by Yashar Ali

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 that based on these comments, 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?

Yashar Ali is a Los Angeles-based columnist, commentator, and political veteran whose writings about women, gender inequality, political heroism, and society are showcased on his website, The Current Conscience. Please follow him on Twitter and join him on Facebook.

If you are interested and want to be notified when the book is released, please click here to sign-up.

Related Posts:
He Doesn’t Deserve Your Validation: Putting The Fake Orgasm Out of Business

by Steven-Elliot Altman (SG Member: Steven_Altman)

Our Fiction Friday serialized novel, The Killswitch Review, is a futuristic murder mystery with killer sociopolitical commentary (and some of the best sex scenes we’ve ever read!). Written by bestselling sci-fi author Steven-Elliot Altman (with Diane DeKelb-Rittenhouse), it offers a terrifying postmodern vision in the tradition of Blade Runner and Brave New World…

By the year 2156, stem cell therapy has triumphed over aging and disease, extending the human lifespan indefinitely. But only for those who have achieved Conscientious Citizen Status. To combat overpopulation, the U.S. has sealed its borders, instituted compulsory contraception and a strict one child per couple policy for those who are permitted to breed, and made technology-assisted suicide readily available. But in a world where the old can remain vital forever, America’s youth have little hope of prosperity.

Jason Haggerty is an investigator for Black Buttons Inc, the government agency responsible for dispensing personal handheld Kevorkian devices, which afford the only legal form of suicide. An armed “Killswitch” monitors and records a citizen’s final moments — up to the point where they press a button and peacefully die. Post-press review agents — “button collectors” — are dispatched to review and judge these final recordings to rule out foul play.

When three teens stage an illegal public suicide, Haggerty suspects their deaths may have been murders. Now his race is on to uncover proof and prevent a nationwide epidemic of copycat suicides. Trouble is, for the first time in history, an entire generation might just decide they’re better off dead.

(Catch up with the previous installments of Killswitch – see links below – then continue reading after the jump…)

[..]

by Blogbot

Let’s talks about sex, sexuality, and sexism this Sunday (Oct 23rd). SG Radio hosts Nicole Powers (SG’s Managing Editor) and recovering reality TV star Lacey Conner (Rock of Love and Charm School) will be joined in-studio by the always charming actor, musician and poet Michael Des Barres, gender writer and commentator Yashar Ali, and SG’s Red, White and Femme columnist Darrah de jour.

Tune in to the world’s leading naked radio show for two hours of totally awesome tunes and extreme conversation – and don’t let yo momma listen in!

Listen to SG Radio live Sunday night from 10 PM til Midnight on Indie1031.com

Got questions? Then dial our studio hotline digits this Sunday between 10 PM and midnight PST: 323-900-6012

And don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

[..]

by Blogbot

Every week we ask the ladies and gentlemen of the social web to show us their finest ink in celebration of Tattoo Tuesday.

Our favorite submission from Twitter wins a free 3 month membership to SuicideGirls.com.

This week, we decided to have double the fun and pick two winners:

The first is @blue_honesty a.k.a. Geek Rosie.

The second is @1bower a.k.a. Paul Chabot.

If you haven’t won this week, don’t forget that you can enter each week until you do, so good luck next Tuesday, and happy inking!

A few things to remember:

• You have to be 18 to qualify.
• The tattoo has to be yours…that means permanently etched on your body.
• On Twitter we search for your entries by looking up the hashtag #TattooTuesday, so make sure you include it in your tweet!

Check out the Tattoo Tuesday winners of weeks past!

by Nicole Breanne

Guys, the Republican Debate in Las Vegas, Nevada happened Tuesday night…I’m writing about it now because I needed all of Wednesday to process what the fuck happened. Here are the highlights:

Michelle Bachmann, who is completely batshit crazy and was dressed like a sea captain for some reason, unleashed her “double wall” plan. She was very proud of the fact that she’s the only candidate to sign a plan with a double wall to protect our borders from illegal crossings. Michelle Bachmann is campaigning on the “double bag it” platform. It doesn’t work on condoms and it ain’t gonna work on illegal border jumping. Go back to your padded cell.

Ron Paul was there, and reminds me of that crazy uncle that is always invited to family gatherings though all anyone does is talk about how crazy he is and how they have no idea why they still allow him to come around. They just let him putter around in his boxer shorts and tattered robe talking to himself because he’s family. So he was there. Earlier in the day, he had talked to Wolf Blitzer about how he wants to get rid of five government cabinet positions and their associated agencies to cut $1 trillion from the budget including the Department of Energy and Department of Education –– cause who needs those? At the debate he brought up that time that Ronald Regan negotiated with terrorists and how no one held it against him. You guys remember that right? Regan negotiating with terrorists?

Next is Herman Cain, who scares me. His ideas are ludicrous and there’s a video of him singing “Imagine There’s No Pizza” set to the tune of the idealistic John Lennon classic. To top his crazy ass pizza off, he was quoted as saying: “Jesus was killed by a liberal court.” He also stated in a paper called The Perfect Conservative that “He (Jesus) helped the poor without one government program. He healed the sick without a government health care system. He fed the hungry without food stamps.” Continuing, Cain also noted that, “For three years He was unemployed, and never collected an unemployment check.” Maybe that’s because none of that existed, but I digress.

So at the debate everyone went apeshit over Cain’s 9-9-9 plan –– which sadly didn’t involve 9-inch pizzas with 9 toppings for $9.99. No Cain’s 9-9-9 plan involves 9% corporate business flat tax, 9% income flat tax and a 9% national sales tax. Everyone then jumped on how stupid this plan is. Rick Perry implied that it’s actually going to cost people more (which it will). Howard Cain explains it as “Mixing apples and oranges. State tax is an apple we are replacing apples with oranges. We are replacing current tax codes with oranges.” Well, thank Christ Herman, because I was worried about our vitamin C intake! Are Republican’s allergic to coherent explanations?

Moving on to Mitt Romney, he explained Romneycare, which is basically Obamacare. In fact lots of Republican’s were pissed at Mitt because his advisors told Obama how to put together Obamacare. So Mitt says, and I’m paraphrasing here, “Romney care works great. Massachusetts loves it,” but he would “never impose this on the nation”. Yeah man, don’t impose a working system on a nation that’s ranked below numerous so-called third world countries for healthcare. That’s madness!!!

But now we come to the big dogs, the main event: ROMNEY vs. PERRY. These dudes hate each other, and they don’t even try to hide it. Mitt Romney touched Rick Perry. Now that doesn’t sound like a big deal, but you do not touch your opponent during a debate. You do not place your hands on someone to get them to stop talking like they are a 5-year old upset about someone stealing their ball at recess. Romney then followed up this condescending gesture with this condescending quote: “You have a problem with letting people finish speaking. If you want to President you need to learn how to let both sides finish.” I’m sorry Mitt Romney, but your vast knowledge on how to be President comes from where? If you want to be President, maybe you should keep your pompous holier than thou attitude in check.

My favorite part of the debate was the moment Rick Perry brought up the fact that Mitt Romney employed illegals to work at his property as gardeners. Guys, I know it’s shocking, right? So Romney continues to mess with Texas, he does not give a fuck! He’s like, “Listen Tex!” OK, he didn’t exactly say that, but in my version of the debate he totally did. What he did say was that when he found out about the undocumented workers he confronted the company and told them, “Look, you can’t have any illegals working on our property. I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake.”

Wow, just wow. Drop the mic and walk off stage ‘cause it is over. Let me break down that quote that Republican Presidential candidate said on national TV at a debate:

• Part 1: “You can’t have any illegals working on our property.”

  He doesn’t say, “You can’t hire illegals period.” He says you just can’t have them on his property…which brings us to part two:

• Part 2: “I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake.”

  In other words the exploitation of immigrants for two bucks an hour would be totally fine if I wasn’t being looked at under a microscope. Where does it end Romney? “Get these drugs outta my house I’m running for office for Pete’s sake!” “Get that Tijuana stripper and donkey out of my back room, I’m running for office for Pete’s sake!” Guys, it’s gonna be epic at Romney’s house after he’s done running for office.

This campaign has more bad acting, dialogue, and action than a Stallone movie franchise. I cannot wait for PERRY and ROMNEY in REPUBLICAN DEBATE IX!

by Damon Martin

Finding humor and easy to understand facts as an atheist isn’t always an easy thing to do.

Being an atheist myself, I’m always searching out new ways to help people understand science, as well as why I reject faith and religion as a whole. Sometimes it involves long conversations over several hours, other times it’s watching a film like Bill Maher’s Religulous.

More often than not however it’s the suggestion for that friend, co-worker or acquaintance to read a book that I’ve devoured in the hopes that they will find something interesting or intriguing to capture their attention within it. Normally, I tell them to read the Bible cover to cover and they are almost assured to become an atheist, but that’s a conversation for another day.

Two such books have been released recently. One will make you laugh, but also question things like faith and religion. The other is a fantastic exploration of science triumphing over myth that could be used as a text book for any middle school.

Penn Jillette, the talking half of the famous magician duo Penn and Teller, released a book in late summer titled God No!: Signs You May Already Be an Atheist and Other Magical Tales in which he presents his version of the ten atheist commandments.

The book was actually inspired by noted conservative and Mormon Glenn Beck who suggested while interviewing Penn once that atheists should have their own commandments to live by, much like those in the Bible that Christians claim to follow on a daily basis.

Penn explores his commandments with a slew of personal stories and encounters, while going right for the jugular with subjects like atheists vs. agnostics (the chapter is entitled “Agnostics: No One Can Know For Sure But I Believe They’re Full of Shit”).

His stories are told in a way that will definitely keep you laughing, but much like his atheist brethren Ricky Gervais, when Penn gets serious and wants to make a point, his writing is crisp, striking and well thought out.

God No! is a great introduction for anybody wanting to learn more about morality in the atheist world, while also finding humor in everyday situations that many atheists will encounter or in Penn’s case have encountered.

While Penn’s book is more of a straight forward slap in the face with reality about being an atheist, famed biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins‘ new book The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True is a spellbinding narrative of the wondrous world of science and how it compares to the myths that seemingly capture our attention as youths.

The book is aimed at children ages 12 and up, and really could be a science manual for kids who are intrigued by science and how things work.

Dawkins along with illustrator Dave McKean weave a beautiful scientific picture of the world while explaining things like where a rainbow comes from, why there are so many different animals, and who the first man was. The questions and myths are laid out and Dawkins sets out to not only disprove them, but explain how science works to give answers that are just as mystifying and amazing.

Dawkins takes the myths and tales that we all learned as children and debunks them in a way that not only makes sense, but makes things fit together like a puzzle.

Throughout the book, Dawkins even admits there are some things he doesn’t know the answer to, but unlike myths and religion, he admits to it and doesn’t try to come up with a story to fill in the gaps in his knowledge.

The Magic of Reality is a book that can be taught to children, but many adults will find just as enthralling. There is also an iPad version of the book (which I purchased), which is a fantastic way to read the text and watch the illustrations come to life.

With either book, God No! by Penn Jillette or The Magic of Reality by Richard Dawkins, science and atheism are explored, examined and explained in some form or fashion. Both books are well-written, well thought out and a great addition to a library.

Even if you’re not an atheist, everyone can learn something from Dawkins and Penn.

by Annarose

A column which highlights some of SG’s fave watering holes and the house specialities served up in them. This week we pull up a stool at the Idle Hands Bar in NYC.

Bourbon, beer, and rock…oh my! Celebrating a one year anniversary in the East Village of New York City, Idle Hands Bar is a classy place to toss back a few brews and rock out. The libation station carries over 85 different bottles of bourbon and over 50 craft beers from across the globe. In addition, they recently partnered with That Burger and now serve some of the best burgers in Manhattan at a reasonable price (ranging from $5.50 to $11.00).

After talking with Marc Schapiro and Rob Morton, partner owners of Idle Hands, it became clear to me that their overall goal is to have a good time with delicious drinks and rockin’ music. They frequently host parties for bands and have a reputation for awesome post-concert afterparties. Prior to opening the bar, the guys worked in the music/entertainment industry with bands like Shadows Fall, Thursday, Dillinger Escape Plan, and various record companies. Marc also told me that As I Lay Dying and All Time Low have partied at Idle Hands, which just so happen to be two of my favorite bands.

Rob, the head bartender, sent me the recipe for his signature drink, the Battle of New Orleans, which is a twist on an old-fashioned whiskey cocktail called the Sazerac that Rob’s finessed with his own unique spin.

Idle Hands’ Battle of New Orleans

2oz bourbon
1.5oz Simple Syrup
Dash Angostura Bitters
Dash Peychaud’s Bitters
Touch of Herbsaint to rinse the glass

Served in a champagne coup

In a pint glass add bourbon, simple syrup, both bitters and lots of ice. Stir for 8-10 seconds to chill the liquid and impart a little water. In the coup add the Herbsaint, tilt the glass and rotate to coat the inside, and then dump the extra. Strain the cocktail into the coup and garnish with the lemon twist.

I’m planning on heading to New York City in December and will absolutely be stopping by to check out the scene. Marc told me that he is a “big fan of SuicideGirls” so I’m pretty positive that I’ll quickly become a big fan of Idle Hands. Unique bourbons, cold brews, and rock & roll?! Sounds like a party I am not going to want to miss!

Find Idle Hands on the interweb, Facebook and Twitter.

Related Posts
Mixology: The Goosetown Tavern, Denver, CO