When someone says these things to you, it's not an example of inconsiderate behavior. When your spouse shows up half an hour late to dinner without calling -- that's inconsiderate behavior. A remark intended to shut you down like, "Calm down, you're overreacting," after you just addressed someone else's bad behavior, is emotional manipulation, pure and simple.

And this is the sort of emotional manipulation that feeds an epidemic in our country, an epidemic that defines women as crazy, irrational, overly sensitive, unhinged. This epidemic helps fuel the idea that women need only the slightest provocation to unleash their (crazy) emotions. It's patently false and unfair.

I think it's time to separate inconsiderate behavior from emotional manipulation, and we need to use a word not found in our normal vocabulary.

I want to introduce a helpful term to identify these reactions: gaslighting.

Gaslighting is a term often used by mental health professionals (I am not one) to describe manipulative behavior used to confuse people into thinking their reactions are so far off base that they're crazy.

The term comes from the 1944 MGM film, Gaslight, starring Ingrid Bergman. Bergman's husband in the film, played by Charles Boyer, wants to get his hands on her jewelry. He realizes he can accomplish this by having her certified as insane and hauled off to a mental institution. To pull of this task, he intentionally sets the gaslights in their home to flicker off and on, and every time Bergman's character reacts to it, he tells her she's just seeing things. In this setting, a gaslighter is someone who presents false information to alter the victim's perception of him or herself.

Today, when the term is referenced, it's usually because the perpetrator says things like, "You're so stupid," or "No one will ever want you," to the victim. This is an intentional, pre-meditated form of gaslighting, much like the actions of Charles Boyer's character in Gaslight, where he strategically plots to confuse Ingrid Bergman's character into believing herself unhinged.

The form of gaslighting I'm addressing is not always pre-mediated or intentional, which makes it worse, because it means all of us, especially women, have dealt with it at one time or another.

Those who engage in gaslighting create a reaction -- whether it's anger, frustration, sadness -- in the person they are dealing with. Then, when that person reacts, the gaslighter makes them feel uncomfortable and insecure by behaving as if their feelings aren't rational or normal.

My friend Anna (all names changed to protect privacy) is married to a man who feels it necessary to make random and unprompted comments about her weight. Whenever she gets upset or frustrated with his insensitive comments, he responds in the same, defeating way, "You're so sensitive. I'm just joking."

My friend Abbie works for a man who finds a way, almost daily, to unnecessarily shoot down her performance and her work product. Comments like, "Can't you do something right?" or "Why did I hire you?" are regular occurrences for her. Her boss has no problem firing people (he does it regularly), so you wouldn't know from these comments that Abbie has worked for him for six years. But every time she stands up for herself and says, "It doesn't help me when you say these things," she gets the same reaction: "Relax; you're overreacting."

Abbie thinks her boss is just being a jerk in these moments, but the truth is, he is making those comments to manipulate her into thinking her reactions are out of whack. And it's exactly that kind manipulation that has left her feeling guilty about being sensitive, and as a result, she has not left her job.

But gaslighting can be as simple as someone smiling and saying something like, "You're so sensitive," to somebody else. Such a comment may seem innocuous enough, but in that moment, the speaker is making a judgment about how someone else should feel.

While dealing with gaslighting isn't a universal truth for women, we all certainly know plenty of women who encounter it at work, home, or in personal relationships.

And the act of gaslighting does not simply affect women who are not quite sure of themselves. Even vocal, confident, assertive women are vulnerable to gaslighting.

Why?

Because women bare the brunt of our neurosis. It is much easier for us to place our emotional burdens on the shoulders of our wives, our female friends, our girlfriends, our female employees, our female colleagues, than for us to impose them on the shoulders of men.

It's a whole lot easier to emotionally manipulate someone who has been conditioned by our society to accept it. We continue to burden women because they don't refuse our burdens as easily. It's the ultimate cowardice.

Whether gaslighting is conscious or not, it produces the same result: It renders some women emotionally mute.

These women aren't able to clearly express to their spouses that what is said or done to them is hurtful. They can't tell their boss that his behavior is disrespectful and prevents them from doing their best work. They can't tell their parents that, when they are being critical, they are doing more harm than good.

When these women receive any sort of push back to their reactions, they often brush it off by saying, "Forget it, it's okay."

That "forget it" isn't just about dismissing a thought, it is about self-dismissal. It's heartbreaking.

No wonder some women are unconsciously passive aggressive when expressing anger, sadness, or frustration. For years, they have been subjected to so much gaslighting that they can no longer express themselves in a way that feels authentic to them.

They say, "I'm sorry," before giving their opinion. In an email or text message, they place a smiley face next to a serious question or concern, thereby reducing the impact of having to express their true feelings.

You know how it looks: "You're late "

These are the same women who stay in relationships they don't belong in, who don't follow their dreams, who withdraw from the kind of life they want to live.

Since I have embarked on this feminist self-exploration in my life and in the lives of the women I know, this concept of women as "crazy" has really emerged as a major issue in society at large and an equally major frustration for the women in my life, in general.

From the way women are portrayed on reality shows, to how we condition boys and girls to see women, we have come to accept the idea that women are unbalanced, irrational individuals, especially in times of anger and frustration.

Just the other day, on a flight from San Francisco to Los Angeles, a flight attendant who had come to recognize me from my many trips asked me what I did for a living. When I told her that I write mainly about women, she immediately laughed and asked, "Oh, about how crazy we are?"

Her gut reaction to my work made me really depressed. While she made her response in jest, her question nonetheless makes visible a pattern of sexist commentary that travels through all facets of society on how men view women, which also greatly impacts how women may view themselves.

As far as I am concerned, the epidemic of gaslighting is part of the struggle against the obstacles of inequality that women constantly face. Acts of gaslighting steal their most powerful tool: their voice. This is something we do to women every day, in many different ways.

I don't think this idea that women are "crazy," is based in some sort of massive conspiracy. Rather, I believe it's connected to the slow and steady drumbeat of women being undermined and dismissed, on a daily basis. And gaslighting is one of many reasons why we are dealing with this public construction of women as "crazy."

I recognize that I've been guilty of gaslighting my women friends in the past (but never my male friends--surprise, surprise). It's shameful, but I'm glad I realized that I did it on occasion and put a stop to it.

While I take total responsibility for my actions, I do believe that I, along with many men, am a byproduct of our conditioning. It's about the general insight our conditioning gives us into admitting fault and exposing any emotion.

When we are discouraged in our youth and early adulthood from expressing emotion, it causes many of us to remain steadfast in our refusal to express regret when we see someone in pain from our actions.

When I was writing this piece, I was reminded of one of my favorite Gloria Steinem quotes, "The first problem for all of us, men and women, is not to learn, but to unlearn."

So for many of us, it's first about unlearning how to flicker those gaslights and learning how to acknowledge and understand the feelings, opinions, and positions of the women in our lives.

But isn't the issue of gaslighting ultimately about whether we are conditioned to believe that women's opinions don't hold as much weight as ours? That what women have to say, what they feel, isn't quite as legitimate?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yashar..._b_958859.html

comments

It seems as though most of Wade Long's reactions are examples of gaslightin*g.

One misunderst*anding Yashar Ali made an effort to avoid is the idea that any criticism of another person is gaslightin*g. He explicitly drew a line between that behaviour, and gaslightin*g, which is the wilful manipulati*on of another person's reaction to your own behaviour, by calling that reaction invalid, crazy, overly emotional, or whatever. This implicitly validates the behaviour that led to the reaction in the first place, while at the same time denying the validity of her reaction.

This is why it is so poisonous and insidious. It is a naturally reinforcin*g cycle. If a woman internalis*es these criticisms to her reaction, she is going to go out of her way to avoid appearing emotional or sensitive, leading to (for example) prefacing her statements with apologies. She invalidate*s her own reaction by doing this, and as soon as he hears "I'm sorry, but..." the man is unlikely to contradict her apology. He is going to unconsciou*sly believe that she is responsibl*e for the conflict, because she just apologised*.

This leads to a tremendous sense of pressure with a woman, especially if it occurs as part of a regular work or emotional relationsh*ip, and eventually might come out in genuinely weird ways as a result of never having been properly expressed.

Gaslightin*g demonstrat*es a fundamenta*l lack of respect for the person having a reaction.

...

I've had men try to gaslight me, and they are really annoyed when I prove strong enough to not fall for it. Women have to develop enough backbone to stand up and say No. If he doesn't like my reaction, that's HIS problem. You don't like me complainin*g about you being late, then don't be late. End of discussion*. Ironically*, the two men who most tried to persuade me that I was crazy were the men most likely to overreact themselves*, and their reactions FAR exceeded anything that I said to them.

...

Sometimes "Crazy" behavior is actually crazy. When someone calls you names and verbally or physically abuses you because you weren't careful enough about how you phrased something, that's being crazy. It doesn't matter whether they are a man or a woman. Extremely attractive people (usually, but not always, women) or extremely wealthy and successful people (usually, but not always, men), can get away with explosive and abusive expression*s of emotion more easily, because their higher perceived sexual value ensures that they will usually have a partner no matter how "crazy" they act. The only sexist part of this whole equation is that the objectific*ation of women not only gives attractive women a very high sexual value, but makes it so that "crazy" behavior does not significan*tly diminish this value. In essence, we as a society give attractive women license to be crazy, just like we give wealthy men license to do more or less whatever they want. [/i]

Just post the Bill of Rights on your office cubicle. You can find them on any assertive training web site or program. One is I have the right to my feelings. I need to google them.


Here they are----

http://www.k-state.edu/womenscenter/...%20Rights1.pdf

The following rights highlight the freedom you have to be yourself without disrespecting others.
• The right to have and express your own feelings and opinions appropriately and have them taken seriously by others.
• The right to ask for what you want.
• The right to say “no” without feeling guilty.
• The right to be treated with respect and not be taken for granted.
• The right to offer no reasons or excuses.
• The right to set your own priorities.
• The right to make mistakes.
• The right to change your mind.
• Then right to make your own decisions and deal with the consequences.
• The right to choose not to assert yourself.
Ceridian Corporation (1999). 930 Commonwealth avenue West, Boston, MA 02215

Sorry, but that all seemed like a bunch of drama...I try to avoid people like that.

...I find it hilarious the term "gaslighting" ...I thought me & my husband were the only ones who used that term after we saw the movie...He would always accuse me of gaslighting him when he would misplace something., he'd ask, Did U See My Keys....Are you Gaglighting Me?

I use to work with a manager who would do that ALL the time. Tell me "not to worry my pretty little head".... if I disagreed with something, he'd ask me if it was "that time of the month". Very frustrating.

Katie Roiphe’s Newsweek cover story reveals Tina Brown’s S&M editing of women writers
By Virginia Heffernan | The Lookout – 2 hrs 27 mins ago



(Newsweek)

If every era gets the sadist it deserves—wait, what does that mean?—then it makes sense we got Tina Brown, the wicked, high-spirited and slightly out-of-it editor of Newsweek and the Daily Beast. That's our Tina: She's made dupes of her readers—as well as of the highly suggestible writer Katie Roiphe—once again. This time, Tina's whips and chains can be found on the new cover of Newsweek: "The Fantasy Life of Working Women." Or as the cover story's headline puts it, more directly, "Spanking Goes Mainstream." http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...fantasies.html

The bruises can be found on the brains of anyone masochistic enough to read the article.

Tina, my onetime boss, from whom in the late 1990s I learned the dark arts of buzz production, loves to seduce and betray female writers. And she's got skills. As she once proudly told the editorial team at her short-lived magazine Talk, she likes to ask lady writers to deliver humiliating "personal histories" that feature self-loathing and lurid intimate disclosures, on the promise that they can publish anonymously.

Once the droning, predictable, scandalous articles are done—Daphne Merkin likes to be spanked!!!!!—Tina appeals to the writer's vanity. The article is terse and fearless and elegant! You're Joan Didion! (always Joan Didion). You must put your name on this!

Disgrace. You want to know about gender politics during this trumped-up "war on women"? That's one way power is wielded between women—the alpha girl feigns sympathy to get her henchwoman to confess or act out and then sits back and sneers—and it's no joke. Did anyone read Merkin's 1996 tale of her "unlikely obsession" with finding men to whack her and conclude she needed a Nobel Prize for savage honesty and lapidary prose? Not as I remember it. The take-away was, Something is wrong with Daphne Merkin.

This time, something seems to be wrong with Katie Roiphe. In dismissing the all-fours crawling and the relentless smacking of "Fifty Shades of Grey" as a "watered-down, skinny-vanilla-latte version of sadomasochism," Roiphe suggests she's thrown back way too many S&M espresso shots to be trustworthy on the subject.

At the same time she's impugning her dignity and authority (a hallmark of pieces women write to please Tina), Roiphe strikes the comfortable world-weary pose of gimlet-eyed female critics. These fake Parisiennes review seemingly sexy things—here it's the best-seller "Fifty Shades of Grey," but people did it in 1992 with Madonna's sex book and in 1986 with "9 1/2 Weeks"—only to claim that they're not sexy at all. That anal beads (?) are child's play to anyone familiar with real sadism.

Just yikes.

Exhale black smoke—that's the next rhetorical move. Sneer, then, at the "older, suburban, possibly Midwestern woman" (as Roiphe dubs her) who is in theory titillated by such trifles. And that's where Roiphe enacts on the reader what's been done to her. Tina has forced Roiphe into this uncomfortable pose, and in public (does any woman really want to boast, "I'm more twisted and accustomed to sexual violence than anyone!"), and Roiphe comparably trusses up Newsweek readers. Over a series of bad-faith and gibberish paragraphs, she sets up the reader as a hayseed who is turned on by lite porn because she's never seen how they do it in Berlin or whatever; or—worse still—so unsuccessfully feminine and so outside of the charmed circle of female literary power that she's satisfied by regular guys who don't hit her. Thanks.

Giving another person false and heavily proscribed choices (would you rather be bruised or battered?) is a rhetorical trick used by polemicists all the time. It allows them to propose a third way—their own archcuriosity and cynicism, usually—and then force surrender. "Spanking Goes Mainstream" is quick-and-dirty propaganda, done on deadline at the behest of a harried and opportunistic editor. We're not talking Goebbels here. When done this sloppily, this kind of rhetoric usually inspires defiance. Sure enough, Twitter is alive today with tweets like this one: "Women don't want to be spanked. They just want to spank Katie Roiphe into hushed obscurity."

Best way to stop the S&M cycle of feminine sophistry and showboating? Just don't read the article. It illuminates nothing; it humiliates its writer. And given this article's clichés and dopey mind-control tricks, we're still no closer to getting another Joan Didion.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...170037516.html

comments

Newsweek lost all credibility when Brown became editor-in-chief. It used to at least be readable. Now it's not even interesting.

..

I'm confused. How is someone's bedroom fetish news? I thought the name of the magazine was NEWSweek not Cosmo...

..

Wow, that's a tough article to read. All the cutesy text, all the parenthetical remarks, all the comma inserts---just seems like a boozy stream-of-consciousness purging. Long, long ago when I would read Newsweek I'd hear the voice of Cronkite or Murrow. Now when I read it I hear the voice of Geraldo and Springer.

..

Meanwhile, the circulation staff at Newsweek is crazy trying to figure out why renewals have hit an all-time low this month. Instead of delivering thought-provoking comment and articles as in the past, publications like Time. Newsweek and US News deliver this garbage. The editors are caught up in the NYC or LA chic lifestyle so cometely, they need a year in Des Moines or Spokane to see what life really is about. They currently relate to no one and neither does their writing.

..

Who wrote this tripe? Among other things the writing is jumbled and hard to follow. Apparently the writer tried to put in as many catchy words as possible and in the end made the article difficult to read. Simplicity is a virtue and jabberwookie is not.

An eye openers for sure...I think any female over the age of about 14 should be given this to read....