Gaslighting is a term that refers to a situation or relationship in which one person presents false information, distorted views of reality, engages in historical revisionism and, basically, causes the other party to question their sanity and belief in reality. It is a narcissistic pattern of behavior meant to subordinate the other party to the delusions of the gaslighter.
In a healthy world, this term would really not be all that well known, but, we do not live in a healthy society, but a therapeutic one. Guess what ideological group took this psychological phenomenon and ran with it? Yes, feminist are in love with this concept.
Feminists discovered this concept some time back and have thoroughly taken to it. First off, it explains their relationship with self-absorbed alphas, as way too many feminists seem to have some past man who engaged in gaslighting. Second, the articles I reviewed on gaslighting had a highly disproportional levels of women claiming to be ex-Christians. Feminism is a natural extension for these sorts of post-religious folk, as they need radical politics in their youth to paper over their anti-social impulses they dig up as they reject religiosity.
Yashar Ali
The most famous mainstream article on the subject was posted by a virgin named Yashar Ali, originally on the awful website Current Conscience, then on Puffington Host. As expected, feminists raged against the article, as I recall some dumbass from my law school had a rageful Facebook update about saying men have absolutely nothing to teach women about their lives. Don’t you see? Just by existing, women have this crystal clear view of themselves, society and power. Funny, if that was true, what exactly are feminists debating when they debate?
Ali’s post is the typical mainstream analysis of how society work and how power functions. If you are familiar with my analyses, you already know that if it is in the mainstream media, it is inherently meaningless as the media needs to the remain the decider of false dichotomies while maintaining the therapeutic nature of media to ensure revenues.
Back on point, Ali sketches a world in which men are privileged at the expense of women. He further argues men and women are socialized differently, and due to misogyny, women are socialized with traits that society looks down on – empathy, emotional expression, etc. He says that this situation results in a world in which men, collectively, subconsciously engage in behavior that inherently devalues women’s voices and renders their emotional lives dead. He argues women are socialized to hate themselves and men are socialized to love themselves. He wraps up with a predictable exhortation for men to stop gaslighting their women and to step off male privilege and into a world in which men actively take responsibility for their devaluation of women.
Ali fundamentally misunderstands one key and critical fact: male privilege does not exist. He seems to think that men and attributes he seems to think men are inculcated with are superior to ones females are given. Guess he never read the “Myth of Male Power.” The reason this opinion is so pervasive is to, first, divide men and women and provide women an aspirational symbol in their minds. I am sure I am right about that because women will rail against individual men and men collectively among themselves and online, only to never say a damn thing towards men in real life. If they do, they pick easy and weak targets they implicitly now can’t or won’t fight back.
Further, his argument psychologically is that men are clinical narcissists and women are codependents. Generally, that is reversed in society. Women generally fall between clinical narcissism and codependency and, in the end, become compensatory narcissists with beta males. Men make up the majority of codependents and clinical narcissists. Notice how this tracks IQ? Men make up the strong majority of the mentally disabled and the geniuses. What Ali is asking for is for men to completely reorganize their life around codependent qualities. His misdiagnosis is precisely what feminists want from men – worship. If they can’t get that, then they will assume hatred on your part. He thinks that society socializes men to feel superior to women and women to feel inferior to men. He is right women feel inferior to men, but that has nothing to do with men and everything to do with women.
Well, he is partially right. Society socializes women to fear and envy men, treating material possessions, independent incomes and social status directly tied to professional success as superior modes of living over prioritizing relationships, raising children and a life based not on dying for an outside chance of social fame. The trick is that women claim to be taught to value relationships over professional success, but that is their nature coming out. Women aren’t taught to value relationships, but to value advancing through the educational system, starting a “career” and eventually settling for a fellow co-parent.
Ali is complaining that society encourages narcissism in people, but he doesn’t know that. All he knows is what he is taught and that if all the horrid misogyny and gendered behaviors drain away, paradise awaits. He is 100% wrong. The more feminists get, the worse society becomes because new defenses need to be erected to ignore the rage inside of them. Read older feminist works – it becomes obvious that feminists have become far more angry every decade. Magazines dedicated to women? More rageful articles, more articles designed to cause anxiety in women and more articles pitting women against men that end in concluding women are better than men.
![[Image: village-idiot.jpg]](http://whatwouldjackdo.net/images/village-idiot.jpg)
Gaslighting, here, is the idea that men have the audacity to challenge a woman’s view of herself. Women, collectively, are not that aware of who they are or how they come across. When women gaslight each other, that simply is the status-quo and since they haven’t been taught how to think, they ignore it because it makes them supremely uncomfortable, if they even acknowledge it. When men question a woman’s response to X, Y or Z the lightbulb goes off and women know what to blame it on – sexism. While many women don’t utilize the misogyny framework, I can’t recall a woman who didn’t believe that men are sexist against women.
When confronted with a male challenging their identity, women need a defense mechanism to prevent that challenge from puncturing their identity. Accusations of gaslighting is usually based out of a man challenging a woman’s identity. Women’s identities are shaky and not based out of reality, so they need endless amounts of therapeutic messages that bolster their weak identities.
This concept is displayed endlessly on RoK articles that go viral. A common assertion is that RoK is attacking women’s identities and that is not right. That is a curious assertion, as they are admitting women get their identities from media outlets and when media outlets don’t provide the ego massaging they expect, it must be wrong. Notice how the comments immediately accuse RoK writers of being misogynistic. That is a narcissistic defense mechanism to explain our collective lack of worship for the modern female.
Further, when RoK talks about female delusion about reality, gaslighting rhetoric is used, even though I have yet to see that actual term used in the comments. The typical approach is that we are simply falling back on misogynistic, gendered expectations of female behavior – nagging, flighty, hysterical, not serious, etc. The problem is that we are actually discussing what females are actually doing. Since the modern woman has little to no insight as to who she really is, most RoK posts puncture her self-identity and she needs to either explain away our stances as satire, pretend we hate women or that we have issues with our mother. All those tired approaches are simply defenses against true self-awareness.
Simply put, gaslighting rhetoric is female delusion about the reality of their lives. I have not doubt men do gaslight women in reality, but since feminists have swallowed the approach hook, line and sinker, it means gaslighting, to them, is a way to shore their sense of self and pretend all that matters is their conceptualization of themselves. You can see yourself as intelligent or beautiful, but the facts don’t lie. Intelligent people make intelligent comments that others recognize as such. Beautiful people are photogenic, readily recognizable and perceived as such.
Gaslighting rhetoric, for women and feminists, when it is real, is about explaining away male narcissism. When it isn’t real – most of the time – it is about shoring up their sense of self from challenges from men. Unable to properly understand themselves and why they do the things they do, they need defense mechanisms to prevent men from challenging that. Part of this is the desire to avoid any and all submission and women see men as authority figures which should not to be submitted to. When women do submit, it is often as a codependent and then they complain their significant other is either a clinical narcissist or a compensatory narcissist.
At the end of the day, just remember if some woman accuses of you of gaslighting her, remember you just ruptured her self-identity. Depending on what you want from her, proceed from there knowing that. However, if she actually uses that specific term, my advice would be to bail. What feminists and women forget in their gaslighting rhetoric is that you can only reveal who people really are. There is no such thing as destroying somebody’s self-esteem – that can only happen with the consent of the destroyed. If women are admitting they can be broken down with gaslighting approaches, then they are admitting they really are weak, deep down. The play and movie that spawned this term showed this – the female lead was completely open to be manipulated by gaslighting.
People can only influence you with your consent.
Gaslighting: Women applying their Rationalization Hamster to other people instead of just keeping it to themselves. (Men can tell because that annoys them and/or gives them a headache.)
Gaslighting: Anyone forcing their rationalization hamster on someone else.
We all have that damned hamster … men used to be taught to ignore it when it conflicts with reality. A lot of boys are being taught to feed the stupid thing these days.
Like, for example, pajama boy…
http://heartiste.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/twink1.jpg?w=500&h=250
“In a healthy world, this term would really not be all that well known”
Those were my thoughts exactly.
No but disgruntled,dissatisfied and frightened men turn to misogyny.
Lot of that depends on how misogyny is defined.
How about ,”hatred or dislike of women, sexual discrimination against women, denigration of women, violence against women, and/or sexual objectification of women” ?
Sigh.
If people objectify women, that is because they are taught to be narcissists. Further, having men appreciate a woman’s looks isn’t inherently misogynistic.
As far as violence against women, claims about that admit that men should target their violence against other men, not women. Further, anti-social and narcissistic behavior is what backs violence against women, not misogyny.
Equating dislike of women with hatred of women is simply dumb as fuck. Do you know what dislike and hatred mean, as separate terms?
Finally, as far as sexual discrimination is concerned, that ended decades ago in the US. Women only believe that because their mothers teach them that they will be held back because of their sex, even when all signs point to the opposite in reality. Women cling to that to explain away their own lives are deficient.
It’s not the appreciation of a woman’s appearance that makes one misogynistic. It’s the outright refusal to go beyond appearances as a basis of a woman’s appreciability that makes it misogyny.
Violence is violence and if it’s against men for being men, it’s androgyny and it it’s against women for being women, it’s misogyny.
Misogyny can be *loosely* thought of a form of gendered narcissism. A man who takes themself too seriously for being a man will tend to be misogynist as such.
I didn’t mean to equate disliking with hating. On the face of it, I see the separation of those terms as a matter of degree but I also see hatred as being qualitatively different as well. Disliking implies that there is some tolerance, which is absent in hatred. I am aware of other contrasts, too.
You don’t get to say when sexual discrimination ends. If women believe it, it is because it still happens. This isn’t like American Christians complaining that they are being discriminated against. The Romans don’t run the government. In fact, Christians do. Similarly, women don’t run the government. Men still do.
“and if it’s against men for being men, it’s androgyny ” …**snort**..LMAO
What’s so funny?
Woops : )
Fixed it.
Misandry. It’s misandry when that happens. Androgyny is having the characteristics of both sexes.
Yeah, I know. I caught the typo afterwards.
And you say men run the government like that is a bad thing.
It is a bad thing when it’s a lopsided unequal situation. It would be more fair for their to be a proportional representation of BOTH sexes in political office. This would benefit BOTH men and women, more so than what we have now. For one, there would be no reason for this hysteria over “feminazis” trying to take over. It is scary to let go of privilege when you are having trouble sharing it.
if ‘the outright refusal to go beyond appearances’ is an inherently wrong act, then please reflect on the claim (paraphrased): ‘men still [run the government]’. men holding those positions paid dearly for them, in time, money, effort, risk, etc. but men don’t ‘still’ run the government they way the word ‘still’ implies. nor have they ever. despite superficial appearances to the contrary, men don’t run the government; people who hold offices run the government. period.
the whole truth yields a key lie by omission: women holding similar positions throughout professions and society often don’t pay the same price. consequently, many women don’t build the same utility or profitable expertise. this leads to many women failing to advance from their own incompetence and diminished relative effort compared to most men. it also leads to women being less trustworthy too, as they claim credentials they don’t do the same work to achieve. the consequence of choosing such lower standards eventually appears as mis-labeled misogyny: women appearing to have less as a whole. but when one goes beyond appearances, it is in fact not misogyny, but rather women’s core personhood and choice as adult agents of society at large. this applies to both the choice to under perform, and the choice to get paid prestige and money for such under performance.
to claim ‘men still do’ is to be actually, literally misogynistic and misandric simultaneously: calling women perpetual children incapable of calculated choice and reason, and men animals incapable of the profound sacrifice and effort which propel them to the top levels of society.
in case i’m not clear enough, please excuse my departure from politeness: Nick Savanah is a hateful, misogynistic, misandric child that, quite childlike, changes the definitions of words within the same conversation in order to slander his opponents. hypocrite comes to mind. liar too. his(?) sorry manipulative language is devoid of whole truth and it does not withstand scrutiny because of it.
no more pleasant fictions. the lies have gotten too big to fail.
Although there are now some women in government, it is still dominated by men and does not proportionally represent the population’s near-50/50 split between genders.
You didn’t provide any rational argument nor point to any other support for anything you’ve said. Name ONE instance where I slandered someone that I opposed.
hard to take such a response seriously. everything replied is the opposite: ‘dominated’ still implies actions that aren’t present, ’50-50 split’ is still superficial, a rational argument was in fact given (the paramount sequence of causality of personal choice), and it is still slanderously two-faced to invert your own stated definitions and rank of importance to attack opponents. the instance cited is all of your prior post, but could equally be applied to all of your posts as all of them exhibit this behavior of dual standards. sorry.
the prior argument applied: i claimed that causality of personal choice is far more meaningful and paramount. in stark contrast, it is a 50-50 sex split that is meaningless and dead-last in importance. the former reflects time and expense, the latter often does not. if governance ever becomes 50-50 split in sex, then and only then will either (1) women have matched men in sustained expense and effort or (2) causality of sexism be present firstly and personal responsibility second (if at all). without equal inputs, equality must be forced in order to ensure equal outcomes. i would extend this further and claim that any professional field that throws out sustained expense and effort will eventually have women in the majority, but such is a digression from our scope.
do you honestly not believe that it is the disregarding of of such reality that is in fact sexist, misogynistic, misandric, and just plain hateful all around? stated another way, do you believe that a governance by global-sex-choice would be better than personal-expense-choice?
I don’t know what you mean by “sex choice” and “personal expense choice”.
I mean that cost matters, and specifically where the cost comes from is of the utmost importance based on the goal. Those two options are meant to reveal where you think the cost should come from. In the specific goal of governance, those representatives who pay the most from their own self-made worth are the best. In the general goal of professional fields, If you don’t pay from your own hands, you don’t know what’s real, and you can’t be good. And if you aren’t good, you don’t get to be important, and you don’t get to have a say. Sex doesn’t even enter into the equation in these goals; it just isn’t important at all. I don’t care what your sex is; get the job done or get lost.
Ad nauseam, the prior posts demonstrate the uncontested context of representatives not expending equally. In a world where personal expense to excel is not equal, I used global-sex-choice to mean the group/electorate should throw out such sacrifice and choose based on sex firstly. In contrast, I used personal-expense-choice to mean individual cost must come first. Which rule honestly derives greater governance? Elect from some measure of greater non-effort first? Does better governance derive more from embryonic fate? Should you get prestige because of your parent’s choice to fuck on a Wednesday?
A choice for sex-balancing in governance demonstrates the belief that the importance of a representative’s life actions is second to their fated sex-perspective from birth. This reflects belief that depth of sacrifice over time is second to some timeless magical physical characteristic. Such as boobs. Boobs are indeed magical. But this is an inversion of the reality of professional excellence and governance alike. Even raw dollars are still more responsible than boobs, since you have to first amass dollars and then give them up to win. Boobs are the the wrong cost from the wrong place for better governance.
Dude, proofread and edit your articles, or better yet, have someone else do it for you. There are so many typos and grammatical errors in this article that it’s actually embarrassing for the RoK community.
Someone sounds like they want to put on a mini-skirt and be a secretary.
Grammer police in the house. Please call a Whambulance.
If you wear being the grammer police as a badge if honour while using old Bruce Willis lines while attacking the grammer over the substance of an article from a man who has dyslexia (cite: “reality check” ) then you sir need to look in the mirror and think of the person you are trying to emulate. Because that there sir is petty!
“grammar”
You found THIS article embarrasing to the RoK community?? You need to read a few more articles.
Cleanup needed for concern-trolling whiteknight on aisle one.
It might be rude and condescending, but it’s not concern-trolling. The author, if I recall correctly, is dyslexic. If he wants people to read his work and seriously consider his arguments, the onus is on him to either pay special attention to proofreading or employ an editor. (I’m sure many talented writers here would happily volunteer their time.)
Well put lipstick on that pig of a person who is the self proclaimed grammar police- who still uses the cliche Bruce William whambulance line. I find it abhorrent that people attack the grammer of an article over the substance. That in no way makes it “embarrassing to the RoK community”. A key trait of the self anointed epecially feminism is to attack points not from a philosophical angle but based on minor points of syntax.
First off, I did not make the “Bruce William whambulance line.” More than one person can post as “guest.”
Second, there was no way for me to know that the author has dyslexia, but that still doesn’t excuse publishing this without someone proofing it at least once. It’s hard enough for MRAs to be taken seriously outside of our online communities, and posting an article rife with errors does us no good. It fuels the claims that we’re uneducated and stupid, rather than letting people focus on the substance. Any self-respecting website and publication proofs and edits the work of their writers, and RoK shouldn’t be any different in that respect.
Why all the hysterical white-knighting for Wycked, FK? He seems like a intelligent, perceptive guy to me. Do you not want his readers to provide him with honest feedback? How does coddling him do him any good?
Also, your “abhorrent” line of reasoning is absurd. Presentation absolutely matters. In fact, it’s been studied and refined intently for millenia. Ever heard of rhetoric?
Endless typos and grammatical errors are becoming a legitimate concern in RoK posts. It doesn’t change the message, but it makes you look un-educated, and it can be hard to read sometimes.
“it makes you look un-educated”
Did you mean “uneducated”?
I couldn’t hear you over your blatant faggotry. Something about grammar? Lisping Fag.
-This grammar nazi comment from “Johnny Brock Sampson” was deleted by moderators due to policy: no homosexuals or females are allowed to comment on RoK.-
i think the typos make for a pretty accurate portrayal of your academic awareness.
Chicks with Cluster B personality disorders Gaslight by habit. Their Hamsters on Steroids make it easy.
I know from having to work with them. They will without hesitation ‘forget’ they have said anything in the past inconvenient with what they want to happen at that moment.
Even if you have notes on the previous meeting and call them out on it.
Feminist claims men do this on a widespread basis are simply projection.
This is a great post. I had no idea women were accusing men of gaslighting these days. This seems absurd because, while I admit I’ve met men that do it, I’ve met far more women that engage in this practice. I smiled when you talked about women describing themselves as attractive and intelligent. People who feel attractive and intelligent don’t just volunteer that information, and yet every go gurl these days is attractive, intelligent and independent. Lol. One thing about gaslighting though. I’d say just about everyone, unless you’re a psychopath or some derivative of the type, is susceptible to having their “world” “transformed” by someone who’s gaslighting if they have no other frame of reference – no other significant relationship in their life. This is why, given the divorce rate and other societal norms, so many mothers and families get away with it. Families are a hot bet for abuse. Single led families are even hotter. And single mother families are the most dangerous of them all! Ideally society as a whole would raise children.
“People can only influence you with your consent.” That is all it comes down to. Independently confident people aren’t going to be susceptible.
Ugh… focusing on the image with this comment but seriously, just how many racist and “homophobic” people do these crazy folks think still exist these days?
“He says that this situation results in a world in which men, collectively, subconsciously engage in behavior that inherently devalues women’s voices and renders their emotional lives dead”
This is the epitome of bullshit. Who devalued women’s voices the most by destroying femininity, shaming house wives and encouraging them to adopt masculine traits and masculine ways of life? None other than feminists themselves.
Offtopic, but I would like to post this where other browsers of VivaLaManopshere can read this:
There’s nothing I hate more than ads, except for web pages which control your controls with javascript, then punish you for using NoScript by using that same javascript to turn all 0 opacity (according to the CSS) images into 100 opacity. So here’s my fix ladies and gentlemen:
Install AdBlock, NoScript, and Stylish extensions. Go to vivalamanosphere front page and ensure NoScript is blocking scripts on vivalamanosphere. When it is, reload and right-click every ad on the left and right, and click “block image”. Be sure to use wildcards (asterisk, or *), though don’t block the whole wp-upload directory. Then go to Stylish and paste this code into a custom CSS for vivalamanosphere:
.post .post_thumb {
display: table-cell!important;
height: 168px!important;
opacity: 100!important;
overflow: hidden!important;
position: relative!important;
text-align: center!important;
width: 310px!important;
}
This should make vivalamanosphere a user-friendly website again. I don’t see why the site owner has to be a content-nazi with right click and such, but because he’s the only manosphere aggregator I know there is no “alternative” to switch to, thus this instructional post.
“His misdiagnosis is precisely what feminists want from men – worship. If they can’t get that, then they will assume hatred on your part.”
All I can do is speak from experience, but a woman needs to be constantly fawned over and complimented and reassured by a man. It’s not easy for a man who finds it difficult to display affection to maintain such a woman, and such maintenance is indeed work.
“You don’t love me,” she might complain. “Well, look, I’m here with you aren’t I? I tell you I love you! We have sex! What is your problem?!” I swear, some women seem to want their husband to be some gabby gay chat partner. It doesn’t make it much easier when her best friend has a spineless husband who worships the ground his wife walks on; and the funny thing is, his wife is frigid and always complains of migraine headaches and he never gets any sex!
” but a woman needs to be constantly fawned over and complimented and reassured by a man”
Yet if you do this they will be revolted, even though they can’t quite place their finger on the source of revulsion. This is where you technically be a gentleman, be mostly stoic, and use subtle dread game. She likes the tinge of fear mixed with the comfort of assurances. It’s like the smell of diesel and gunpowder mixing on the lazy afternoon country air.
I’ve never heard of gaslighting, but it seems to capture this phenomenon that I frequently come across at work.
It begins with an attractive woman expecting me to bend the rules for her benefit. She smiles, she flirts, she graces me with her presence, then she demands. I smile and explain that the rules won’t allow it. She whines and persists. I explain the rationale for the rules, then she becomes angry, “why are you doing this to me?” I tell her that it’s not just her, but everyone is expected to follow the rules for the sake of maintaining order, and I am the one who is charged with enforcing these rules and seeing to an orderly operation. There is nothing about her in particular, anyone else asking would also be told “no.” Then she become visibly disturbed by the fact that I am resistant to being drawn into her world, and she accuses me of malevolence- she anxiously fidgets, plays with her hair, feigns some misty eyes as a prelude to the waterworks, “you can’t talk to me like that. Why are you being so mean?” At this point, depending on my mood, I will either disengage by saying nothing, or I will bite and really put on a show.
In the former case, I will stare into her eyes, let her blabber on about how “unfair” I’m being, how “angry” I am, and how I’m being such an “asshole;” in less than a minute, with no response from me but subtle nodding and staring, she gets the picture and storms off while cursing me.
In the latter case, I explain to her that if she just steps back for a moment and listens to herself, then she will see that she is expecting special treatment and that my unwillingness to indulge her sense of entitlement is what’s making her angry. I go on to tell her, “I’m not being mean, I’m not using an angry tone; if you just think for a moment, rather than react, I think you will see that it is you who are angry and speaking to me harshly. All of that doesn’t really matter thought, the point is that you want this, and I am not going to give it to you. What more needs to be said? Now you’re just wasting my time and Id appreciate it if you moved along.” The fury that this latter tactic unleashes is extraordinary, the lack of shame in these women is to such a degree that they go on to make themselves look like lunatics [in public] after I deny their desires: screaming, tears, throwing things, threatening me in this life and the afterlife. At this point, I completely ignore them and move on to some other business while the show goes on.
The “gaslighting” that I see here is that these women expect me to adopt their belief that desire and beauty are a source of legitimacy for their entitled sensibilities. When they go through the stages of the argument, they consistently push towards the conclusion, which is that I am the bad guy for not acknowledging their legitimate claims. In their world, I am being “mean” if I don’t give them what they want. I am being “angry” if I explain to them why I will not give them what they want. I am “singling them out” for especially bad treatment when I treat them like I would anyone else.
I do have to give them one point- I am in fact making an example of them. The thing is, I’m not really trying to “preserve order” as I claim to be; if that were my objective, then I would cave into their demands just to shut them up and get them out with as little turmoil as possible. Actually, I enjoy the show, and I take pleasure in creating the public exhibition of gentle femininity gone awry- exposing its rotten underbelly as a raving sort of entitlement. I will bend the rules for some people, but only when they’re genuinely asking, never when they ask with the expectation that their charm and beauty will manipulate me.
“Actually, I enjoy the show, and I take pleasure in creating the public exhibition of gentle femininity gone awry- exposing its rotten underbelly as a raving sort of entitlement”
You are my new hero.
Bravo, brother. Well-spoken indeed
Excellent post! I make it a point not to hire young hotties, as I don’t want to deal with the shit you’ve described, and I don’t want to be falsely accused of sexual harassment by some disgruntled employee who gets her ass up in the air.
and they remind you of how you’ve never and will never get to fuck one?
Hoping to be helpful here based on how the comment starts. Didn’t carefully read much farther, so I hope this is relevant. Sounds like you said no logically, as in rationally. Women don’t operate on rational logic. Their logic is hardwired–a cold, calculating emotional oneupsmanship. I suck at service jobs for this very problem (lots of manginas, simulated females, out there too). You’ve got to say no both ostensibly in logical reference to policy but also in terms of calm emotional certainly. She thinks she smells an opening her hamster must exploit because women can’t operate on a rational or non-selfish level. In the absence of perceiving logic, she perceives a void opening in which to jam her feelings display like a camel’s nose into the proverbial tent, but no toe for you. You did take her seriously as a rational being: you took her frame. Beta tagged in 1/100th of a second. Say no like there was no doubt as of yesterday and still isn’t. Game works everywhere there’s a human hindbrain on life support. Maintaining instinctive frame is what the dumb public understands.
What you are describing is called solipsism.
The belief that the world exists to satisfy your needs alone and when someone doesn’t do that they are somehow in the wrong, whether morally or or in a positivist sense.
You see this behaviour alot amongst feminists, indeed amongst most ideologues. (But especially feminists).
i heard viagra works bra
Reminds me of the “Take me to the lake!!!” girl.
Do you work in banking? I experienced this in banking. Their credit sucks, you won’t give them a loan or an account, they need a loan to pay off their debts (LOL, dumb asses) and you’re the mean horrible bad guy for telling them “no” (perhaps for the first time in their lives.) Men mostly accept their fates and go away when denied accounts or loans, but women rage. However, when it came to bank fees, both sexes were equally entitled, especially re: overdraft fees (which is a small on-the-spot loan as well.)
I straight-up had an ex-girlfriend tell me, during a tirade, that her feelings were more real than my actions.
That’s a great article. When I first heard about “gaslighting” a few months ago, I was surprised to see how much women hate being called crazy, said they’re overreacting, etc. I knew they didn’t like it to some extent but I didn’t know what was behind it : “I hate how he denies my feelings”, “he’s undermining my experience”, “he’s making me second-guess myself”.
Now when a girl breaks my balls, I always make sure to say she’s crazy/too sensible/lacking humor/overreacting (and if I can, I leave just after so she can think about it). Try it, it works wonders teaching them not to be bitchy.
Most people, men or women, don’t like to be called crazy. If you do this relentlessly, all you are teaching them that you are a sociopath.
There is a difference, most men (including me) base their actions on facts, so being called crazy is easily brushed off : “here are the facts”.
Women base their actions on feelings, what they are complaining about is often a pretext for something bigger and vaguer that they’re upset about. So they can’t brush it off by facts, cause there is no fact.
Most men (including you AND me) are stupid.
I take it you are not a regular here.
Why do you say that?
You seem pretty pro-feminist.
I consider myself a feminist but not in the way that most people here seem to think what a feminist is. I feel that most of the common attacks of feminism here is based on a gross misunderstanding of what feminism is and that rationally, it is something that benefits both sexes just as integration benefits both blacks and whites, that low income disparity benefits both the rich and the poor, and that separation of church and state benefits both the religious and the secular.
Hey Nick, blow me!
Are you objecting to something I said in particular?
Nice list of cultural marxist tenets.
I’d hardly call racial integration “marxist”.
Not marxist, culturally marxist. As in critical theory, Frankfurt school.
Perhaps.
yeah but when can we beat up the gays
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” ~ Voltaire
Bitches be trifling, yo!
And isn’t calling gaslighting without adequate reason a form of gaslighting?
Since you’re questioning the validity of expressions for an ulterior end?
It’s gaslighting if you *insist* that there is an ulterior motive without knowing for sure.
This post was one of the best i have read on this site. Yashar Ali also wrote an Apology to Men,the worst piece of shit i ever read.
Solid post. Your last paragraph was fantastic. The conclusion “At the end of the day, just remember if some woman accuses of you of
gaslighting her, remember you just ruptured her self-identity.” is absolutely spot on.
If you want some constructive criticism, shorten your sentence length. You correctly use commas but adding pauses mid-sentence interrupts your flow. Also avoid using – this – to make a point. I think you write well enough that the reader will identify the salient points of what you’re trying to say.
Your columns, along with a few others’, have helped me realize that feminism itself is simply an ever evolving straw man argument. As feminism dies, and the original reasons behind feminism no longer exist, increasingly ridiculous arguments are made. I firmly believe this reaction (I won’t call it a movement) will self-destruct in the next 10-15 years, as the level of absurdity becomes impossible to ignore.
A strawman argument is when you take a simplified and distorted view of something and attack that instead, which is what you and the author of this article seem to be doing with feminism. There may be radical forms of feminism, but the core of the movement is for society to treat women with the same amount of respect that is afforded men. For example, it’s not respectful to put the word, “career,” in quotes here for what would be plainly written as a career when applied to men. A lot of men, including those in politics, complain, for whatever bullshit reason, about more women having careers. It’s that kind of thing that mainstream feminism is against.
Gaslighting is when one undermines someone else’s trust in their own judgement. Saying that women don’t know who they are but you know who they are and then you proceed to do so *is* a form of gaslighting. It might not be that when you are accused of that that someone’s self-identity is ruptured, but it may be that someone feels that their sense of self is being attacked.
You cannot reveal who others are. All you are doing doing when attempting to do so is reveal who *you* are. Whether you are a woman or a man, if someone tries to tell you who you are and doesn’t stop to think when you tell them that their crossing a boundary by constantly invalidating your ideas about *yourself*, then my advice would be to bail in *those* circumstances.
Both men and women can be easily broken down by gaslighting. Having your self-esteem destroyed by someone is no more a matter of consent as having your physical body beaten by someone. The emotionally vulnerable shouldn’t be looked down on any more than the physically weak. It is important to encourage and support strength, both emotional and physical, but you don’t do that by promoting or defending behaviour of preying on that sort of thing.
First off, you don’t understand psychology. People can only affect you with *your* consent. You can’t blame others for your own personal reactions.
Second, feminism is a mere reactive force to the closing of the American mind due to narcissism. Women were respected in society, but as narcissism closed over the American mind, housewives were denigrated as they didn’t make money nor were climbing the social ladder. Corporations and government picked up on this and forced women into the workforce, where they exist now as pure batteries, paying their taxes and blowing their money on marketing schemes, designed primarily by other women.
Kill all men tomorrow and nothing changes because feminism is a defense against change.
I put career in quotes precisely because the chasm between the labor put into work and the value brought to the laborer is greater than ever.
Finally, psychological observations about discrete classes can’t be gaslighting because ALL said observations must be gaslighting. People are not inherently self-aware. What matters if you are wrong or right. Which should be what fuels debates, but clearly it does not.
First off, you don’t get to say what I do or do not understand, even if I don’t explicitly deny you my consent. I’m aware that you only feel for what you may think are obvious reasons as to why I don’t understand psychology, but if I feel that I understand psychology then I feel that I understand psychology. And maybe I don’t understand it! But you haven’t shown that. You seemed to just expect me to ACCEPT what you say about me not understanding. And would you have been right if I agreed with you? No, you would not have been right. It would NOT be completely my fault for agreeing with you. It would be MOSTLY your fault for ASSUMING my ignorance and IMPOSING it without CLARIFYING it.
As I alluded to in the other thread, this narcissism you speak of, is the ongoing patriarchy (excuse my feminist language). (Some) housewives have ALWAYS wanted to do what men were doing. When men were off fighting World War II, (some) women were LOVING it at the munitions factories. And as this minority of women have been getting their way, OTHER women have seen and now THEY want it, too. It’s not that women SHOULD have it this way or that, it’s that they should have a choice. This goes for men, too. It shouldn’t just be a choice between being a doctor or a construction worker. Some men want to be homemakers but they can’t. Feminism affords that they should be able to, as well.
Kill all men tomorrow and feminism fails, for reasons hinted at by the previous two sentences.
I’m not sure what you mean exactly by “the chasm between the labor put into work and the value brought to the laborer is greater than ever.”
Gaslighting isn’t about simply being assertive towards someone who has trouble with assertiveness. It’s when the assertions are ad hominem and directed straight at the target with complete disregard for the target’s passive rebuttals.
I would put forth that your assertion of me not understanding psychology to be a mild instance of gaslighting, at least in the way you put it. Everything else you said was assertively expressed but wasn’t gaslighting since it wasn’t in any way (pre-emptively) overriding what someone else may have asserted about themselves.
This isn’t even remotely what “gaslighting” means. Have you even watched that movie?
The movie is about moving stuff around the house ever so slightly. Gaslighting refers to anything that has the same kind of effect that that had in the movie.
See…i really don’t identify as a feminist. But all of these posts seem to show not much else other than how threatened you all feel. This is weakness, and its more than just reactionary and paranoid, its pathetic.
I hope the feminists curb stomp you impotent shits.
lol
Good troll!
I dated a gas lighting girl. Funny thing I didn’t know what gas lighting was until we broke up. I was motivated to find out and try to understand what this resiculous behavior was. It went down like this;
Constant false accusations; she said I accused her of having bad breath (never happened), accused me of cheating on her several times (never cheated), accused me of calling her a slut, bitch ect (never happened). The list goes on.
She was very persistent in these accusations. We would get into word salad arguments where she would confidently make these claims without hesitation, the words would just spill out of her mouth in a very sociopathic like fashion. She would go as far as to paint a picture of the even, describe the time, place and event (all made up, lies). Sound familiar gentlemen? What made this a successful gas lighting event was; I started to question myself. “Maybe I DID do some of these things.” I didn’t. I let the crazy bitch get inside my head, lesson learned and it will never happen again.
I also noticed something interesting regarding sociopaths and their amazing ability to spew nonsense at warp speed without having to take a breath or allow their conscience (obviously lack there of) to step in and slow the conversation down, pause and allow time for rationalization. This ex girlfriend and I are both pilots (God save whoever she’s flying, she absolutely sucks, total liability). She is atrocious on the radio. I used to fly with her for fun, she sounded like a person who was learning to communicate with ATC for the first time. Interesting how this sociopathic imbicil can spew nonsense in an attempt to gain control over a man but when it comes to functioning in an environment where clear communication must take place, she became a blithering babbling idiot.